Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 4.2 GHAD FV Onsite Maint & Mgmt
STAFF REPORT DISTRICT CLERK FALLON VILLAGE File #600 -30 GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT DATE: July 16, 2013 TO: Honorable President and Board of Directors FROM: Joni Pattillo City Manager""'', " SUBJECT: Approval of an Agreement for On -Site Maintenance and Management with Agricultural - Natural Resources Trust of Contra Costa County Prepared by Andrew Russell, Dublin City Engineer EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Fallon Village development project was approved with a condition requiring the establishment of a conservation easement over a 172 -acre portion of the Fallon Village Geologic Hazard Abatement District (District) property. The developer, Braddock & Logan, who currently owns the property, has granted a conservation easement to and has entered into an interim maintenance and management agreement with Agricultural - Natural Resources Trust of Contra Costa County (ANRT). When the District takes ownership of the property, including the lands subject to the conservation easement, an agreement will be needed between the District and ANRT to continue conservation activities. Staff recommends that the Board enter into an agreement with ANRT. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The agreement requires the District to pay the Agricultural - Natural Resources Trust of Contra Costa County (ANRT) an amount of $10,000 annually for management of the conservation easement property. The agreement also requires the District to provide a $300,000 endowment to ANRT in the event the District terminates the agreement. The endowment would perpetually fund ANRT's responsibilities as easement holder. The annual fee will be financed by the District assessment and the endowment would be financed by the District reserves in the event of ANRT's termination. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the Resolution approving the Agreement for On -Site Maintenance and Management with Agricultural - Natural Resources Trust of Contra Costa County and authorize the District Manager to execute the Agreement. Page 1 of 3 ITEM NO. 4.2 K +e a Submit ed By Interim District Manager DESCRIPTION: wh / Vi Submitted By Interim District Treasurer YYY G// Reviewed y Assistant City Manager The Fallon Village Vesting Tentative Map 7586 ( "Project ") was approved by the Dublin Planning Commission on November 8, 2005. The Project conditions of approval required, among other things, both the formation of a geologic hazard abatement district and the establishment of a conservation easement over a portion of property that would be owned by the geologic hazard abatement district. On November 6, 2007, the Dublin City Council was presented with a petition for the formation of the Fallon Village Geologic Hazard Abatement District ( "District "). The petition included the Plan of Control for the District. The Plan of Control identifies the District's responsibilities, which includes maintenance of open space, including areas subject to a conservation easement. On December 4, 2007, the Dublin City Council established the District with adoption of City Council Resolution 216 -07. In accordance with the Project conditions of approval and the requirements of the United States Fish & Wildlife Service ( "USFWS ") and the California Department of Fish & Wildlife ( "CDFW" and together with USFWS, the "Agencies "), the Fallon Village developer, Braddock & Logan, established a 172 -acre conservation easement by granting a Conservation Easement Deed to Agricultural - Natural Resources Trust of Contra Costa County (ANRT). ANRT is a non - profit public benefit corporation formed in 1997. ANRT's purpose includes permanently protecting and encouraging conservation and stewardship of habitat and related natural resources. ANRT is supported in part by mitigation funding from development. ANRT is currently managing the conservation easement through an interim agreement with Braddock & Logan. The conservation easement was required as mitigation due to the impacts from development of the Project on certain wildlife, habitat, and /or wetlands. Conservation easement management activities are defined and regulated by a Habitat Mitigation and Management Plan ( "Management Plan ") approved by the Agencies. ANRT has the experience and ability to manage the 172 -acre conservation easement in accordance with the Management Plan. Construction of the Project is nearing completion and transfer of property to the District is anticipated to occur in late 2013 or in early 2014. The District property will include the 172 -acre conservation easement. Conservation Easement Management Costs: ANRT, as holder of the Conservation Easement Deed, is responsible in for the management of the 172 -acre conservation easement. The Management Plan includes provisions for funding of ANRT's management activities. ANRT's fee for managing the conservation easement is $10,000 per year. The fee is to be adjusted annually to reflect the percentage change in the San Francisco - Oakland -San Jose Consumers Price Index for All Urban Consumers. The District annual budget, as authorized by the revised Plan of Control, includes a line item for on -site conservation easement activities. The annual assessments levied upon and paid by Page 2 of 3 property owners within the District boundary will fund the on -site conservation easement activities. In the event that the District terminates the agreement with ANRT, a clause in the agreement requires the District to pay ANRT a $300,000 endowment. The endowment will cover ANRT costs for management of the conservation easement in perpetuity. The endowment was not anticipated in the original Plan of Control adopted in 2007, but has been accounted for in the revised Plan of Control. The 2007 Plan of Control anticipated a three year period between the issuance of the first building permit and the conveyance of open space property to the District. Upon conveyance of the property, the District would take over the responsibility and cost for maintaining the property. The costs would be covered by the annual assessments levied upon those properties that had been issued building permits. In order to account for the potential $300,000 endowment, the Project developer, Braddock and Logan, extended the period of time for property conveyance to the District from three years to a minimum of six years. Therefore, instead of conveying the property to the District in 2010, the developer planned to convey the property in 2013. It now appears that conveyance will likely occur in 2014. The revised Plan of Control now reflects the minimum period of time for conveyance as six years. The developer has maintained the property, at the developer's cost, in accordance with the Plan of Control. The increase of time, from three years to six years, for conveyance to the District has allowed the District reserves to increase while, at the same time, the District has not expended funds to maintain the property. The accumulation of funds in the District reserve for the past three years has caused the reserve to grow sufficiently to cover the full potential $300,000 endowment, should the District ever terminate the agreement with ANRT. Staff is recommending that the Board adopt a resolution approving the agreement with ARNT, which will allow ANRT to continue maintaining the conservation easement once the District accepts the property and improvements. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: None required. Staff has provided a copy of the staff report to both ANRT and the developer. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Approving an Agreement with Agricultural - Natural Resources Trust of Contra Costa County for On -Site Maintenance and Management and Authorizing the District Manager to Execute the Agreement 2. Exhibit "A" to Resolution, On -Site Maintenance and Management Agreement 3. Exhibit "A" to Agreement, Conservation Easement Deed 4. Exhibit "B" to Agreement, Mitigation Property Legal Description 5. Exhibit "C" to Agreement, Management Plan Page 3 of 3 FALLON VILLAGE GHAD RESOLUTION NO. - 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF THE FALLON VILLAGE GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH AGRICULTURAL - NATURAL RESOURCES TRUST OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FOR ON -SITE MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE DISTRICT MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, this Resolution is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Division 17 (Section 26500 et seq.) of the Public Resources Code, entitled "Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts" ( "the GHAD law "); and WHEREAS, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7586 was approved by the City of Dublin Planning Commission Resolution 05 -61 on November 8, 2005; and WHEREAS, conditions of approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7586 required the formation of the Fallon Village Geologic Hazard Abatement District to be responsible for ownership and maintenance of property within the subdivision; and WHEREAS, conditions of approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7586 required a conservation easement be offered for dedication over property to be owned by the Fallon Village Geologic Hazard Abatement District; and WHEREAS, state law authorizes Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts to own property, and by inference to be bound by existing easements and obligations on such property; and WHEREAS, the conservation easement was established on September 9, 2011, when Dublin RE Investors, LLC, granted a Conservation Easement Deed to Agricultural - Natural Resources Trust of Contra Costa County and said Conservation Easement Deed was recorded on September 14, 2011; and WHEREAS, Braddock & Logan Services, Inc. and Agricultural - Natural Resources Trust of Contra Costa County entered into an Interim On -Site Maintenance and Management Agreement on September 9, 2011, and said Interim Agreement requires Agricultural - Natural Resource Trust of Contra Costa County to act as manager of the conservation easement; and WHEREAS, Braddock & Logan Group II, L.P., will transfer property, which includes the Conservation Easement, to the Fallon Village Geologic Hazard Abatement District in accordance with the Plan of Control for Fallon Village Geologic Hazard Abatement District. WHEREAS, in anticipation of the property transfer, Agricultural - Natural Resources Trust of Contra Costa County has executed and filed with the Board of the Fallon Village Geologic Hazard Abatement District an On -Site Maintenance and Management Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit "A." NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Fallon Village Geologic Hazard Abatement District hereby approves the attached On -Site Maintenance and Management Agreement with Agricultural - Natural Resources Trust of Contra Costa County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the District Manager is authorized to execute the Agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the District Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of July, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: District Clerk Board President ON -SITE MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT THIS ON -SITE MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT is made as of , 2013, by and between the Fallon Village Geologic Hazard Abatement District ( "GRAD "), and the Agricultural — Natural Resources Trust of Contra Costa County, a non -profit public benefit corporation ( "ANRT "), with reference to the following facts: RECITALS A. Dublin RE Investors, LLC ( "Initial Developer ") was the developer of 1,043 residential units and related public and private facilities (the "Project ") on certain real property containing approximately 486 acres located in the County of Alameda, State of California, designated Assessor's Parcel Number 205- 050 -007 -9 (the "Property "), which is currently owned by Braddock & Logan Group II, L.P. ( "Developer "). Initial Developer submitted development applications to subdivide and develop the Property as a mixed use development commonly known as "Fallon Village." B. Due to the potential for landsliding, erosion, and required ongoing maintenance and monitoring of potential geologic hazards, condition of approval no. 76 for the Fallon Village subdivision, approved by City of Dublin Planning Commission Resolution No. 05 -61, required the establishment of a GHAD prior to the submission of a final map for the Project. To satisfy that requirement, Initial Developer submitted a plan of control, prepared May 8, 2007 and last revised on July , 2013 ( "Plan of Control "), and proposed formation of the Fallon Village GHAD pursuant to California Public Resources Code, Division 17, commencing with section 26500. On December 4, 2007, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 216 -07, approving and ordering the formation of the Fallon Village Geologic Hazard Abatement District, and appointing itself to act as the Board of Directors of the GHAD ( "GRAD Board "). The GHAD Board adopted the Fallon Village plan of control dated October 4, 2007 (as subsequently amended from time to time, the "Plan of Control "). On February 5, 2008, the GHAD Board imposed assessments on the properties within the GHAD to fund the improvement, monitoring and maintenance of improvements and ordering and levying the collection thereof, based upon the detail in the Engineer's Report prepared for the assessment (as subsequently amended from time to time). The assessment appears as a line item on each homeowner's property tax bill. For the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2012, approximately 552 homes in Fallon Village have been constructed and are subject to the GHAD assessment and a total of 1,043 homes will ultimately be subject to the GHAD assessment. The GHAD assessment is levied once building permits are issued on the lots on the Property. C. Consistent with the Biological Opinion for the Project issued August 3, 2006, the conditions of approval for the development of Fallon Village, approved by City of Dublin Planning Commission Resolution No. 05 -61 included a requirement that a certain amount of property be used and maintained as open space to mitigate the impacts from the development of the Project on certain wildlife, habitat and /or wetlands. As provided in the Plan of Control and Engineer's Report, the 172 -acre on -site portion of the Property subject to the on -site mitigation requirements (the "Mitigation Property ") will be owned by the GHAD and subject to a conservation easement deed, which was granted to ANRT on September 9, 2011 by Developer -1- MMB:10996- 001:1188521.2 and recorded September 14, 2011 (the "Conservation Easement Deed "), attached hereto as Exhibit A. D. Pursuant to certain Resource Agency Permits, the United States Fish & Wildlife Service ( "USFWS ") and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ( "CDFW" and, together with the USFWS, the "Agencies ") approved a Habitat Mitigation and Management Plan for the Mitigation Property ( "Management Plan ") which provides the conservation requirements for and authorized activities within the Mitigation Property. A copy of the Management Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Activities on the Mitigation Property must comply with the Management Plan. E. The Developer currently owns the Mitigation Property, and is temporarily performing the responsibilities of the CHAD. The Plan of Control, at page 17 and 18, sets out a process and criteria for the transfer of GHAD activities from the Developer to the CHAD, and the transfer of title to the Mitigation Property subject to the Conservation Easement on the Mitigation Property from the Developer to the CHAD. F. Prior to the transfer of the Mitigation Property to CHAD, the Developer is required to maintain the Mitigation Property in compliance with the Management Plan. G. On September 9, 2011, the Developer entered into an Interim On -Site Maintenance and Management Agreement with ANRT to act as manager of the Mitigation Property and to temporarily perform all Management Plan maintenance and monitoring obligations on the Mitigation Property during the period before title to the Mitigation Property transfers from the Developer to the GHAD pursuant to the Plan of Control. H. Pursuant to the Plan of Control, after the date GHAD accepts title to the Mitigation Property by the recordation of a grant deed executed by Developer in favor of GHAD as the owner of the Mitigation Property (such date is the "Transfer Date "), GHAD will be responsible for maintaining the Mitigation Property as set forth in the Management Plan. The parties anticipate that the Transfer Date will occur in 2013 or 2014. L After the Transfer Date, the GHAD wants ANRT to act as a manager of the Mitigation Property and to perform all Management Plan maintenance and monitoring obligations on the Mitigation Property pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. J. An engineering report, adopted by GHAD Resolution No. 2 -07, dated December 20, 2010, and updated on July , 2013 by GHAD Resolution No. for the Fallon Village GHAD (the "Engineer's Report ") was prepared by a registered professional engineer certified in the State of California, and includes funding for the monitoring and maintenance of the Mitigation Property. The Mitigation Property is more particularly identified in the Engineer's Report and described on Exhibit B attached hereto. The yearly amount required for the monitoring and maintenance of the Mitigation Property is approximately $10,000 per year. It will be included in the annual budget for the GHAD, and paid by the GHAD to ANRT under this Agreement. -2- MMB:10996- 001:1188521.2 K, ANRT has the experience and ability to manage the Mitigation Property for the benefit of the GHAD and accepts the engagement on the terms and conditions set forth below. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound hereby, GHAD and ANRT agree as follows: 1. ANRT Services. GHAD hereby retains ANRT to act as the manager of the Mitigation Property on and after the Transfer Date. ANRT shall be responsible for, and shall diligently and professionally perform all obligations required for the maintenance and monitoring of the Mitigation Property under the Management Plan. ANRT shall have the sole responsibility for the operation, upkeep, repair and maintenance of the Mitigation Property as required by the Conservation Easement Deed and Management Plan (the "Services "). Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything herein to the contrary, nothing herein shall abrogate or modify any of the terms of the Conservation Easement Deed with respect to the duties and obligations of ANRT, and in the event of a conflict the terms of the Conservation Easement Deed shall control. 1.1 Employees. ANRT will comply fully with all applicable laws and regulations relating to its provision of the Services and to its employees, including without limitation laws and regulations relating to payroll taxes, workers' compensation, social security, unemployment insurance, hours of labor, wages, working conditions, employee benefits, and other employer - employee related subjects. ANRT shall investigate, hire, train, pay, supervise, and discharge the personnel necessary to be employed in order to properly perform the Services. All employment arrangements are therefore solely with ANRT in its separate capacity and GHAD will have no liability with respect thereto; all employees required for the Services shall be employees of ANRT, not CHAD. 1.2 Independent Contractor. The parties intend that ANRT, in performing the Services hereunder, shall be an independent contractor of GHAD and that nothing in this Agreement shall be considered to create more than the mutual duties, responsibilities and benefits specifically set forth herein. This Agreement is not and shall not be considered an employer - employee relationship, a joint venture, or partnership of any kind, and neither party shall represent to any third persons that any such relationship exists. Each party to this Agreement is and shall remain independent of the other. Notwithstanding ANRT's other obligations under this Agreement, ANRT shall have full control of the manner in which the Services are performed. The sole interest and responsibility of GHAD is that the Services performed by ANRT are performed in a competent, efficient and satisfactory manner. 2. Term. ANRT's obligations to provide the Services hereunder shall commence on the Transfer Date and shall continue for a period of ten (10) years thereafter (the "Initial Term "). The Term shall automatically renew for successive ten (10) year periods (each a "Renewal Term ") until terminated in accordance with Section 2.1 or Section 2.2 below. As used herein, "Term" shall include the Initial Term and all applicable Renewal Terms. GHAD -3- MMB:10996- 001:1188521.2 shall notify ANRT of the anticipated Transfer Date within thirty (30) days thereof, and shall confirm the actual Transfer Date in writing no later than five (5) days after the Transfer Date. 2.1 Termination by ANRT. ANRT shall not have the right to terminate this Agreement except: (a) in connection with and contingent upon the valid assignment of the Conservation Easement Deed to another party pursuant to the terms thereof, in which event ANRT may terminate this Agreement on thirty (30) days' prior written notice to CHAD, with copies to Developer and the Agencies, or (b) GHAD fails to make timely payment to ANRT under this Agreement or is otherwise in default under this Agreement, and, in such event, fails to cure such default within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice from ANRT, in which case ANRT may terminate this Agreement. 2.2 Termination by CHAD. GHAD may terminate this Agreement in its sole discretion by giving notice to ANRT of GHAD's adoption of a resolution terminating this Agreement as of the end of the then - current Term. In the event of such termination, if ANRT is not then in default and continues to provide the Services through the GHAD Termination Date, GHAD shall pay to ANRT a Three Hundred Thousand Dollar ($300,000) endowment (the "Endowment ") as a condition precedent to such termination. Such Endowment shall not be a penalty or forfeiture, but is a reasonable estimate of the costs to ANRT of its responsibility under the Conservation Easement Deed to continue to perform the Services for the benefit of the Mitigation Property. The Endowment shall be the sole and exclusive consideration payable by GHAD for termination of this Agreement as set forth in this Section 2.2. ANRT, on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, hereby waives any and all other legal and equitable remedies against GHAD in the event of such termination, it being acknowledged and agreed that the Endowment is reasonably estimated to cover the cost of providing the on -going Services in perpetuity. In addition to the foregoing, GHAD may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice to ANRT, and without payment of the Endowment or any other consideration: (i) if the Conservation Easement Deed is transferred or assigned by ANRT; (ii) if ANRT is in default hereunder and does not cure such default within thirty (30) days of written notice from CHAD; or (iii) if ANRT is notified by an Agency that ANRT is in breach of its obligation to comply with the Management Plan and such default has not been cured by ANRT within thirty (30) days following receipt of such notice from any Agency. 2.3 Termination to be Prospective. Any termination of this Agreement by ANRT or GHAD will apply only prospectively and each party shall perform all of its obligations accruing under this Agreement prior to the termination date. GHAD shall provide the Services for the Mitigation Property after the termination hereof by retaining another management provider approved by the Agencies, and shall pay the Management Services Fee to such other approved Services provider. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if GHAD is not reasonably able to find another qualified provider for the Services that is acceptable to the Agencies, GHAD shall perform the Services and retain the Management Services Fee as consideration for the Services. 3. Insurance and Indemnity. 3.1 ANRT's Insurance. Prior to the Transfer Date, ANRT shall provide GHAD with certificates of insurance evidencing the following insurance coverage, together with an additional insured endorsement naming GHAD as an additional insured: -4- MMB:10996- 001:1188521.2 (a) GENERAL LIABILITY: $1,000,000 combined single limit, $2,000,000 aggregate, covering bodily injury and property damage; (b) AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY: $1,000,000 covering all automobiles and equipment owned and operated by ANRT, its agents, contractors or employees; and (c) WORKERS' COMPENSATION: as required by applicable law. Such coverage shall not be terminated or canceled unless written notice is provided to GHAD at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of such termination or cancellation, regardless of whether such termination or cancellation is initiated by ANRT or the insurance carrier. Prior to termination, cancellation, or reduction of the coverage required herein, ANRT shall procure and furnish to GHAD a new certificate conforming to the above requirements. All required insurance policies (and all renewals and replacements thereof) shall be issued by carriers authorized to transact business in California. ANRT shall cause the policies or appropriate binding certificates of insurance to be delivered to GHAD with premiums prepaid prior to the Transfer Date and periodically upon the reasonable request of CHAD. Failure to keep such policies in effect shall be deemed a default by ANRT hereunder, and a basis for termination by GHAD pursuant to Section 2.2 above. 3.2 Indemnity and Hold Harmless. ANRT shall indemnify and hold harmless GHAD from and against any and all claims, damages, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees relating to or arising out of its operation, activity, or failure to act on the Property. The provisions of this Section 3.2 shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 4. Compensation For Services. GHAD shall pay to ANRT a fixed annual fee for performance of the Services (the "Management Services Fee ") in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) per year throughout the Term, which shall be adjusted annually to reflect the percentage change in the San Francis co- Oaldand -San Jose Consumers Price Index for All Urban Consumers. The Management Services Fee shall be paid annually in advance by GHAD on each July 10 following the Transfer Date, for the then - current July 1 -June 30 fiscal year. Any partial year during the Term shall be prorated on a daily basis. Payment of the prorated Management Services Fee for the period between the Transfer Date and the subsequent July 10 shall be payable no later than thirty (30) days following the Transfer Date. 5. Notices. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication that any party desires or is required to give to the other party shall be in writing and be served personally or sent by recognized overnight courier for next - business -day delivery or by first class mail, postage fully prepaid, addressed as follows: To ANRT: Agricultural — Natural Resources Trust of Contra Costa County P.O. Box 6224 2366 -A Stanwell Circle Concord, CA 94520 -4807 Attn: Executive Director -5- MMB:10996- 001:1188521.2 To CHAD: Fallon Village GHAD GHAD Manager 100 Civic Center Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Attention: District Manager Copies of notices shall also be forwarded to the Agencies if and as required under the Conservation Easement Deed, the Management Plan, and /or applicable law. Any of the foregoing may designate a different notice address by written notice to the parties. Notice shall be deemed effective upon delivery in the case of personal delivery or delivery by overnight courier or, in the case of delivery by first class mail, five (5) days after deposit into the United States mail. 6. General Provisions. 6.1 Interpretation. This Agreement shall be construed as if prepared by both parties. Accordingly, any rule of law (including California Civil Code Section 1654) or legal decision that would require interpretation of any ambiguities in this Agreement against the party that has drafted it is not applicable and is waived. 6.2 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of California applicable to agreements made and to be performed within the state. 6.3 Performance of Acts on Business Days. Unless specifically stated to the contrary, all references to days herein shall be deemed to refer to calendar days. If the final date for payment of any amount or performance of any act hereunder falls on a day that is not a Business Day, such payment may be made or act performed on the next succeeding Business Day. "Business Day" means Monday through Friday of each week, except for legal holidays recognized by the Government of the United States or the State of California. 6.4 Dispute Resolution. (a) General. These dispute resolution provisions apply to any and all actions or claims by or between GHAD and ANRT which arise out of or in any way relate to this Agreement ( "Disputes "). Disputes include any claim or cause of action whether arising in law, equity, tort, contract, statute, or otherwise. (b) Binding Arbitration. In the event that the parties are unable to resolve any Disputes, such Disputes arising out of this Agreement shall be decided by neutral binding arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association, and not by court action except as provided by California law for judicial review of arbitration proceedings. The arbitration shall be conducted in Alameda County, California and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. The parties shall have the right to discovery in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1283.05. NOTICE -6- MMB:10996- 001:1188521.2 BY INITIALING IN THE SPACE BELOW YOU ARE AGREEING TO HAVE ANY DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF THE MATTERS INCLUDED IN THE "ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES" PROVISION DECIDED BY NEUTRAL ARBITRATION AS PROVIDED BY CALIFORNIA LAW AND YOU ARE GIVING UP ANY RIGHTS YOU MIGHT POSSESS TO HAVE THE DISPUTE LITIGATED IN A COURT OR JURY TRIAL. BY INITIALING IN THE SPACE BELOW YOU ARE GIVING UP YOUR JUDICIAL RIGHTS TO DISCOVERY AND APPEAL, UNLESS THOSE RIGHTS ARE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN THE "ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES" PROVISION. IF YOU REFUSE TO SUBMIT TO ARBITRATION AFTER AGREEING TO THIS PROVISION, YOU MAY BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. YOUR AGREEMENT TO THIS ARBITRATION PROVISION IS VOLUNTARY. WE HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOREGOING AND AGREE TO SUBMIT DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF THE MATTERS INCLUDED IN THE "ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES" PROVISION TO NEUTRAL ARBITRATION. ANRT INITIALS GHAD INITIALS (c) Additional Rules and Procedures. Unless otherwise specified in the arbitration rules and procedures, the parties to the Dispute shall share equally in the fees and costs of the dispute resolution proceeding, unless the arbitrator orders otherwise. The arbitrator may award litigation costs and attorneys' fees to the prevailing party. For the purpose of this Agreement, the terms "attorneys' fees" or "attorneys' fees and costs" shall mean the fees and expenses of counsel to the party entitled thereto, which may include printing, photostatting, duplicating and other expenses, air freight charges, and fees billed for law clerics, paralegals, librarians and others not admitted to the bar but performing services under the supervision of an attorney. The terms "attorneys' fees" or "attorneys' fees and costs" shall also include, without limitation, all such fees and expenses incurred with respect to appeals, arbitrations and bankruptcy proceedings, and whether or not any action or proceeding is brought with respect to the matter for which said fees and expenses were incurred. This provision shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. 6.5 Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement, including without limitation the dispute resolution provisions of Section 6.5 above, is for any reason held to be invalid, unenforceable or contrary to any public policy, law, statute and /or ordinance, then the remainder of these procedures and provisions shall not be affected thereby and shall remain valid and enforceable. 6.6 Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with the other written agreements referred to herein, is intended by the parties to be the final expression of their agreement with respect to the subject matter hereof, and is intended as the complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement between the parties. As such, this Agreement supersedes any prior understandings between the parties, whether oral or written with respect to the subject matter hereof. 6.7 No Waiver. No delay on the part of any party hereto in exercising any right, power or privilege hereunder shall operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any waiver on the -7- MMB:10996- 001:1188521.2 part of any party hereto of any right, power or privilege hereunder operate as a waiver of any other right, power or privilege hereunder, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any right, power or privilege hereunder, preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right, power or privilege hereunder. 6.8 No Third -Party Beneficiaries. Nothing expressed or implied in this Agreement is intended or shall be construed to give any person or entity, other than the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns, if any, any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under or in respect of this Agreement or any provisions herein contained, this Agreement and any conditions and provisions hereof being intended to be and being for the sole and exclusive benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns, if any, and for the benefit of no other person or entity. 6.9 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors and permitted assigns of each of the parties. This Agreement may not be assigned by any party without the prior written consent of the other party. 6.10 Headings, Exhibits. The headings and captions used in this Agreement are for convenience and ease of reference only and shall not be used to construe, interpret, expand or limit the terms of this Agreement. Exhibits A, B, and C attached hereto is incorporated herein by this reference. 6.11 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same document, provided that no counterpart shall be effective until such time as at least one counterpart has been executed and delivered by each of the signatories below. Executed counterparts delivered by e -mail or facsimile shall have the same force and effect as an original signed counterpart. 6.12 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by mutual written agreement of GHAD and ANRT. -8- MMB:10996- 001:1188521.2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ANRT and GHAD have executed this Agreement to be effective as of the date first noted above. CHAD: FALLON VILLAGE GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT BY: NAME: TITLE: DATE: ANRT: AGRICULTURAL — NATURAL RESOURCES TRUST OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BY: NAME: TITLE: DATE: -9- MMB:10996- 001:1188521.2 EXHIBIT A CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED Exhibit A EXHIBIT B MITIGATION PROPERTY (see attached legal description of the Mitigation Property) Exhibit B EXHIBIT C MANAGEMENT PLAN (see attached copy of the Management Plan) Exhibit C MMB:10996- 001:1188521.2 ' 111 ' 1 1111, UK91110gog) i 1 on 101 @ ' 1 1 1 M Ke Agricultural - Natural Resources Trust of Contra Costa County P.O. Box 6224 Concord, CA 94524 -1224 Attn: Mr. Joe Ciolek With a copy to: Braddock & Logan Services, Inc. 4155 Blackhawk Plaza. Circle, Ste. 201 P.O. Box 5300 Danville, CA 941526 Attn: Robert Miller, Esq. ,y OF qtg 2011261497 09/14/2011 10:51 AM OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY ".PATRICK O'CONNELL �'141FOP .,`RECORDING FEE: 99.00 29, PGS Space Above Line for Recorder's Use Only CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED Fallon Village Project THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED ( "Conservation Easement") is made as of the day of S_0 6y%b t r` , 2011, by Braddock and Logan Group II, L.P. and Fallon Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, "Grantor "), in favor of Agricultural- Natural Resources Trust of Contra Costa County ( "Grantee" ), with reference to the following facts. RECITALS A. Grantor consists of the owners in fee simple of certain real property containing approximately 173 acres, located in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, and including designated Assessor's Parcel Number(s) or portions of designated Assessor's Parcel Number(s) 905 - 0002 -003 and 985- 0028 -002 (the "Pro e "). The Property is legally described in Exhibit .A and depicted on the map in Exhibit B attached to this Conservation Easement and incorporated in it by this reference. B. The Property possesses wildlife and habitat values (collectively, "Conservation Values ") of great importance to Grantee, the people of the State of California and the people of the United States, including, among other things, the specific Conservation Values identified in Recital C, below. C. The Property provides high quality habitat for the California red- legged frog, California tiger salamander, and San Joaquin kit fox, and restored, created, enhanced and/or preserved jurisdictional waters of the United States including wetlands. D. Grantee is authorized to hold easements pursuant to CA Civil Code § 815.3. Specifically, Grantee is a tax- exempt nonprofit organization qualified under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and qualified to do business in California which has as its primary purpose the preservation of land in its natural, scenic, forested or open space condition or use. E. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service ( "USFWS "), 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., 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. F. This Conservation Easement provides mitigation for impacts of the Fallon Village project located in Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, pursuant to the Biological Opinion on the Braddock & Logan Fallon Village Project, No. 1- 1 -06 -F -0156 issued August 3, 2006, Department of the Army Permit No. 266985 issued August 30, 2006, 1601 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, No. 1600- 2006 - 0197 -3 issued August 17, 2006 by the California Department of Fish and Game ( "CDFG "), and the Habitat Mitigation and Management Plan for Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village On -Site Conservation Area and Brown Ranch Mitigation Site (the "Management Plan ") created under the Biological Opinion. G. Grantor intends, upon completion of the Project to convey fee title to the Property to the Fallon Village Geological Hazard Abatement District ( "GHAD" ), which will assume all of Grantor's obligations hereunder and such other obligations as may be agreed between the GHAD and Grantee. COVENANTS TERMS CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and pursuant to the laws of the United States and the State of California, including California Civil Code § 815, et seq., Grantor hereby voluntarily grants and conveys to Grantee a conservation easement in perpetuity over the Property. 1. Purposes. The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to ensure that the Property will be retained forever in its natural, restored, or enhanced condition as contemplated by the Management Plan, and to prevent any use of the Property that will impair or interfere with the Conservation Values of the Property as so restored or enhanced. Grantor intends that this Conservation Easement will confine the use of the Property to activities that are consistent with such purposes, including, without limitation, those involving the preservation, restoration and enhancement of native species and their habitats implemented in accordance with the Management Plan. A final, approved copy of the Management Plan, and any amendments thereto approved by the USFWS, shall be kept on file with the I_TSFWS. If Grantor, or any successor or assign, requires an official copy of the Management Plan, it should request a copy from the USFWS at its address for notices listed in Section 12 of this Conservation Easement. The Management Plan is incorporated by this reference into this Conservation Easement as if fully set forth herein. 2. Grantee's Rights. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantor hereby grants and conveys the following rights to Grantee and to the USFWS as a third -party beneficiary of this Conservation Easement: (a) To preserve and protect the Conservation Values of the Property. (b) To enter the Property at reasonable times in order to monitor compliance with and otherwise enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement and the Management Plan; and to implement at Grantee's sole discretion Management Plan activities that have not been implemented, provided that Grantee shall not unreasonably interfere with Grantor's authorized use and quiet enjoyment of the Property. (c) To prevent any activity on or use of the Property that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features of the Property that may be damaged by any act, failure to act, or any use or activity that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. (d) The right to require that all mineral, air and water rights as Grantee deems necessary to preserve and protect the biological resources and Conservation Values of the Property shall remain a part of and be put to beneficial use upon the Property, consistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. (e) All present and future development rights appurtenant to, allocated, implied, reserved or inherent in the Property; such rights are hereby terminated and extinguished, and may not be used on or transferred to any portion of the Property, nor any other property adjacent or otherwise. 3. Prohibited Uses. Any activity on or use of the Property that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement is prohibited. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following uses and activities by Grantor, Grantor's agents, and third parties are expressly prohibited: (a) Unseasonable watering; use of fertilizers, pesticides, biocides, herbicides or other agricultural chemicals; weed abatement activities; incompatible fire protection activities; and any and all other activities and uses which may adversely affect the purposes of this Conservation Easement, except as otherwise specifically provided in the Management Plan. (b) Use of off -road vehicles and use of any other motorized vehicles except on existing roadways, other than by the Alameda County Sheriff's Department, local fire protection district/emergency personnel, GRAD, or other public entity. (c) Agricultural activity of any kind, except grazing for vegetation management as specifically provided in the Management Plan. (d) Recreational activities, including, but not limited to, horseback riding, biking, hunting or fishing. (e) Commercial, industrial, residential, or institutional uses. (f) Any legal or de facto division, subdivision or partitioning of the Property. (g) Construction, reconstruction, erecting or placement of any building, billboard or sign, or any other structure or improvement of any kind, except as otherwise specifically provided in the Management Plan. (h) Depositing or accumulation of soil, trash, ashes, refuse, waste, bio- solids or any other materials. (i) Planting, introduction or dispersal of non- native or exotic plant or animal species. (j) Filling, dumping, excavating, draining, dredging, mining, drilling, removing or exploring for or extracting minerals, loam, soil, sands, gravel, rocks or other material on or below the surface of the Property, or granting or authorizing surface entry for any of these purposes. (k) Altering the surface or general topography of the Property, including building roads or trails, paving or otherwise covering the Property with concrete, asphalt or any other impervious material, except as otherwise specifically provided in the Management Plan or this Conservation Easement. (1) Removing, destroying, or cutting of trees, shrubs or other vegetation, except as required by law for (1) fire breaks, (2) maintenance of existing foot trails or roads, (3) prevention or treatment of disease; (4) utility line clearance for existing utilities or utilities permitted as part of the Fallon Village project; or (5) providing access to utilities and improvements that are existing or permitted as part of the Fallon Village project. (m) Manipulating, impounding or altering any natural water course, body of water or water circulation on the Property, and any activities or uses detrimental to water quality, including but not limited to degradation or pollution of any surface or sub- surface waters, except as otherwise specifically provided in the Management Plan. (n) Without the prior written consent of Grantee, which Grantee may withhold, transferring, encumbering, selling, leasing, or otherwise separating the mineral rights or water rights for the Property; changing the place or purpose of use of the water rights; abandoning or allowing the abandonment of, by action or inaction, any water or water rights, ditch or ditch rights, spring rights, reservoir or storage rights, wells, ground water rights, or other rights in and to the use of water historically used on or otherwise appurtenant to the Property. (o) Engaging in any use or activity that may violate, or may fail to comply with, any relevant federal, state, or local laws, regulations, and policies applicable to Grantee, the Property, or the use or activity in question. 4. Grantor's Duties. (a) Grantor shall undertake all reasonable actions to prevent the unlawful entry and trespass by persons whose activities may degrade or harm the Conservation Values of the Property or that are otherwise inconsistent with this Conservation Easement. In addition, Grantor shall undertake all necessary actions to perfect and defend rights of Grantee and USFWS under Section 2 of this Conservation Easement, and to implement the Management Plan. (b) Grantor shall not transfer, encumber, sell, lease, or otherwise separate the mineral, air or water rights for the Property, or change the place or purpose of use of the water rights, without first obtaining the written consent of Grantee, which Grantee may withhold. Grantor shall not abandon or allow the abandonment of, by action or inaction, any of Grantor's right, title or interest in and to any water or water rights, ditch or ditch rights, spring rights, reservoir or storage rights, wells, ground water rights, or other rights in and to the use of water historically used on or otherwise appurtenant to the Property including, without limitation: (i) riparian water rights; (ii) appropriative water rights; (iii) rights to waters which are secured under contract with any irrigation or water district, to the extent such waters are customarily applied to the Property; or (iv) any water from wells that are in existence or may be constructed in the future on the Property. (c) Grantor shall install new fencing reasonably satisfactory to Grantee between the development site and the Property and around an existing stock pond to protect the Conservation Values of the Property, including but not limited to wildlife corridors. Fencing satisfactory to Grantee around the remainder of Property is already in place. 5. Reserved RiShts. Grantor reserves to itself, and to its personal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns, all rights accruing from Grantor's ownership of the Property, including: (i) the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in all uses of the Property that are not prohibited or limited by; and are consistent with the purposes of, this Conservation Easement; (ii) the right to grant the GHAD access to the Property for the purpose of conducting prevention, mitigation, abatement and control of geologic hazards, as defined in the Plan of Control described in Paragraph 5.1; (iii) the right to engage in or invite local governmental entities or their agents, including but not limited to City of Dublin, Alameda County, Alameda County Fire Department, Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District, GHAD to undertake grading, maintenance, management, fire prevention/control or mosquito abatement activities on the Property which are consistent with Project approvals or local ordinances and requirements, including but not limited to the activities specifically described in Paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2; (iv) the right to convey its fee simple interest in the Property, in whole or in part, to the GHAD; (v) the rights to all existing easements and rights -of -way over the Property and to grant future non- exclusive easements over the Property which are not inconsistent with the terms and conservation purposes of this Conservation Easement or Management Plan (collectively, the "Reserved Rights "). These Reserved Rights are reserved to Grantor and Grantor's personal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns. 5.1 GHAD Activities. Pursuant to sections 26500 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code ( "GHAD Law "), the Property may be annexed into the GRAD. In accordance with the GHAD Law, a Plan of Control must be prepared by a certified engineering geologist, and approved by the GHAD Board of Directors. The Plan of Control will include certain mitigation, monitoring and other activities needed to prevent, abate, control and/or repair any geologic hazards on GHAD land, which may include the Property. The GHAD is specifically permitted under this Conservation Easement to engage in all activities or actions necessary to abate, control, prevent or repair a geologic hazard, including those activities set forth in the Plan of Control, and any subsequent amendments thereto. Grantor and Grantee shall provide the GHAD with access to the Property consistent with the terms of the Plan of Control and GRAD Law (or subsequent legislation). Except in an emergency, the GHAD will notify Grantee no less than twenty - four (24) hours before performing any activity that it believes could adversely affect the Conservation Values of the Property, including, but not limited to the performance of any ground disturbing activity. The GHAD will also provide the Grantee with a written description of any activities that it believes adversely affected the Conservation Values of the Property, including, any ground disturbing activities, within twenty -four (24) hours of performing such activity. Grantee shall cooperate and shall coordinate its monitoring and maintenance activities with the geologic hazard prevention and control activities of the GHAD. 5.2 Storm Drainage Facility and Access. As part of the Project, Grantor installed a storm drain pipe and inlet structure extending north from the Project into the Property approximately 180 -feet south of the preserved stock pond. Grantor may provide the GHAD, and its agents, employees and contractors with access to the storm drain facility, as needed, for routine maintenance, repairs or upgrades, and for emergency purposes. The location of the drainage facility improvements are shown on Exhibit C. 5.3 Temporary Disturbance by Project Grading. As part of the Project, portions of the Property will be temporarily disturbed by project grading. The temporary disturbance will consist predominantly of remedial grading and slope stability grading, including removal and recompaction of slides and unstable soils to create stable engineered slopes. To minimize the impact of the disturbance, the disturbed slopes will be treated with topsoil and revegetated with native grasses. 6. Grantee's Remedies. USFWS, as a third -party beneficiary under this Conservation Easement, shall have the same rights as Grantee under this section to enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement. If Grantee determines that a violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement has occurred or is threatened, Grantee shall give written notice to Grantor of such violation and demand in writing the cure of such violation. If Grantor fails to cure the violation within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice and demand from Grantee, or if the cure reasonably requires more than thirty (30) days to complete and Grantor fails to begin the cure within the thirty (30) -day period or fails to continue diligently to complete the cure, Grantee may bring an action at law or in equity in a court of competent jurisdiction to enforce this Conservation Easement, to recover any damages to which Grantee may be entitled for violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement or for any injury to the Conservation Values of the Property, to enjoin the violation, ex parte as necessary, by temporary or permanent injunction without the necessity of proving either actual damages or the inadequacy of otherwise available legal remedies, or for other equitable relief, including, but not limited to, the restoration of the Property to the condition in which it existed prior to any violation or injury. Without limiting the liability of Grantor, Grantee may apply any damages recovered to the cost of undertaking any corrective action on the Property. If Grantee, in its sole discretion, determines that circumstances require immediate action to prevent or mitigate damage to the Conservation Values of the Property, Grantee may pursue its remedies under this Conservation Easement without prior notice to Grantor or without waiting for the period provided for cure to expire. Grantee's rights under this section apply equally to actual or threatened violations of the terms of this Conservation Easement. Grantor agrees that Grantee's remedies at law for any violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement are inadequate and that Grantee shall be entitled to the injunctive relief described in this section, both prohibitive and mandatory, in addition to such other relief to which Grantee may be entitled, including specific performance of the terms of this Conservation Easement, without the necessity of proving either actual damages or the inadequacy of otherwise available legal remedies. Grantee's remedies described in this section shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to all remedies now or hereafter existing at law or in equity, including but not limited to, the remedies set forth in Civil Code § 815, et seq. The failure of Grantee to discover a violation or to take immediate legal action shall not bar Grantee from taking such action at a later time. If at any time in the future Grantor or any successor in interest or subsequent transferee uses or threatens to use the Property for purposes inconsistent with or in violation of this Conservation Easement then, notwithstanding Civil Code § 815.7, CDFG, the California Attorney General or any third -party beneficiary of this Conservation Easement has standing as an interested party in any proceeding affecting this Conservation Easement. 6.1. Costs of Enforcement. All costs incurred by Grantee, where Grantee is the prevailing party, in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor, including, but not limited to, costs of suit and attorneys' and experts' fees, and any costs of restoration necessitated by negligence or breach of this Conservation Easement shall be borne by Grantor. 6.2, Grantee's Discretion. Enforcement of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantee or USFWS shall be at the discretion of Grantee or USFWS, and any forbearance by Grantee or USFWS to exercise its rights under this Conservation Easement in the event of any breach of any term of this Conservation Easement shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver of such term or of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term of this Conservation Easement or of any rights of Grantee (or any rights of USFWS, as a third -parry beneficiary) under this Conservation Easement. No delay or omission by Grantee or USFWS in the exercise of any right or remedy shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. 6.3. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury to or change in the Property resulting from (i) any natural cause beyond Grantor's control, including, without limitation, fire not caused by Grantor, flood, storm, and earth movement, or any prudent action taken by Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to the Property resulting from such causes; or (ii) acts by Grantee or its employees. 6.4. USFWS Right of Enforcement. All rights and remedies conveyed to Grantee under this Conservation Easement shall extend to and are enforceable by USFWS. These rights are in addition. to, and do not limit, the rights of enforcement under the Management Plan. 7. Fence Installation and Maintenance. Grantor agrees to install fencing as described in section 4, Grantor's Duties, and the fencing will be maintained in accordance with the Management Plan. 8. Access. This Conservation Easement does not convey a general right of access to the public. 9. Costs and Liabilities. Grantor retains all responsibilities and shall bear all costs and liabilities of any kind related to the ownership, operation, upkeep, and maintenance of the Property, except as specifically required of the Grantee under the Management Plan. Grantor agrees that neither Grantee nor USFWS shall have any duty or responsibility for the operation, upkeep or maintenance of the Property except as specifically required of the Grantee under the Management Plan, the monitoring of hazardous conditions on it, or the protection of Grantor, the public or any third parties from risks relating to conditions on the Property. Grantor remains solely responsible for obtaining any applicable governmental permits and approvals required for any activity or use permitted by this Conservation Easement, and any activity or use shall be undertaken in accordance with all applicable federal, state, local and administrative agency laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, orders and requirements. 9.1. Taxes; No Liens. Grantor shall pay before delinquency all taxes, assessments (general and special), fees, and charges of whatever description levied on or assessed against the Property by competent authority (collectively "Taxes "), including any Taxes imposed upon, or incurred as a result of, this Conservation Easement, and shall furnish Grantee or USFWS with satisfactory evidence of payment upon request. Grantor shall keep the Property free from any liens (other than a security interest that is expressly subordinated to this Conservation Easement, as provided in Section 14 (k)), including those arising out of any obligations incurred by Grantor for any labor or materials furnished or alleged to have been furnished to or for Grantor at or for use on the Property. 9.2. Hold Harmless. Grantor shall hold harmless, protect and indemnify Grantee and its directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, and representatives and the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of each of them (each an "Indemnified Party" and, collectively, "Indemnified Parties ") from and against any and all liabilities, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees), causes of action, claims, demands, orders, liens or judgments (each a "Claim" and, collectively, "Claims "), arising from or in any way connected with: (a) injury to or the death of any person, or physical damage to any property, resulting from any act, omission, condition, or other matter related to or occurring on or about the Property, regardless of cause, unless due solely to the negligence of Grantee or any of its employees; (b) the obligations specified in Sections 4, 9, and 9.1; and (c) the existence or administration of this Conservation Easement. If any action or proceeding is brought against any of the Indemnified Parties by reason of any such Claim, Grantor shall, at the election of and upon written notice from Grantee, defend such action or proceeding by counsel reasonably acceptable to the Indemnified Party or reimburse Grantee for all charges incurred for services of the Attorney General in defending the action or proceeding. 9.3. Extinguishment. If circumstances arise in the future that render the purposes of this Conservation Easement impossible to accomplish, this Conservation Easement can only be terminated or extinguished, in whole or in part, by judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction. 9.4. Condemnation. The purposes of this Conservation Easement are presumed to be the best and most necessary public use as defined at CA Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.680 notwithstanding CA Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1240.690 and 1240.700. 10. Transfer of Conservation Easement. This Conservation Easement may be assigned or transferred by Grantee upon written approval of the USFWS, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, but Grantee shall give Grantor and the USFWS at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of the transfer. Approval of any assignment or transfer may be withheld in the reasonable discretion of the USFWS if the transfer will result in a single owner holding both this Conservation Easement and fee title to the Property and, upon such transfer, the doctrine of merger would apply to extinguish the Conservation Easement by operation of law, unless, prior to assignment of transfer, an alternate method or mechanism to achieve the purposes of this Conservation Easement following such merger has been provided for. Grantee may assign or transfer its rights under this Conservation Easement only to an entity or organization authorized to acquire and hold conservation easements pursuant to Civil Code § 815.3 (or any successor provision then applicable) or the laws of the United States and reasonably acceptable to the USFWS. Grantee shall require the assignee to record the assignment in the county where the Property is located. The failure of Grantee to perform any act provided in this section shall not impair the validity of this Conservation Easement or limit its enforcement in any way. 11. Transfer of Property. Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms of this Conservation Easement by reference in any deed or other legal instrument by which Grantor divests itself of any interest in all or any portion of the Property, including, without limitation, a leasehold interest. Grantor agrees that the deed or other legal instrument shall also incorporate by reference the Management Plan and any amendment(s) to those documents. Grantor further agrees to give written notice to Grantee and the USFWS of the intent to transfer any interest at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of such transfer. Grantee or the USFWS shall have the right to prevent subsequent transfers in which prospective subsequent claimants or transferees are not given notice of the terms, covenants, conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement (including the exhibits and documents incorporated by reference in it). If Grantor proposes to transfer fee title to the Property to the then Grantee of this Conservation Easement, and if the doctrine of merger would apply and extinguish the Conservation Easement by operation of law upon such transfer, then the transfer shall be subject to the prior written approval of the USFWS, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Approval of any such transfer that is subject to the approval of USFWS may be withheld in the reasonable discretion of the USFWS unless, prior to such transfer, an alternate method or mechanism to achieve the purposes of this Conservation Easement following such merger has been provided for. The failure of Grantor to perform any act provided in this section shall not impair the validity of this Conservation Easement or limit its enforceability in any way. 11.1 Transfer of Interest to GHAD. Notwithstanding Paragraph 1.1 above to the contrary, Grantor may transfer any interest in the Property to the GRAD and will provide the USFWS with prior written notice of the intended transfer to the GHAD. Grantor shall incorporate by reference the terms of this Conservation Easement in the deed or other legal instrument that transfers title to the GHAD. Within ten (10) days of recordation of any deed or other legal instrument transferring Grantor's interest to the GRAD, Grantor shall provide Grantee and USFWS with (i) written notice of the transfer; (ii) a copy of the recorded deed or other legal instrument; and (iii) the address, facsimile number and telephone number of the GRAD, and such information shall automatically supersede the contact information contained in Paragraph 12 of this Conservation Easement. 12. Notices. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or other communication that Grantor or Grantee desires or is required to give to the other shall be in writing, with a copy to each of the USFWS, and be served personally or sent by recognized overnight courier that guarantees next -day delivery or by first class United States mail, postage fully prepaid, addressed as follows: To Grantor: Braddock and Logan Group II, L.P. P.O. Box 5300 Danville, CA 94526 To Grantee: Agricultural - Natural Resources Trust of Contra Costa County P.O. Box 6224 Concord, CA 94524 -1224 Attn: Mr. Joe Ciolek To USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service 2800 Cottage Way, W -2605 Sacramento, CA 95825 -1846 Attn: Field Supervisor To USACE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District 333 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 -2197 Attn: Regulatory Branch Chief or to such other address a parry or USFWS shall designate by written notice to Grantor, Grantee and the USFWS. Notice shall be deemed effective upon delivery in the case of personal delivery or delivery by overnight courier or, in the case of delivery by first class mail, five (5) days after deposit into the United States mail. 13. Amendment. This Conservation Easement may be amended only by mutual written agreement of Grantor and Grantee, and written approval of the USFWS (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed). Any such amendment shall be consistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement and California law governing conservation easements and shall not affect its perpetual duration. Any such amendment shall be recorded in the official records of the county in which the Property is located, and Grantee shall promptly provide a conformed copy of the recorded amendment to the Grantor and the USFWS. 14. Additional Provisions. (a) Controlling Law. The interpretation and performance of this Conservation Easement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, disregarding the conflicts of law principles of such state, and applicable federal law, including the ESA. (b) Liberal Construction. Despite any general rule of construction to the contrary, this Conservation Easement shall be liberally construed to effect the purposes of this Conservation Easement and the policy and purpose of Civil Code § 815, et seq. If any provision in this instrument is found to be ambiguous, an interpretation consistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement that would render the provision valid shall be favored over any interpretation that would render it invalid. (c) Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction voids or invalidates on its face any provision of this Conservation Easement, such action shall not affect the remainder of this Conservation Easement. If a court of competent jurisdiction voids or invalidates the application of any provision of this Conservation Easement to a person or circumstance, such action shall not affect the application of the provision to any other persons or circumstances. (d) Entire Agreement. This instrument (including its exhibits and any Management Plan, and endowment fund incorporated by reference in it) sets forth the entire agreement of the parties and the USFWS with respect to the Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings, or agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. No alteration or variation of this instrument shall be valid or binding unless contained in an amendment in accordance with Section 13. (e) No Forfeiture. Nothing contained herein will result in a forfeiture or reversion of Grantor's title in any respect. (f) Successors. The covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions of this Conservation Easement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective personal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns and shall constitute a servitude running in perpetuity with the Property. (g) Termination of Rights and Obligations. A party's rights and obligations under this Conservation Easement terminate upon transfer of the parry's interest in the Conservation Easement or Property, except that liability for acts, omissions or breaches occurring prior to transfer shall survive transfer. (h) Captions. The captions in this instrument have been inserted solely for convenience of reference and are not a part of this instrument and shall have no effect upon its construction or interpretation. (i) No Hazardous Materials Liability. Grantor represents and warrants that it has no knowledge or notice of any Hazardous Materials (defined below) or underground storage tanks existing, generated, treated, stored, used, released, disposed of, deposited or abandoned in, on, under, or from the Property, or transported to or from or affecting the Property. Without limiting the obligations of Grantor under Section 9.2, Grantor hereby releases and agrees to indemnify, protect and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties (defined in Section 9.2) from and against any and all Claims (defined in Section 9.2) arising from or connected with any Hazardous Materials or underground storage tanks present, alleged to be present, released in, from or about, or otherwise associated with the Property at any time, except any Hazardous Materials placed, disposed or released by Grantee, its employees or agents. This release and indemnification includes, without limitation, Claims for injury to or death of any person or physical damage to any property; and the violation or alleged violation of, or other failure to comply with, any Environmental Laws (defined below). If any action or proceeding is brought against any of the Indemnified Parties by reason of any such Claim, Grantor shall, at the election of and upon written notice from Grantee, defend such action or proceeding by counsel reasonably acceptable to the Indemnified Parry or reimburse Grantee for all charges incurred for services of the Attorney General in defending the action or proceeding. Despite any contrary provision of this Conservation Easement, the parties do not intend this Conservation Easement to be, and this Conservation Easement shall not be, construed such that it creates in or gives to Grantee any of the following: (1) The obligations or liability of an "owner" or "operator," as those terms are defined and used in Environmental Laws (defined below), including, without limitation, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 9601, et seq.; hereinafter, "CERCLA "); or (2) The obligations or liabilities of a person described in 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3) or (4); or (3) The obligations of a responsible person under any applicable Environmental Laws; or (4) The right to investigate and remediate any Hazardous Materials associated with the Property; or (5) Any control over Grantor's ability to investigate, remove, remediate or otherwise clean up any Hazardous Materials associated with the Property. The tern "Hazardous Materials" includes, without limitation, (a) material that is flammable, explosive or radioactive; (b) petroleum products, including by- products and fractions thereof; and (c) hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, hazardous or toxic substances, or related materials defined in CERCLA, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 6901, et seq.; hereinafter, "RCRA "; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. § 6901, et seq.; hereinafter, "HTA "); the Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health & Safety Code § 25100, et seq.; hereinafter, "HCL" ); the Carpenter - Presley- Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act (California Health & Safety Code § 25300, et seq.; hereinafter "HSA "), and in the regulations adopted and publications promulgated pursuant to them, or any other applicable Environmental Laws now in effect or enacted after the date of this Conservation Easement. The term "Environmental Laws" includes, without limitation, CER.CLA, RCRA, HTA, HCL, HSA, and any other federal, state, local or administrative agency statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, order or requirement relating to pollution, protection of human health or safety, the environment or Hazardous Materials. Grantor represents, warrants and covenants to Grantee that activities upon and use of the Property by Grantor, its agents, employees, invitees and contractors will comply with all Environmental Laws. 0) Warran . Grantor represents and warrants that Grantor is the sole owner of the Property; there are no outstanding mortgages, liens, encumbrances or other interests in the Property (including, without limitation, mineral interests) which have not been expressly subordinated to this Conservation Easement, and that the Property is not subject to any other conservation easement or interest that is adverse to this Conservation Easement. (k) Additional Interests. Grantor shall not grant any additional easements, rights of way or other interests in the Property (other than a security interest that is expressly subordinated to this Conservation Easement), nor shall Grantor grant, transfer, abandon or relinquish any water or water right associated with the Property, without first obtaining the written consent of Grantee and the USFWS. ' Grantee or USFWS may withhold such consent in its sole discretion if Grantee determines that the proposed interest or transfer is inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement or will impair or interfere with the Conservation Values of the Property. This Section 1.4(k) shall not limit the provisions of Section 2(d) or 3(n), nor prohibit transfer of a fee or leasehold interest in the Property that is subject to this Conservation Easement and complies with Section 11. (1) Recording. Grantee shall record this Conservation Easement in the Official Records of the County in which the Property is located, and may re- record it at any time as Grantee deems necessary to preserve its rights in this Conservation Easement. (m) Third -Party Beneficiary. Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that the USFWS is a third party beneficiary of this Conservation Easement with the right of access to the Property and the right to enforce all of the obligations of Grantor under this Conservation Easement. (n) Fundin . Funding shall be held in trust or by other means specified in the Management Plan for the perpetual management, maintenance, monitoring and reporting of this conservation easement and the Property in accordance with the Management Plan IN WITNESS WHEREOF Grantor has executed this Conservation Easement Deed the day and year first above written. GRANTOR: BRADDOC AND LOGAN GR�O-U_P `H, L.P. BY: NAME: j� s�cn� E• �c TITLE:'P_C -S t De, DATE: q - - 7 -- I 1 GRANTOR: FALLON ENTERPRISES, INC. NAME: CJ C't t 1 mil'• (Q F TITLE: FCC DATE: GRANTEE: AGRICULTURAL - NATURAL RESOURCES TRUST OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BY: NAME: TITLE: DATE (m) Third -Party Beneficiary. Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that the USFWS is a third party beneficiary of this Conservation Easement with the right of access to the Property and the right to enforce all of the obligations of Grantor under this Conservation Easement. (n) Fundin . Funding shall be held in trust or by other means specified in the Management Plan for the perpetual management, maintenance, monitoring and reporting of this conservation easement and the Property in accordance with the Management Plan IN WITNESS WHEREOF Grantor has executed this Conservation Easement Deed the day and year first above written. GRANTOR: BRADDOCK AND LOGAN GROUP H, L.P. BY: NAME: TITLE: DATE: GRANTOR: FALLON ENTERPRISES, INC. TITLE: ��" , C(X t° ►n'� DATE: GRANTEE: AGRICULTURAL - NATURAL RESOURCES T UST OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BY: NAME: TITLE: DATE State of California County of Ceti° CP51A On 9 Date personally appeared before me, 1�3ct_4 C-,/A j& 'e -1 , ! 6i,4 P„t'1 Here Insert Name an T le of the Officer who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person4al whose name) &subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that fi she executed the same in he tt'rgir authorized capacity, and that by,hiQr,/.iktei'r signature) on the instrument the person(, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. NANCY E. EMBREY Commission # 1859710 1 certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws i -r Notary Public - California z z Contra Costa County " of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is My Comm. Expires Aug 1, 2013+ true and correct. ©2007 National Notary Association • 9350 De Soto Ave., P.O Box 2402 • Chatsworth, CA 91313 -2402 • www,NationalNotary,org Item #15907 Reorder: Call Toil -Free 1 -800- 876 -6827 WITNESS my hand and official seal. C" , Signature Place Notary Seal Above ignature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document I l G Title or Type of Document:c�Po�Y Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General _ ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General _ �' ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Attorney in Fact • ❑ Trustee Top of thumb here ❑ Trustee Top of thumb here ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: ©2007 National Notary Association • 9350 De Soto Ave., P.O Box 2402 • Chatsworth, CA 91313 -2402 • www,NationalNotary,org Item #15907 Reorder: Call Toil -Free 1 -800- 876 -6827 State of California County ofCIC)t, -' Lb a/)l On Cf /% /1/ before me, V�6-TA2_ca P3 $ L-iC,., Date Here Insert NamelanclTitle of the Officer personally appeared c_ SC e H l? �k C. i,_ Names) of Signer(s) NANCY BREY Commission # 1859710 Z :N_ Notary Public - California Zr Z Contra Costa County ' My Comm. Expires 'Aug .22013 Place Notary Seal Above who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person,(.s'jwhose name subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that 0/slaeAttby executed the same in li Emir authorized capacity(ie9T, and that by of ha th&r signatureksl on the instrument the person(s),, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(. acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature 6—V, OPTIONAL J Public ignature of Notary P Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document _ r .rte -q a —L Title or Type of Document:�%%3� 1�� � ` �'►�'^ + �+ l Document Date: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): _ ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator Signer Is Representing RIGHTTHUMBPRINT OF SIGNER Top of Number of Pages: Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): _ ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: RIGHTTHUMBPRINT OF SIGNER Top of thumb here ii ©2007 National Notary Association - 9350 De Soto Ave., P.O. Box 2402 - Chatsworth, CA 91313-2402 - www,NationalNotaryorg Item #5907 Reorder: Call Tall -Free 1- 800 -876 -6827 a W-2—N-0-a—al 911 iwCo- 0- 41�!g=— --.. 119— A..aS.�SS State of California County of 0(�br2 (i9J5i� On �e� L.W7, Wig before me, Date C � personally appeared t PATRICIA A. HARRIS Commission #E 1796624 d Notary Public • California Contra Costa County A ♦Comfits r26 2012 S who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same in his /her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature Place Notary Seal Above Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: 0- 0yl'!Z- "VU* Cr'n Document Date: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: �,f t V� N--Q/V�X l M 0\( -) ❑ Individual L k Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General r. ❑ Attorney in Fact • ❑ Trustee Top of thumb here ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: Number of Pages: Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): _ ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: RIGHTTHUMBPRINT OF SIGNER '`.-` JtiC`: �GVCVCVG�CVCv�+LvCVC•�v v. 1'�,C�.1`rG-tri.C�.CVy6v�"'..7. �76��. .- �.�CVCe7GvC�_ ✓GvGV�"�yC.7r��. C�G�GC.�GVC\.vC�vG'a�l.'t�rgd, O 818 •• •• •. •. •� :It 19319.01 01A912011 IBM Page I of EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION CONSERVATION EASEMENT ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, AS WELL AS A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 27 AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE I EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A 3" SOLID STEEL FENCE CORNER POST ACCEPTED AS THE SECTION CORNER OF SECTIONS, 26, 27, 34, AND 35 AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY NUMBER 1005, RECORDED IN BOOK 16 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, AT PAGES 37 - 51, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE ALONG THE SECTION LINE OF SECTIONS 26 AND 27, SAID SECTION LINE ALSO BEING THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE LANDS OF FALLON ENTERPRISES RESULTANT PARCEL, D- 1, AS DESCRIBED IN SERIES NO. 2008 - 120734, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, NORTH 00 °48'41° EAST 2642.65 FEET, TO THE COMMON QUARTER CORNER OF SECTIONS 26 AND 27 AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 9208, RECORDED IN BOOK 292 OF MAPS, AT PAGES 16 - 17, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID RESULTANT PARCEL D -1, SAID LINE BEING COMMON TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE LANDS OF ACACIA PARTNERS 11, SERIES NO. 2005 - 037868, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS NORTH 89 °40'26" WEST 1485.76 FEET, TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL 2 AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 8327, RECORDED IN BOOK 298 OF MAPS, AT PAGES 14 - 17, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID RESULTANT PARCEL D -1, COMMON TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2, SOUTH 00 °09'11" EAST 235.96 FEET, TO THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF PARCEL J -1 AS SHOWN ON TRACT 7854, RECORDED IN BOOK 303 OF MAPS AT PAGES 6 -15, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2, COMMON TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL J -1, SOUTH 48 °4628" WEST 1290.63 FEET, THENCE LEAVING SAID COMMON LINE AND ENTERING PARCEL J -1, THE FOLLOWING TWENTY EIGHT (28) COURSES: I . SOUTH 41 013'32" EAST 13.78 FEET, 2. NORTH 76 046'32" EAST 83.74 FEET, 3. SOUTH 85057'54" EAST 91.92 FEET, 4. SOUTH 01 °54'02" EAST 141.94 FEET, S. THENCE SOUTH 45 043'00" WEST 35.15 FEET, 6. ALONG A NON - TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS SOUTH 62 °48'06" WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 35.30 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17 028'37 ", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 10.68 FEET, TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE, 7. ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 10.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30 035'58 ", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 5.34 FEET, S. SOUTH 40019'15" EAST 5.31 FEET, P:119319\Iegals\Cotiservation Esmt Legs! I3esctiption rev 1 -19 -201 t.doc 1931901 01/19f201 l IBM Page 2 of 5 9. ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 167.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 41022'59", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 120.62 FEET, 10. SOUTH 8I 042'14" EAST 121.36 FEET H. THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 297.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05 °33'57 ", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 28.85 FEET, 12. NORTH 13 025'02" EAST 113.12 FEET, 13. NORTH 53 05354" EAST 147.43 FEET, 14. NORTH 61 017'00" EAST 155.23 FEET, 15. NORTH 70 05434" EAST 78.43 FEET, 16. SOUTH 77 020'08" EAST 45.55 FEET, 17. SOUTH 28 002'30" EAST 76.74 FEET, 18. SOUTH 09 030'59" WEST 61.66 FEET, 19. SOUTH 36 °34'31" WEST 216.60 FEET, 20. SOUTH 2201177" WEST 119.96 FEET, 21. SOUTH 09012'22" WEST 358.08 FEET, 22, SOUTH 64 012'00" EAST 141.62 FEET, 23. NORTH 57 01 I'l I" EAST 52.21 FEET, 24. NORTH 81 °46'05" EAST 120.67 FEET, 25. NORTH 62 04012" EAST 101.91 FEET, 26. SOUTH 58 022'24" EAST 106.98 FEET, 27. NORTH 59 055'20" EAST 179.20 FEET, 28, THENCE SOUTH 73 059'54" EAST 64.51 FEET, TO A POINT THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID RESULTANT PARCEL D -1, COMMON WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL J -1; THENCE ALONG SAID COMMON LINE SOUTH 23 008'12" WEST 30.23 FEET, TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL I AS SHOWN ON TRACT 7855, RECORDED IN BOOK 305 OF MAPS AT PAGES 97 -107, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID RESULTANT PARCEL D -1, SAID LINE BEING COMMON TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL I AND LOTS 20, 21, 22, AND 23 AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT 7855, THE FOLLOWING SEVEN (7) COURSES: 1. SOUTH 06°20'41" WEST 62.13 FEET, 2. SOUTH 03 025'05" WEST 93.84 FEET, 3. SOUTH 17 °02'41" WEST 91.34 FEET, 4. SOUTH 27016'03" WEST 66.70 FEET, 5. SOUTH 25 023'17" WEST 63A9 FEET, 6. SOUTH 14 00 1'12" WEST 61.14 FEET, 7. THENCE SOUTH 02 018'44" WEST 62.94 FEET, THENCE LEAVING SAID COMMON LINE AND ENTERING SAID RESULTANT PARCEL D -1, THE FOLLOWING TWELVE (12) COURSES: 1. NORTH 86 °05'36" EAST 84.97 FEET 2, ALONG A NON- TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS NORTH 85 °2125" EAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 362.63 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 63 °12`28 ", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 400.04 FEET, 3. SOUTH 67 °51'02" EAST 177.81 FEET, 4. NORTH 50 040'12" EAST 342.59 FEET, 5. SOUTH 39019'48" EAST 92.76 FEET, 6. SOUTH 01 °2348" EAST 10.00 FEET P_\1931911cga1sTonsetvaiion Esmi Legal Description my I -19 -201 I -doc 19319 -01 01/19/2011 IBM Page 3 of 5 7. ALONG A NON - TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS SOUTH 01 02348" EAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 47.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 101 °11'24 ", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 83.01 FEET, 8. SOUTH 40 032'30" EAST 133.19 FEET, 9. SOUTH 09 °22'01" EAST 141.58 FEET 10. ALONG A NON - TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS SOUTH 30 017'53" WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 47.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33 °3417 ", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 27.54 FEET, IL SOUTH 65 01375" EAST 264.57 FEET 12. THENCE ALONG A NON - TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS SOUTH 33 013'13" EAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 47.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26 025'25 ", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 21.68 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE LANDS OF DUBLIN RE INVESTORS, SERIES NO, 2010- 981270, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, . THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ENTERING SAID LANDS OF DUBLIN RE INVESTORS, THE FOLLOWING FIFTY ONE (5 1) COURSES: 2. 3. 4. S. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1 a. 11. lz. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. CONTINUING ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 47.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 88-15-05", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 72.39 FEET, SOUTH 18 °45'51" EAST 142.95 FEET, SOUTH 85 009'39" EAST, 353.18 FEET, NORTH 39 012'22" EAST, 135.86 FEET, ALONG A NON - TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS NORTH 72 00457" EAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 47.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 154 008'11 ", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF I26.44 FEET, NORTH 61 °05'00" EAST, 121.09 FEET, SOUTH 35 °05'00" EAST, 83.01 FEET; SOUTH 42 °24'34" EAST, 67A I FEET; SOUTH 36 023'00" EAST, 70.84 FEET; SOUTH 30 021'00" EAST, 70.90 FEET, SOUTH 24 005'30" EAST, 76.06 FEET; SOUTH 17 036'30" EAST, 75.63 FEET; SOUTH 13 000'00" EAST, 162.60 FEET; SOUTH 68 °00'00" EAST, 124.18 FEET; SOUTH 64 °38'21" EAST, 80.12 FEET; SOUTH 77 034'00" EAST, 125.37 FEET; SOUTH 52 047'00" EAST, 116.69 FEET; SOUTH 31 030'00" EAST, 34.46 FEET; ALONG A NON - TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS SOUTH 08 009'54" WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 47.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 77 °10'12 ", AND AN ARC. LENGTH OF 63.30 FEET, SOUTH 55 000'00" EAST, 116.77 FEET; SOUTH 06 °50'00" WEST, 61.45 FEET; SOUTH 15 003'00" EAST, 36.00 FEET; SOUTH 61 044'03" EAST, 102.57 FEET; SOUTH 56 03559" EAST, 60.84 FEET; SOUTH 66 °5231" EAST, 50.57 FEET; NORTH 74 02942" EAST, 60.95 FEET; SOUTH 77033'18" EAST, 80.34 FEET; PA19319UegaislConsmation Esmt Legal Description rev 1- 19.201 Ldoe 19319.01 01/1912011 IBM Page 4 of 28. SOUTH 77 033'18" EAST, 80.34 FEET; 29. SOUTH 12°2642" WEST, 5.07 FEET 30. ALONG A NON - TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS SOUTH 12026'42" WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 47.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90 °49'07 ", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 74.50 FEET, 31. SOUTH 80 022'02" EAST, 127.37 FEET; 32. SOUTH 1103246" WEST, 118.74 FEET; 33. SOUTH 30 001'34" WEST, 100.92 FEET; 34. SOUTH 340 18'48" WEST, 14.88 FEET; 35. SOUTH 36 °15'03" EAST, 57.1 l FEET; 36. SOUTH 24 °31'45" EAST, 94.66 FEET; 37. SOUTH 11 047'55" EAST, 94.64 FEET; 38. SOUTH 00 °37'00" WEST, 86.25 FEET; 39. SOUTH 11 033'10" WEST, 84.97 FEET; 40. SOUTH 20 005'56" WEST, 80.22 FEET; 41. SOUTH 30 °38'09" WEST, 78.41 FEET; 42, SOUTH 36 046'30" WEST, 69.28 FEET; 43. SOUTH 38 °2228" WEST, 65.24 FEET; 44. SOUTH 42 04232" WEST, 73.65 FEET; 45. SOUTH 49 °10'29" WEST, 74.24 FEET; 46. SOUTH 55 028'43" WEST, 73.89 FEET; 47. SOUTH 60°20'11" WEST, 69.20 FEET; 48. SOUTH 63 045'03" WEST, 63.25 FEET; 49. SOUTH 61000'00" WEST, 75.60 FEET; 50. SOUTH 73 °33'57" WEST, 32.47 FEET; 51, SOUTH 0101701" WEST, 122.32 FEET; TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 35, COMMON TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE LANDS OF CROAK, SERIES NO, 79- 229985, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3S, SAID LINE ALSO BEING THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF DUBLIN RE INVESTORS, SOUTH 88 °43'00" EAST 1038.65 FEET, TO THE CENTER OF SECTION 35, SAID POINT BEING THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LANDS OF DUBLIN RE INVESTORS, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE LANDS OF ACACIA PARTNERS, SERIES NO. 2005-037867, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, SAID LINE BEING THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF DUBLIN RE INVESTORS, NORTH 00 °55'46" EAST 2635.98 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 35, BEING THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LANDS OF DUBLIN RE INVESTORS, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE LANDS OF JONES, AS DESCRIBED IN SERIES NO. 2008 - 009590, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 35, SAID LINE ALSO BEING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF DUBLIN RE INVESTORS, COMMON WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF JONES, NORTH 88 °43'09" WEST 2640.62 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 172.74 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SEE EXHIBIT "B" PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION (5 PAGES), ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. PA19319VcgalAConsmation Esmt Legal Description rcv 1 -19 -201 Ldoc END OF DESCRIPTION PORTION OF A.P.N. 905 -0002- 003,985- 0028 - 007 -02, & 985- 0075 -007 PREPARED BY: �Q AND — No. 7960 MARK WEHBER LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR NO. 7960 (EXP. 3/31/2012) STATE OF CALIFORNIA TFOF CA% OY OMPS CNIL ENIGINEERINGOLAND PLANNNG *LAND SURVEYING 5142 Frandn Diw Sutio 9, Pions= ton. CA. 94598.3355 (9251225 O&M P;U9319 \1egalsTonscrvation Esmt Legal Description my 1 -19 -201 Ldoc 1931901 01/192011 11M Page 5 of 5 / /?- 15" /f DATE 0' 500' 1000' 2000' SCALE, 1"=1000' PARCEL 2 I'm 8327 , * N SK 298 PG 14-17 A 9c . ........................ TRACT 78, SK 305 :PG 97-1c ACACIA PARTNERS 11 SERIES NO. 2005-037868 T2,S R1,E M.D.B.M RESULTANT PARCEL D-1 SERIES NO. 2008-1207341 L, I 34 SIR mill # Ilia man. fossil LEGEND (R) RADIAL BEARING 26 M-181T PAW I OF5 JONES SERIES NO. 2008-009590 CONSERVATION BOUNDARY OF DESCRIPTION EASEMENT EXISTING PARCEL D>-- ANGLE POINT M.D.B.M. MOUNT DIABLO BASE & MERIDIAN P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING PM PARCEL MAP R.S. RECORD OF SURVEY (R) RADIAL BEARING 26 M-181T PAW I OF5 JONES SERIES NO. 2008-009590 CONSERVATION EASEMENT 172,74 AC w DUBLIN RE C; INVESTORS SERIES NO. z 0 Y>2010-3131 70 � u) DUBLIN RE E INVESTORS SERIES NO, S al 2 ) 2010-3 81270 0 CROAK SERIES NO. 79-229985 I PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION I FALLON VILLAGE CONSERVATION EASEMENT Uri CAUFOWK MACKAY & SOMP S ERS PUMERS so 51426 FRkNKUN DR, PO-WffON, CA 94588 (925)225-0690 DRAWN I DATE I SCALE I JOB NO. IBM I JANUARY, 20111 1"-1000, I 19319-01 I t 9A2wa Ian VacDwald P.\19319\PLk75\OONMA114k.EW REV I —la-2011,CWG 0' 250' 500' ACACIA PARTNERS 11 SERIES ND. 2005-037858 SCALE. I"=5001 PARCEL 2 PM 8327 SK 298 PG 14-17 SEE DETAIL A THIS PAGE 1000, LC4--j N02043'49"ECRI r--T—, SK 305 ' PG 97-107�-Ll I b � 45043'00"E 35.15' N40019'16'W 5.31' DM L A I" —" loo, N0I*23'49'W 1 N01*23'Q R=47.00' A=1010111'24" L=83.01' N80`12'24� ( LEGEND. DUAL 0 1* = loot BOUNDARY OF DESCRIPTION PARCEL D -1 EXISTING PARCEL >-- ANGLE POINT M.D.B.M. 20 cc 'to ui PM cj b u - 3 (R) C:) 04 uj v).0 LLJ N C> m u0j 1000, LC4--j N02043'49"ECRI r--T—, SK 305 ' PG 97-107�-Ll I b � 45043'00"E 35.15' N40019'16'W 5.31' DM L A I" —" loo, N0I*23'49'W 1 N01*23'Q R=47.00' A=1010111'24" L=83.01' N80`12'24� ( LEGEND. DUAL 0 1* = loot BOUNDARY OF DESCRIPTION PARCEL D -1 EXISTING PARCEL >-- ANGLE POINT M.D.B.M. MOUNT DIABLO BASE & MERIDIAN P.Q.B. POINT OF BEGINNING PM PARCEL MAP R.S. RECORD OF SURVEY (R) RADIAL BEARING 1 429p, Of W:/ � N89040'26'W 1485.761 1/4 CORNEA —N0`09'11 " / W 235-96' SECTION 27 PARCEL J -1 cn C U-1 TRACT 7854 cr) Z a W 0 BK 303 z co PG 6-15 OW 11 —L12 C -,3 L1�Ll 4 2 L2 RESULTANT ao PARCEL D -1 U) 0 SERIES NO, m 'C'j 2008-120734 o1 z SERIES NO, p, Id 00 F-1 a_ 04 uj v).0 LLJ m u0j CL c� C-.) 4 L25 cQ W L26 C> LLJ L27 SEE DETAIL B n n L28 THIS PACE T) S 0 W Z=ZZ L29 L RLE :3 w ar- 1, ucD c:) 0 <-) L36 M-D N85021'2TE(R) B.M 41 m CQ L 37 C6 c CL CL )26 rL39 z 27 26 34-r35 IP—) PARCEL J TRACT 7855 BK 305 PG 97-107 REV 1-18-2011.DW0 > z to ca m RESULTANT m 'C'j PARCEL D-1 o1 z SERIES NO, p, in 2008- 120734 x -Hi eff PAZ 3Qf'5 _EM t r) ca o W U� iv 0 D U) W". N c h Rl.E FOUND 3" SOLID STEEL FENCE JONES M.D.B. M CORNER POST ACCEPTED AS SERIES NO. SECTION CORNER PER R.S. 1005 2003 -- 009590 1 I 16 PG 37 -51 27 6 N88a43_O9 "W 2640.62' -- -- 3 `7 3 N81a27'17 "E(R) -'-,1 1 1 �2 1 1 zi PARCEL J TRACT 7B55 BK 305 PG 97 --107 C 10--1 , t'� t' ,. L42 ju., cb�:' 4 i 45 1/4 CORNER-'I --1-46 SECTION 35 E .--L47 ---L48 DUBLIN RE INVESTORS '4.:1 1-49 SERIES NO. .r I-50 2010 -981 270 DUBLIN RE NVESTDRS N85a20'WECRj,- SERIES N0. —`— — 2010-- 981270 DUBLIN RE INVESTORS SERIES NO. 2010 - 981270 L6 N77a33,18„w N12 026'42 "E CROAK _ ---- -- ___ 5.07' R= 47.00' 1 f� SERIES NO. A =90°49'07" N$0° " 79- 229985 74.50' 02 W RETAIL C 1" = 100, LEGEND - - BOUNDARY OF DESCRIPTION EXISTING PARCEL C>-- ANGLE POINT M.D.B.M. MOUNT DIABLO BASE & MERIDIAN P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING PM PARCEL MAP R.S. RECORD OF SURVEY i 1 I w —L56 1 -011 L65:,!'"i i L58 L66 cq - + L63 1 � s � 1` z� + t w z to a t t° L69 In :5 bo:5Q L70 '`n'v�a L72 ! Q "� C L71 L73 t L74 L75 I L79 L76 L81 L77 14 L78 L80 L82 CENTER OF L83_ _ SECTION _35 N88a43'00 "W 1083 65' 8 0' 250' 500' 1000' SCALE: 1"=500' I PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION N -20 -2011 ta15am {an MacDonald P . \19319\PiATS\CONSERYAD0R -ES7,6 PREY 1- 18- 2all.DW6 FALLON VILLAGE CONSERVATION EASEMENT cummk I ngHo�� & somp ENGMEM RMNERS SURVEYORS 51428 FRAtKLIN DR. PLDSAN K CA 94588 (925)225 -4690 SCALE I JOB NO. 1" =500' 19319 -01 91-24 -2911 4:27pm ltak lYddxr P: \19319\PWAt=EitYA'R0N_ESa REV 1- 18- 2011,D1YG W PRGE 4 or S N77°34'Otl"W 125.37' L55 N52'47'O(iW LINE TABLE L56 N31 °30'Od'W LINE TABLE L57 N55 °QO'Od'W LINE TABLE L58 LINE N0. DIRECTION LENGTH LINE N0, DIRECTION LENGTH LINE NQ. DIRECTION LENGTH Ll N41 °13'37'W 13.78' L26 N06 °20'41 "E 62.13' L51 N13°00'08'W tS2.60' L2 N76°46'32`E 83.74' L27 Na3 °25'05"E 93.84' L52 N68°00'OB'W 124.18' L3 N85 °5754'W 91.92' L28 Ni 7°02'41' E 91.34' LS3 N64 °38'21 ' L70 L4 N01 °54'02`W 141.94' L29 N27°16'0�'E 66.70' N24 °31'45W 94.66' L73 L5 N45°43'0{iE 35.15' L30 N25 °23'17"E 63.49' N1 t °33't0"E 84.97 L6 N40°19'15"W 5.31' Lai N14 °Oi'12'E 61.14' L7 N81 °42'14 "W 121.36' L32 NO2°t8'44'E 62.94' L:B N73°25'0�'E 113.12' L33 NB6°D5'3�E 84.97' L9 N53°53'S4 E 147.43' L34 N67°51'02 "W 177.81' L10 N61 °1TOtiE 155.23' L35 NSD°40'12"E 342.59' U 1 N7tP54'34"E 78.43' L36 N39°19'48'W 92.76' L12 N77'20'08`W 45.55' L37 NOi °23'4g'W 10.00' L13 N28°02'3(�W 76.74' 1,38 N4{l" 32`3D'W 133.19' L14 N09°30'S9'E 61.66' L39 N09°22'Ot'W 141.58' L15 N36°34'31"E 216.60' L40 N65 °13'25 "W 264.57' L16 N22'1 I'VE 119.96' L41 N18°45'S1'W 142.95' L17 N09°12'22'E 358.08' L42 N85 °09'39'W 353.18' L18 N64 °i2'00'W 141.62' L43 N39'12'22"E 135.8b' L19 N57°i t' 11 "E 52.21' L44 Ns1 °a5'otY'E t2t.a9' L20 N81 °46'05E 120.67' L45 N35 °DS'DO"W 83.01' L21 N62°40'32"E 101.91' L4S N42°24'34'W 67.41' L22 N58°22'24'W 106.98' L47 N36°23'DO'W 74.84' L23 N59°55'2if E 179.20` L48 N30°2t'dD'W 70.90' L24 N73°59'S4"W 64.51' L49 N24 °05'3CiYt 76.06' L25 N23°08'tZ "E 30.23' L50 Nt7°36'3d'W 75.63' PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION EALLON VILLAGE CONSERVATION EASEMENT DUOUR CAMRN1A KAY & SomrS ENGINEERS PU1N11FRS St1RIEYDRS 51428 FRANM D8, KEAS1N K CA 94588 (925)225 -0690 DRAWN DATE SCALE J013 N0. IBM JANUARY, 2011 N A 19319 -01 91-24 -2911 4:27pm ltak lYddxr P: \19319\PWAt=EitYA'R0N_ESa REV 1- 18- 2011,D1YG W 80.12' L54 N77°34'Otl"W 125.37' L55 N52'47'O(iW 116,69' L56 N31 °30'Od'W 34.46' L57 N55 °QO'Od'W 116.77' L58 NO6°50'00'E 61.45` L59 N15 °Q3'0(i'W 36.00' L60 N61 °44'O�W 102.57' L61 N56'35'59'W 60.84' LS2 N66°52'31'W 50.57' L63 N74 °29'42'E 60.95' L64 N77°33'18"W 80.34' L65 N77°33' 1 g'W 80.34' L66 N12°26'42`E 5.07' L67 N80 °22'02"W 127.37' L66 N11 °32'4b'E 518.74' L69 N30°Oi'34'E 100.92' L70 N34° 18'48" E 14.88' L71 N36°15'0�'W 57.11' U2 N24 °31'45W 94.66' L73 Nit °47'55'W 94.64' L74 N00 °37'Q�'E 86.25' L75 N1 t °33't0"E 84.97 LINE TABLE LINE NO. DIRECTION LENGTH L76 N20'05'56'E 80.22' L77 N30'38'09'E 78.41' L78 N36'46'30'E 69.28' L79 N38022'28'E 65.24' LBO N42'42'32'E 73.65' L81 N49'10'29'E 74.24' L82 N55 °28'45'E 73.89' L83 N60'2O'11'E 69.20' L84 N63'45'03" E 63.25' L85 N61'00'01YE 75.60' L86 N73'33'57E 32.47' L87 NOI- 17'01 "E 122.32' M -25 -2011 4:28M W-A RM FAGS 5 or S CURVE TABLE CURVE N0. RADIUS DELTA LENGTH Cl 35.00 17°28'37' 10.68' C2 10.00 30'35'58' 5.34' C3 167.00 41 °22'59' 120.62' C4 297.00 5 033'57" 28.85' C5 362.63 63°12'26" 400.04' C6 47.00 101'11'24' 83.0 1' C7 47.00 3334'17' 27.54' CS 47.00 26'25'25' 21.68' C9 47.00 88' 15'05" 72.39' C10 47.00 154'08'11' 126.44' C11 47.00 77'10'12" 63.30' C12 47.00 1 90'49'07" 74.50' Exhibit B Exhibit 19319-01 01119!2011 IBm Pagc 1 of 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION CONSERVATION EASEMENT ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, AS WELL AS A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 27 AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE I EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASF, AND MERIDIAN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, BEGINNING AT A 3" SOLID STEEL FENCE CORNER POST ACCEPTED AS THE SECTION CORNER OF SECTIONS, 26, 27, 34, AND 35 AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY NUMBER 1005, RECORDED IN BOOK 16 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, AT PAGES 37 - 51, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, SAID POINT BEING THE TRITE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE ALONG THE SECTION LINE OF SECTIONS 26 AND 27, SAID SECTION LINE ALSO BEING THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE LANDS OF FALLON ENTERPRISES RESULTANT PARCEL D- 1, AS DESCRIBED IN SERIES NO. 2008-120734, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS NORTH 00 048141" EAST 2642.651<EET, TO THE COMMON QUARTER CORNER OF SECTIONS 26 AND 27 AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 9206, RECORDED IN BOOK 292 OF MAPS, AT PAGES 16-- 17, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID RESULTANT PARCEL D -I, SAID LINE BEING COMMON TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE LANDS OF ACACIA PARTNERS N- SER19S NO. 2005. 03786$, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS NORTH 89 °46'26" WEST 1485.76 FEET, TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL 2 AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP 8327, RECORDED IN 1300K 298 OF MAPS, AT PAGES 14 - 17, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID RESULTANT PARCEL D -1, COMMON TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2, SOUTH 00 °09'11" EAST 233.96 FEET, TO THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF PARCEL J -I AS SHOWN ON TRACT 7854, RECORDED IN BOOK 343 OF MAPS AT PAGES 6 -- IS, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2, COMMON TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL J -1, SOUTH 48 °4628" WEST 1290.63 FEET, THENCE LEAVING SAID COMMON LINE AND ENTERING PARCEL J -1, THE FOLLOWING TWENTY EIGHT (28) COURSES: 1. SOUTH 41 °13'32" EAST 13.78 FEET, 2. NORTH 76 °46'32" EAST 83.74 FEET, 3, SOUTH 85 057'54" EAST 91.92 FEET, 4. SOUTH 01 05402" EAST 141.94 FEET, S. THENCE SOUTH 43°43'00" WEST 35.15 FEET, 6. ALONG A NON - TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS SOUTH 62 °48'06" WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 35.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17 °28'37 ", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 10.68 FEET, TO A POINT Of REVERSE CURVATURE, 7. ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 10.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30 °35'58 ", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 5.34 FEET, 8. SOUTH 4001915 "EAST 5.31 FEET, P;It 9319Uega16C0nservstion Esmt Lcga! Dcscripiion rev 1- 19.201 I.dac 19319-01 01/012011 IBM Pap 2 of 3 9. ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 167.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 41 0'22'59 ", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 120.62 FEET, 10, SOUTH 81 °42'14" EAST 121.36 FEET It. THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 297.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05 °33'57 ", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 28.85 FEET, 12. NORTH 13025'02" EAST 113.12 FEET, 13. NORTH 53 °5354" EAST 147.43 FEET, 14, NORTH 61 °17'00" EAST 155.23 FEET, I5. NORTH 70 054`34" EAST 78.43 FEET, 16. SOUTH 77 020'48" EAST45.55 FEET, 17. SOUTH 28 °02'30" EAST 76.74 FEET, 18. SOUTH 09 030'59" WEST 61.66 FEET, 19. SOUTH 36 °34'31" WEST 216.60 FEET, 20, SOUTH 2201177" WEST 1 19.96 FEET, 21. SOUTH 0901222" WEST 358.08 FEET, 22, SOUTH 640) TOO" EAST 141.62 FEET, 23. NORTH 57 *1 I'll" EAST 52.21 FEET, 24. NORTH 81°46'05" EAST 120.67 FEET, 25. NORTH 62 °40'32" EAST 101.91 FEET, 26. SOUTH 58 °22'24" EAST 106.98 FEET, 27. NORTH 59 °5520" EAST 179.20 FEET, 28. THENCE SOUTH 73 059'54" EAST 64.51 FEET, TO A POINT THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID RESULTANT PARCEL D -1, COMMON WITH THE EASTERLY LIME OF PARCEL 7 -1, THENCE ALONG SAID COMMON LINE SOUTH 23 °0812" WEST 30,23 FEET, TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL I AS SHOWN ON TRACT 7855, RECORDED IN BOOK 305 OF MAPS AT PAGES 97 -107, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID RESULTANT PARCEL D -1, SAID LINE BEING COMMON TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL I AND LOTS 20, 21, 22, AND 23 AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT 7855, THE FOLLOWING SEVEN (7) COURSES: I. SOUTH 06 °20'41" WEST 62.13 FEET, 2. SOUTH 03 °25'05" WEST 93.84 FEET, 3. SOUTH 17 °02'41° WEST 91.34 FEET, 4. SOUTH 2701603" WEST 66.70 FEET, S. SOUTH 25°23`!7" WEST 63.49 FEET, 6. SOUTH 14 001'12" WEST 61.14 FEET, 7, THENCE SOUTH 02 01844" WEST62.94 FEET, THENCE LEAVING SAID COMMON LINE AND ENTERING SAID RESULTANT PARCEL D -I, THE FOLLOWING TWELVE (12) COURSES; 1. NORTH 86 °05'36" EAST 84.97 FEET 2, ALONG A NON - TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS NORTH 85 °2!'25" EAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 362.63 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 63 °12`28 ", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 400.04 FEET, 3. SOUTH 67 °51'02" EAST 177.81 FEET, 4. NORTH 50 °40'12" EAST 342.59 FEET, 5. SOUTH 39019'48" EAST 92.76 FEET, 6. SOUTH 01 °2348" EAST 10.00 FEET PA1931911cgalslConscivation r3ml legal bcstdption rcv f- 19.201I.doc 19318 -0I 0111912411 1Bm Page 3 of 3 7. ALONG A NON - TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS SOUTH 01 02348" EAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 47.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 101 °11'24 ", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 83,01 FEET, 8. SOUTH 40 032'30" EAST 133.19 FEET, 9. SOUTH 09 °22'01" EAST 141.58 FEET 10, ALONG A NON - TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS SOUTH 30 017'53" WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 47.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33 °34'17 ", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 27.54 FEET, [I. SOUTH 65 013'25" EAST 264.57 FEET 12. THENCE ALONG A NON - TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS SOUTH 33° 13'13" .EAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 47.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 26 °25251', AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 21.68 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE LANDS OF DUBLIN RE INVESTORS, SERIES NO, 2010 - 981270, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, . - THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ENTERING SAID LANDS OF DUBLIN RE INVESTORS, THE FOLLOWING FIFTY ONE (51) COURSES: 1; CONTINUING ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 47.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 88 015'05 ", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 72,39 FEET, 2, SOUTH 18 °45'51`.' EAST 142.95 FEET, 3. SOUTH. 85 °09'39" EAST, 353.18 FEET, 4, NORTH 390 1222" EAST, 135.86 FEET, 5. ALONG A NON - TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS NORTH 72 004'37" EAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 47.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 154 008'11 ", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 126.44 FEET, 6. NORTH 61 905100" EAST, 121.09 FEET, 7. SOUTH 35 005'00" EAST, 83.01 FEET; 8. SOUTH 42 °24'34" EAST, 67.41 FEET; 9. SOUTH 36 °23'00" EAST, 70.84 FEET; 10. SOUTH 30021'00" EAST, 70.90 FEET; IL . SOUTH 24 005'30" EAST, 76.06 FEET; l2. SOUTH 17 °36'30" EAST, 75.63 FEET; 13. SOUTH 13 °00'00" EAST, 162.60 FEET, 14. SOUTH 68 000'00" EAST, 124.18 FEET; I5. SOUTH 64 °38'21" EAST, 80,12 FEET; 16, SOUTH 77 034'00" EAST, 125.37 FEET; 17. SOUTH 52 04700" EAST, 116,69 FEET; 18, SOUTH 31 030'00" EAST, 34,46 FEET; 19, ALONG A NON - TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT SEARS SOUTH 08'09'54" WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 47.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 77 °10'12 ", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 63.30 FEET, 20. SOUTH 55 1100'00" EAST, 116.77 FEET; 21, SOUTH 06 °50'00" WEST, 61.45 FEET; 22, SOUTH 15 003'00" EAST, 36.60 FEET; 23. SOUTH 61 044'03" EAST, 102.57 FEET; 24. SOUTH 56 035'59" EAST, 60.84 FEET; 25, SOUTH 66 °52'31" EAST, $0.57 FEET, 26. NORTH 74 02942" EAST, 60.95 FEET; 27. SOUTH 77 033'18" EAST, 80,34 FEET; PA193f91degalslCons®cvation Ermt Legal F3escriptlon rev 1- 19.2011.doc 19319 -©1 01/191201 I ISM 4 of 5 28. SOUTH 77 "33'18" EAST, 80.34 FEET; Page 29. SOUTH 12°2042" WEST, 5.07 FEET 30. ALONG A NON- TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS SOUTH 12°26'42" WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 47.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90 049'07 ", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 74.50 FEET, 31. SOUTH 80 022'02" EAST, 127.37 FEET; 32. SOUTH I 1 °3246" WEST, 1 18.74 FEET; 33. SOUTH 30 001'34" WEST, 100.92 FEET; 34. SOUTH 34 °18 -48" WEST, 14.88 FEET; 35. SOUTH 36 °15'03" EAST, 57.11 FEET; 36. SOUTH 24 °31'45" EAST, 94.66 FEET; 37. SOUTH 11 04755" EAST, 94.64 FEET; 38. SOUTH 00 °37'00" WEST, 86.25 FEET, 39. SOUTH 11 "33'10" WEST, 84.97 FEET; 40. SOUTH 20 °05'56" WEST, 80.22 FEET;. 41. SOUTH 30 °38'09" WEST, 78.41 FEET; 42. SOUTH 36 046'30" WEST, 69,26 FEET; 43, SOUTH 38 °2278" WEST, 65,24 FEET; 44. SOUTH 42 04232" WEST, 73,65 FEET; 45. SOUTH 49 °10'29" WEST, 74.24 FEET; 46. SOUTH 55 °28'43" WEST, 73.89 FEET; 47. SOUTH 60 °20'11" WEST, 69.20 FEET; 48. SOUTH 63 045'03" WEST, 63.25 FEET; 49, SOUTH 61 °00'00" WEST, 75.60 FEET; 50, SOUTH 73 033'57" WEST, 3.2.47 FEET; 51, SOUTH 01°17'01" WEST, 122.32 FEET; TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE 'NORTHWEST QUARTER. OF SAID SECTION 35, COMMON TO THE NORTHERLY LINE' OF THE LANDS OF CROAK, SERIFS NO. 79-229985, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 35, SAID LINE ALSO BEING THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF DUBLIN RE INVESTORS, SOUTH 88 °43'00" EAST 1038.65 FEET, TO THE CENTER OF SECTION 35, SAID POINT BEING TIDE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LANDS OF DUBLIN RE INVESTORS, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE LANDS OF ACACIA PARTNERS, SERIES NO. 2005-037867, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, SAID LINE BEING THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF DUBLIN RE INVESTORS, NORTH 00 °5546" EAST 2635.98 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 35, BEING THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LANDS OF DUBLIN RE INVESTORS, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE LANDS OF JONES, AS DESCRIBED IN SERIES NO. 2008 - 009590, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 35, SAID LINE ALSO BEING THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF DUBLIN RE INVESTORS, COMMON WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF JONES, NORTH 88 043 -09" WEST 2640.62 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 172.74 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SEE EXHIBIT "B" PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION (5 PAGES), ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. PA19319SiegalslConservatim Estnt Legal Description rcv I.19.2011.doc 19319.01 01/1912011 HIM END OF DESCRIPTION Page s ors PORTION OF &M. 905 -0002 -003, 985- 0028. 007.02, & 985- 0075 -007 PREPARED BY: ND3V,�G /�� MARK WEHBER iirp.3 3 �. !! DATE LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR NO. 7960 0 � (EXP, 3/31/2012) STATE OF CALIFORNIA Ofi CA�-�� MACKRU&SOMPS CK EN'GMERMO AND P1AVWHG #LAND Sil(NEWIG 6142 f4on" DW "o 0, PFooacm[on, c�k 94588.3355 1925) 225-0b9Q - P:1193i9UegaWConscrvat(on Esml Legal Description rev 1 -19 -201 t.doc RIT Mars ACACIA PARTNERS II t 0, 500' 1000' 2000' SERIES Nv, 2005 -- 037856 SCALE., 1" =1000' PARCEL 2 PM 3327 t 8K 298 PG 14 -17 / T2.S Gpv Az R1.E M,D B.M RESULTANT JONES PARCEL D-1 SERIES NO. SERIES NO. , 2008- DO9590 TRACT 7855 2008 -- 1207341 SK 305 PG al-107 TRACT 037 # SK 3D5 27 26 Phi 93-95 34 35 TRACT 36 \ CONSERVATION SK aas EASEMENT PG as 92 V,,, -P,. 172.74 AC T 5KaoS DUBLIN RE w No 54 -5i ` INVESTORS � � Z a TRACT�WI �' SERIES N0. OK 303 YRAC7 7951 2010 -381 70 d PG 6 -15 9K 305 t PG 40 -43 j n DVSLIN RE I U) TRAG&' 7&58 INVESTORS SK 303 SERIES NO. , PG 1--5 2010381270 1 SJP --ROI+ JORDAN r RANCH LLC CROAK SERIES NO. SERIES NO. 2008-148449 79-- 229983 D --- BOUNDARY OF DESCRIPTION EXISTING PARCEL I}-- ANGLE POINT M.D.B.M. MOUNT DIABLO BASE & MERIDIAN P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING PM PARCEL MAP R.S. RECORD OF SURVEY (R) RADIAL BEARING 01 -20 -201} PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION FALLON VILLAGE CONSERVATION EASEMENT DUBl1H MFORkh MAGRY & S MPS ENOWMRS 1'}A+Ns suR 51428 Fl;�AMN VEYaRs DR, PLF1,5A?f}OH, - CA 945M (929 )225 -069D DRAWN I SCALE JOa NO. IBM JAhlUARY, 2011 }',1000' 19319-01 0' 250' 500' 1000' SCALE: 1" =500' PARCEL 2 PM 8327 BK 298 PC 14--17 SEE DETAIL A THIS PAGE ACACIA PARTNERS 11 SERIES No. 2005 -- 037858 11 y%B j' PINE ? W.5 N8'- 40'26"W 1485.76' — N(r09'11 "W 235.96' 1�4 CORNER 7F SECTION 27 ! PARCEL ,1--1 TRACT 7854 BK 303 [ Z2 PG 6-15 ! o ►, ° 12 ' -Li3 —L14 zo B f LB 3 C4 f W43'49" E(Rj i L20 L22 LU 8 U-) R P TRACT 7855 fr M II P 1 rte-; SK 305 L21 ° �, n , PG 97 --107 �L19 L30 v ,ui I = - � L31 `? ,' " N45 243'00" E 35.15' L32 L �` N40°19'15 "W 5.31' �r 4�¢ Gj 0 12 �S9! TRACT 8[337 � pFTA1l A �+� BK 305 1" = 100' PG 83--96 RESULTANT -' � to PARCEL D -1 � uwj Q SERIES NO. ! Kv 2008 -- 120734 ! >�RESULTANT d PARCEL D-1 p c%j1 w c`' 6m =�! r, w�o 4 L25°` L2fi ! L27 SEE DETAIL B a w L28 THIS PAGE T2.S z z z �n L29 R1.E � � rr I ��� Las M.D.B.M N85 °21`25 "ER L37a 43� i u'r 27 26 N01 °23'0 W 10.00` , PARCEL J Cf 1i° 3_4gWLRjf �% R= 47.00' � -101 °11'24" ••���� L= 83.01' ,• ��R�? NW12'24 ""C LEGS 1" = 100' ----�_ BOUNDARY OF DESCRIPTION EXISTING PARCEL D---- ANGLE POINT M.D.B.M. MOUNT DNLO BASE & MERIDIAN P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING PM PARCEL MAP R.S. RECORD OF SURVEY (R) RADIAL BEARING TRACT 7855 BK 305 PG 97 --107 PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION FALL ON VILLAGE CONSERVATION EASEMENT ousuN CJUJFQRN1l MACKAY & SOMPS iN(xNM PLkgNm$ 51420 fRA!{IIM OR. PCFlWON. CA 845$8 9 (8P5)225 -064Q DRAIN DATC SCALE 1 4013 NO. REV 1- 18- 201150 jANUA Y. 2011 1 "=500'- 1 19319-01 � C] Ci] �i > z irs >�RESULTANT d PARCEL D-1 p z_ U) ' SERIES NO, ::' x co 2008 -- 120734 PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION FALL ON VILLAGE CONSERVATION EASEMENT ousuN CJUJFQRN1l MACKAY & SOMPS iN(xNM PLkgNm$ 51420 fRA!{IIM OR. PCFlWON. CA 845$8 9 (8P5)225 -064Q DRAIN DATC SCALE 1 4013 NO. REV 1- 18- 201150 jANUA Y. 2011 1 "=500'- 1 19319-01 am-7 MX Nar s Or $ P,0 T 0 �CQ N �I 0 �o Nz U) rj�V) RU FOUND 3" SOLID STEEL FENCE JONES M.D.B. M CORNER POST ACCEPTED AS SERIES N0. SECTION CORNER PER R.S, 1005 20ERIES 95. \ I 16 PG 37 -51 27 6 3 2644.62' 34 3 N88'4'09 "W w_...�.._..� .. _ �... 31 N81 °27'IrEO rq M r7 z PARCEL J TRAG7 7855 BK 305 F'G 97-107 CIO L42 -8 ov�,��tiL i 1-45 1/4 CORNER tt� L46 SECTION 35 I L47 L48 DUBLIN RE INVESTORS L49 SERIES No. L50 2010 - 981270 DUBLIN RE N06°09'54 "E NVESTORS N85 ('20'OeE SERIES NO, 2010-981270 DUBLIN RE INVESTORS SERIES NO. 2010 -- 981270 N77*33,IeW N12°28'42"E 6 3¢, 5.07' R= 47.00' A= 90'49'07" $ 74.54' 4 35z 02"W I� 10 = 100, .0 -2011 W.250m Ion UCCO ald PA 193191WAt5lC0WA'AVeiuw P FALLON VILLAGE - - --- BOUNDARY OF DESCRIPTION RU81JH C.UJF'ORNN EXISTING PARCEL D--- ANGLE POINT M.D.B.M. MOUNT DIABLO SASE & MERIDIAN P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING PIJ PARCEL MAP R.S. RECORD OF SURVEY (R) RADIAL BEARING .0 -2011 W.250m Ion UCCO ald PA 193191WAt5lC0WA'AVeiuw P L61�� L69 �u :9 w o L62 72 !z c� 0) ° cv DETAIL C L71 L73 < L74 L75 L79 L76 L8i L77 L7$ L$0 i L82 CENTER OF L83 - SECTION 35 N88°43'O(f W 1036.65' CROAK SERIES NO. 79-229985 1m 0' 250' 504' 1000' SCALE: 1" =500' PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION FALLON VILLAGE CONSERVATION EASEMENT RU81JH C.UJF'ORNN MACH & somps EiiCflfM PiAWRMS 51428 fRkOW OR, PL61.5AH )L CA 94588 (925)225-06" uji DATE I SCA! R J08 No 1 L65 I JANUARY; 2011 1" =500' I 39319 -01 158 L66 C41 L63 -� 1 � r �4tzN, Sri Q N o L61�� L69 �u :9 w o L62 72 !z c� 0) ° cv DETAIL C L71 L73 < L74 L75 L79 L76 L8i L77 L7$ L$0 i L82 CENTER OF L83 - SECTION 35 N88°43'O(f W 1036.65' CROAK SERIES NO. 79-229985 1m 0' 250' 504' 1000' SCALE: 1" =500' PLAT TO ACCOMPANY DESCRIPTION FALLON VILLAGE CONSERVATION EASEMENT RU81JH C.UJF'ORNN MACH & somps EiiCflfM PiAWRMS 51428 fRkOW OR, PL61.5AH )L CA 94588 (925)225-06" DRAWN DATE I SCA! R J08 No IBl1 I JANUARY; 2011 1" =500' I 39319 -01 I'M &T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES -= E COLOGIC A L CDNSIILTANTS HABITAT MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN BRADDOCK & LOGAN- FALLON VILLAGE ON -SITE CONSERVATION AREA AND BROWN RANCH MITIGATION SITE Prepared by H. T. Harvey & Associates Patrick J. Boursier, Ph.D., Principal -in- Charge Stephen C. Rottenborn, Ph.D., Project Manager Kim Wells, Ph.D., Wildlife Ecologist Arnanda Breen, Ph.D., Plant Ecologist In collaboration with Wildland Solutions Keith Guenther, Certified Rangeland Manager Prepared for Braddock & Logan Services, Inc. 4155 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 201 Danville, CA 94506 -4613 March 26, 2007 (Approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service'on January 23, 2009) (Revised and Approved by the California Department of Fish and Gatne on March 11, 2011)' Project # 2382 -02 ' Revisions to the plan were finalized on March 11, 2011 pursuant to Incidental Take Permit No. 2081 -2010- 023 -03 issued by the California Department of Fish and Game. The revised text reflects updated California tiger salamander monitoring results, additional management and monitoring actions and additional success criteria. Additional management, monitoring and success criteria which are 5hown-as bold underlined text are required solely for compliance with Incidental Take Permit No. 2081- 2010- 023 -03. 983 University Avenue, Building D - Los Gatos, CA 95032 - Ph: 408.458.3200 - F: 408.458.3210 i� TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........ ............................... .......................... ..............................1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ..... ............................... ............................................. ..............................3 2.1 CONSERVATION AREA LOCATIONS ............ ............................... .............................3 2.2 PURPOSE OF THE HMMP ..............................................................:.... ..............................3 2.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE HMMP ..................................... ..............................4 3.0 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... ..............................8 3.1 OVERVIEW OF DATA COLLECTION ............................................... ..............................8 3.2 SURVEYS OF EXISTING SITEMABITAT CONDITIONS ................ ..............................9 3.3 WILDLIFE SURVEYS ........................................................................... ..............................9 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .......:..................... 4.1 ON -SITE CONSERVATION AREA .......... ...................................... ....................:........10 4.1.1 Regional Setting/Landscape Context ............................................ .............................10 4.1.2 Physical Environment...... ............................................................. .............................10 4.1.2.1 Geology and Sails ................................................................. .............................10 4.1.2.2 Topography, Physiography, and Hydrologic Resources ....... .............................11 4.1.3 Plant Communities ........................................................................ .............................11 4.1.3.1 General Habitats/Plant Communities .................................... .............................11 4.1.4 Special - status Plant Species ................... .. ............................... .....12 4.1.5 Special- status Wildlife Species ..................................................... .............................13 4.1.5.1 California Tiger Salamander ................................................ .............................14 4.1.5.2 California Red - legged Frog ................................................. .............................14 4.1.5.3 San Joaquin Kit Fox .............................................................. .............................15 4.1.5.4 Burrowing Owl ..................................................................... .............................16 4.1.6 Agricultural Resources and Land Use ... ............................... .... .............................17 4.2 BROWN RANCH MITIGATION SITE ................................................ .............................17 4.2.1 Regional Setting/Landscape Context ............................................ .............................17 4.2.2 Physical Environment ................................................................... .............................18 4.2.2.1 Geology and Soils ........................................................... ............................... .18 4.2.2.2 Topography, Physiography, and Hydrologic Resources ....... .............................18 4.2.3 Plant Communities ........................................................................ .............................19 4.2.3.1 General Habitats/Plant Comm_ unities .................................... .............................19 4.2.4 Special- status Plant Species ..:........................................................ .............................20 4.2.4.1 Congdon's Tarplant ...................................:.......................... .............................20 4.2.5 Special- status Wildlife Species ..................................:.................. .............................21 4.2.5.1 California Tiger Salamander .. � ............................................... .............................21 4.2.5.2 California Red - legged Frog .................................................. .............................22 4.2.5.3 San Joaquin Kit Fox .............................................................. .............................23 4.2.5.4 Burrowing Owl ..................................................................... ....................:........23 4.2.6 Agricultural Resources and Land Use., ..................................................................... 23 Braddock &.Logan — Fallon VillagelBrown H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 5.0 MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING GUIDELINES ......................... .............................24 5.1 MANAGEMENT GOALS —OVERVIEW ..... . .................................. .............................24 5.2 ON -SITE CONSERVATION AREA .................................................... ..:..........................25 5.2.1 Management Goals and Performance Measures ........................... .............................25 5.2.2 Pond Management and Monitoring .............................................. .............................26 5.2.3 Wetland/Drainage Management ................................................... ..................... .........27 5.2.4 Grazing .............................................................................. ............................... .....27 5.2.4.1 Livestock Grazing Operation ................................................ .............................27 5.2.4.2 Recent Monitoring Efforts... .............................................................................. 28 5.2.4.3 Management Guidelines ....................................................... .............................30 5.2.4.4 Monitoring Guidelines ................................. ............................... ...31 5.2.4.5 Grazing Facility-Improvements and Maint enance ................ .............................33 5.2.5 Debris Removal ............................................................... ............................... .......33 5.2.6 Management and Monitoring of Special- Status Wildlife Species .............................33 53 BROWN RANCH MITIGATION AREA .........I .................. ............. .............................34 5.3.1 Management Goals and Performance Measures ........................... .............................34 5.3.2 Pond Construction, Management, and Monitoring ....................... .............................36 5.3.3 Wetland/Drainage Enhancement and Management ................... .............................38 5.3.4 Grazing ......................................................................................... .............................38 5.3.4.1 Existing Livestock Grazing Operation .................................. .............:...............39 5.3.4.2 Recent Monitoring Efforts .................................................... .............................39 5.3.4.3 _ Management Guidelines ....................................................... .............................40 5.3.4.4 Monitoring Guidelines ................................................:......... .............................43 5.3.4.5 Grazing Facility Improvements and Maintenance .......... ............................... 44 5.3.5 Management and Monitoring of Special- Status Wildlife Species ......................... 44 5.4 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT ................................... ............................... ......48 5.5 CONTINGENCIES AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS .............................. .............................52 5.6 INITIAL ENHANCEMENT COSTS, LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT, AND ENDOWMENT.................................................................................... ............................... 54 LITERATURECITED ..................................................................................... .............................56 FIGURES: Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map .............................................:................................ ..............................5 Figure 2. Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village On -site Conservation Area Map ..............................6 Figure 3. Brown Ranch Mitigation Site Map .................................................... ..............................7 TABLES: Table 1. Biotic Habitats and Acreages at the On -site Conservation Area ..... ............................... i 1 Table 2. Biotic Habitats on the Brown Ranch Mitigation Site ........................ .............................19 Table 3. On -site Conservation Area Monitoring Summary ............................. .............................49 Table 4. Brown Ranch (Mitigation Site) Monitoring Summary ...................... .............................50 Braddock & Logan — Fallon VillagelBrown li H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A. PROPERTY ANALYSIS RECORD ( PAR) ......................... .............................64 Braddock & Logan —Fallon Village/Brown iii H. T: Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The subject of this Habitat Mitigation and Management Plan (HMMP) is the Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village on -site conservation area (172 acres), which is a portion of the larger Braddock & Logan- Fallon Village Project site (486 acres), and the off -site mitigation area, a 530 -acre portion of a site known as the Brown Ranch. The on- site conservation area is located approximately one mile north of Interstate 580, and east of Fallon Road in eastern Dublin, Alameda County, California (Figure 1). The off -site mitigation area at the Brown Ranch is located approximately 1.5 miles north of the on -site conservation area in Contra Costa County, California (Figure 1). The purpose of this IIMMP is to describe the proposed habitat creation, preservation, and enhancement activities that will be implemented at the on -site conservation area and mitigation areas. In the Biological Opinion issued for the Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village Project, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) determined that the Project would adversely affect the federally listed California tiger salamander, California red - legged frog, and San Joaquin kit fox. To compensate for Project impacts to these species, Braddock & Logan Services, Inc. agreed to permanently preserve and manage 172 acres of the Project. site and a 530 -acre portion of the Brown Ranch for these species. The preservation and management of the 530 -acre portion of the Brown_ Ranch for the California tiger . salamander is also a requirement of an Incidental- Take Permit issued in 2010 by the California Department of Fish and Game - ---- California titer salamander — fCDFG) far take of the Cal' antler and San Joaquin kit fox These lands will also be managed to provide habitat for Burrowing Owls in accordance with mitigation measures in the 2005 Fallon Village Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (City of Dublin 2005). The goals and objectives of the mitigation at the Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village on -site conservation area and the Brown Ranch mitigation area are as follows: Create, enhance, and preserve aquatic and upland habitat on the property specifically for the target listed and special- status species. Develop guidelines and standards for resource management activities that can be easily implemented and repeated (e.g., if there are changes in management personnel) and that are adaptive to changing conditions. Develop monitoring protocols to assess the effects of habitat creation and management actions and facilitate adaptive management decisions. Creation of aquatic habitat is not proposed for the on -site conservation area. This property includes an existing stock pond that provides known breeding habitat for the California tiger salamander and potential breeding habitat for the California red - legged frog. The primary management activity to occur on the on -site conservation area will be livestock grazing. Currently, the on -site conservation area appears to be appropriately grazed, except for areas immediately adjacent to the pond located in the western portion of the conservation area. Cattle currently congregate in this area to utilize the sole water source on -site, which results in over- grazing, trampling, and a reduction in water quality in the pond. By retaining the fence that separates the eastern and northwestern portions of the on -site conservation area, cattle can be moved from one side of the property to the other, eliminating over - grazing near the pond. An Braddock & Logan -- Fallon VrllagelBrown H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 additional water source present on the eastern portion of the property (currently a pump) will also be used to provide water for livestock. Salt licks will be distributed in the northern and southern portions of the on -site conservation area to encourage cattle to graze in these areas, further reducing grazing effects from cattle congregating near water sources. Proper grazing management of the on -site conservation area will maintain suitable upland habitat for all four of the focal wildlife species mentioned above. Six ponds will be constructed at Brown Ranch, to provide breeding habitat for the California tiger salamander (six of the ponds) and California red- legged frog (three of the ponds). An additional one -acre of seasonal wetlands will also be created.. Upland habitat on the Brown Ranch will be enhanced through a. change in grazing operations. Based. upon recent monitoring conducted on site, the Brown Ranch appears to be extensively overgrazed, leaving insufficient levels of residual dry matter. We recommend lower stocking rates, improvements to trough and salt lick locations to control the distribution of cattle, installing fencing around springs and some wetland/riparian areas, and a management plan for standardized grazing. Grazing in riparian areas is recommended only in late summer for short durations to control invasive species, if needed to improve habitat for listed wildlife species. In addition, the adaptive management techniques described in this plan will be applied to maintain suitable habitat for California tiger salamanders, and California red - legged frogs, San Joaquin kit fox, and Burrowing Owl with changing site conditions. These adaptive management techniques will be documented yearly until year ten so that the manager of the ranch, or his successors or assignees, can utilize these results in managing the lands for the target species. The H VAP includes a monitoring and adaptive management program that will be used to initiate management and monitoring of the property; the approach outlined in this report will be modified based on monitoring results to ensure the long -term persistence of the rare and sensitive biological resources on the property. Braddock & Logan — Fallon VllagelBrojvn 2 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat lliitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 CONSERVATION AREA LOCATIONS This Habitat Mitigation and Management Plan (HMMP) describes specific management measures to be undertaken at the Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village on -site conservation area (172 acres), which is a portion of the Iarger Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village Project Site (486 acres), and at the off -site mitigation area, a 530 -acre portion of a site hereafter referred to as the "Brown Ranch ". The on -site conservation area is Iocated approximately one mile north of Interstate 580, and east of Fallon Road in Dublin, Alameda County (Figures 1, 2). It is located immediately north and east of the proposed Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village Project development site. In the long term, this conservation area will be owned by the Geologic Hazard Abatement District established for the Project, and will be managed by a third -party non -profit entity approved by the USFWS. Brown Ranch is located approximately 1.5 miles north of the Project site, east of Tassajara Road and northwest of the northern end of Doolan Road in Contra Costa County (Figure 1). Braddock & Logan Services, Inc. has secured the rights to acquire the approximately 836 -acre ranch, of which 530 acres serves as off -site mitigation for the Braddock & Logan - FaIlon Village Project (Figure 3). Braddock & Logan will retain ownership of the Brown Ranch, which will be managed by a third -party non - profit entity approved by the USFWS. 2.2 PURPOSE OF THE III U" In the Biological Opinion issued for the Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village Project, the U.S: Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) determined, that the Project would adversely affect the federally - listed California tiger salamander (Anibystoina californiense), California red - legged frog (Rana aurora draytonfl), and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrons mutica). To compensate for Project impacts to these species, Braddock & Logan Services, Inc. agreed to permanently preserve and manage 172 acres of the Project site and a 530 -acre portion of the Brown Ranch for these species. The Preservation and management of the 530 -acre Portion of the Brown Ranch for the tiger salamander and San Joaquin kit fox is also a requirement of an Incidental Take Permit issued in 2010 by the California Department of Fish and Game fCDF(;]for take of these species. These lands will also be managed to provide habitat for Burrowing Owls in accordance with mitigation measures in the 2005 Fallon Village Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SE1R) (City of Dublin 2005). As part of the environmental and resource /regulatory permitting phase of the project, the project proponent agreed to create aquatic and wetland habitat, and manage the lands in perpetuity for the benefit of these species. Details regarding the creation and monitoring (including items such as hydrogeomorphology, sediment accumulation, and wetland vegetation establishment) of wetlands and ponds is the subject of a separate report (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2007). The specific measures related to monitoring and reporting described in the project Mitigation & Monitoring Plan are requirements of the permits /certifications /agreements received from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Garne, and USFWS. The purpose of this BAUIl P is to not duplicate what has already been described elsewhere, related to monitoring the success of created ponds and wetland habitats, but Braddock & Logan — Fallon VllagelBrown 3 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 to provide details related to monitoring populations of the target species, and describe management measures that will affect how the two properties are grazed and how existing resources (Le., seeps, riparian habitats, wetlands) are. protected and enhanced. The management program described in this HMMP is _based on an assessment of existing biological resources and the management regime (primarily with respect to grazing), analysis of the conditions required to support populations of the target listed and special - status species, and evaluation of how these populations and communities can be maintained or enhanced through management. This plan describes existing physical and biological resources on the property, with particular attention to target species including California tiger salamanders, California red - legged frogs, San Joaquin kit fox, and Burrowing Owls. The description of existing conditions serves as a baseline for the development of ecologically sound management strategies. 2.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE HM MP The goals and objectives of this UNI P are to describe the mitigation and monitoring activities at the Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village on -site conservation area and the Brown Ranch mitigation area, as follows: Create, enhance, and preserve aquatic and upland habitat on the property specifically for the target special - status species. Develop guidelines and standards for resource management activities that can be easily implemented and repeated (e.g., if there are changes in management personnel) and that are adaptive to changing conditions. Develop monitoring protocols to assess the effects of habitat creation and management actions and facilitate adaptive management decisions. Braddock & Logan — Fallon H iagelBroivn 4 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 § <2O «v «»» � \ \ \2 \\ -to � - � § <2O «v «»» � 3.0 METHODOLOGY 3.1 OVERVIEW OF DATA COLLECTION Baseline data on the physical environment, biological resources, and existing improvements (e.g., fencelines, roads, and cattle troughs) on the on -site conservation area and Brown Ranch were compiled from existing sources, as well as field surveys conducted during the preparation of this HMMP. Existing sources of data on habitats, general plant and wildlife communities, and special - status species on the Fallon Village site were compiled and reviewed during preparation of the Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the East Dublin Properties (RMP 2004) and the Biological Assessment prepared for the Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village Project (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2006b). Technical studies that were reviewed and summarized in the RMP•for the Project site and adjacent properties include: • Branchiopod surveys, (Condor Country Consulting 2002, 2003; Sycamore Associates 2002g, H.T. Harvey & Associates 1996a, 1997e, 1998a, 1999c, 2000x, Helm Biological Consulting 2004); • Site assessments and focused surveys for the California red- legged frog and California tiger salamander for the Fallon Village Project site and adjacent areas (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1993, 1996b, 1998b, 1999a, 200la -b, 2003b, 2004a -b, Rana Resources 2001a- b, Sycamore Associates 200la -d, 2002h -i, 2003a -b, WRA 2003a, 2004b); • General biotic assessments and constraints analyses (Zander Associates 1999, Sycamore Associates 2002b, WRA 2004c, H.T. Harvey & Associates 1999a,d); • Botanical assessments (Sycamore Associates 2002b -c) and rare plant surveys (WRA 2004a, H.T. Harvey & Associates 1990a, 1998c,1999a,e, 2000a); • Wetland delineation and preliminary jurisdictional determination technical reports (Zander Associates 2000, Sycamore Associates. 2002d -f, H.T. Harvey &. Associates 1992a, 1999b, 2000c, 2003a); • Habitat assessments for the Burrowing Owl (Sycamore Associates 2002j -k); • Early evaluations (Townsend and Sycamore Associates 2002a -c, WRA 2003b), summary reports (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1991a, 1992b, 1997a,d), and surveys (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1991b, 1997b -c) for the San Joaquin kit fox; • Golden Eagle surveys and monitoring reports (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1990b, 2000d -e, 2002a, 2003c -d, 2004c); and In addition to the studies mentioned above, surveys and habitat assessments were specifically conducted during the preparation of the HMMP. These surveys are described below. Braddock & Logan -- Fallon VillagelBrown 8 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 3,2 SURVEYS OF EXISTING SITEII "ITAT CONDITIONS Vegetation data were compiled from several sources. For the on -site conservation area, Sycamore Associates, LLC completed surveys for special- status plant species, drainages, and wetlands in 2002 for the East Dublin Properties (RMP 2004). These surveys were refined by H.T. Harvey & Associates and WRA for preparation of the Fallon Village SEIR in 2005 (City of Dublin 2005). The Brown Ranch area vvas surveyed for botanical resources and special - status species habitat by H.T. Harvey & Associates in 2005 and 2006. Habitat assessments were conducted in 2005 and 2006 for the entire property, including a preliminary assessment of waters in the fall of 2005. In addition, all of the larger (i.e., greater than I -foot wide) drainages were surveyed -using a Trimble sub -meter GPS unit in October 2006 to determine the approximate extent of wetlands present at Brown Ranch. Detailed vegetation surveys performed during fall 2006 provided information on plant associations. In addition, reconnaissance -level surveys were conducted on October 21, 2005 by plant ecologists. Brian Cleary, M.S. and Amanda Breen, Ph.D., and October 20, 24, and 25 and November 6, 2006 by plant ecologists Amanda Breen and Kelly Hardwicke, Ph.D. The goal of these surveys was to categorize and describe the botanical resources on the property, including general vegetation communities, to facilitate development of a plan to.manage these resources. Vegetation communities were described in terms of dominant tree, shrub, and herbaceous vegetation and classified according to the general nomenclature of Holland (1986). In this HMMP, both general and specific systems are used to describe the vegetation of the management area, but the vegetation classification was based primarily on management considerations. Management infrastructure such as fences, cattle troughs, springs, salt licks, improved roads, and dirt tracks were mapped concurrently with vegetation mapping. This mapping was verified with previous facilities inventories completed for the RMP for the East Dublin Properties (RMP 2004). 3.3 WILDLIFE SURVEYS In addition to the information compiled and reviewed during preparation of the East Dublin RMP, H.T. Harvey & Associates personnel have also conducted several surveys for wildlife species on the Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village Project site, including the on -site conservation area and the Brown Ranch mitigation site, during the consultation process and development of this HMMP. Surveys included protocol -level surveys for the Burrowing Owl (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2006x); pre - construction surveys for the federally listed California red - legged frog and California tiger salamander and potential den surveys for the federally listed San Joaquin kit fox on the Project site were also completed as required by the Biological Opinion. Wildlife use of the Brown Ranch mitigation site was documented on reconnaissance- level'surveys by multiple H.T. Harvey & Associates personnel during site visits between the summer of 2005 and fall of 2006. In addition, H. T. Harvey herpetologists conducted California tiger salamander larval surveys at Ponds 2, 3, 5, and 6 on Brown Ranch during May and June 2010 (H. T. Harvey & Associates 2010 Braddock & Logan �- Fallon VllagelBrown 9 H.T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4.1 ON -SITE CONSERVATION AREA 4.1.1 Regional Setting/Landscape Context The on -site conservation area is located at the north margin of the Livermore Valley, approximately 12 miles south of Mount Diablo, within the northern end of the Diablo Range of California's Coast Range (U. S. Geologic Survey (USGS) Livermore 7.5 minute quadrangle), The site is dominated by California annual grassland with one seasonal drainage and a single seasonal pond (Figure 2). Portions of one ephemeral drainage run in a southerly direction from the northeast portion of the on -site conservation area, with the seasonal marsh/seep areas and one pond. The on -site conservation area drains to an existing G -3 channel that runs under Interstate 580 to Arroyo Mocho Creek, continuing to Arroyo de ]a Laguna, Alameda Creek, and, eventually, to the San Francisco Bay. Farther cast and north of the on -site conservation area, the Diablo Range consists of vast areas of undeveloped grassland, chaparral, oak woodland and savannah, and riparian forest along stream drainages. Although this area has been affected by invasion of non - native annual grasses, centuries of grazing, and damage by some non - native animals such as feral pigs (Sus scrofa), the Diablo Range is largely undeveloped. Areas along the Interstate 580 or Interstate 690 corridor, however, are largely developed for industrial and residential use. 4.1.2 Physical Environment 4.1.2.1 Geology and Soils The Diablo Range consists of a series of nearly parallel, northwest - trending ridges consisting of smooth rolling hills and fairly rugged mountains. The Mount Diablo Uplift, a Late Quaternary tectonic feature believed to be occurring as a result of the interaction of the Greenville and Concord Faults, dominates the landscape setting (RMP 2004). Between the ridges, alluvial flood plains drain the area. Geologically, many of the Coast Range ridges are composed of folded, tertiary -age sedimentary rocks consisting of Late Pliocene to Pleistocene -age non - marine sediments. The bedrock consists of interbedded, poorly inundated sandstone, siltstone, and claystone, with minor beds of conglomerate'and volcanic tuff (SCS 1977). The dominant soils located within the conservation area are phases of the Diablo clay soil series, including eroded portions of the series (7 -15% slopes, 15 -30% slopes, 30 -45% slopes, and 30 -50% slopes) (SCS 1966). The Diablo series consists of deep to moderately deep, well- drained, clay soils on rolling to very steep uplands. The surface soil is typically dark grey, very hard, and slightly acid to mildly alkaline clay. Depth to bedrock ranges from 18 to -60 inches (SCS 1966). Braddock & Logan — Fallon Village/Brown 10 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Midgatlon & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 4.1.2.2 Topography, Physiography, and Hydrologic Resources The topography of the on -site conservation area is characterized by a south - facing ridge of moderately steep, rounded slopes bisected by the headwaters of an ephemeral drainage. This drainage is moderately incised, carrying mostly surface run -off, but occasionally is fed by adjacent seeps. In some areas, extensive damage by cattle is evident, with slumping, erosion, and, in some cases, the reduction of an incised bank to shallow, swale -like channels through grassland habitats. This drainage will be piped through the Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village development site to the adjacent parcel to the south. Numerous springs and seeps occur adjacent to this drainage, supporting both in- stream and adjacent, isolated wetlands. Some of the higher - volume springs have been tapped, and now from these springs is pumped to cattle troughs. One large seep /spring is evident above the pond located in the western portion of the on -site conservation area. The locations of streams, springs, seeps, and troughs within the on -site conservation area are shown in Figure 2. Eroded stream banks occur within the steeper portions of the drainage, which may be partially due to cattle erosion. Soil compaction caused by grazing may exacerbate erosion hazards on steep hillsides, although it does not appear to currently be a problem. Two clusters of moderately deep- seated landslides occur in the upper elevations of the on -site conservation area. Slopes are generally between 30 to 45% in the upper reaches of the on- site conservation area, and are less steep (15 %) in the lower reaches. 4.1.3 Plant Communities 4.1.3.1 General Habitats/Plant Communities Three general biotic habitats occur within the on -site conservation area (Table 1). Non- native, annual grassland, characterized by a Iow diversity assemblage of non - native annual grasses and ruderal forbs, is the most extensive habitat type. Seasonal aquatic habitat exists within one, ephemeral drainage and one pond, and, adjacent to seeps /springs, emergent, seasonal wetlands occur. Low - gradient areas within the drainage, adjacent to springs or seeps, are colonized by common hydrophytic (water - loving) plants, while the dried on -site site stock pond had extensive algal matting and sediment during the October 2006 site visit, which provides evidence of long- duration ponding. Detailed descriptions are provided below. Table 1. Biotic Habitats and Acreages at the On -site Conservation Area. Biotic Habitat Acreage Percent of Total Non - native, Annual Grassland 171.6 99.7% Emergent, Seasonal Wetland 0.4 <1% Seasonal Aquatic 0.2 <1% Total 172.2 100% Braddock & Logan — Fallon Village/Brown J1 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat hsitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 Non - native, Annual Grassland. Non - native, annual grassland habitat dominates the on -site conservation area, and is moderately grazed throughout. The site is dominated by Italian rye-grass (Lolhan multioiian), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut brome (Bronirls diandrus), wild oat (Avena fatua), and foxtail barley. (Hordewn intalnum var. leporinunr). Introduced weeds such as Italian thistle (Carduusp )vnocephalus), milk thistle (Silybum marianuru), black mustard (Brassica nigra), and yellow star - thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) form dense thickets in areas, especially in highly disturbed areas where livestock congregate, such as near fences. Sparse native forbs such as doveiveed (Ernieocarpus setigerus), alkali mallow (Malvella leprosa), and California poppy (Eschscholzia californica) also occur. Yellow star - thistle, a non - native forb, degrades habitat and therefore presents a serious invasion risk to the on -site conservation area. It is a considered a noxious weed, being placed on "List C. Control Required in Nurseries" by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (http: / /NN NN,�v.cdfa.ca.gov). In 2005, the California Invasive Pest Plant Council classified the statewide impact of yellow star- thistle as high. Large infestations of this species were observed throughout the site, particularly in higher elevation areas. Control of this infestation and active noxious weed monitoring and management . are included in the range management portion of this H IW (Section 5.2.4). Portions of the on -site conservation area will be impacted by grading during the construction of Braddock & Logan's Fallon Village Project. Such grading will occur to allow desired elevations and contours in the residential project area to be achieved, and to stabilize slopes above the future residential areas by repairing landslides and slumps. Following the completion of grading, all temporary impact areas will be hydroseeded, and it is expected that all such areas will be restored to non- native annual grassland within a year following grading. Emergent, Seasonal Wetland. Springs and seeps located above ephemeral drainages in the eastern and western portions of the on -site conservation area support seasonal, emergent wetland habitat. Due to the highly disturbed nature of the drainage, the wetlands on -site consist primarily of grazed rabbitsfoot grass (Pol}pogon monspeliensis) and ruderal species, eroded areas, and trampled vegetation. Seasonal Aquatic. Seasonal aquatic habitat occurs within the stock pond located in the west- central portion of the on -site conservation area, as evidenced by sediment and extensive algal matting. In addition, freshwater seeps contain areas with seasonally saturated soils where the water table is at or near the surface, or where subsurface seepage collects near the surface, such as along the toe of stream banks, on the lower portions of steep slopes, along fault lines, or geologic contacts, or at the heads of small sNvales (RMP 2004). Additionally, the ephemeral drainage located on the site contains aquatic habitat during rainfall events and, perhaps, during the winter months. . 4.1,4 Special- status Plant Species Special - status plants are those species that are legally protected under state and federal Endangered Species Acts or other regulations, and species that are considered sufficiently rare'by Braddock & Logan — Fallon VldagelBrown 12 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 20-11 the scientific community to qualify for such listing. Special- status plants are species in the following categories: • Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Section 17.12 [50 CFR 17.121 [listed plants], and various notices in the Federal Register [proposed species]); • Species listed or proposed for listing by the State of California .as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 670.5 [14 CCR 670.5]); • Species that meet the definitions of rare or endangered .under the California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380); • Plants listed-as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code, Section 1900 et seq.); • Plants considered by the CNPS to be "rare, threatened, or endangered in California" (Lists IB and 2, June 8, 2005, available at btt :11 «-%N,%N,.cn s.or /rare lants /inventor ,/ 6thEdition.htm); and • Plants listed by CNPS as plants about which more information is needed to determine their status and plants of limited distribution (Lists 3. and 4, June 8, 2005, available at htt : / /Nvww.cn s.oi /rare lants /inventor r /6tliEdition,htm , which may be included as special- status species on the basis of local significance or recent biological information. Two special - status plant species were considered to potentially occur within the conservation area: Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia part),i ssp. congdonii) and San Joaquin spearscale (Alriplex joaquiniana) (RMP 2004). Suitable habitat is present for both of these species, and, surveys conducted by Sycamore Associates, LLC (2002) found San Joaquin spearscale in three locations within impacted portions of the. Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village Project site (Sycamore 2002, RMP 2004). More recently, focused surveys were conducted -for these species during the blooming period (August 2006), and no populations of either species were found within the property. Currently, no special - status plants are known to occur in the on -site conservation area. 4.1.5 Special- status Wildlife Species Special - status wildlife include animal species listed as threatened or endangered under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts, as well as species proposed for such listing or considered candidates for listing, and those species that are considered species of special concern by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and USFWS. Special - status wildlife species in the vicinity of the on -site conservation area have been described in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2002 East Dublin Properties EIR, the 2004 East Dublin Properties RMP, the 2005 Fallon Village SEIR, the Biological Assessment for the Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village Project (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2006b), and numerous other reports prepared based on surveys of these areas. As described in the Biological Assessment (H.T, Harvey & Associates 2006b), a number of special - status wildlife species Braddock & Logan — Fallon VllagelBrown 13 H.T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Platt Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 occur, or have the potential to occur, in the on -site conservation area. However, this HMMP focuses on three species (the California tiger salamander, California red- legged frog, and San Joaquin kit fox) that were the subject of the USFWS's Biological Opinion and CDFG's Incidental Take Permit, and a fourth species (the Burrowing Owl) that will be impacted by the Braddock & Logan- Fallon Village Project and for which mitigation is being provided in the on- site conservation and on Brown Ranch. 4.1.5.1 California Tiger Salamander California tiger salamanders have been observed on the Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village Project site, both within the proposed development area and the on -site conservation area (Sycamore Associates 2002i, 2003b, H.T. Harvey & Associated 2006 BA). Larvae were recorded in the stock pond in the on -site conservation area, juveniles were observed in the uplands northwest of the stock pond and west of the drainage on the on -site conservation area, and adults were observed in the uplands near the stock pond and along the eastern drainage on the Project site (Sycamore Associates 2002i, 2003b). Ample small mammal burrows are present in all upland habitat on the Project site except for the developed areas, and no insurmountable barriers to dispersal are present between the Project site and known ar potential breeding ponds on or immediately adjacent to the site. Therefore, suitable aestivation habitat for California tiger salamanders in the Project area can be presumed to be present in any undeveloped area close enough to a breeding pond to have a reasonable likelihood of supporting aestivating California tiger salamanders. California tiger salamander surveys conducted on the Project site indicate that most individuals are likely to be present in relatively close pro .ximity to the stock pond. Most individuals that have been detected on the site were found around and upslope from this pond, within the on -site conservation area. However, individuals were detected elsewhere on the site, as much as 2,400 feet from the nearest pond. Thus, there is a potential for California tiger salamanders to occur virtually anywhere in the on -site conservation area. This species is expected to continue to breed in the on -site stock pond, and upland habitats within the conservation area serve as dispersal and aestivation habitat. 4.1.5.2 California Red - legged Frog California red - legged frogs are known to occur on the Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village Project site, and have' been recorded both within the proposed development area and the on- site conservation area. In 2001, Sycamore Associates (2001a) observed four adults along drainages on the Project site, including one at the stock pond within the on -site conservation area. Focused surveys on the surrounding properties failed to detect any California red - legged fi-ogs, although the quarry pond on the Anderson property (approximately 0.6 miles south of the Mandeville parcel) was considered to provide suitable breeding habitat (Sycamore Associates 200ib -c). Additional surveys for California red- Iegged frogs have been conducted in the larger planning area, and California red - legged frogs have been observed in the area since 2002. Rana Resources (2001x) and Vn A (2004c) conducted surveys on the Jordan property Braddock & Logan — Fallon VillageJBrown 14 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 (located immediately south of the Fallon Enterprises, Inc. parcel) and detected breeding in an in- channel pond, and identified potential breeding habitat in an additional seven areas. Sycamore Associates conducted additional site assessments on the remaining parcels in the planning area, recording California red- Iegged frogs on the Project site and suitable California red - legged frog habitat on the remaining parcels (Sycamore Associates 2002a, 200211, 2003x). Specific locations of California red - legged frogs, especially along linear aquatic habitats, may vary from year to year, and season to season, as habitat quality and availability fluctuate. Although breeding has not been confirmed within the on -site stock pond, this pond may provide suitable conditions for breeding. Foraging by California red - legged frogs within the on -site conservation area is expected to occur primarily along drainages, while the upland habitat may be used by dispersing California red - legged frogs, especially during the wet season. Given their ability to disperse long distances, the dispersion of known or potential breeding ponds, and the presence of known California red - legged frog populations in Doolan Canyon to the east of the site, dispersing California red - legged frogs could occur virtually anywhere on the site. However, most dispersal by California red - legged frogs is expected to occur between areas providing breeding habitat or. perennial non - breeding aquatic habitat. - Therefore, primary dispersal habitat in the on -site conservation area is located between the on -site stock pond and off -site aquatic habitat areas to the south (on the Jordan property), northwest (in Dublin Ranch's Northern Drainage Conservation Area) and east/northeast (in Doolan Canyon). 4.1.5.3 San Joaquin Kit Fog The San Joaquin kit fox has not been recorded on the Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village project site. In 1997, H.T. Harvey & Associates (1997d) summarized distribution records of the San Joaquin kit fox and the results of surveys in Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Joaquin Counties. The range described by the records and surveys available in 1997 was restricted to the Altamont Hills and the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley. AIthough there is some grassland habitat viewed as suitable for San Joaquin kit foxes occurring in the North Livermore Valley, the Dublin area, and areas west of Vasco Road, San Joaquin kit foxes were not recorded in these areas. In 2002, the USFWS sponsored a northern region survey for the San Joaquin kit fox to follow up sightings on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve in 1996, 1997 and 1999, Bethany Reservoir in 1998, Vasco Caves (East Bay Regional Parks) in 2001 and 2002, and Brushy Peak (East Bay Regional Parks) and Carnegie State Recreation Area in 2002. These are the most recent efforts to survey for the San Joaquin kit fox in the northern part of the species' range. Researchers from the California State University Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program conducted the surveys using detection dogs (Smith et al. 2001, 2003) to search for San Joaquin kit fox scat on the Haera Conservation Bank, several miles southeast of Altamont Pass in eastern Alameda County and western San Joaquin County, and at roadway under - crossings of Interstate 580 and US 205 and publicly owned parcels in the northern range (Clark et al, 2002b). This effort also included aerial surveys for San Joaquin kit fox natal dens, trapping for San Joaquin kit foxes at the Delta Pumping Plant near the Braddock & Logan — Fallon VllagelBrown 15 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 20.11 Clifton Court Forebay, and additional detection -dog surveys on publicly owned lands in the northern range (Clark et al. 2002x, 2003). During these intensive surveys, only one San Joaquin kit fox was observed, near the Delta Pumping Plant, and no San Joaquin kit fox dens were found, no San Joaquin kit foxes were trapped, and no San Joaquin kit fox scat was detected. All surveys in the vicinity of Fallon Village failed to detect San Joaquin kit foxes with the exception of a single San Joaquin kit fox detected on two separate nights during spotlight surveys in Contra Costa County on Morgan Territory Road nearly 5 miles northeast of the on -site conservation area. Despite more intense efforts to detect San Joaquin kit foxes in the Eastern Dublin and North Livermore Valley areas prior to and since 1997, none have been detected (H.T. Harvey .& Associates 1997 a -d, Townsend & Sycamore Associates 2002 a -c). Since 2002, Early Evaluations for San Joaquin kit foxes following the USFWS protocol (USFWS 1999) have been conducted on the entire 1,132 -acre Fallon Village planning area (including the Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village Project) and its vicinity. The conclusion of these Early Evaluations is that while there is potentially suitable habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox, the Project area appears to be outside the geographic range of the species (Townsend & Sycamore Associates 2002 a -c, H.T. Harvey & Associates 2006a; 2006b). Sites considered to have potential dens, based only on suitable size, were monitored to the extent that tracking media and remote cameras were used to detect any San Joaquin kit fox use, with negative results (Townsend & Sycamore Associates 2002 a -c). While some grassland habitat designated as suitable for the kit fox occurs south and west of San Joaquin kit fox sightings in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, San Joaquin kit foxes have not been known to have expanded into these areas in recent years, nor is there any evidence that they have ever used these areas historically. If San Joaquin kit foxes were to occur in the vicinity of Fallon Village, as indicated by the USFWS in the Biological Opinion for the Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village Project, the on- site conservation area would provide suitable conditions for the species. 4.1.5.4 Burrowing Owl Burrowing Owls have been observed both within the proposed development area and the on- site conservation area on the Fallon Village project site. Surveys conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates in August 2005 documented at least four family groups of Burrowing Owls within the entire Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village site. Most of these owls, and a number of unoccupied burrows with signs of owl use, were in the on -site conservation area west and northwest of the stock pond. Protocol -level surveys of the Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village Project site during the breeding season of 2006 found evidence of four family groups, a fifth pair, and three unpaired owls, for a total of 19 owls on the site (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2007). Again,'these owls were concentrated in the western part of the site. Of these 19 owls, six (including one family group of three birds, one individual associated with another family group that was located primarily outside the development area, and two unpaired individuals) were within the project's development area and 13 were in the on -site conservation area. Braddock & Logan — Fallon KllagelBrown 16 H.T. Harvey & Ass oclates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 The on -site conservation area supports numerous California ground squirrel (Sperlstophiltrs beecheyt) burrows, which are used as nesting and roosting sites by Burrowing Owls, and the non - native grassland that dominates the on -site conservation area provides foraging habitat for these birds. 4.1.6 Agricultural Resources and Land Use In recent years, the on -site conservation area has been used for livestock grazing. The majority of the property has been used for year -round grazing by cows and their calves. Under this regime, cattle are continually present, and grass forage is supplemented as needed. Typically, cattle are stocked at a rate of one "cow /calf unit" (i.e., a cow and its calO per 4 acres at this site. Horses have been present on the site in small numbers as well. The only improvements present, in the on -site conservation area are related to grazing.. In the western part of the site, the stock pond provides water during winter and spring, while a spring and piping feeding a trough near the stock pond provide year -round water. Fencing divides the conservation area between the western and eastern parcels. Troughs, wells, two pumps, and piping to supply troughs with water are also present on the eastern side of the property (Figure 2). One spring is located above the pond located in the western portion of the site, and one spring is fenced and located in the eastern portion of the site, currently covered with cement and being pumped from groundwater. 4.2 BROWN RANCH MITIGATION SITE 4.2.1 Regional Setting/Landscape Context The Brown Ranch is located in the southern portion of Contra Costa County, in the northern end of the Diablo Range of California's Coast Range. It is located north of the Livermore Valley, within the USGS Tassajara 7.5 minute quadrangle. The Coast Range is generally hilly to very steep, with folds, thrusts, and faults forming a series of nearly parallel, northwest- trending ridges made up mostly of steeply dipping sedimentary rocks. Between the ridges is a series of small valleys filled with alluvium on small fans and flood plains (SCS 1977). The Brown Ranch is made up of a series of steep, rolling hills and is bisected by a very steep uplift area of exposed bedrock running from east to west in the central portion of the site (Figure 3). The majority of the property is dominated by non - native, annual grassland. In the northwestern portion of the site, valley oak woodland occurs, while drainages with remnant riparian vegetation run through the central, southern, and western portions of the site. In addition, numerous small drainages occur throughout the site, many of which contain seasonal aquatic, seepage wetlands. The very eastern slopes of the Brown Ranch drain to Cottonwood Creek. The central portions of the site drain into the Moller Ranch drainage, which drains southeast to Tassajara Creek. The northwestern portion of the site also drains directly to Tassajara Creek. Properties located adjacent to the Brown Ranch are currently grazed, with several rural homesteads located east, north, and west of the ranch. In addition, an active horse ranch is located immediately west of the mitigation site.. Braddock & Logan -- Fallon VllagelBrown 17 H.T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 East of the Brown Ranch, the Diablo Range consists of vast areas of undeveloped grassland, oak woodland and savannah, and riparian forest along stream drainages. Although this area has been affected by invasion of non - native annual grasses, centuries of grazing, and damage by some non - native animals such as feral pigs, the Diablo Range is largely undeveloped. However, areas along Tassajara Road are being developed further south of the Project site, closer to Interstate 580, and future development may encroach on this area. The Interstate 580 corridor, including the City of Dublin, is being developed quickly for growing populations, supporting both commercial and residential development. 4.2.2 Physical Environment 4.2.2.1 Geology and Soils Geologically, the upland areas of the Coast Range are made up of sedimentary rocks, but include some metamorphic and basic igneous rocks. Many ridges aide composed of interbedded shale, siltstone, sandstone, claystone, and conglomerate that are folded and faulted and have steep side slopes. The parent material of a number of soils is shale, siltstone, mudstone, and argillaceous sandstone. These soils contain fine silt or clay materials and readily weather to clay. Valleys consist of alluvial fans, and, the entire central area of the Project site (areas adjacent to the Moller Ranch .Drainage) consists of strongly alkaline loams (Pescadero soil series). Soil types present on the Project site include Cropley clay (2 -3% slopes, less that 1% of the Project site), Diablo clay (30 -50% slopes, 87% of the Project site), and Pescadero clay loam (13% of the Project site, SCS 1977). The Diablo soils are well drained soils underlain by calcareous, soft, fine - grained sandstone and shale. The Pescadero soils are strongly alkaline, poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium from sedimentary rock (SCS 1977). 4.2.2.2 Topography, Physiography, and Hydrologic Resources The topography of Brown Ranch is characterized by a series of four steep, undulating hillslopes along the sideslope of a very steep uplift ridge that runs east to west through the central portion of the Project site. Numerous, drainages convey excess rainfall to the larger Moller Ranch drainage, Cottonwood Creek, and Tassajara Creek. Creeks draining these slopes are generally highly ephemeral, carrying flows only during and immediately after rain events. These drainages form shallow, swale -like channels through grassland habitat with intermittent eroded banks and soil slump areas, and some reaches of the incision. Numerous springs and seeps occur throughout the Brown Ranch (Figure 3), supporting both in- stream and isolated wetlands. Some of the higher - volume springs have been tapped, and flow from these springs support cattle troughs. Overflow from these troughs and springs creates wetlands and contribute to several stream systems. The Moller Ranch Drainage, which runs through the center of the site, also contains numerous small pools, contributing to overall habitat diversity. The locations of streams, springs, seeps, and troughs on the mitigation site are shown on Figure 3. Braddock & Logan — Fallon Village/Brown 18 H.T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 Erosion hazards are found on cut banks of roads, particularly at drainage crossings where. cattle have contributed to degraded conditions. Eroded stream banks occur within the steeper portions of creeks draining the northeastern slopes. Many of these erosion problems, though, have occurred as a result of, or have been exacerbated by, intensive grazing. 4.2.3 Plant Communities 4.2.3.1 General Habitats/Plant Communities Five general biotic habitats occur within the Brown Ranch property: non - native, annual grassland, valley oak woodland, remnant riparian, emergent wetland, and aquatic. Low - gradient areas within the drainages, particularly the Moller Ranch Drainage that occurs within alkaline soils, are colonized by common hydrophytic (water- loving) plants as well as Congdon's tarplant; a plant in the sunflower family adapted to moist, alkaline soils. Detailed descriptions are provided below. Table 2. Biotic Habitats on the Brown Ranch Mitigation Site. Biotic Habitat Acreage Percent of Total Non - native, Annual Grassland 471.2 89% Valley Oak Woodland 52.4 10% Remnant Riparian 2.5 <1 % Emer ent VGretland/A uatic 3.9 <1% Total 530.0 100% Non- native, Annual Grassland. Non - native, annual grassland habitat dominates the Brown Ranch landscape. These areas are extensively overgrazed, with much of the habitat showing bare earth, erosion, and slumping resulting from cattle and horse grazing. Ripgut brome, soft chess, foxtail barley (Hordeunt murinrmr var. leBorinum), and Italian ryegrass are the dominant grass species observed, although most individuals were grazed to nearly ground level. Doveweed, Mediterranean linseed (Bellardia trixago), and tarweed (Hemizonia congesta) intersperse with grassland habitat, in high densities in areas, while poison oak (Toxicodendron diversiloburn) grows throughout the habitat, as groundcover or in dense thickets. Infestations of the non - native invasives yellow star - thistle and sweet fennel (Foenicrdurrt vulgare) occur throughout the site. Particularly large infestations of yellow star - thistle were observed in higher- elevation areas and within the valley oak woodland habitat (see below). The other invasive species, sweet fennel, is classified by the California Invasive Pest Plant Council as also having a high impact on native systems, statewide. Infestations of sweet fennel occur in higher elevations, and in south - facing drainages in the northern portion of the Brown Ranch. Control of these infestations and active noxious weed monitoring and management are included in the range management portion of this HMMP (Section 5.2.4). Valley Oak Woodland. Valley oak woodland habitat occurs in the northwestern portion of the Project site. The dominant tree species present is valley oak (Quercus lobata), although several blue oaks are also present (Quercus douglasii). Non - native, annual grassland species, Braddock & Logan — Fallon v111age1Broivn 19 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March ii, 2011 including ripgut biome, foxtaiI, wild oats, and soft chess, dominate the understory. Tarweed covers large areas of oak woodland habitat, as does yellow star - thistle. Grazing has contributed to erosion in the area, and leaf litter and branch debris collects in cattle hoof depressions and in incised, seasonal drainages. Remnant Riparian, Remnant riparian habitat exists along several drainages, most noticeably, within the Moller Ranch drainage and along Cottonwood Creek. Large, old red willow (Salix laevigata) trees intermix with emergent wetland habitat to form lush, shaded oases within the surrounding grassland habitat. Many of these trees contain large cavities, while some have fallen over but continue to grow. These areas appear to be remnants of what were historically more extensive riparian woodlands, and grazing and trampling by livestock have reduced these riparian areas to their existing state. Emergent Wetland, Numerous seasonal drainages occur on -site, and, at least seasonally, support emergent wetland vegetation. In addition, seeps and springs. occur adjacent to several drainages, supporting perennial wetlands and associated emergent wetland vegetation including rabbitsfoot grass, iris - leaved juncus (Juncos xiphioides), cattail (T)pha latifolia), broadleaf arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia), and umbrella sedge (C}perus eragrostis). In particular, Cottonwood Creek, the Moller Ranch drainage, and the drainage located to the west of the Moller Ranch Drainage contain perennial wetlands. Most of the drainages on the property show evidence of severe erosion and soil slumping, which has likely resulted from, and continues to be 'exacerbated by, poorly managed livestock use. In addition, cattle grazing and trampling impacts on the riparian and wetland vegetation along these streams (e.g., reduced cover by herbaceous vegetation) are evident, Invasive weeds such as sweet fennel, Himalayan blackberry (Rubus digcolor); and milk thistle (Silybum mariallum) occur in some areas, while low- gradient reaches support emergent aquatic vegetation. Aquatic. Perennial aquatic habitat occurs within Cottonwood Creek, the Moller Ranch Drainage, and a tributary drainage located to the west of the Moller Ranch Drainage. Few large pools are present in these drainages, and areas with perennial flow are very shallow. In addition, numerous springs contain water within hoof - prints on -site, and one small pool is located within the south - central portion of the Brown Ranch. In general, all aquatic habitat is degraded by trampling, intensive grazing, and cattle movement, 4.2.4 Special- status Plant Species No focused surveys for special- status plant species have been conducted on the Brown Ranch. However, during H.T. Harvey & Associates' general surveys of the site, a single special - status species ( Congdon's tarplant) was observed. 4.2.4.1 Congdon's Tarplant Congdon's tarplant is present on the Brown Ranch, Congdon's tarplant is an herbaceous annual member of the sunflower family (Asteraceae) that blooms from June to November. It is listed as a CNPS 1B species, and occurs in Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, Santa Clara, Braddock & Logan — Fallon rillagelBrown 20 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 and San Luis Obispo counties. CLAPS considers Congdon's tarplant to be extirpated from Santa Cruz and Solano counties. It occurs in alkaline valley and foothill grassland habitat at elevations of 1 -230 meters (CNPS 2001). Within the Brown Ranch, populations were found in the southeast portion of the site, within the large alkaline valley running through the central portion of the site, and in the southern portion of the site along the same valley. Congdon's tarplant does not appear to be adversely affected by grazing on the Brown Ranch, as spiny, mature plants are unpalatable to livestock. Conversely, cattle may limit the growth of woody vegetation that might otherwise out - compete the species for light. For these reasons, focused management for the species is not required, and the managed grazing regime proposed herein is expected to allow this species to persist on the site. 4.2.5 Special- status Wildlife Species Prior to 2010, no focused surveys for special- status wildlife species were conducted on the Brown Ranch. As part of the implementation of the original 2007 version of this HMMP, California tiger salamander larval surveys were conducted on the Brown Ranch by H. T. Harvey & Associates (2010) at Ponds 2, 3, 5, and 6 during May and June 2010. However, the occurrence of this and other special - status wildlife species on this site can be predicted based on reconnaissance surveys of the site by H.T. Harvey & Associates and the known occurrences of species in adjacent areas. Special- status wildlife species expected to occur on this site are described in the Biological Assessment for the Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village Project (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2006b). Specifically, the occurrence of the four special- status species for which targeted management will occur on the Brown Ranch is discussed below. 4.2.5.1 California Tiger Salamander Prior to the Fall 2009 construction of ponds pursuant to the original 2007 version of this HMMP, no California tiger salamander had been observed on, and likely did not breed on, the Brown Ranch. Although a small pool in the south - central part of the site contained approximately 12 -inch -deep water into fall 2006 due to groundwater seepage, this pool is unlikely to pond deeper than this even during the wet season due to topography, and thus probably does not support breeding California tiger salamanders. California tiger salamanders are unlikely to breed in the drainages on the site, as flashy flows during the wet season would wash away their eggs. Thus, there was no high - quality aquatic breeding habitat on the Brown Ranch for California tiger salamanders prior to construction of ponds by Braddock & Logan. However, California tiger salamanders do occur on adjacent properties. The nearest California tiger salamander observations recorded in the CNDDB 'are located approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the Brown Ranch in Dublin Ranch's Northern Drainage Conservation Area.. However, California tiger salamanders likely breed in several small ponds in upper Doolan Canyon immediately outside the site. On July 6, 2005, H.T. Harvey & Associates ecologists observed large amphibian larvae that appeared to be this species repeatedly "gulping" air at the surface of a small pond along Cottonwood Creek immediately east of the southeastern corner of the Brown Ranch. A second pond just downstream, a cattail -lined pond immediately south of the southeastern comer, and a large pond approximately 0.3 -mile Braddock &.Logan — Fallon VillageBrown 21 H.T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by Ate CDFG on March 11, 2011 south of the southeastern part of the site also likely provide suitable breeding habitat for California tiger salamanders. Therefore, although no suitable breeding habitat existed prior to Fall 2009, the species was likely already present, using the grasslands adjacent to the off- site breeding ponds for aestivation and dispersal. The upland habitats on the Brown Ranch provide numerous California ground squirrel and Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) burrows, which in turn provide upland refugia for California tiger salamanders. In May and June 2010, H. T. Harvey & Associates herpetologists conducted larval surveys for California tiger salamanders in ponds 2, 3, 5, and 6, which had been constructed by Braddock & Logan in Fall 2009 per this HMMP. Although a visual survey on 24 May did not detect any California tiger salamanders, H. T. Harvey herpetologist Steve Carpenter observed what he believed to be California tiger salamander larvae surfacing for air in ponds 3 and 6 during a visual survey on 10 June. Though he was quite confident in the identification, the identity of those individuals was not considered definitive since the observations of each individual were very brief (as is typical when California tiger salamander larvae surface to gulp air). On 25 June, Carpenter conducted dip -net surveys of those ponds, finding 10 California tiger salamander larvae in pond 3. Following construction of all .six California tiger salamander breeding ponds on the Brown Ranch as described below, the entire site will provide dispersal and aestivation habitat for California tiger salamanders. 4.2.5.2 California Red - legged Frog A California red - legged frog was reportedly seen by the previous owner of the Brown Ranch in the upper portion of the central drainage on the site, and three juvenile California red - legged frogs were observed in Cottonwood Creek within the southeastern corner of the Brown Ranch on November 6, 2006 by H.T. Harvey & Associates wildlife ecologist Kim Wells, Ph.D. in their current condition, the streams on the site do not support pools that are suitable for breeding by California red - legged frogs, and thus these occurrences likely represent dispersants from off -site breeding locations.- The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2006) lists records of California red - legged frogs from a number of locations within the Moiler Ranch drainage immediately downstream from the Brown Ranch: On August 11, 2000, H.T. Harvey & Associates (2001) documented breeding by California red - legged frogs in the lower portions of this drainage, above its confluence with Tassajara Creek. California red- legged frogs have also been recorded along Tassajara Creek within 0.5 -mile west of the Brown Ranch and less than I- mile north northwest of the ranch. California red - legged frogs are also known to breed in Dublin Ranch's Northern Drainage Conservation Area, approximately 1.5 miles south of the Brown Ranch. A large pond approximately 0.3 -mile south of the southeastern part of the site holds water long enough to support successful breeding by California red - legged frogs, and several smaller ponds in upper Doolan Canyon may support breeding by these frogs as well. Following construction of California red - legged frog breeding ponds on the Brown Ranch as described below, the entire site will provide dispersal habitat for this species. Braddock & Logan -- Fallon VillagelBrown 22 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by flee CDFG on Marcli 11, 2011 4.2.5.3 San Joaquin Kit Fox The San Joaquin kit fox has not been recorded on the Brown Ranch. The general distribution of the San Joaquin kit fox, and a summary of the results of surveys for the species, in the Dublin and Livermore areas are described in Section 4.1.4.3 above. The closest San Joaquin kit fox record to the Brown Ranch is the Morgan Territory Road record, which occurred approximately 3 miles east - northeast of the Brown Ranch, The Brown Ranch is thus closer to areas of known occurrence of the San Joaquin kit fox than the Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village Project site and on -site conservation area. If San Joaquin kit foxes were to occur in the vicinity of the Brown Ranch, as indicated by the USFWS in the Biological Opinion for the Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village Project, the Brown Ranch mitigation site would provide suitable conditions for the species. 4.2.5.4 Burrowing Owl During reconnaissance surveys in summer 2005 and fall 2006, several individual adult owls were observed using burrows with evidence of recent use including fecal pellets, excrement, and feathers in the southern portion of Brown Ranch. Although no breeding - season surveys were performed specifically for this FRAW, the current presence of owls and an abundance of suitable, habitat with ground squirrel burrows indicate that Burrowing Owls Iikely breed on the site. Suitable habitat for Burrowing Owls is present throughout the upland portions of the Brown Ranch, with the exception of the valley oak woodland in the northwestern part of the site (since Burrowing Owls prefer more open habitats). 4.2.6 Agricultural Resources and Land Use The only land use on the Brown Ranch property in the recent past has been livestock grazing. The entire property is used for year -round grazing by cows and their calves, and by horses. Under the current regime, these animals are free to wander and graze any areas of the property, and are allowed to breed continuously. As such, the entire property is over- grazed, and water resources have been degraded due to continual exposure to trampling and grazing. The only improvements on the property are related to grazing. Old fencing and several gates are present near the valley oak woodland portion of the property, although the fence does not prohibit cattle and horses from grazing any areas. Spring boxes, troughs, and piping to supply troughs with water are also present on the eastern side of the property, and salt licks have been placed in several areas (Figure 3). Braddock & Logan — Fallon VillageJBrown 23 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 5.0 MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING GUIDELINES 5.1 MANAGEMENT GOALS — OVERVIEW This section describes the natural resource management prescriptions for the Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village on -site conservation area and Brown Ranch, the off -site mitigation area. Both the on -site conservation area and off-site mitigation site are intended to compensate for impacts to the target species impacted on the Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village Project site. The primary goal is to enhance, manage, and monitor habitat conditions for target special status - species, including the California tiger salamander, California red- legged frog, San Joaquin kit fox, and Burrowing Owl. Specifically, our objectives for both the on -site conservation area and off -site mitigation area include preserving and managing aquatic and upland habitat for the target listed and special - status species. The stock pond on the on -site conservation area is expected to continue-to provide suitable breeding habitat for the California tiger salamander, and possibly the California red - legged frog (which has not previously been confirmed breeding in this pond). One of the benchmarks for success of the off -site mitigation at the Brown Ranch includes documentation of three years of successful breeding by both California tiger salamanders and California red - legged frogs. Additional details about the management prescriptions needed to obtain the performance measures and monitoring protocols used to document progress towards this goal are described below. To achieve the success criteria, changes in current habitat conditions and management are required to create and manage aquatic habitat, and enhance and manage upland -habitat. Although suitable breeding habitat for California tiger salamanders, and potentially California red- legged frogs, currently exists in the on -site conservation area, no suitable breeding habitat for either species is present on the Brown Ranch (as of March 2007); so six new ponds (i.e., six for California tiger salamander; three for California red - legged frog) will be constructed to provide aquatic breeding habitat on the Brown Ranch. Additional ponds and seasonal wetlands created on the Brown Ranch may provide suitable breeding habitat for California tiger salamanders and foraging habitat for California red - legged frogs. Suitable upland habitat for the target special - status species is already .present on both sites, but historical patterns of grazing have degraded habitat quality by reducing diversity in vegetation structure and composition in grassland habitat: Therefore, an adaptive grazing management strategy will be used at both sites to improve upland habitat quality by managing the location, extent, and timing of grazing. Under the current grazing regime, the Brown Ranch and portions of the on -site conservation area appear to be extensively overgrazed. This has led to a reduction in the residual dry matter Ievel thus causing barren hillslopes and valley bottoms, terracing of hillsides, degraded wetland habitat, and highly eroded, unstable stream/drainage banks. Lower stocking rates, altering duration of grazing in sensitive habitats, and protection of springs, associated wetland areas, and selected riparian areas will improve site conditions dramatically, while improving habitat for special - status species. Year -round grazing is proposed, at least initially, for the majority of both the on -site conservation area and the Brown Ranch, although it is acknowledged that adaptive grazing management may lead to the implementation of other grazing regimes in the future. if Braddock & Logan -- Fallon YillagelBroivn 24 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Afitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 year -round grazing does not produce the desired habitat conditions. Riparian enclosures should be grazed only during the late summer, to prevent any detrimental effects on water quality, willow growth, or bank stabilization and to effectively control invasive species such as sweet fennel (if needed). Specific measures outlined in this II1I W were developed in close coordination with a certified rangeland scientist (Mr. Keith Guenther) who established a recommended grazing operation as described below. Specific steps will need to be taken so that the information gathered during monitoring efforts is readily available for future managers of the two properties. The goals is that land management measures can be applied consistently and effectively by future land managers, and so that the plan can be adapted, as necessary, to preserve and manage aquatic and upland habitat for the target listed and special - status species. The Iand manager must modify the grazing regime (primarily by adjusting the timing of movement of cattle onto or off the property and by adjusting the stocking rate) based on the amount and timing of rainfall, which affects when, and how much, forage will be available to livestock. Residual dry matter (RDM) level will be used to monitor range utilization prior to each growing season'for the first ten years to determine yearly, initial stocking rate. Adaptive grazing management is in the best interest of both the biological resources of the conservation areas (so that the upland grasslands will be maintained for special - status species and over - grazing, trampling, and reduced water quality do not degrade biological resources) and the cost - effective management of cattle (so that over - stocking and /or over - grazing do not result in declines in the weight.or health of the cattle). With yearly documentation of stocking rate and seasonality of grazing intensity, an appropriate grazing strategy will be in place within the first five years of grazing: In addition, this yearly documentation will allow future managers to duplicate successful stocking rates in perpetuity. 5.2 ON -SITE CONSERVATION AREA 5.2.1 Management Goals and Performance Measures Management goals and measures are listed below, and described in greater detail in the following sections: (A)Enhance and manage aquatic breeding habitat for California tiger salamander and California red- Iegged frogs in the on -site stock pond. • Enhance the existing stock pond by installing fencing on a portion of the pond to exclude cattle from, and allow natural vegetation to re- establish in, a portion of the pond; and • Develop an adaptive grazing management strategy to prevent excessive adverse effects on the vegetation around the on -site pond. (B) Preserve and manage upland habitat for California tiger salamanders, California red - legged frogs, San Joaquin kit foxes, and Burrowing Owls. Braddock & Logan — Fallon ViIlage/Brown 25 KT Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 • Enhance upland habitat for California tiger salamanders, California red - legged fi•ogs, San Joaquin kit fox, and Burrowing Owls by managing the location, intensity, and timing of cattle grazing; • Preserve and manage grassland habitat for burrowing mammals, and foraging and nesting habitat for grassland birds such as Burrowing Owls, by grazing management to maintain predominantly short herbaceous vegetation with some heterogeneity in vegetation type, height, and structure; and Develop adaptive grazing management strategies as needed, including measures to control exotic plant species that may degrade upland habitat quality for special - status wildlife species, if necessary. The guidelines discussed below are intended to provide a general framework for the management program of the on -site conservation area. This plan is expected to evolve, particularly within the first three years of implementation, as the effects of specific management practices (e.g., stocking rate and timing of grazing) on habitat for the target listed and special- status -wildlife species progresses. Surveys and observations performed during the first ten years of adoption of these policies will be used to adapt these management policies to best fit the goals of this management plan. In addition, the long -term documentation of the results of these strategies will allow property managers to form the basis of a management strategy to be employed in the long term. 5.2.2 Pond Management and Monitoring Suitable breeding habitat for California tiger salamanders, and potentially California red - legged frogs, is already present in the on -site stock pond, so the primary goal for pond management will be to control the location, intensity, and timing of cattle grazing around the pond. * It has been suggested that allowing some livestock access to California tiger salamander breeding ponds may be beneficial by increasing turbidity within the water, thus potentially reducing the detestability of salamander larvae by predators such as birds. As a result, cattle will be allowed to continue to have access to the pond in the on -site conservation area. However, in its current condition, cattle use of the entire pond prevents the establishment of wetland vegetation, which provides substrate to which California red - legged frogs can attach their egg masses and provides cover for all life stages of the frog. Therefore, prohibiting cattle access to at least a portion of the pond -would improve on -site conditions for the frog. Fencing will be installed around the upper portion of the pond to restrict grazing access to this area (Figure 2), which should allow emergent vegetation to re- establish, thereby improving habitat quality for the California red - legged frog. Fencing will also restrict access to portions of the deeper end of the pond to prevent cattle from dewatering the pond prematurely by drinking. Focused livestock management will reduce the intensity of impacts to the banks of the pond, and thus reduce soil erosion and compaction caused by cattle. Such management would improve water quality for the target amphibian species while maintaining some turbidity to conceal eggs and larvae from potential predators. Fence management and monitoring will include periodic inspections by the rancher and third party non- profit entity to insure the fence is functioning properly and detect potential repairs that may be needed. Braddock & L ogan -- Fallon VillagelBrorvn 26 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approvers by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 5.2.3 Wetiand/Drainage Management Currently, the on -site conservation area is overgrazed near the pond in the western portion of the property, and, as a result, the seep and associated wetlands that contribute water to this pond are severely degraded, with highly eroded banks. Therefore, the only management recommended for these areas is to install a fence around this seep and wetlands, including the upper portion of the pond (see above), to reduce soil erosion and to allow vegetation to recover from over- grazing. This fencing would still allow animals such as California tiger salamanders and California red - legged frogs to access these seep areas. Using an adaptive grazing management strategy, cattle may be allowed to graze areas within this fence during the late summer months (or whenever is appropriate, depending on the invasive plant species involved), when water is most likely absent, at low intensities and for short duration to remove invasive plant species such as sweet fennel, black mustard, and wild radish, which may establish in mesie areas. As described above, fence management and monitoring will include periodic inspections by the rancher and third party non -profit entity to insure the fence is functioning properly and detect potential repairs that may be needed. 5.2.4 Grazing The greatest threats to the on -site conservation area are: • the accumulation of tall, standing biomass that may impcde movement of California tiger salamanders and California red - legged frogs, and reduce habitat quality for burrowing mammals and Burrowing Owls; and • pond bank erosion that may affect water quality and degrade aquatic habitat for California tiger salamanders and California red - legged frogs. Responsible livestock grazing is a proven and effective management tool to control the establishment and extensive growth of non - native forts and grasses. The intensity, duration, and frequency of grazing must be closely monitored and managed to achieve these resource management goals. Areas that are grazed too lightly tend to have high densities of vegetation that can prevent or diminish the dispersal of amphibians such as the California tiger salamander or prevent the occupation of the site by California ground squirrels, and, subsequently, Burrowing Owls. Conversely, overgrazing of grasslands tends to cause soil erosion, degradation of wetlands, and bank stabilization problems. The challenge challenge of grazing management for conservation is to find a balance between stocking rates and grazing intensity that can be readily implemented over the long term and adapted to variable conditions (e.g., interannual variation in rainfall): 5.2.4.1 Livestock Grazing Operation The 172 -acre on -site conservation area includes two parcels separated by a fence (Figure 2). The outer boundary of the Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village site is currently fenced; a fence will be installed between the on -site conservation area and the development area as well, so that the entire on -site conservation area will be fenced. Livestock watering facilities on the Braddock & Logan — Fallon Village/Brown 27 ' H.T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 property include two springs, which provide a perennial water source in most years, one of which is currently covered by a pump. The property is currently grazed continuously throughout the year resulting in water sources (including the pond and seeps in the on -site conservation area and the off -site seeps, springs, and drainages being over - grazed, resulting in degradation of vegetation and habitat, erosion of banks, and reduced water quality. Approximately half of the on -site conservation area (i.e., the eastern portion and the lower - elevation parts of the western portion) was used for dryland farming until around 2002 (City of Dublin 2005). Thus, the grazing regimes that have been used on much of the on -site conservation area have been in place for less than five years. During that time, cattle have been allowed to move around the property in the winter and spring when forage is readily available. As available forage decreases with grazing, livestock tend to. spend increasing time in lush areas near water sources. Steep, relatively inaccessible slopes may be grazed relatively lightly, if at all. No formal measurement of forage availability has been made, and there has been no formal management strategy for moving cattle on and off selected pastures depending on the type and amount of remaining forage or on the condition of the cattle (i.e., whether they appear to be maintaining or gaining weight). As grasses and forbs dry in the early summer, the relative concentration of protein available to livestock diminishes, thus potentially causing cattle in such areas to operate under an energy deficit, resulting in weight loss. As mentioned above, the livestock grazing management regime that has been in place in the on -site conservation areas appears to be resulting in over- grazing near water sources, resulting in degraded site conditions and soil erosion. Thus, standard components addressed during .development of a new grazing management area, including the establishment of grazing management areas, specification of stocking rates, stipulation of improvements such as additional fencing, and development of watering facilities, are addressed below (see management guidelines). 5.2.4.2 Recent Monitoring Efforts Residual Dry Matter (RDM) monitoring is a methodology that includes clipping and weighing all herbage within a 0.96 square -foot circular plot (Wildland Solutions 1998). The dry matter is the plant material left standing or on the ground at the beginning of a new growing season. With suitable training, an estimate of the amount of RDM remaining can be obtained by visual estimates (Wildland Solutions 1998). The forage sampling is obtained at the same time each year within key areas designated within the grazing areas. The amount of RDM remaining in a pasture at the time of the first germinating rain in fall is the critical factor that ensures soil protection and a favorable microclimate for the coming year's herbaceous plant community. Properly managed RDM protects soil from erosion and nutrient loss and increases organic matter content in clay soils. RDM analysis provides a measure of range condition and a forecast for future utilization, and facilitates rapid- monitoring by providing data that can be extrapolated over an entire pasture. Braddock & Logan — Fallon riIlagelBrown 28 11 T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 An RDM analysis was.performed in 2006 by certified rangeland scientist Keith Guenther for the Fallon Village on -site conservation area (Wildlands Solutions 2006): Part of this Mork involved a facilities inventory, the establishment of key monitoring areas, and an expected - use GIS map for the area. As a result of his monitoring work, Mr. Guenther concluded that the current grazing strategy is not appropriate considering the goals to maintain a level of RDM that provides habitat for special - status wildlife species, considering the impacts of this grazing strategy on water sources, herbaceous vegetation cover, and springs /seeps. After analyzing site conditions and the RDM resulting from this year's grazing, he concluded that RDM should be 800 -1500 Ibs /acre on slopes of 0-10%, 1,000 -1,500 lbs /acre on slopes of 10- 20%, and 1,200 -1,500 lbs /acre on slopes over 20 %. RDM objectives, though, are established for a 13pical year of forage production, which can vary widely depending on species composition and the spatial and temporal distribution of rainfall within and among years. Accordingly, monitoring of RDM shows variation in available forage between years and between monitoring locations within the same pasture (Wildland. Solutions 2001a). Between -year variation in RDM is caused by differences in grass productivity with precipitation and temperature patterns, by differences in the timing and duration of grazing, or, most likely, an interaction between these two factors. Thus, an increase in RDM (e.g,, above 500 lbs /acre) after a wet year or a decrease after a particularly dry year is not a particular cause for concern in any given year, although grazing management may have to adapt to these changes to continue to meet management goals. More important is that the long -term grazing strategy should target an appropriate RDM level at the end of the growing season, and adapt accordingly if there are long -term changes in conditions affecting the density of annual grass growth (e.g., substantial changes in temperature or rainfall due to climate change). Within -year variation is likely caused by differences in grass productivity responding to variation in topography and substrate characteristics within a pasture, as well as to preferential grazing in certain areas.. This mosaic of vegetation density and height is typically beneficial for many special- status wildlife species in grasslands because it provides a wider variety of microhabitats that is required by a diverse suite of animals. However, there may also be a need for increased grazing on more productive areas during high - rainfall years to prevent the accumulation of vegetation to the point that it inhibits California tiger salamander dispersal or reduces habitat quality for burrowing mammals and the species that utilize their burrows. The amount and timing of grazing (e.g., whether seasonal or year -. round) will be adaptive, and may be changed if the initially proposed grazing regime does not produce the desired habitat conditions. The most productive areas for grass growth on the Fallon Village on -site conservation area are on southeast - facing slopes and in swales and other low -lying areas throughout the property. However, these areas have been particularly over- grazed in recent years, and thus, an over - abundance of standing biomass in such areas is not expected to occur. Braddock & Logan — Fallon Village/Brown 29 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 5.2.4.3 Management Guidelines Significant changes are proposed to the current livestock grazing regime to improve site conditions by reducing erosion, improving bank stability, and reducing the prevalence of non - native plant species that provide low- quality habitat for special- status wildlife species. Management strategies proposed in these guidelines, however, are adaptive in nature, as adjustments are required to account for the time of year that production measurements are made, the type of rainfall year (Nvet year versus dry year based upon average rainfall for the area), slope of the grazing unit, distance fiom the sampling point to a water source, management intensity invested/required, overall health/condition of the range, and intuition of the range manager as to the appropriate stocking rate. The key elements of site management and monitoring for the first 10 years (i.e., the first monitoring phase) involve: (1) a change in the existing grazing management operations; (2) initiation of a grazing operation monitoring program to describe and quantify each of these components of the grazing operation; (3) initiation of an adaptive management program that allows for changes in site management directly related to the primary goals; and, 4) long- term documentation (yearly, in perpetuity) of stocking rates and seasonality of grazing to effectively meet the goals of this management plan after year ten. The following guidelines should be incorporated to ensure effective grazing management over the long term. However, it should be noted that these prescriptions are adaptable, and may change, particularly if survey results find that the goals of this management plan are not being met. L A fence will be constructed that separates the on -site conservation area from the proposed development, and from the "conservation corridor" within the eastern drainage of the development (which is not part of the on -site conservation area). Thus, two parcels will be created, separated into an eastern and western pasture by the short length of existing fence in the central part of the conservation area. Salt licks will be placed in four areas away from the two water sources that will be improved, to encourage grazing away from the water sources. Spatial separation of water sources and salt licks, coupled with the separation of the eastern and western pastures, will facilitate active management of grazing in different parts of the site. 2. Currently, Mr. Guenther recommends an initial stocking rate of 30 yearlings or 18 cow /calf pairs for a four month grazing period in the eastern portion of the site and 35 yearlings or 20 cow /calf pairs for a four month grazing period withinn the western portion of the site. If infestations of yellow star - thistle or other non - natives threaten to become particularly large, grazing will be intensified from March to July (or earlier, if necessary) to reduce the amount of yellow star - thistle present in these areas. Livestock will be removed when forage availability is below appropriate thresholds, as determined by an experienced range manager who is familiar with rangelands in this area. In addition, RDM levels , will be measured during the fall period for the first ten years of this management plan to arrive at a stocking rate appropriate for the area to meet management goals. The range manager will document yearly initial stocking rate and seasonality of Braddock & Logan — Fallon VllagefBroivn 30 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 grazing to enable future managers the ability to duplicate grazing strategy success in perpetuity. 3. Breeding of cattle will occur during a planned breeding season, to eliminate variability in grazing intensity and stocking rate and to make management of grazing easier. Most ranchers use a controlled breeding season utilizing a 60 to 90 day breeding season, with the season ending at the end of June each year. Once breeding has ended, bulls will be removed fi•om the area for the remainder of the year. 4. RDM retention will be measured for the first ten years of this management plan annually in the fall at each of five key grassland monitoring sites. The Iocations of these monitoring sites were determined by Mr. Guenther, although adaptive management allows for changes to these monitoring sites based upon site conditions. Annual RDM retention is dependent upon slope and other environmental factors; however, an initial target range of between 800 -1,500 pounds (lbs) per acre has been established. If initial results from the RDM studies, taken during the first phase of site monitoring (2 -5 years), show that the actual values in place are significantly different from this target range, the target numbers will be adjusted as determined by a qualified range manager in consultation with the current grazing lessee. RDM measurement methodology is described in section 5.2.4.2. The grazing manager will also, through field observation, note forage utilization and modify stocking rates, grazing period, or grazing location within a given season, should areas be over or under grazed. Currently, Mr. Guenther has established monitoring sites throughout the area, but an experienced range manager may monitor other areas based upon changing site conditions in the adaptive management strategy. 5. Grazing intensity will be documented each year to allow future managers to continue the successful grazing strategy in perpetuity. This information will be used by the third -party entity to determine the success of on -going site management in meeting this management plan. With respect to grazing, the rancher will document, at minimum, dates of grazing initiation and cessation, stocking rate in Animal Unit Months (AVMs), results of RDM measurement (limited to the recommended initial ten years of this management plan), and - observations and/or recommendations for the following year. 6. Grazing within fenced wetland/seep areas, and areas adjacent to the pond located in the western portion of the conservation area, will occur during the late summer months, for short duration based upon the recommendation of a qualified range manager, or observations by surveyors during monitoring periods that invasive plant species, such as sweet fennel, black mustard, or wild radish are dominating these areas, degrading habitat for special = status animal species. Grazing within these areas may occur earlier, if earlier grazing is deemed necessary to control exotics. 5.2.4.4 Monitoring Guidelines With respect to grazing management, two types of monitoring will be required. Insofar as the primary goal of grazing management on the property is not directly related to production of livestock and enhancement of palatable forage, but the maintenance of suitable habitat to sustain populations of special - status animal species, the monitoring methods need to be Braddock & Logan — Fallon VillageBrown 31 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mltlgatlon & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 adapted to preserve and manage aquatic and upland habitat for the target listed and special - status species. This is in contrast to traditional rangeland management decisions regarding the stocking rate and grazing period that are based on the concept of carrying capacity. Carrying capacity is described as the number of grazing animals that a particular range or ranch will sustain over time without depleting rangeland vegetation or soil resources. Again, the assumption on the Fallon Village on -site conservation area is that the goal is not maximization of grazing capacity for the property but optimization of plant growth and soil conditions that are ideal for the target special- status species. The categories of range inventory and evaluation to be utilized on the property can be broadly divided into yearly range utilization analysis and seasonal range utilization analysis. The RDM monitoring already performed in 2006 is an example of the former. Yearly Range Utilization: Residual Dry Matter. RDM level will be used to monitor the amount of forage ' left at the end of the grazing season as a means to assess how the current level of grazing compares to the initial RDM target range of 800 -1,500 lbs /acre during the first ten years of this management plan. The actual RDM target range will be adjusted as RDM and information gathered in the range condition analysis, described below, are used to correlate grazing intensity (as measured by the amount of standing biomass remaining at the . start of the next growing season) with plant cover. Within the on -site conservation area, RDM measurement should be used as a means to correlate different levels of standing plant biomass in the fall with plant cover throughout the season. RDM measurement at the designated monitoring locations can be used to identify under- or over - grazed areas. RDM will be measured at each of five monitoring locations determined by Mr. Keith Guenther, the locations of which were stratified according to slope and aspect during the fall. RDM is most commonly measured through a combination of clipping plots and estimation, although an experienced land manager may be able-to accurately estimate RDM visually. The initial target range for RDM, based on prior work performed by Wildland Solutions, is between 800 -1,500 lbs /aore, depending on slope. As described above, if the initial RDM monitoring results show that more optimal habitat characteristics are created for the California tiger salamander and California red - legged frog by implementing.a different RDM target value (i.e., 700 lbs /acre) than this initial target range will be adjusted accordingly as determined by staff in consultation with the current grazing lessee, and representatives of the CDFG and USFWS. Seasonal Range Utilization: Grazing Period /Season Monitoring. The RDM monitoring method measures vegetation generally after the grazing season, to' help gauge the effectiveness of stocking rates during the previous grazing season and help determine appropriate stocking rates over the long term. However, there may be a need for shorter -term information regarding whether stocking rates are appropriate, for example, within a given grazing season. Above - normal rainfall may increase the amount of standing biomass present in the on -site conservation area (as compared to a normal year). While this may result in vegetation in some areas being taller or denser than normal, such a condition is not expected to result in significant adverse effects on special - status species and their habitats, since such a condition Braddock & Logan —Fallon V111age/Brown 32 H. x Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 is likely to be short-term. However, drought conditions could result in concentration of cattle near water sources, and may result in over - grazing if standing biomass is not adequate due to drought. Therefore, monitoring of forage conditions by the rancher will occur during drought conditions. Such monitoring is expected to occur regardless of special- status species habitat conditions, as the rancher's desire to manage cattle for their health and condition is consistent with the need to avoid overgrazing during drought conditions to protect habitat quality. 5.2.4.5 Grazing Facility Improvements and Maintenance To adopt the recommended adaptive grazing management strategy, several improvements to the grazing facilities or infrastructure on the on -site conservation area are proposed. . As monitoring of the- effects of grazing regime on RDM is undertaken; it is possible that measures to increase or reduce grazing in certain areas, such as relocation of watering troughs or salt licks, may be necessary. Currently, along with a .reduced stocking rate and management of reproduction of cattle, fencing is required along the conservation area boundaries, separating the conservation area from the conservation corridor, and separating the eastern and western portions of the property (Figure 2). Improvements to both water sources (currently the pond located in the western portion of the site and a pump located in the eastern portion. of the site) are recommended, and the addition of four salt licks (two located in the northwest portion of the site and two located in the southeast portion of the site) are recommended (Figure 2). Maintenance of grazing infrastructure is important. Fences should be routinely monitored (i.e., on a monthly basis) by the rancher and maintained or repaired as needed. Springs and troughs should also be regularly checked and maintained as needed. 5.2.5 Debris Removal The pond and seep/wetland areas within the northwestern portion of the conservation area (Figure 2) will be additionally enhanced through removal of debris, including concrete, and other inorganic unnatural materials prior to the installation of fences to protect these areas (see above). 5.2.6 Management and Monitoring of Special- Status Wildlife Species Habitat management for the target listed and special - status wildlife species will focus on enhancing and preserving aquatic and upland areas through cattle management. In aquatic breeding habitat, management efforts will focus on controlling the location, intensity, and timing of grazing around the on -site stock pond with fencing (see Section 5.2.2 for additional details). To address upland habitat quality, a similar approach will be, used to control grazing access and duration on the areas surrounding the on -site stock pond that provides suitable breeding habitat for both target amphibian species. In the process, foraging and nesting habitat for grassland species such as the Burrowing Owl and San Joaquin kit fox, will be enhanced and maintained., Monitoring of special- status wildlife species in the on -site conservation area will include annual spring larval surveys for California tiger salamanders and California red - legged frogs during the ten -year monitoring interval. After the ten -year monitoring period, spring larval surveys will be Braddock & Logan — Fallon VllageJBrown 33 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Midgation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 conducted every three years. The purpose of larval surveys is to provide a relative index of breeding potential for the on -site stock pond. Therefore, spring larval surveys will be conducted at a reduced level of effort compared to the aquatic sampling portion of protocol -level surveys because the presence of both species has already been confirmed (Sycamore Associates 2001a- d, 2002h -i, 2003a -b). Daytime larval surveys, using visual encounter and dipnet methods, will be conducted in April and May annually by a qualified herpetologist approved by the.USFWS. Detections of target amphibian or other special- status species will be described in annual reports and submitted to the CNDDB. A single breeding- season survey of the conservation area by a qualified biologist will also be conducted annually to determine the number and location of Burrowing Owls in the on -site conservation area, 5.3 BROWN RANCH MITIGATION AREA 5.3.1 - Management Goals and Performance Measures Management responsibilities are the responsibility of the land owner. Although the mans ement and monitoring measures necessary to achieve the following success criteria may be performed by a third party land manager or contractor, the holder of the CDFG Braddock & Logan- Fallon Village Incidental Take Permit will be responsible for ensuring the Brown Ranch created ponds achieve the following success criteria. The success criteria for Brown Ranch and the created ponds include: • Demonstration of three years (or five, if individuals are translocated to the site, which for the California tiger salamander would require separate approval by the CDFG) of successful breeding by the California tiger salamander and California red - legged frog on the property. • Demonstration that the created ponds hold water for a sufficient length of time for successful breeding by California red - legged frogs and/or California tiger salamanders to occur. • Demonstration of an overall increasing population trend of California tiger salamanders over the first 10 years of monitoring. • Demonstration of successful metamorphosis of California tiger salamanders on the Property. Successful metamorphosis shall be measured by comparison to a CDFG- approved reference site. • Demonstration that the hydroperiod in the created ponds (ponds 2, 3, and 4) is suitable for successful breeding and metamorphosis of California tiger salamander as compared to a CDFG - approved reference site. • . Demonstration that the ponds provide suitable emergent vegetation required for each species. Management goals and performance measures for the Brown Ranch are listed below, and described in greater detail in the following sections; (A) Create, manage, and 'Monitor 'aquatic breeding habitat for California tiger salamanders and California red - legged frogs. Braddock & Logan — Fallon VllagelBrown 34 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approver/ by the CDFG on Marclt 11, 2011 • Create aquatic breeding habitat by constructing ponds for California tiger salamanders and California red - legged frogs; • Preserve and manage aquatic breeding habitat to insure that pond conditions (e.g., hydroperiod and vegetation) are suitable for breeding by California tiger salamanders and California red - legged frogs; • Monitor the ponds for evidence of breeding, hydroperiod, and vegetation to insure that success criteria (Le., successful breeding by both species for at least three }rears, or five years if individuals of these species are translocated to the site [which would require separate approval by the CDFG for translocation of California tiger salamanders], increasing Population trend of California tiger salamanders over the . first 10 years of monitoring; demonstration of successful metamorphosis of California tiLFer salamanders on the pror)erLL and demonstration that the hydroperiod in ponds 2, 3, and 4 is suitable for successful breeding and metamorphosis for California tiger salamanders) are achieved; and • Manage and monitor aquatic breeding habitat to sustain long -term breeding populations of California tiger salamanders and California red - legged frogs. (B) Preserve, manage and enhance existing riparian areas, freshwater resources, and drainages. that may provide habitat for wildlife, especially the California red - legged frog. • Preserve and manage riparian areas and drainages by limiting livestock access to allow vegetation re- establishment; • Remove inorganic debris to improve the water quality of existing drainages and associated freshwater resources; and • Develop and implement adaptive management strategies as needed. (C)Preserve and manage upland habitat for California tiger salamanders, California red - legged frogs, San Joaquin kit foxes, and Burrowing Owls. • Enhance and manage existing upland by managing the location, intensity, and timing of cattle grazing; • Codify an appropriate grazing strategy to maintain effective management over the long term; and • Develop and implement adaptive grazing management strategies including measures to address exotic species that have the potential to degrade upland habitat quality for the target listed and special - status species, if necessary. The guidelines discussed below are intended to provide a general framework for the management program of the Brown Ranch mitigation site. This plan is expected to evolve, particularly within the first three years of implementation, as the effects of specific management practices (e.g., stocking rate and timing of grazing) on habitat for the target listed and special - status wildlife species progresses. Surveys and observations performed during the first 10 years of adoption of these policies will be used to adapt these management policies to best fit the goals of this management plan. In addition, the long -term documentation of the results of these strategies will Braddock & Logan -- Fallon rillagelBrown 35 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 allow property managers to form the basis of a management strategy to be employed in the long term. 5.3.2 Pond Construction, Management, and Monitoring As described in detail in the Fallon Village Project Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2007), six ponds will be constructed on the Brown Ranch to provide breeding habitat for California tiger salamanders, three of which are also expected to provide breeding habitat for California red - legged frogs. These ponds have been designed based on criteria developed by wildlife biologists at H.T. Harvey & Associates with prior experience constructing ponds to support successful breeding by California tiger salamanders, and California red - legged frogs in Dublin and Livermore. The locations of these ponds, shown on Figure 3, are designed to distribute breeding habitat for these amphibians across the landscape rather than providing fewer, larger ponds. Therefore, the six ponds were strategically located across the 530 -acre site to provide "stepping stones" for California tiger salamander and California red - legged frog colonization and dispersal across the mitigation area. The maximum distance between the proposed ponds is less than 2000 feet to facilitate dispersal between the ponds. Ponds 1, 5, and ,6 are designed to provide breeding habitat for both California tiger salamanders (which, in the Dublin area, generally require ponding through May for larval .development) and California red - legged frogs (which generally require ponding through July). Preliminary hydrologic modeling, detailed in the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, indicates that these ponds are expected to hold water into fall in a non - drought year, and some or all of these ponds may be perennial. The perennial ponds will provide important year -round aquatic refugia for California red - legged frogs, whereas little perennial aver - summering frog habitat exists in the area. The mitigation ponds designed for use by both species will have steep sides near deep water at one end and more gradual slopes with shallower water at the other end. This gradual transition from shallow to deep, like a swimming pool, will provide escape cover for both species in the deeper areas while providing easy ingress and egress for salamanders. - These ponds will have a maximum depth of 6 feet to facilitate perennial ponding in at least some years. Ponds 2, 3, and 4 are designed to provide breeding habitat only for California tiger salamanders; in a non - drought year, these ponds will contain: water deep enough to allow successful larval metamorphosis by salamanders by late May, but they are unlikely to hold water through July. These ponds will thus mimic the hydroperiod in pools where California tiger salamanders typically occur. The ponds that are designed for salamander breeding habitat alone will have gradual slopes around as much of the pond perimeter as is feasible, and will reach a maximum depth of 4 feet. In addition; a one -acre seasonal wetland will also be constructed on the Brown Ranch to compensate for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands resulting from the Fallon Village Project. This wetland is described in detail in the Fallon Village Project Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2007), and their potential locations are depicted on Figure 3. In average precipitation years, hydrologic modeling completed as part of the conceptual design process indicates that this seasonal wetland may pond water during two peaks, one from late November Braddock & Logan -- Fallon t illagelBrown 36 H.T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat M #igation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2611 to early January, and the second from late January to mid - April. On average, the depth of ponding is not likely to exceed five or six inches because the seasonal wetland is being designed to support saturated soils required by wetland plants, as opposed to deeper ponding levels that may approach the 11 inches generally required by California tiger salamanders (Trenham and Shaffer 2005). During vet years, hydrological modeling indicates ponding up to 12 inches may occur from mid- November to late June, which would be of sufficient depth and duration to support breeding by California tiger salamanders. However, results from other nearby ponds constructed as mitigation for impacts to California tiger salamander breeding habitat on Dublin Ranch indicate tiger salamanders are rarely found breeding in shallow pools, such as this seasonal wetland, that are not designed to pond at least t<vo feet deep (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2006c). Pond management will also include a revegetation plan to establish native wetland vegetation around the mitigation ponds to insure the establishment of wetland vegetation along the pond side slopes, and active planting of native seasonal wetland vegetation will be used along the drainage sides of Ponds 1, 5, and 6 to provide cover for California red - legged frogs. Potential seed sources for obligate wetland plant species are not present in close proximity to the mitigation ponds. Therefore, active planting of native seasonal wetland species will occur at the ponds to increase the rate of wetland plant establishment along the pond side slopes. In addition, willow riparian habitat will be established via planting along the drainage side of Ponds 1, 5, and 6 to provide cover for California red - legged frogs. Native seasonal wetland species such as creeping spikerush (Eleocharis nracroslachya), iris - leaved rush, Mexican rush, California bulrush (Schpus californicus), meadow barley (Hoy dewn brachyanthel7 1111 var. Salt), and creeping wild rye (Ley»rus triticoides) will likely dominate the site. Patches of cattail (T}plaa spp.) may establish via natural recruitment in the deeper portions of the pond mitigation sites. The planted side of each pond will be protected from cattle grazing to allow the wetland plants to establish, as indicated by the location of fencing depicted on Figure 3. The unprotected side will allow cattle envy, which will prevent the entire perimeter of the pond from being invaded by cattails and will increase turbidity, which may inhibit predation of amphibian larvae. As described in the MMP, the mitigation ponds and seasonal wetland will be monitored annually for the first 10 years following construction, and monitoring results will be summarized in an annual report distributed to the USFWS, USACE, CDFG, and RWQCB. Performance and final success criteria for the ponds and wetland, from the perspective of providing wetland/aquatic habitat conditions, will be based on percent native vegetation cover, plant survival, hydrology and geomorphic stability, and delineated jurisdictional area as described in the MMP, which is also a condition of the permit from the California Regional Water Quality Board. AdditionaIIy, percent cover of non - native, invasive plants [e.g., Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) or perennial pepperweed (Lepidium lat folium)] will not exceed 5% within the constructed pond and seasonal Nvetiand footprints, or remediation actions to remove these plants and prevent their future infestation will be taken. By Year 7, the mitigation ponds and seasonal wetland should be sufficiently established to determine if they would eventually reach the long -term goals with little chance of failure according to the RWQCB Certification. If the final success criteria of the ponds and wetland mitigation have not been met at Year 7, remedial actions will be implemented if needed, and monitoring will continue until the criteria have been met. Beginning in Year 11, or after the ponds and wetland have achieved their success criteria, annual monitoring will be Braddock & Logan — Fallon Vrllage/Brown 37 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 conducted at a reduced level of effort using reconnaissance -level surveys to determine if the ponds and water control structures are functioning properly. If there is evidence that the ponds or water control structures are in need of repair, or if periodic dredging of excess sedimentation is needed, then remedial measures will be implemented to minimize erosion and insure the long- term performance of the breeding ponds. Note that the monitoring and success criteria described above pertain specifically to the vegetative cover and extent of the created ponds and wetland. Monitoring methods and success criteria directed toward California tiger salamanders, California red - legged frogs, and their habitat are addressed in Section 5.3.5. The Biological Opinion permits a one -time translocation of California red - Iegged frogs and California tiger salamanders to the Brown Ranch. If such a translocation becomes necessary, .Braddock & Logan will consult with the USFWS and CDFG regarding. the source for such translocation, the number of individuals to be moved, and the timing and method of translocation; a separate approval by the CDFG will be necessary for translocation of California tiger salamanders to occur. 5.3.3 Wetland/Drainage Enhancement and Management Most drainages and wetland/seep areas on the Brown Ranch have been severely degraded by over grazing, therefore, to protect water quality, increase habitat quality and value for special- status animal species, many of these areas will be fenced to keep cattle out of these areas until they are recovered. A setback of approximately 100 feet from each of these areas will be fenced to promote bank stabilization, vegetation recovery, willow seedling establishment (where willows are being planted along portions of some ponds), and recovery of wetland habitat. This fencing will still permit amphibians to access these seeps. The land manager will observe these areas whenever other surveys are being conducted, to note the status of these areas. If non - native plant species begin to invade and dominate these areas, such as occasionally occurs with sweet fennel, black mustard, or wild radish, these areas should be grazed in the late summer (or at other times, if necessary to reduce the infestation), when damage to sensitive wetland and drainage habitat will be minimal. Grazing should occur for only short durations, and should be monitored closely so that cattle are removed once the management goal (i.e., reducing cover by invasives) is achieved, and only when deemed necessary by a qualified range manager. 5.3.4 Grazing The greatest threats to the Brown Ranch mitigation area that may addressed through grazing management are excess standing biomass, overgrazing, and damage to drainages and wetlands by overgrazing, trampling, and erosion. Tall, standing biomass may impede movement of California tiger salamander and reduce potentially suitable habitat for San Joaquin kit. fox and Burrowing Owls because these species generally occur in grasslands with short to moderate vegetation heights. Erosion and trampling of drainages and wetlands also poses a threat to special - status species because sediment may adversely affect water quality and degrade the quality of aquatic habitat for California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs. Responsible livestock grazing is a proven and effective management tool to control the establishment and extensive growth of non- native fortis and grasses. The intensity, duration, and Braddock & Logan Fallon V11agelBrown 38 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March II, 2011 frequency of grazing must be closely monitored and managed to achieve these resource management goals. Vegetation that is either too tall or dense may inhibit movement of California tiger salamanders from aquatic breeding habitat to the surrounding upland aestivation habitat, and reduce colonies of ground squirrel burrows, that provide aestivation sites for California tiger salamanders and nesting and roosting sites for Burrowing Owls. Conversely, overgrazing of grasslands tends to cause soil erosion, degradation of wetlands, and bank stabilization problems. The challenge of grazing management for conservation is to find a balance between under-and over - grazing that can be readily implemented over the long term and adapted to variable conditions (e.g., interannual variation in rainfall). 5.3.4.1 Existing Livestock Grazing Operation The 530 -acre Brown Ranch mitigation area is dominated by non- native, annual grassland habitat that includes numerous drainages. Currently, the boundary of the entire ranch is fenced, with an abandoned internal fence located near the valley oak woodland habitat, Livestock watering facilities on the property include numerous springs, which provide a perennial water source in most years that contribute to three perennial drainages. The property is currently grazed continuously throughout the year by both cattle and horses. As a result, water sources (including the wetland/seep areas and the drainages on -site) are over - grazed, resulting in sparse wetland vegetation, eroded banks, and degraded wetlands in these areas. The existing grazing regimes have been in place for at least 30 years (since the Browns acquired this property), and likely for much longer. As a result, stocking rates and timing of grazing are similar from year to year. There is no established breeding period, and calves are present throughout the year. Cattle tend to move around the property in the winter and spring when forage is readily available. As available forage decreases with grazing, livestock tend to spend increasing time in lush areas near water sources. Steep, relatively inaccessible slopes may be grazed relatively lightly, if at all. No formal measurement of forage availability is made, and no management strategy appears to be in place to move cattle on and off pastures regardless of the type and amount of remaining forage or on the condition of the cattle (i.e., whether they appear to be maintaining or gaining weight). As grasses and forbs dry in the early summer, the relative concentration of protein available to livestock diminishes,_ thus potentially causing cattle in such areas to operate under an energy deficit, resulting in weight loss. As mentioned above, the current livestock grazing management regime appears to be resulting in areas near water sources to be overgrazed, resulting in degraded site conditions and soil erosion, Thus, standard components addressed during development of a new grazing management area, including the establishment of grazing management areas, specification of stocking rates, stipulation of improvements such as additional fencing, and development of watering facilities, are addressed below (see management guidelines). 5.3.4.2 Recent Monitoring Efforts Braddock &.Logan — Fallon VllagelBrown . 39 H.T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 An RDM analysis was conducted in 2006 by a certified rangeland manager (Mr. Keith Guenther) for the Brown Ranch mitigation area (Wildlands Solutions 2006). Part of this work involved a facilities inventory, the establishment of key monitoring areas, and an expected -use GIS map for the area. As a result of his monitoring work, Mr. Guenther concluded that the current grazing strategy is not appropriate considering the goals to maintain a Ievel of RDM that provides habitat for special- status wildlife species, considering the impacts of this grazing strategy on water sources, herbaceous vegetation cover, and springs /seeps. After analyzing site conditions and the RDM resulting from this year's grazing, lie concluded that RDM should be 800 -1500 lbs /acre on slopes of 0 -10 %, 1,000- 1,500 lbs /acre on slopes of 10 -20 %, and 1,200 -1,500 lbs /acre on slopes over 20 %. RDM objectives, though, are established for a 1}pical year of forage production, which can vary widely depending on species composition and the spatial and temporal distribution of rainfall within and among years. Accordingly, monitoring of RDM shows variation in available forage between years and between monitoring locations within the same pasture (Wildland Solutions 2001x). Between -year variation in RDM is caused by differences in grass productivity with precipitation and temperature patterns, by differences in the timing and duration of grazing, or, most likely, an interaction between these two factors. Thus, an increase in RDM (e.g., above 500 1bs /acre) after a wet year or a decrease after a particularly' dry year is not a particular cause for concern in any given year, although grazing management may have to. adapt to these changes to continue to meet management goals. More important is that the long -term grazing strategy target an appropriate RDM level at the end of the growing season, and adapt accordingly if there are long -term changes in conditions affecting the density of annual grass growth (e.g., changes in temperature or rainfall due to climate change, or substantial increases or decreases in nitrogen deposition over time). Within -year variation is likely caused by differences in grass productivity responding to variation in topography and substrate characteristics within a pasture, as well as -to preferential grazing in certain areas. This mosaic of vegetation density and height typically benefit special - status wildlife species because it provides a diversity of microhabitats that support a diverse suite of animals. However, there may also be a need for increased grazing on more productive areas during high - rainfall years. The most productive areas for grass growth on the Brown Ranch mitigation area are on southeast- facing slopes and in swales and other low -lying areas throughout the property. However, these areas have been particularly over - grazed in recent years, and thus, an over- abundance of standing biomass in such areas is not expected to occur. The most heavily grazed areas appear to be near the Moller Ranch drainage and the hillsides north of the valley oak woodland habitat. Fencing will protect habitat within the major drainages on -site, allowing for limited grazing to occur in these areas only as needed. 5.3.4.3 Management Guidelines Significant changes are proposed to the current livestock grazing regime to improve site conditions by reducing erosion, improving bank stability, and reducing the prevalence of Braddock & Logan -- Fallon V11agelBrown 40 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation A Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 non - native plant species that provide low- quality habitat for special - status wildlife species. Management strategies proposed in these guidelines, however, are adaptive in nature, as adjustments are required to account for the time of year that production measurements are made, the type of rainfall year (wet year versus dry year based upon average rainfall for the area), slope of the grazing unit, the distance from the sampling point to a water source, management intensity invested/required, the overall health/condition of the range, and intuition of the range manager as to the appropriate stocking rate. The key elements of site management and monitoring for the first 10 years (i.e., the first monitoring phase) involves: (1) a change in the existing grazing management operations; (2) initiation of a grazing operation monitoring program to describe and quantify each of these components of the grazing operation; (3) initiation of an adaptive management program that allows for changes in site management directly related to the primary goals; and, d) long - terin documentation (yearly, in perpetuity) of stocking rates and seasonality of grazing to effectively meet the goals of this management plan after year ten. The following guidelines should be incorporated to ensure effective grazing management over the long term. However,. it should be noted that these prescriptions are preliminary, and that it is expected that the management program will adapt according to monitoring results. I . Fencing will be added to the partial fence that currently exists in the northwestern pant of the site.to separate the valley oak woodland and northwestern pasture from the remainder of the mitigation site. There are no permanent water sources located on -site in this portion of the mitigation area; the addition of this fencing will allow range managers to move cattle to this area to graze during the winter and spring. Additional fencing will be constructed, as indicated on Figure 3, to protect springs, seeps, and associated wetland habitat, as well as drainages and riparian areas. This fencing will generally be placed approximately 100 feet from the features in question to provide an interior "pasture" that is large enough to allow limited grazing within these areas, if needed to prevent infestation by non - native plants. Currently, water troughs are leaking, as are pipes that fill these troughs. All water sources for cattle will be improved by installing new pipe or water troughs, as needed, fencing springs, and maintaining these water sources in operable condition. Salt licks will be located in eight areas away from water sources to encourage grazing away from the water sources. 2. Grazing will occur year -round (although the grazing regime may have to be changed if the initially proposed regime does not produce the desired habitat conditions). Currently, Mr. Guenther recommends an initial stocking rate. of 50 head of cattle at Brown Ranch for the entire year (or 100 head of cattle for a sixth month period). However, using RDM and casual observations, the range manager can adjust this stocking rate to arrive at a stocking rate -appropriate for the area to meet management goals. If infestations of yellow star - thistle or other non - natives threaten to become particularly large, grazing will be intensified from March to July (or in whichever season is most appropriate to avoid allowing non - native to become dominant, depending on the species) to reduce the amount of yellow star - thistle present in these areas. 3. Grazing can occur within the valley oak woodland pasture only when forage is green, as no water source is available in this area. Livestock will be removed when forage Braddock & Logan — Fallon V1 llagelBro wn 41 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch HabitatMitigatlon & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 availability is below appropriate thresholds. Currently, Mr. Guenther estimates that an initial stocking rate of 20 head of cattle for a 6 month period during winter and spring (Or 40 head of cattle during a 3 month period) as appropriate for this area. However, using RDM and casual observations, the range manager can adjust this stocking rate to arrive at a stocking rate appropriate for the area to meet management goals. 4. Breeding of cattle will occur during a planned breeding season, to eliminate variability in grazing intensity and stocking rate and to make management of grazing easier. Most ranchers use a controlled breeding season utilizing a 60 to 90 day breeding season, with the season ending at the end of June each year. Once breeding has ended, bulls will be removed from the area for the remainder of the year. 5. RDM retention will be measured annually in the fall at each of eight key grassland - monitoring sites during the first ten years of this management plan. The locations of these monitoring sites were determined by Mr. Guenther, although adaptive management allows for changes to these monitoring sites based upon site conditions. Annual RDM retention 'is dependent upon slope and other environmental factors; however, an initial target range of between 800 -1,500 pounds (lbs) per acre has been established. On this site, such RDM levels will typically result in vegetation of moderate density and vegetation heights in the target range of 3 -12 inches, which are appropriate for the target grassland - associated wildlife species. If the initial RDM monitoring results show that more optimal habitat characteristics are created for the California tiger salamander and California red - legged frog by implementing a different RDM target value (i.e., 700 lbs /acre) than this initial target range will be adjusted accordingly as determined by staff in consultation with the current grazing lessee, and representatives of the CDFG and USFWS. RDM measurement methodology is described above. 6. The grazing manager will also, through field observation, observe forage utilization and modify stocking rates, grazing period, or grazing location within a given season, should areas be over or under grazed. Currently, Mr. Guenther has established monitoring sites throughout the area, but an experienced range manager may monitor other areas based upon changing site conditions in the adaptive management strategy. Grazing intensity will be documented each year to allow future managers to continue the successful grazing strategy in perpetuity. This information will be used by the third -party entity to determine the success of on -going site management in meeting this management plan. With respect to grazing, the rancher will document, at minimum, dates of grazing initiation and cessation, stocking rate in Animal Unit Months (AUMs), results of RDM measurement (limited to the recommended initial ten years of this management plan), and observations and /or recommendations for the following year. 7. Grazing within fenced wetlands, seeps, and drainages, will occur during the late summer months (or whenever is appropriate to address the particular species in question), for short duration based upon the recommendation of a qualified range manager, or observations by staff that invasive plant species, such as sweet fennel, black mustard, or wild radish are dominating these areas, degrading habitat for special - status animal species. Braddock & Logan —Fal %n VllageBmim 42 11 T. Harney .& Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by fit CDFG on March 11, 2011 8. During routine site monitoring, populations of Congdon's tarplant that occur in the southeast and central portions of the mitigation site will be noted, and any potential adverse effects of the grazing management strategy on the species will be noted. Although the current grazing regime has not negatively effected the species, these observations will allow managers to determine if any changes should be made to the existing management strategy to benefit this special - status plant species, including removal of non- native plant species. 5.3.4.4 Monitoring Guidelines With respect to grazing management, two types of monitoring will be required. Insofar as the primary goal of grazing management on the property is not directly related to production of livestock and enhancement of palatable forage, but the maintenance of suitable habitat to sustain populations of special - states animal species, the monitoring methods need to be adapted to preserve and manage aquatic and upland habitat for the target listed and special - status species. This is in contrast to traditional rangeland management decisions regarding the stocking rate and grazing period that are based on the concept of carrying capacity. Carrying capacity is described as the number of grazing animals that a particular range or ranch will sustain over time without depleting rangeland vegetation or soil resources. Again, the assumption on the Brown Ranch mitigation site is that the goal is not maximization of grazing capacity for the property but optimization of plant growth and soil conditions that are ideal for the target special - status species. The categories of range.inventory and evaluation to be utilized on the property can be broadly divided into yearly range utilization analysis and seasonal range utilization analysis. The RDM monitoring already performed in 2006 is an example of the former. Yearly Range Utilization: Residual Dry Matter. RDM level will be used to monitor the amount of forage left at the end of the grazing season as a means to assess how the current level of grazing compares to the initial RDM target range of 800 -1,500 ibs /acre. The actual RDM target range will be adjusted as RDM and information gathered in the range condition analysis, described below, are used to correlate grazing intensity (as measured by the amount of standing biomass remaining at the start of the next growing season) with plant cover. Within the on -site conservation area, RDM measurement should be used as a means to correlate different levels of standing plant biomass in the fall with plant cover throughout the season. RDM measurement at the designated monitoring locations can be used to identify under- or over - grazed areas. RDM will be measured at each of eight monitoring locations, determined by Mr. Guenther, the locations of which were stratified according to slope and aspect prior to the first significant rain. RDM is most commonly measured through a combination of clipping plots and estimation, although an experienced land manager may be able to accurately estimate RDM visually. The initial target range for RDM, based on prior work performed by Wildland Solutions, is between 800 -1,500 lbs /acre, depending on slope. If the initial RDM monitoring results show that more optimal habitat characteristics are created f6r the California tiger salamander and California red- legged frog by implementing a different RDM target value (i.e., 700 lbs /acre) than this initial target range will be adjusted accordingly as Braddock & Logan — Fallon V11agelBrown 43 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 determined by staff in consultation with the current grazing lessee, and representatives of the CDFG and USFWS. Seasonal Range Utilization: Grazing Period /Season Monitoring. The RDM monitoring method measures vegetation generally after the grazing season, to help gauge the effectiveness of stocking rates during the previous grazing season and help determine appropriate stocking rates over the long term. However, there may be a need for shorter -term information regarding whether stocking rates are appropriate, for example, within a given grazing season. Above - normal rainfall may increase the amount of standing biomass present on the Brown Ranch (as compared to a normal year). While this may result in vegetation in some areas being taller or denser than normal, such a condition is not expected to result in significant adverse effects on special- status species and their habitats, since such a condition is likely to be short -term. However, drought conditions could result in concentration of cattle near water sources, and may result in over - grazing if standing biomass is not adequate due to drought. Therefore, monitoring of forage conditions by the rancher will occur during drought conditions. Such monitoring is expected to occur regardless of special- status species habitat conditions, as the rancher's desire to manage cattle for their health and condition dovetails with the need to avoid over- grazing during drought conditions to protect habitat quality. 5.3.4.5 Grazing Facility Improvements and Maintenance To adopt the recommended adaptive grazing management strategy, several improvements to the grazing facilities or infrastructure on the on -site conservation area are proposed. As monitoring of the effects of grazing regime on RDM is undertaken, it is possible that measures to increase or reduce grazing in certain areas, such as relocation of watering troughs or salt licks, may be necessary. Currently, along with a reduced stocking rate and management of cattle reproduction, fencing needs to be added between the northwest portion of the property and the remainder of the mitigation site, around spring/seep areas, and around two riparian areas (Moller Ranch Drainage and Cottonwood Creek). Such fencing would continue to allow amphibians to access these seeps. Currently, water troughs, and the pipes feeding them, are leaking and in disrepair. Improvements to these water sources are recommended, and the addition of eight salt licks is recommended (Figure 3). Maintenance of grazing infrastructure is important. Fences and gates should be routinely monitored (i.e., on a monthly basis) by the rancher and maintained or repaired as needed. Springs and troughs should also be regularly checked and maintained as needed. 5.3.5 Management and Monitoring of Special - Status Wildlife Species Habitat enhancement and management for the target special - status wildlife species will include aquatic and upland components. Enhancement and management of aquatic breeding and foraging habitat for California tiger salamanders and California red - legged frogs includes the construction of six breeding ponds, as described in Section 5.3.2. Some of these ponds will likely be perennial in at least some years, thus providing year - round- aquatic refugia for California red - legged frogs, habitat that is scarce in the vicinity of Brown Ranch. The created Braddock & Logan — Fallon Villag&Wrown 44 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 seasonal wetland (see Section 5.3.2) is also expected to provide foraging habitat for California red - legged frogs, and the installation of fencing and careful grazing management along major drainages and around wetlands and seeps (as indicated on Figure 3 and described in Section 5.3.3) will improve wetland habitat conditions for a number of species, including the California red - legged frog. Habitat management for the target species in upland areas will focus on the enhancement of aestivation habitat around the mitigation ponds as described in the MMP (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2007), and an adaptive grazing strategy to manage grassland vegetation. Grassland management through monitored cattle grazing will enhance and maintain high- quality upland habitat for grassland species, including burrowing mammals and the target special - status species. Fencing will be used to adjust the location, intensity, and timing of grazing to allow recovery of grassland. vegetation in overgrazed areas, while maintaining the short vegetation structure generally required by the target species. An adaptive grazing management approach will prevent excessive damage to grassland vegetation that may degrade habitat quality for the target species and control exotic species. Grazing will be the primary tool for promoting a diverse plant community that will also enhance foraging and nesting opportunities for grassland birds, including the Burrowing Owl, and dispersal habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox. The goal of constructing the six ponds on the Brown Ranch is to provide habitat that will support successful breeding by California tiger salamanders and California red - legged frogs. The criteria by which these ponds will be deemed successful, as well as the measures that will be implemented to monitor progress toward achievement of these criteria, are as follows: (1) Demonstration of three years of successful breeding by the California tiger salamander and California red - legged frog on the property. Annual larval surveys will be conducted during the initial ten - }Tear monitoring period to detect the presence and breeding status of both listed amphibians. Daytime larval surveys will be conducted monthly in late April and May using dip nets and/or seines to maximize opportunities to detect evidence of presence and successful breeding. The general survey approach will follow the aquatic larval survey guidelines for both species as described in the pro toeol- level survey recommendations from the USFWS (USFWS 2003, 2005). During surveys, the relative abundance of California tiger salamander Iarvae within each pond will be determined in terms of number of larvae per unit effort (e a , number of dipnet sweeps or survey duration). All surveys will be conducted by qualified herpetologists who are approved by the USFWS and CDFG. For each species, breeding will be determined to be successful in any given year if well- developed larvae (i.e., larvae that are large and/or near metamorph stage) are detected within one or more of the created ponds or wetland, and enough water remains to support metamorphosis. For purposes of assessing compliance with the CDFG issued Incidental Take Permit, successful breedine by California tiger salamanders will be determined by demonstration of successful metamorphosis, as described in criterion #2 below. If California tiger salamanders or California red - legged frogs are translocated to the. Brown Ranch ponds, then five years of successful breeding by whichever species has (or have) been translocated will be necessary before this success criterion will be considered satisfied. Braddock & Logan — Fallon Village/Brown 45 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 (2) Demonstration of successful„ metamorphosis of California tiger salamanders on the Property. Successful metamorphosis of California_ tiger salamanders shall be determined by comparison to a „CDFG- approved reference site and observation of larval development relative to hydroperiod in ponds at Brown Ranch As described_ for criterion #1 above, daytime larval surveys will be conducted once /month in Iat_e April and May using dip nets and/or seines to maximize opportunities to detect evidence of presence and successful breeding. The general survey approach will follow the aquatic larval survey guidelines for both species as described in the protocol -level survey recommendations from the USFWS (USFWS 2003, 2005). Findings of larval surveys in Brown Ranch ponds will be compared to the findings of similarly timed surveys at other sites where Ions -term monitoring has demonstrated ponds to provide suitable habitat for successful metamorphosis of California tiger salamanders. The suitability of other sites to serve as reference sites must be approved by the CDFG. For example, if larval surveys at Brown Ranch find that an increasing number of late -stage metamorphs are present, and surveys at an approved reference site find larvae at a similar or earlier stage of development around the same time, then metamorphosis of larvae at Brown Ranch will be considered successful as Iong as the hydroperiod criterion 041 is also met It is not necessary for Braddock & Logan to perform monitoring at the reference site (or to fund such monitoring) if monitoring data can be obtained from others. Alternatively, successful metamorphosis of larvae at Brown Ranch can be demonstrated when monitoring indicates development of larvae to late stage metamorphosis and conditions are present for complete metamorphosis to occur This _may require additional larval surveys in a given .year. Documentation of this shall be provided to CDFG. This success criterion will have been satisfied if successful metamorphosis is observed for at _least six of the first 10 wears of monitoring and successful metamorphosis at the Brown Ranch must be observed at least 80% of years in which metamorphosis is. successful at the reference site. If drought conditions preclude successful metamorphosis over the ten year monitoring period at both the Brown Ranch and the CDFG-approved reference sites the monitoring period shall be extended until there have been at least six years of non - drought conditions. (3) Demonstration of an overall increasing population trend of California tiger salamanders over the first 10 years of monitoring. Using the monitoring data on California tiger salamander breeding collected for criteria #1 and #2 above, an estimate of the number of California tiger - salamander larvae present in each pond, and on Brown Ranch as a whole, will be determined during each year of monitoring. This success criterion will have been satisfied if California tiger salamander abundance shows, increasing trends in at least six of the first 10 years. (4) Demonstration that the created ponds hold water for a sufficient length of time for successful breeding by California red - Iegged frogs and /or California tiger salamanders to occur. Ponds 1, S, and 6 are designed to provide breeding habitat for Braddock & Logan — Fallon VillagelBrown 46 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 201-1 both California tiger salamanders (which, in the Dublin area, generally require ponding through May for larval development) and California red - legged frogs (which generally require ponding through July). Ponds 2, 3, and 4 are designed to provide breeding habitat only for California tiger salamanders; in a non - drought year (defined herein as a year in which precipitation totals are at least 70% of normal), these ponds will contain water deep enough to allow successful larval metamorphosis by salamanders by late May, but they are unlikely to hold water through July. As described in the MMP, a staff gauge will be installed at each pond in order to measure the depth and duration of ponding. Water depth and extent of ponding in each pond will be recorded during all spring larval surveys, and at least once during winter, summer, and fall in Years 1 -10. The hydroperiod in a given pond will be determined to be suitable for successful breeding by California tiger salamanders if the pond contains at least six inches of water through May, and if late stage- metamorph tiger salamander larvae are observed in the pond as described above, and enough water remains to support successful metamorphosis. For purposes of assessing suitable hydroperiod Pursuant to the CDFG Incidental Take Permit for the California tiger salamander, the hydroperiod in a given frond will be determined to be suitable for successful breeding by California tiger salamanders in a given year if the pond holds water for a duration equaling or exceeding that observed in ponds on a CDFG - approved reference site from which larvae were known to have metamorphosed successfully in that year or if success criterion #2 is demonstrated to have been met. The hydroperiod in a given pond will be determined to be suitable for successful breeding by California red- legged frogs if the pond contains at least six inches of water through July, or if near- metamorph stage California red - legged frog larvae are observed in the pond as described above, and. enough water remains to support metamorphosis. (5) Demonstration that the ponds provide suitable emergent vegetation and open water for each species. California tiger salamanders are known to prefer less vegetation and more turbid water than California red - legged frogs. Performance criteria for portions of the ponds in which planting will occur are described in the MMP, and will be based on quadrat sampling during late spring and early summer. In addition, during larval surveys, the presence and an estimate of the extent (in terms of a proportion of the pond surface or perimeter) of emergent vegetation will be noted for the portion of each pond to which cattle have access (which is expected to have less vegetation and thus be more .suitable for California tiger salamanders) and for the portions of Ponds 1, 5, and 6 that are fenced off from cattle to maintain more emergent vegetation for California red - legged frogs. Representative photos documenting these conditions will be taken during larval surveys. This criterion will be deemed to be achieved if percent cover by emergent vegetation meets the success criteria listed in the MMP, and if areas providing less dense emergent vegetation, thus being more suitable for California tiger salamanders, are present at each pond. During larval monitoring surveys, the presence of any potential predatory species, such as bullfrogs (Rama catesbeiana) or fish, will be recorded. Introduction of either species onto the site will be prohibited, and in the case of dispersal of bullfrogs onto the site, or unauthorized introduction of fish into ponds, the ponds that are not perennial will not be suitable for successful Braddock & Logan — Fallon villageJBroyvn 47 H. T. Haney & Associates Ranch Habitat Mlagation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March II, 2m breeding by bullfrogs or the survival of fish. If bullfrogs (including larvae) or fish are detected at any time, they will be immediately removed from the pond to prevent competition with, and predation on, the target amphibian species. In the unlikely event that fish are detected within a perennial pond, and they cannot easily be removed by dip net or seine, the pond will be drained in September to eliminate the fish. Surveys for, and relocation of, any California red - legged frogs will occur prior to and during the draining of such a pond, if needed. Beginning in Year 11, larval surveys will be conducted at a reduced level of effort once every three years to monitor the status of California tiger salamander and California-red-legged frog populations on the site. Hydroperiod and the presence of emergent vegetation will be noted during these larval surveys, and during incidental observations made during routine monitoring and maintenance activities on the site. Surveys for predatory species such as bullfrogs An_d fish will still be conducted on Brown Ranch on an annual basis, using divnets or seines, and any such species will be removed as described in the preceding paragraph. A single breeding- season survey of the Brown Ranch conservation area by a qualified biologist will be conducted annually to determine the number and location of Burrowing Owls on the mitigation site. In addition, during routine monitoring and maintenance activities on the site, observations of Burrowing Owls and San Joaquin kit foxes will be noted. Qualitative assessments of ground squirrel distribution and abundance will be made as well. Results of wildlife monitoring, including observations of Burrowing Owls, Sall Joaquin kit foxes, and ground squirrels, will be documented in monitoring reports. 5.4 ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT By December 31 of each of the first 10 years following the preservation of the on -site conservation area and the Brown Ranch mitigation area, an annual monitoring report will be submitted to the USFWS, summarizing the results of all monitoring activities during the previous calendar year. This report will detail the methods used to collect and analyze the data including comparisons to appropriate success criteria, the results of the data analysis, a discussion of the results, and conclusions regarding the present condition of the site. The annual report will include any recommended changes to the management plan or monitoring regime as part of an adaptive management plan, any remedial actions that are necessary or that were taken, and an analysis of relationships between monitoring results and success criteria. Representative photographs will be included. Specifically,, this report will summarize monthly rainfall data; results of the hydrological monitoring (including maximum water depth in Iate April and May when California tiger salamander and California red - legged frog surveys will be conducted); species composition and percent cover of vegetation around the ponds; results of California tiger salamander and California red - legged frog larval surveys (see Section 5.3.5); any incidental sightings of California tiger salarnanders, California red - legged frogs, San Joaquin kit foxes, bullfrogs, and California ground squirrels; results of photographic monitoring; and restoration and management recommendations and remediation needs. A summary of grazing indicators (e.g., monitoring of RDM) will be included in the report as appropriate. Braddock & Logan — Fallon trllagelBrown 48 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 Tables 3 and 4 summarize the monitoring efforts that will be implemented at the on -site conservation and Brown Ranch mitigation areas and summarized in annual reports, respectively. In addition, a reduced monitoring effort will be continued after year ten, to ensure that management efforts continue to be successful. This monitoring effort will be entirely for the third - party's (i.e., managers in perpetuity) benefit and will include a yearly summary of grazing efforts (i.e., initial and final stocking rates, seasonality of grazing, casual observations related to grazing) and a summary of any anomalous site conditions (i.e., problems with any infrastructure or features). In addition, every third year, a reduced survey effort will be conducted to determine occupation of features by special - status species. The documentation of grazing and successful occupation of the site by special- status species will allow managers to ensure that the goals of this management plan are met in perpetuity. A monitoring report will be provided to the Service and CDFG for each year in which monitoring occurs. Table 3. On -site Conservation Area Monitoring Summary Parameter Monitoring Period Monitoring Protocol California tiger April and May Spring larval surveys will be conducted in April and May by salamanders and annually from Year I a qualified herpetologist approved by the USFwS to California red - legged to Year 10, then determine the breeding status of both amphibians in the on- frogs every three years site stock pond. Daytime surveys using dipnet sweeps or after Year 11 scining will be used to measure a relative index of breeding in the pond. If bullfrogs are detected, they will be immediately removed from the population. Detections 'of all species will be included in the annual monitoring report and detections of special - status species will be reported to the CNDDB. Residual Dry Matter Late fall (October For the first ten years of this management plan, prior to the (RDM) and November) first significant rain in fall, RDM will be measured at each of 5 key monitoring locations, the locations of which were stratified according to slope, aspect, and grazing regime (summer /fall vs. winter /spring grazing). RDM is most commonly measured through a combination of clipping plots and estimation, although an experienced land manager may be able to accurately estimate RDM visually. The initial target range for RDM is 800- 1,5001bs /acre for 0 to 10% slope, 1,000 -1,500 lbs /acre for 10 -20% slope, and 1,200 - 1,500 lbs /acre for slopes over 20 %. Target RDM values may be adjusted by staff from the third -party non -profit entity or consulting staff in consultation with the current grazing lessee, as necessary, depending on correlations between RDM and parameters related to sensitive resources. Staff will also complete reconnaissance surveys during vegetation monitoring to detect potential invasions by exotic plants as art of the adaptive management plan.. Braddock & Logan -- Fallon VllagwWrown 49 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by tite CDFG on March 11, 2011 Parameter Monitoring Monitoring Protocol Period Grazing period/season Throughout grazing The grazing manager will also, through casual observation, standing forage period (winter /spring observe forage utilization and modify stocking rates, grazing Bullfrogs and fish or summer /fall period, or grazing location within a given season, should will be conducted during larval California tiger depending on grazing areas be over or under grazed. Currently, Mr. Guenther has salamander and California red - legged frog monitoring regime) established monitoring sites throughout the area, but an surveys, using dipnets or seines as described for those experienced range manager may'monitor other areas based upon changing site conditions in the adaptive management California red - legged frog surveys are not conducted, spot - strategy. Grazing infrastructure Ongoing The ranching lessee will continuously monitor fencelines and erformed using di nets. Burrowing Owls other infrastructure (e.g., troughs) and maintain and repair A single breeding - season survey of the conservation area by a qualified biologist will be conducted annually to determine the number and location of Burrowing Owls in the on -site such features as necessary. When on the property, staff from conservation area: Burrowing Owls, San Joaquin kit foxes, and rounds uirrels the third -party non -profit entity and consulting firms will Observations of Burrowing Owls, San Joaquin kit foxes, and concentrations of California ground squirrels will be noted incidentally during other monitoring activities. note and report to the rancher any grazing infrastructure problems or maintenance needs observed. Burrowing Owls Annually during peak A single breeding - season survey of the conservation area by of breeding season a qualified biologist will be conducted annually to determine (mid -April through the number and location of Burrowing Owls in the on -site mid -Jul conservation area. Table 4. Brown Ranch: (Mitigation Site) Monitoring Summary Parameter Monitoring Monitoring Protocol Period California tiger salamander and Late April and May annually until Year Spring larval surveys will be conducted monthly in late April and May at the constructed ponds to detect evidence of California red - legged frog 10, then once every three years after Year I I breeding. Daytime surveys using dipnet sweeps or seining will be used to maximize the probability of detecting breeding. Detections of all species will be included in annual monitoring reports and detections of special- status species will be reported to the CNDDB. Bullfrogs and fish Generally during Thorough surveys for predators such as butifroes and fish will be conducted during larval California tiger larval survevs salamander and California red - legged frog monitoring surveys, using dipnets or seines as described for those species. In years in which California tiger, salamander and California red - legged frog surveys are not conducted, spot - checks of ponds for these predatory species will be erformed using di nets. Burrowing Owls Annually during peak of breeding season (mid -April through' A single breeding - season survey of the conservation area by a qualified biologist will be conducted annually to determine the number and location of Burrowing Owls in the on -site mid -Jul conservation area: Burrowing Owls, San Joaquin kit foxes, and rounds uirrels Incidental/ongoing Observations of Burrowing Owls, San Joaquin kit foxes, and concentrations of California ground squirrels will be noted incidentally during other monitoring activities. Braddock & Logan — Fallon NllagelBrown 50 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 201-1 Parameter Monitoring Monitoring Protocol Period Hydrology and One visit each season Four visits each year will be conducted to assess progress geomorphology of annually until Year towards hydrology and geomorphology success criteria. mitigation ponds and 10 if success criteria During each monitoring visit, weirs, berms, and spillways will seasonal wetland are met, then be inspected to insure they are functioning properly. Erosion reconnaissance and sediment deposition will also be assessed at the as -built surveys once stage, Year 3, Year 5, and Year 7 to determine whether annually after Year remedial action is required to insure the ponds have 11; also, three visits appropriate hydrology to support successful breeding by each winter until California tiger salamanders and California red - legged frogs. Year 7 if success The channels adjacent to Ponds 1, Pond 4, and Pond 5 will be criteria met, then assessed for geomorphic stability at the time of hydrology once annually monitoring. Berm stability and weir stability at Pond 1, Pond beginning in Year 8 4, and Pond 5 will be checked once each winter season. The depth and duration of water ponding will be measured during each quarterly monitoring visit, and during larval monitoring surveys, at permanent staff gauges. To provide more detailed information regarding wet - season hydrology and geomorphologic stability of these constructed features, monitoring at the ponds and seasonal 'wetland will occur three times each winter annually. A single staff gauge will be installed at each pond and at the seasonal wetland to measure the depth and duration of ponding at each monitoring visit. Staff gauges will be installed at the deepest portion of each pond or wetland along the cross - section that was created during the as -built topographic survey. .During these visits a qualified geomorphologist will also inspect the constructed weir, spillway, berm and adjacent channels at Wetland A for geomorphic stability. Native vegetation One visit annually in The annual site visits for percent cover monitoring associated establishment late spring/early with mitigation ponds and seasonal wetland will be conducted summer until Year 7 in late springlearly summer. Quadrats will be randomly if success criteria placed along.transects within the planted portion of the ponds. met, then one Percent cover will be estimated within quadrats and the reconnaissance average cover and standard errors reported. Staff will also survey annual after complete reconnaissance surveys during vegetation monitoring Year 8 to detect potential invasions by exotic plants as part of the adaptive management plan. In addition, during larval surveys, the presence and an estimate of the extent (in terms of a proportion of the pond surface or perimeter) of emergent vegetation will be noted for the portion of each pond to which cattle have access (which is expected to have less vegetation and thus be more suitable for California tiger salamanders) and for the portions of Ponds 1. 5. and 6 that are fenced off from cattle to maintain more emerge vegetation for California red - legged frogs. - Representative photos documenting these conditions will be taken during larval surveys. Photo monitoring Annually in late Two permanent photo monitoring locations will be established spring/early summer at each mitigation pond and the seasonal wetland to document in conjunction with existing conditions and progress towards the success criteria. vegetation Photos will be taken at each point twice each year during monitoring annual vegetation monitoring visits. Braddock & Logan — Fallon lrllag&Brown 51 H.T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 Parameter Monitoring Monitoring Protocol Period Jurisdictional Year 3 and then A formal delineation of new USACE jurisdictional areas will wetland creation amivally thereafter until Year 7 or the be conducted starting in Year 3. If required mitigation acreage is not achieved in Year 3, the formal delineation will be success criteria are repeated annually until the required acreage of new USACE met jurisdictional areas (combination of wetlands and other waters) is created. Residual Dry Matter Late fall (October Prior to the first significant rain in fall, RDM will be measured (RDM) and November) at each of 8 key monitoring locations, the locations of which were stratified according to slope, aspect, and grazing regime (summer /fall vs. winter /spring grazing). RDM is most commonly measured through a combination of clipping plots and estimation, although an experienced land manager may be able to accurately estimate RDM visually. The initial target range for RDM is.800- 1,5001bs /acre for 0 to 10% slope, 1,000- 1,500 Ibs/acre for 10 -20% slope, and 1,200 -1,500 lbs/acre for slopes over 20 %. Target RDM values may be adjusted by staff from the third -party non - profit entity or consulting staff in consultation with the current grazing lessee, as necessary, depending. on correlations between RDM and parameters related to sensitive resources. Staff will also complete reconnaissance surveys during RDM measurement to monitor potential invasions of exotic plants as part of the adaptive many einent plan. . Grazing Throughout grazing The grazing manager will also, through casual observation, period/season standing forage period (winter /spring . or summer /fall observe forage utilization and modify stocking rates, grazing period, or grazing location within a given season, should areas depending on grazing. be over or under grazed. Currently, Mr. Guenther has regime) established monitoring sites throughout the area, but an experienced range manager may monitor other areas based upon changing site conditions in the adaptive management strategy. Grazing Ongoing The ranching lessee will continuously monitor fenccelines and infrastructure other infrastructure (e.g., troughs) and maintain and repair such features as necessary. When on the property, staff from the third -party non -profit entity and consulting firms will note and report to the rancher any grazing infrastructure problems or maintenance needs observed. Trespassing and Ongoing The rangbing lessee will continuously monitor for evidence of tres6assinjz and for trash that may reduce the ecological trash removal value of the mitigation site, and will remove such trash when it is seen, this will be specified in the owner's contract with the lessee, Any trespassing issues will be addressed with the appropriate law enforcement entity as needed. 5.5 CONTINGENCIES AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS Each of the annual monitoring reports during the initial 10 -year monitoring period will include discussion of any evidence that the site is not performing to expectations, or that the mitigation actions are not on a trajectory toward achievement of the success criteria. If a performance or final success criterion is not met within the 10 -year monitoring period, an analysis of the cause Braddock & Logan — Fallon rillagelBrown 52 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 of site failure will be made and remedial. actions to correct the problem will be taken. Tile specific remedial action will depend on the cause of failure: For problems associated with emergent vegetation, potential remedial actions could include replanting or reseeding, or addition of fencing to limit livestock access to the pond. Failure to achieve a suitable hydroperiod for amphibian breeding may necessitate sediment removal from ponds or wetlands, replacement or modification of weirs, or raising of berms to increase depth and /or duration of ponding. If hydroperiod and emergent vegetation conditions are consistent with suitable amphibian breeding habitat, but California tiger salamanders and/or California red - legged frogs are not breeding successfully, the potential causes (e.g., failure of the initial translocation effort [if such an effort is approved separately by the USFWS and CDFG], slow colonization of the site by individuals from surrounding areas, predation, too much emergent vegetation, or other factors) will be investigated and remediated as appropriate. For example, predators (e.g., bullfrogs or fish) would be removed if present. If the initial translocation effort is not successful, and California tiger salamanders or California red - legged frogs are slow to colonize the ponds from adjacent areas, the duration of the initial monitoring period may be increased until the ponds are colonized and the success criteria are achieved. I€ monitoring suggests that upland habitat conditions are Iim j9 the achievement . of mitigation success, adaptive management measures may include modifications to the grazing regime (e.g., changing the _seasonality and /or intensity oUrazing) or the introduction of woody debris Wiles tb provide cover for mammals such as California ground sauirrels to facilitate an increase in the abundance of burrowing mammals on the site. Adaptive management of the site involving minor modifications to the ponds and their water control structures will be required, particularly in the first few years following pond construction, to refine site conditions to insure Iong -term success. Such actions will be taken as appropriate, and described in annual monitoring reports. - However, if larger -scale remedial actions are needed, a technical memo fully describing the proposed actions will be dratted and submitted to the permitting agencies for approval prior to implementing work. Braddock & Logan Services, Inc. will be responsible for funding the planning, implementation, and monitoring of any remedial measures required by the permitting agencies to meet the success criteria of the mitigation. The locations and design of mitigation ponds on Brown Ranch have been selected carefully so that failure of ponds, necessitating expensive repairs} will not occur. However. some - minor modifications to the ponds, such as the death or contour of a pond, or the addition of plant materials may be necessary to achieve the success criteria. As a result, foreseeable remedial actions are expected to be minor, and are not expected to cost more than $40,000 to achieve the initial success criteria. Braddock & Logan — Fallon VillagelBroivn 53 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 5.6 INITIAL ENHANCEMENT COSTS, LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT, AND ENDOWMENT As a condition of the Incidental Take Permit (ITP) issued by the CDFG for potential impacts of Phase H of the Braddock & Logan- Fallon Village Project and for implementation of mitigation activities at Brown Ranch in 2010 and later, the CDFG required that the BM MP describe initial enhancement actions and costs, as well as initial and capital costs for the first 10 years including success criteria monitoring. The overall enhancement actions for the Brown Ranch mitigation site were described in Section 5.3. However, some of those actions, such as construction of bonds 2, 3, 5, and 6, were undertaken prior to the issuance of the ITP by the CDFG Thus, the initial enhancement actions . for the purpose of the ITP, as well as their approximate costs. include: • Creation of ponds 1 and 4 ($40,000) • Creation of seasonal wetland A ($40,000) • Installation of cattle exclusion fencing ($10,000) • Debris removal and drains a enhancement ($15,000) Other initial and capital costs for the first 10 years, or until the initial success criteria are met, in addition to the costs of the initial - enhancement actions , include: • Larval CTS surveys ($75,240) • Habitat maintenance, including grazing oversight and miscellaneous repairsr ($4,31g) -- • Reporting, including photodocumentation and preparation of reports required by HMIVIP documenting success ($14,603) The on -site conservation area will be owned by the Geologic Hazard Abatement District established for the Fallon Village Project, and will be managed by a third -party non -profit entity approved by the USFWS. The Brown Ranch mitigation site will be owned by Braddock & Logan Services, Inc., and will be managed by a third -party non - profit entity approved by the USFWS. In addition, a rancher will lease the conservation lands for cattle grazing purposes; such grazing will occur in accordance with the grazing management guidelines outlined in this IINIMP. A third -party non -profit entity will begin management of the conservation areas upon recordation of the conservation easements. The terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion and the USACE and RWQCB permits for the Fallon Village Project require certain monitoring measures, and require the achievement of success criteria, within the first 10 years following the preservation of the two conservation areas and the construction of ponds and wetland on the Brown Ranch. The ITP issued by the CDFG similarly requires, monitoring and achievement of success criteria for the mitigation. Following the achievement of all success criteria, the ' Miscellaneous repairs do not include remedial actions needed to ensure the ponds achieve the initial success criteria. The cost of possible remedial actions for the ponds is addressed in Section 5.5. Braddock & Logan -- Fallon 011ageJBrown 54 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 performance bond and /or other securi posted by Braddock & Logan will be released and the third -party non - profit entity holding the conservation easements will Pei-form the long -term management, maintenance, and monitoring. Thus, although the third -party non - profit entity may manage the conservation areas beginning -in Year 1, monitoring and maintenance costs will be borne by Braddock & Logan until bond release or the initial success criteria are achieved. In our experience, monitoring and maintenance costs will be highest in the first few years (i.e., Years 1 -10) following pond and wetland construction. Minor modifications or repairs to various components of the mitigation and management program (e.g., grazing regimes, weirs, and other features) will likely have to be made, and the success of these modifications in moving the mitigation along a trajectory toward achievement of the success criteria will have to be monitored. However, as the site stabilizes, less maintenance will be required, and it is expected that the constructed ponds and wetland will achieve the success criteria within the 10 -year monitoring period prescribed by the Biological Opinion and the USACE and RWQCB permits. An endowment fund will be established for the monitoring and perpetual management and maintenance of the on -site conservation area and the Brown Ranch mitigation site, including the six created breeding ponds. The principal in the endowment will be calculated so that it will generate sufficient revenue to cover the costs of maintenance and management of the mitigation sites as outlined in this IIMMP, after the initial period of site stabilization. The CDFG has determined that an endowment fund in the amount of 5793.594 will uPnPrntP arrffid von4 of maintenance and outlined in this HIKW, after the initial success criteria are achieved. The endowment will be made to an entity approved by the USFWS and the CDFG prior to the initiation of Phase 2, which .will empower the Resource Manager (third -party selected by the applicant and approved by the USFWS and CDFG) to access and expend.funds to implement remedial measures if the responsible Preserve Managers fail to fully implement the HMMP. In addition, the USFWS and the CDFG shall have the ability to access and expend funds to implement the HMMP if the Resource Manager and Preserve Managers fail to implement the HA". Braddock & Logan will provide the USFWS and the Corps with documentation that: (1) funds for the perpetual management of the 172 acres of the habitat on -site and the 530 acres of habitat on the Brown Ranch have been transferred to the appropriate third -party approved by the USFWS; (2) the third party has accepted the funds and considers them adequate; (3) that these funds have been deposited in an endowment that will provide adequate financing for the monitoring and perpetual management and maintenance of the preserve and habitat protection area. For purposes of compliance with the CDFG ITP. other financial cPenrity in lip„ of an The amount of the endowment is being determined based upon an analysis of the anticipated costs of management and monitoring of the conservation areas. A Property Assessment Record (PAR) analysis is being prepared by Braddock & Logan, in consultation the third -party non- profit entity that will manage the conservation areas. This analysis will be forwarded to the relevant resource agencies upon its completion. The CDFG has reviewed and approved the PAR analysis dated November 17, 2010 for the Brown Ranch. Braddock & Logan — Fallon VillageJBrown 55 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 LITERATURE CITED City of Dublin. 2005. Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by Jerry Haig, Urban Planner. Clark, H. O., Jr., B. L. Cypher, and P. A. Kelly, 2002a. Aerial Surveys for kit fox natal dens in the Northern Range, California. California State University, Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program. 5 pp. +Appendix. Clark, H., D. Smith, and P. Kelly. 2002b. Scent dog Surveys for the San Joaquin kit fox in the Tracy Triangle area, California. California State University, Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program. 6 pp. + Appendix. Clark, H. O., Jr., D: A. Smith, B. L. Cypher, and P. A. Kelly. 2003. Detection dog surveys for San Joaquin kit fox in the Northern Range. California State University, Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program. 18 pp. + Appendix. [CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Data Base. 2006. Rarefind. California Department of Fish and Game. Condor Country Consulting. 2002. 2001 -2002 Wet Season Branchiopod Survey Report. Unpublished technical report prepared for Sycamore Associates LLC and the Braddock and Logan Group for Bankhead and Mandeville Properties, East Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California. May 29. Condor Country Consulting. 2003. 2002 -2003 Wet Season Branchiopod Survey Report. Braddock and Logan, East' Dublin Properties, Southern Portion, AIameda County, California. Unpublished technical report prepared for Sycamore Associates LLC. October 28. Helm Biological Consulting. 2004. Soil Analysis for evidence of Federally Listed Large Branchiopods of the East Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California. Unpublished technical report prepared for Sycamore Associates, LLC. September 2004. Holland, R. F.. 1986. Preliminary Description of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.. California Department of Fish & Game. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1990a. Rare Plant Survey of the East Dublin Property, Alameda County. Project Number 555 -03. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1990b. Eastern Dublin Golden Eagle Survey Phase I Report. Project Number 555 -04. Unpublished technical report prepared for Mr. Ted Fairfield, Pleasanton, California. 27 September. Braddock & Logan — Fallon Village/Brown 56 H.T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March II, 2011 H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1991x. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Review of Kit Fox Issues Phase 1 Report. Project Number 555 -05. Unpublished technical report prepared for Mr. Ted Fairfield, Pleasanton, California. 20 August. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1991b. San Joaquin Kit Fox Surveys Dublin Ranch, Alameda County. Project Number 555 -07. Unpublished technical report prepared for Mr. Ted Fairfield, Pleasanton, California. 7 November. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1992a. Final U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Analysis, Dublin Ranch, East Dublin, Project Number 555 -02. Unpublished technical report prepared for Mr. Ted Fairfield, Pleasanton, California. 18 June. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1992b. Summary of Kit Fox Surveys in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. Project Number 555 -05. Unpublished technical report. 9 April. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1993. Dublin Ranch Special- Status Amphibian and Reptile Surveys. Project Number 555 -09. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1996a. Dublin Ranch Fairy Shrimp Surveys. Project Number 555- 10. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1996b. Dublin Ranch: 1995 Special - Status Amphibian and Reptile Surveys. Project Number 555 -11. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1997a. Dublin Ranch San Joaquin Kit Fox Preliminary Report and Results from Earlier Phases of Kit Fox Surveys. Project Number 555 -13. Unpublished technical report prepared for Mr. Ted Fairfield, Pleasanton, California. I 1 June. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1997b. (Revised) Dublin Ranch San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey. Project Number- 555 -13. Unpublished technical report prepared for Mr. Ted Fairfield, Pleasanton, California. 9 October, H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1997c. San Joaquin Kit Fox Surveys, Dublin Ranch, Alameda County, Phase 1, 1993 USFWS Protocol Fall 1996. Project Number 555 -10. Unpublished technical report prepared for Mr. Ted Fairfield, Pleasanton, California. 11 June. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1997d. Distribution of the San Joaquin Kit Fox in the North Part of its Range. Project Number 673 -11. Unpublished technical report prepared for Mr. Ted Fairfield, Pleasanton, California. 13 March. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1997e. Dublin Ranch Fairy Shrimp Surveys. Project Number 555- 10. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1998a. Dublin Ranch Fairy Shrimp Surveys 199711998 Wet Season. Project Number 555 -17. Braddock & Logan -- Fallon YillageBrorvn 57 H.T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1998b. Dublin Ranch: 1998 Special - Status Amphibian and Reptile Surveys.. Project Number 555 -21. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1998c. Pao Yeh Lin Identification of Potentially Suitable Special - Status Plant Habitats. Project Number 555 -18. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1999a. Pao Yeh Lin Property Special- Status Species Surveys. Project Number 555 -23. Unpublished technical report prepared for Mr. Ted Fairfield, Pleasanton, California. 7 September. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1999b. Pao Yeh Lin Property Fairy Shrimp Surveys 1998/1999 Wet Season. Project Number 555 -27. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1999c. Dublin Ranch Alameda County, California Identification of Waters of the U.S. Prepared for Ms. Jennifer Lin c/o Ted C. Fairfield. Project Number 555 -30. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 19994. Dublin Ranch Areas F, G, and H (Pao Yeh Lin Property) Ecological Impacts and Mitigation. Project Number 555 -26. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1999e. Letter to Dr. Rick Hopkins of H.T. Harvey & Associates regarding California red - legged frog habitat on the Jordan property. 2 March. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2000a. Pao Yeh Lin Property Fairy Shrimp Survey 1990/2000 Wet Season. Project 555 -27, H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2000b. Rare Plant Survey of the East Dublin Property, Alameda County. File Number 555 -03. Unpublished technical report prepared for Mr. Ted Fairfield, Pleasanton, California. 21 August. H.T. Harvey and Associates. 2000c. Dublin Ranch Northern Drainage, Alameda County, California, Identification of Waters of the U.S. Project Number 555 -30. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2000d. Dublin Ranch Area A Golden Eagle Report. Project Number 555 -29. Unpublished technical report. 17 April, H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2000e. Dublin Ranch Golden Eagle Nest Buffer -Zone Analysis. Project Number 555 -29. Unpublished technical report. 31 January. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2001a, Dublin Ranch: 2000 Special - Status Amphibian and Reptile Surveys. Project Number 555 -31. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2001b (revised). Project Area Biological Assessment for the California.Red- legged Frog. Project Number 555 -27. Braddock & Logan — Fallon lrllag&Brown 58 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2002. Dublin Ranch 2000 and 2001 Golden Eagle Report. Project Number 555 -29. Unpublished technical report. 6 February. H.T. Harvey and Associates. 2003a. Dublin Ranch Northern Drainage Open Space Connector, Identification of Waters of the U.S. Addendum to Corps File No. 252885. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2003b. Dublin Ranch Project Area Mitigation and Monitoring PIan for the California Tiger Salamander. Project Number 555 -27. Unpublished technical report prepared for Ms. Jennifer Lin, Pleasanton, California, 28 February. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2003c. Dublin Ranch 2002 Golden Eagle Report. Project Number 555 -29. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 20034. Dublin Ranch Northern Drainage Conservation Area Habitat Management Plan, Project Number 555 -26 H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2004a. Dublin Ranch Project Area California red - legged frog and California Tiger Salamander 2003 Salvage Report. Project Number 555 -27. Unpublished technical report prepared for Ms. Jennifer Lin, Pleasanton, California. February. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2004b. Dublin Ranch Project Area California red - legged frog 2004 Salvage Report. Project Number 555 -27. Unpublished technical report prepared for Ms. Jennifer Lin, Pleasanton, California. 27 December. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2004c. Dublin Ranch 2003 Golden Eagle Report. Project Number 555 -29 H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2006a. Preliminary Pre- construction Survey Results for the Braddock & Logan Fallon Village Project Site. Project Number 2382 -02. Leiter report prepared for Mr. Jeff Lawrence, Braddock & Logan Services, Inc., Danville, California. 7 September. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2006b. Biological Assessment for the California red - legged frog, California tiger salamander, and San Joaquin kit fox for the Braddock & Logan - Fallon Village (and associated off -site mitigation area) (revised). Project Number 2382 -01. Unpublished technical report prepared for. Mr. Jeff Lawrence, Braddock & Logan Services, Inc, Danville, California. 27 April. H.T. Harvey & Associates 2006c, Lin Livermore Conservation Area California Red - legged Frog and California Tiger Salamander 2005 Mitigation Monitoring Report. Project Number. 555 -27. Unpublished technical report prepared for Ms. Jennifer Linn, c/o Mat-tin Inderbitzen, Pleasanton, California. 19 June. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2007. Braddock & Logan Fallon Village Project Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Project Number 2382 -03. Unpublished technical report prepared for Braddock & Logan -- Fallon rillagelBrotvn 59 H.T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plait Approved by the CDFG on March 11; 2011 Mr. Jeff Lawrence, Braddock & Logan Services, Inc., Danville, California. Corps. File . no. 266985. Final Draft, 26 March 2007. H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2010. Lower Brown Ranch: 2010 California Tiger Salamander Survey Results. Project Number 2382 -10. Unpublished technical report prepared for Mr. Jeff Lawrence, Braddock & Logan Services, Inc., Danville, California. Corps. File no. 26698S. Rana Resources. 2001a. California Red - legged Frog Protocol -level Surveys for the Jordan Ranch. Letter of Findings to Zander Associates. 28 May. Rana Resources. 2001b. California Tiger salamander Protocol -level Surveys for the Jordan Ranch. Letter of Findings to Zander Associates. 27 July. [RMP] City of Dublin. 2004. Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties, Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., Zander Associates, Sycamore Associates, LLC, MacKay and Somps, Hydro Science, and Basin Research Associates. [SCS] Soil Conservation Service. 1966. Soil Survey of Alameda Area, California. Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture. [SCS] Soil Conservation Service. 1977. Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California. Washington; D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture. Smith, D. A., K. Rails, K, B. Davenport, Adams, B. and J.E. Maldonado. 2001. Canine Assistants for Conservationists. Science 291:435. Smith, D. A., K. Rails, A. Hurt, B. Adams, M. Parker, B. Davenport, M. C. Smith and J. E. Maldonado. 2003. Detection and accuracy rates of dogs trained to find scats of San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes rnacmtis mulica). Animal Conservation 6:339 -346. Stoddard, L.A., A.R. Smith and T.W. Box. 1975. Range Management. McGraw -Hill, New York. Sycamore Associates LLC. 2001a. Site Assessment for California Red- Legged Frog and California Tiger Salamander at the Bankhead/Mandeville Properties, East Dublin, Alameda County, California. Unpublished technical report prepared for the Braddock and Logan Group, Danville, California. 14 July. Sycamore Associates LLC. 2001b. Site Assessment for California Red - legged Frog, Dublin Corporate Center, Dublin, Alameda County, California. Unpublished letter report prepared for Foster Enterprises, Foster City, California. 14 August. Braddock & Logan — Fallon P7111ageBrown 60 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat A idgation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 Sycamore Associates LLC. 2001c. California Red - legged Frog Focused Surveys, Dublin Corporate Center Project Site, Dublin, Alameda County, California. Unpublished letter report prepared for Foster Enterprises, Foster City, California. 16 August. Sycamore Associates .LLC. 2001d. California Tiger Salamander Focused Surveys, Dublin Corporate Center Project Site, Dublin, Alameda County, California. Unpublished letter report prepared for Foster Enterprises, Foster City, California. 20 August. Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002a. Biological Assessment for the Bankhead and Mandeville Properties, Part of the East Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California. Unpublished technicaI report prepared for the Braddock and Logan Group, Danville, California. 21 August. Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002b. Botanical Assessment of the Bankhead, Mandeville, and Croak Properties, Part of the East Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California. Unpublished technical report prepared for the Braddock and Logan Group, Danville, California. 31 January. Sycamore Associates LLC. .2002c. Botanical Assessment for a Portion of the East Dublin Properties (Tseng, Anderson, Righetti, Branaugh, Campbell, RBJ, and Pleasanton Ranch Properties) Alameda County, California. Unpublished technical report prepared for the Braddock and Logan Group, Danville, California. I August. Sycamore Associates LLC. ' 2002d. Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the Bankhead -and Mandeville Properties, Part of the East Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California. Unpublished technical report prepared for the Braddock and Logan Group, Danville, California. 31 January. Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002e. Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for a Portion of the East Dublin Properties (Tseng, Anderson, Righetti, Branaugh, Campbell, EBJ, and Pleasanton Ranch Properties) Alameda County, California. Unpublished technical report prepared for the Braddock and Logan Group, Danville, California. 22 August. Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002£ Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the Croak Property, Part of the East Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California, Unpublished technical report prepared for the Brad_ dock and Logan Group, Danville, California. 23 September. Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002g. Interim Special - Status Branchiopod Report for the East Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California. Unpublished technical report prepared for the Braddock and Logan Group, Danville, California. 27 September. Sycamore Associates LLC, 2002h. Site Assessment for California Red - Legged Frog at the Croak Property, Part of the East Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California. Braddock & Logan -- Fallon VillagelBrown 61 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 Unpublished technical report prepared for the Braddock and Logan Group, Danville, California. 27 September. Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002i. Interim California Tiger Salamander Report, East Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California. Unpublished technical report prepared for the Braddock and Logan Group, Danville, California. 27 September. Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002j. Habitat Assessment for Burrowing Owl, Tseng and Righetti. Properties, Part of the East Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California. Unpublished technical report prepared for Tseng and Righetti. 22 February. Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002k. Habitat Assessment for Burrowing Owl, Bankhead, Mandeville, Anderson, Campbell, Branaugh and Croak Properties, Part of the East Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California. Unpublished technical report prepared for the Braddock and Logan Group, Danville, California. 27 September. Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003a. Site Assessment for the California Red - Legged Frog, Croak Property, Part of the East Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California. 27 September, Sycamore Associates LLC, 2003b. California Tiger Salamander Report for the East Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California. 5 November. Townsend, S. E., and Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002x. Early Evaluation for the San Joaquin Kit Fox, Bankhead and Mandeville Properties, Dublin, California. Unpublished technical report prepared for the Braddock and Logan Group, Danville, California. q January. Townsend, S..E., and Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002b. Early Evaluation for the San Joaquin Kit Fox, Chen and Righetti Properties, Part of the East Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California. Unpublished technical report prepared for Chen and Righetti. 25 February. Townsend, S. E., and Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002c. Early Evaluation for San Joaquin Kit Fox for the Anderson, Campbell, Branaugh and Croak Properties, Part of the East Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California. Unpublished technical report prepared for the Braddock and Logan Group, Danville, California. 27 September. Trenham, P. C., and H. B. Shaffer. 2005. Amphibian upland habitat use and its consequences for population viability. Ecological Applications 15:1158 -1168. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey Protocol for the Northern Range. Prepared by the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. June 1999 [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Braddock & Logan — Fallon P"IllagelBrown 62 H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 Salamander. Prepared by the Sacramento Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. October. [USFWS] .U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Determination of threatened status for the California tiger salamander. Federal Register 69(149 ):47211 - 47248. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red - legged Frog. Prepared by the Sacramento Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. August. Wildland Solutions. 1998. Residual Dry Matter (RDM) Monitoring Photo- Guide, Wildland Solutions Field Guide Series. [WRA] Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. 2003a. California Tiger Salamander Site Assessment Report, Jordan Property. (Appendix of 2003a). Prepared for the City of Dublin. October 2003. [WRA] Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. 2003b. San Joaquin Kit Fox Early Evaluation Report, Jordan Parcel. (Appendix of 2003a). Prepared for the City of Dublin. November 2003. [WRA] Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. 2004a. Rare Plant Survey Report for the Jordan Property, Dublin, California. Prepared for the City of Dublin. [WRA] Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. 2004b. California Tiger Salamander Survey Report for the Jordan Property, Dublin, California. Prepared for the City of Dublin. [WRA] Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. 2004c. Biological Assessment of the Jordan Property, Dublin, California. Prepared for the City of Dublin. December 2003 (revised January 2004). Zander Associates. 1999. Biological Resources Constraints Analysis, Jordan Ranch, Dublin, California. 18 March. Zander Associates. 2000. Wetland Delineation and Jurisdictional Determination for the Jordan Ranch, Dublin, Alameda County. Braddock & Logan— Fallon VllagelBrown 63 H. T. Harvey &Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Managetnent Plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 APPkNDIX A. PROPERTY ANALYSIS RECORD (PAR) Braddock & Logan — Fallon VliageBrown 64 - H. T. Harvey & Associates Ranch Habitat Mitigation & Management plan Approved by the CDFG on March 11, 2011 Section 15 - Ongoing Tasks and Costs Property Title: Brown Ranch I Offsite Only PAR ID: Brown 12/0912010 Task Specirlc Number Cost 1 Annual Years Cont Total List Description Unit of Units Unit Cost Divide % Cost BIOTIC SURVEYS Wildlife Biologist Burrowing Owl Surveys L. Hours 10,00 95.00 950.00 1.0 10.0 1,045.00 Wldlife Biologist Larval Surveys CLRF /CTS L. Hours 72.00 95.00 6,840.00 3.0 10.0 2,508.00 - --- - - - - - - - - --------- ------------------------ Sub -Total 3,553.00 ------------- - - - - -- __ ---- - - - - -- HABITAT MAINTENANCE Brush Management Grazing Plan Consultation L. Hours 8.00 70.00 560.00 1.0 10.0 616.00 Exotic Plant Control Backpack Spray - Spot L. Hours 10.00 50.00 500.00 3.0 10.0 183.33 Exotic Plant Control Hand Removal L. Hours 20.00 40.00 800.00 1.0 10.0 880,00 Exotic Plant Control Pulse Grazing in Ponds L. Hours 16.00 45.00 720.00 3.0 10.0 264.00 Other ------ - - - - - - - - - - Pond InspNeg Depth 8 ------------------- L. Hours ---------- 15.00 ------------------------------------------ 65.00 975.00 1.0 10.0 1,072.50 Sub -Total Sub -Total ------------- --------------------------- 3,015.83 PUBLIC SERVICES WATER MANAGEMENT - - - -- - -- -- Sign Offsite (15) Item 15.00 40.00 600.00 7.0- 10.0 94.28 Sub- Total - ----- - - - - - - - --------- - - 94.28 ------------------- ------------------ REPORTING Agency Report Agency Report L. Hours 12.00 95.00 1,140.00 1.0 10.0 1,254,00 Data Management Summary L. Hours 5.00 90.00 450.00 3.0 10.0 165.00 Photodocumentation Field Survey L. Hours 15.00 50.00 750.00 1.0 10.0 825.00 Report Production Labor L, Hours 25.00 - 45.00 1,125.00 3.0 10.0 432.50 -- - - - - -- Sub - Total -- -- 2,656.50 -------------------------------.-------- SITE CONSTRUCTIONIMAINT. Fence - Installed Monitoring L. Hours 15.00 40.00 600.00 1.0 10.0 660.00 Fence - Installed Offsite 5 -str. b.w. Gin. Ft. 33,875.00 6.80 230,350.00 30.0 10.0 8,446.16 Gate Installed - Offsite (10) Item 10.00 450.00 4,500.00 15.0 10.0 330.00 Other Road Maintenance 2-d Item 1.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 1.0 lo.0 2,200.00 Project Management SupeMselcoordinale -------------------------- L. Hours 20.00 ------------- 135.00 -------- 2,700.00 -------------- 1.0 10.0 2,970.00 Sub -Total ------------- ----------------------------- 14,606.16 WATER MANAGEMENT ------------ Pond Maintenance Sediment Removal Unit 1.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 20.0 10.0 1,650.00 Water Control Erosion Maintenance Item 1.00 500.00 500.00 1.0 10.0 550.00 Water Control Pond Well Hydro L. Hours ------- ------ 20.00 75.00 1,500.00 1.0 10.0 1,650.00 -- Sub -Total - - - - -- - - -- - -- 3,850.00 Subtotal 27,775.78 Administration Total 0.00 27,775.78 Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999 -2008 Center for Natural Lands Management %Yww.cnlm.org Sect.15 Pagel Section 16 - Financial Summary Property Title: Brown Ranch /Offsite Only .1st Budget Year 2011 State: Initial & Capital Financial Requirements Revenues Management Costs Contingency Expense Administrative Costs of Total Management Costs Annual Ongoing Financial Requirements Revenues Ongoing Costs Contingency Expense Administrative Costs of Total Management Costs Date: 12/09/2010 PAR Code: Brown Endowment Requirements for Ongoing Stewardship i Endownrentper acre $1,688 Stewardship costs are based on 3.50% of Endowment Earnings per Year Ongoing management fundingper year is $27,776 Resulting in a per acre per year cost of $59 Property Analysis Record 3 - Version 1.03 (C) 1999 -2008 Center for Natural Lands Management MAV.cnlm.org $0 $0 $0 M. $0 $25,251 $2,525 $0 Sect. 16 Page 1