Chapter 2 - Alternatives (15.5mb) by fre77224

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 54

									                 TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
                                                                       Draft Environmental Impact Statement
                                                               Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives


2.0          PROPOSED MSHCP AND ALTERNATIVES
2.1          INTRODUCTION
This section provides background information including project location and existing land uses on the Covered
Lands. This section also describes the four alternatives under consideration in this EIS: (1) the No Action
Alternative; (2) the Proposed Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Alternative (Proposed MSHCP
Alternative); (3) the Condor HCP Alternative; and (4) the MSHCP General Plan Buildout Alternative.

These alternatives generally correspond with the evolution of land use planning and conservation concepts
within the Covered Lands that were considered over a period of years. The MSHCP General Plan Buildout
Alternative reflects the development that would occur on the Covered Lands under the existing Kern County
General Plan land use designations, including large lot (20 to 80 acres) rural residential development and
several higher-density planned communities.1 The Condor HCP Alternative represented an effort to
substantially modify the land use patterns that could occur under the existing General Plan to avoid
development of areas that provide the most important California condor habitat. The Condor HCP Alternative
would result in new development within the boundaries of the Tejon Mountain Village (TMV) Planning Area,
certain other higher-density planned communities that are identified in the General Plan, and in large lots
within other Covered Land areas. Under the Condor HCP alternative, potential impacts to other protected
species would have been addressed during subsequent project-specific permit and review processes. The
Proposed MSHCP Alternative represents the further refinement of a comprehensive land use and species
protection program within the Covered Lands. It would permanently preclude development on most of the
Covered Lands and limit new residential and commercial activity to the TMV Planning Area and the
Headquarters/Lebec Area (as described further below). NEPA requires that the No Action Alternative be
considered, i.e., that no ITP be provided to TRC for the incidental take of any federally protected species. This
alternative provides an important point of comparison for all alternatives considered in this EIS.

2.2          BACKGROUND
2.2.1 Covered Lands
The Covered Lands represent 141,886 acres of the 270,365-acre ranch 2 and are located approximately 60
miles north of Los Angeles and 30 miles south of Bakersfield, California (Figures 1.1, 2.1). The Covered
Lands generally constitute the Tehachapi Mountain Uplands Area of the ranch, which is roughly above the
2,000-foot elevation level on the north (San Joaquin Valley) side of the mountains and generally above the
3,500-foot elevation level on the south (Antelope Valley) side. The maximum elevation of the Tehachapi

1
    The Kern County General Plan provides a comprehensive plan for the County, including land use designations for
    permissible uses of designated land areas as well as other plans and policies. For purposes of this EIS, the land
    use designations in the Kern County General Plan have been used to identify land use development densities for
    the Covered Lands. Actual permissible development would be determined through the Kern County entitlement
    process, and may vary from the General Plan land use designations by application of other plans and policies as
    well as other applicable requirements.
2
    Approximately 3,886 acres of the total 141,886 acres are not owned by TRC. The California Department of Water
    Resources (DWR) owns 35 acres of this land, and it will be used, under all four alternatives, to construct a turnout that
    will enable the Tejon-Castac Water District (TCWD) to provide water to the Covered Lands. This will result in
    approximately 8 acres of disturbed land. In order to be conservative, a 16-acre disturbance acreage is included for all
    alternatives. The remaining 3,870 acres are composed of several, smaller privately owned parcels within the Covered
    Lands. The MSHCP provides a method by which take coverage could be expanded to these parcels if ultimately
    acquired by TRC. While TRC has no plan to acquire such parcels and the MSHCP does not provide coverage for
    development of these privately owned parcels, given the fragmented and isolated locations of these parcels within the
    Covered Lands it was determined that these parcels should be included within the Covered Lands for MSHCP purposes.
    As a result, the 3,870 acres of private inholdings are included in the total acreage of the Covered Lands. The inholdings
    are not, however, included in the EIS analysis because these parcels are not owned by TRC, TRC does not have any
    development or use plans affecting these lands, and TRC is not seeking coverage for any development of these parcels.



                                                                                                                         2-1
TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

Mountain Uplands is approximately 7,000 feet. For purposes of the MSHCP and this document, a 37,100-acre
area within the Tehachapi Mountain Uplands has been identified as the Tunis and Winters Ridge area, which
is defined as the area between the 2,000-foot elevation above the San Joaquin Valley Floor and the
overlooking ridgelines between Pastoria Creek on the west and El Paso Creek on the east. While most of the
Covered Lands are concentrated in the central portion of the ranch, the Covered Lands also include an
approximately 5,116-acre area north of the Tehachapi range, near the intersection of SR-58 and SR-223,
which is the other higher altitude area within the ranch. Figure 2.2 depicts the topographic features of the
Covered Lands.

2.2.2 Existing Land Uses
Figure 2.3 identifies the existing land uses on the Covered Lands, many of which occur plan-wide. These uses
include grazing; farming and irrigation; ancillary ranch structures and backcountry cabins; fencing; and the use
and maintenance of the TRC headquarters, offices, and other structures in the Lebec/Existing Headquarters
area.

The primary plan-wide land use within the Covered Lands is livestock grazing, which also serves a critical fuel
management purpose for fire protection. Livestock grazing occurs on approximately 240,000 of the ranch’s
270,365 acres, including most of the Covered Lands. The number of cattle on the ranch ranges from 8,000 to
17,000, with an average of approximately 12,500. Sheep are sometimes grazed on the eastern part of the
ranch and within the Covered Lands. Numerous improvements for grazing, including fences, watering
systems, and corrals, are present throughout the Covered Lands. The vast majority of cultivated farmland
owned by TRC is located in the San Joaquin Valley Floor and not within the Covered Lands. Approximately
24 acres of experimental grape and fruit tree orchards are located near Castac Lake within the Covered
Lands.

Approximately 2,500 acres of the Covered Lands are leased to the National Cement Company (Figure 2.4).
Activities within the National Cement lease area include cement production and limestone mining. Sand,
gravel, and rock extraction activities also occur at the approximately 200-acre La Liebre Mine, also within the
Covered Lands. No oil drilling occurs within Covered Lands.

Other uses within the Covered Lands include utility (electricity, oil, fiber optic, gas transmission) corridors and
facilities including pipelines, transmission lines, antennae farms, and other utility equipment; filming; game
management including commercial hunting; and recreation including equestrian facilities and events. The
California Aqueduct also traverses the Covered Lands.

One natural lake (Castac Lake) is present within the Covered Lands (Figure 2.5). Castac Lake is located near
the south end of the ranch in the Tehachapi Mountain Uplands.

Two paved roads of significant length exist entirely or partly on Covered Lands: one provides access to the
California Aqueduct for the California Department of Water Resources, and the other provides access to the
National Cement plant. The Covered Lands also contain a network of additional roads to support existing land
uses, most of which are unpaved.

2.2.3 Covered Species
Federally listed species that would be included within the incidental take coverage and MSHCP include
California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow
flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus),
and western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis). The MSHCP would also include the
following State-listed and unlisted species: Tehachapi slender salamander (Batrachoseps stebbinsi), bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), little willow flycatcher
(Empidonax traillii brewsteri), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), ringtail
(Bassariscus astutus), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), Tehachapi pocket mouse (Perognathus alticolus
inexpectatus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), yellow-blotched salamander (Ensatina eschscholtzii



2-2
                                                                                                                                                                             Isabella Lake




                                                                           Kern
                                                                           Kern




                                                                                                                           Bakersfield                                                                          Koehn Lake



                                                                           Soda
                                                                           Lake
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 California City




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        San Bernard no
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        S a n B e r n a r d ii n o
                                                                          S a n L u ii s O b ii s p o
                                                                          San Lu s Ob spo




                                                                                                                                                                                                               Rogers
                                                                                                            Kern
                                                                                                            Kern                                                                                                Lake
                                                                                                                   TEJON
Z:\Projects\j540501\PROJ\MAPS\EIS_Figs\Fig2-1_regional.mxd 6/18/2008




                                                                                                                   RANCH                                                                                                Kern
                                                                                                                                                                                                  Rosamond              Kern
                                                                                                                                                                                                      Lake




                                                                          S a n tt a B a r b a r a
                                                                          San a Barbara
                                                                                                                                           Pyramid                                            Lancaster
                                                                                                                   V e n tt u r a
                                                                                                                   Ve n u r a              Lake

                                                                                Lake                                                                                                                Palmdale
                                                                              Cachuma                                                                                                                                        Tejon Ranch Boundary
                                                                                                                                                        Castaic Lake
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Covered Lands
                                                                                                                                                                       L o s A n g e ll e s
                                                                                                                                                                       Los An ge es                                          Cities
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Counties
                                                                                            Santa Barbara



                                                                          Pacific O                                                                  Santa Clarita                                                                                                      Miles
                                                                                    cea                                                                                                                           0                                                   20
                                                                                        n



                                                                       OCTOBER 31 2008
                                                                       OCTOBER 31 2008
                                                                                                                                         TEHACHAPI UPLAND MSHCP DRAFT EIS                                                                                   FIGURE
                                                                                                                                                                       Regional Location Map                                                                         2.1
 
                                                                                                      Tejon Ranch Boundary

                                                                                                      Covered Lands

                                                                                                      Condor Study Area

                                                                                                      Not a Part

                                                                                              Elevation in Feet
                                                                                                      High : 7877


                                                                                                      Low : 2000
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Bea r
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Mounta in
                                                                                                                                        Miles                                                                                                                       (693 4)
                                                                                                  0                                    4




                                                                                                          SAN

                                                                                                      JOAQUIN                                                                                                                                                                                       Cum mings
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Mounta in
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    (772 5)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Te j
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               n
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           o




                                                                                                       VA L L E Y                                                                                                                                                  C                                                                  Cov ingto
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ny
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    a




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             on                                                       Mounta in
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      (787 7)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  S
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              I N
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    A
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         B n                                                                    N T
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            U   (549 1)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               El




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          o co C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               r




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    O
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  M so




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          n                                                         Cot
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         a




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          id
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Pa




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               on                            M                         to
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           y




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               dl                                                                           wo
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          n

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    e                                       Liebre                            o
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Cr              R id
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              d
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Twins                                 r
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ek                  ge
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           e




                                                                                                                                                                                                              Wi n t
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  eek
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            (641 3)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ers                                               Dior it e                 (620 5)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Pe ak
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ge
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 R




                                                                                                                                                                                                      n is C                         i dg e                                  (667 4)   id
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Tu
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  te R
                                                                                                                                                                                                             re
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        k                                   I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     e




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         P Lopez Flats i o
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ri




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         S a ca t ar a C
                                                                                                                                                                             Tun i s R i d                                                      A                        D                              r
                                                                                                                 Li v




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        eek




                                                                                                                                                                                               g
                                                                                                                         e                                                                                                                H
                                                                                                                                                                                                  e
                                                                                                                             Oa




                                                                                                       Gr apevine              k                                                                       e                             C
                                                                                                                                                                                                  g




                                                                                                                                     r e ek
                                                                                                                                                                                                  d                         A
                                                                                                       Pe ak (47 50)
                                                                                                                                                                                          Ri
                                                                                                                                   C




                                                                                                                                                                                   g hu s                            H
                                                                                                                                                                             Ge              on                E
                                                                                                                                                                  Be




                                                                                                                                                                                         y
                                                                                                                                                                    a          p    C an                   T
                                                                                                                                                                        Tra
                                                                                                                                                                                                      Bg S
                                                                                                                                                                    r




                                                                                                                                                                                                                       i
                                                                                                                                                                                                          y c amore




                                                                                                                    Ri s in g                                Campo Theresa                     Li
                                                                                                                                                                                                      e
                                                                                                                                                                                                  tt l




                                                                                                                                                                                   Lo
                                                                                                                                                                                     s
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Syc
                                                                                                                                     C




                                                                                                                                       a nyon                                            Ala
                                                                                                               Ca




                                                                                                                                                                                               os
                                                                                                                                                                                           m




                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ca
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     am




                                                                                                                    ta                                Dry Field                                                o
                                                                                                                s




                                                                                                                                                                                                    C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ny




                                                                                                                         c
Z:\Projects\j540501\PROJ\MAPS\EIS_Figs\Fig2-2_Topographic_Features.mxd 6/26/2008




                                                                                                                                                                                                                        re
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         re




                                                                                                                                                                                                                         on




                                                                                                                                                                                                          e        C
                                                                                                                             Val l




                                                                                                                                                                                                                            k

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            an o n
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              y




                                                                                                                         ey
                                                                                                                                Bear C




                                                                                                                                       Cr
                                                                                                                                            a    Hamilton
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Kern County                ANTELOPE
                                                                                                                                            ne




                                                                                                                                                 a
                                                                                                                                                C
                                                                                                                                      any




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Los Angeles County
                                                                                                                                                 ny




                                                                                                                                                     on
                                                                                                                                       on




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              VA L L E Y
                                                                                    (774 8)




                                                                                   O C T O B E R 3 1 ,, 2 0 0 8
                                                                                   OCTOBER 31 2008                                                                      TEHACHAPI UPLAND MSHCP DRAFT DRAFT EIS                                                                                                                    FIGURE
                                                                                                                                                                    Topographic Features of Covered Lands                                                                                                                             2.2
 
                                                                             Covered Lands
                                                                             Tejon Ranch Boundary
                                                                             Water Diversion
                                                                             Communication Lease
                                                                             Building Locations
                                                                      Utility Lines
                                                                             FIBER OPTICS
                                                                             GAS
                                                                             MULTI-PURPOSE
                                                                             OIL
                                                                             POWER
                                                                             TELEPHONE
                                                                             Agriculture Permits
                                                                             Grazing
                                                                             Electro Magnetic Easement
                                                                             Mineral Leases
                                                                             Public Land

                                                                                                Miles
                                                                               0               4

                                                                             OCTOBER 31, 2008
Z:\Projects\j540501\PROJ\MAPS\EIS_Figs\Fig2-3_Existing_Land_Use.mxd




                                                                                                                               Kern County

                                                                                                                             Los Angeles County




                                                                                                              TEHACHAPI UPLAND MSHCP DRAFT EIS    FIGURE
                                                                                                         Existing Land Uses on Covered Lands       2.3
 
                                                                             Mineral Extraction Locations
                                                                                   La Liebre Mine
                                                                                   National Cement
                                                                                   Tejon Ranch Boundary
                                                                                   Covered Lands
                                                                                   Public Land

                                                                                                     Miles
                                                                                   0                4


                                                                                OCTOBER 31, 2008
Z:\Projects\j540501\PROJ\MAPS\EIS_Figs\Fig2-4_Mineral_Extraction_Areas.mxd




                                                                                                                              Kern County

                                                                                                                            Los Angeles County




                                                                                                             TEHACHAPI UPLAND MSHCP DRAFT EIS    FIGURE
                                                                                                                    Mineral Extraction Areas      2.4
 
                                                                                      Covered Lands

                                                                                      Castac Lake

                                                                                      Tejon Ranch Boundary

                                                                                      Public Land
                                                                                                       Miles
                                                                                  0                   4
                                                                                OCTOBER 31, 2008
Z:\Projects\j540501\PROJ\MAPS\EIS_Figs\FIg2-5_Castac_Lake_Covered_Lands.mxd




                                                                              Castac Lake
                                                                                                                               Kern County


                                                                                                                              Los Angeles County




                                                                                                               TEHACHAPI UPLAND MSHCP DRAFT EIS FIGURE
                                                                                                               Castac Lake and Covered Lands       2.5
 
               TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
                                                                Draft Environmental Impact Statement
                                                        Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

croceater), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), purple martin (Progne subis), coast horned lizard (frontale
and blainvilli populations) (Phrynosoma coronatum), two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii),
round-leaved filaree (Erodium macrophyllum), Fort Tejon woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum lanatum var. hallii),
Kusche's sandwort (Arenaria macradenia var. kuschei), Tehachapi buckwheat (Eriogonum callistum), striped
adobe lily (Fritillaria striata), Tejon poppy (Eschscholzia lemmonii ssp. Kernensis), and yellow warbler
(Dendroica petechia brewsteri). No other species have been proposed for inclusion in the MSHCP. Section
6.0 of the MSHCP identifies measures to be undertaken by TRC if additional listed species are identified within
the Covered Lands.

2.3       ALTERNATIVES
The EIS evaluates four alternatives: (1) the No Action/No MSHCP Alternative; (2) the Proposed MSHCP
Alternative; (3) the Condor HCP Alternative; and (4) the MSHCP General Plan Buildout Alternative. The
primary differences between the four alternatives are the intensity and location of development and the extent
of permanently preserved open space areas. Sections 2.3.2 through 2.3.5 describe each alternative in more
detail.

2.3.1 Introduction
All of the alternatives would encompass the same 141,886 acres of the Covered Lands. The following current
and ongoing activities would occur for all alternatives: livestock grazing and management; fuel management;
film production; passive recreation (excluding commercial hunting); farming and irrigation activities; repair,
maintenance and use of roads; maintenance and construction of utilities; use, maintenance, and relocation of
backcountry cabins; use, maintenance, and construction of ancillary ranch facilities; maintenance and
construction of fences; and use, repair, and maintenance of the existing TRC headquarters buildings and other
structures in the Lebec/Existing Headquarters area. All of the alternatives include a ban on the use of lead
ammunition, which TRC voluntarily agreed to implement in 2007 and which was also subsequently required by
California law.

No development would occur in any of the alternatives within the approximately 37,100-acre Tunis and
Winters ridge area, which is designated as the California Condor Study Area (CSA). The CSA includes very
high-value California condor habitat and areas of historically frequent condor foraging and roosting activity
within the ranch based on telemetry and observational data. This EIS also identifies a 2-mile area surrounding
the CSA (the 2-Mile Buffer). The CSA and the 2-Mile Buffer (Figure 2.6) are considered to be the portions of
the Covered Lands in which further development could not occur without FESA incidental take authorization,
primarily relating to habitat modification effects to the California condor. The alternatives in this EIS consider
different development scenarios within the 2-Mile Buffer Area (as previously noted, none of the alternatives
provide for development within the CSA). Existing land uses, including Plan-Wide Activities, described below,
would continue in the CSA and 2-Mile Buffer under all of the alternatives.

None of the alternatives include hunting or mineral extraction as a Covered Activity. For purposes of
evaluating the alternatives, commercial hunting is assumed to continue to occur throughout the Covered
Lands unless otherwise noted. None of the Kern County General Plan Mineral and Petroleum areas are
located within the CSA. Because mineral extraction is not a Covered Activity, the EIS alternatives
analysis assumes that the Kern County General Plan Mineral and Petroleum areas designated in the
Kern County General Plan, comprising 8,272 acres would occur unless the alternative under
consideration assumes a change in use from this underlying General Plan designation. Based on this
methodology, the Mineral and Petroleum acreage for the No Action/No MSHCP Alternative and the
MSCHP General Plan Buildout Alternative is the existing General Plan designation of 8,272 acres. The
Mineral and Petroleum acreage for the Proposed MSHCP Alternative is 2,636 acres based on mining
restrictions included in the Ranchwide Agreement. The Mineral and Petroleum acreage for the Condor
HCP Alternative is 7,491 based on the TMV Planning Area boundaries, which extend into 781 acres of
the Mineral and Petroleum acreage designation from the General Plan.




                                                                                                              2-3
TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

TRC has offered to donate approximately 500acres on the San Joaquin Valley portion of the ranch to the
Veterans Administration (VA) for development of a cemetery for veterans (Veterans Cemetery).
Approximately 384 acres of this cemetery site are located in the Covered Lands. The VA prepared an
environmental assessment for the construction and operation of the Veterans Cemetery, which resulted in
a finding of no significance under NEPA. (Bakersfield Area National Cemetery, Final Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significance, April 27, 2007) Upon acceptance of the donated property, the
VA would be responsible for securing any required agency approvals for development of the cemetery,
and construction of the VA cemetery is not included as a Covered Activity. For all alternatives other than
the Proposed MSHCP Alternative, development within the potential Veterans Cemetery site is assumed
to proceed in accordance with the Kern County General Plan designations. For the Proposed MSHCP
Alternative, the Veterans Cemetery is assumed to be completed as planned by the VA.

The Proposed MSHCP Alternative is the result of several years of planning and continued refinement of the
appropriate land use and conservation approach for the Covered Lands. The Proposed MSHCP Alternative is
designed primarily to preclude development, and protect as open space in perpetuity, a minimum of 116,523
(82%) of the Covered Lands (including the whole of the CSA), and up to 129,318 (91%) of the Covered Lands
if options to acquire additional conservation easements are exercised as authorized by the Ranchwide
Agreement. The MSHCP includes measures to minimize and mitigate remaining impacts on the Covered
Species and measures that contribute to Covered Species conservation and recovery. Among other things,
mitigation under the MSHCP requires preservation of the MSHCP Mitigation Lands; the Established Open
Space, including the CSA; and the TMV Planning Area Open Space (see Figure 2.7). Upon initiation of
construction of the Tejon Mountain Village development, the MSHCP Mitigation Lands will be permanently
protected by phased recordation of conservation easements or equivalent legal restrictions over the Initial and
Remaining MSHCP Mitigation Lands (see Figures 2.7 and 2.8) by the end of the permit term. As discussed in
greater detail below and in the MSHCP, the Ranchwide Agreement also requires a variety of additional
development restrictions affecting a large portion of the Covered Lands. The Ranchwide Agreement
restrictions did not exist when the other land use alternatives were developed and considered over the past
decade. The Ranchwide Agreement provisions affecting the Covered Lands are assumed to be implemented
in the Proposed MSHCP Alternative but are not assumed to be implemented under the other alternatives.

2.3.2 No Action/No MSHCP Alternative
The following sections describe the activities that would occur in the Covered Lands assuming that an ITP was
not issued by the Service. The FWS has determined that take of California condors would be highly unlikely to
occur as a result of development on the portions of the Covered Lands that are outside of the CSA and the
2-Mile Buffer for the California condor, which represents 72,822 acres of the Covered Lands (Figure 2.6). Take
of the other federally protected species would be avoided through localized, development-specific
avoidance measures (e.g., by siting residential structures and ancillary development within areas of 20- and
80-acre parcels that avoid species take). The No Action/No MSHCP Alternative includes ongoing activities
that would occur throughout the Covered Lands under all alternatives (Plan-Wide Activities) as well as the
development of the ranch that would occur consistent with the Kern County General Plan Land Use
Designations in the portions of the Covered Lands that are outside of the CSA and the 2-Mile Buffer. No
development is assumed to occur in the CSA and the 2-Mile Buffer, as described above (Figure 2.9).3

2.3.2.1     Activities Considered in the Analysis
2.3.2.1.1 Plan-Wide Activities
This section describes the activities that have historically occurred on the Covered Lands and are likely to
continue in the future. Although Section 2.3.3.1.1 describes the Covered Activities that would be subject to the

3
    As required by NEPA, the No Action/No MSHCP Alternative assumes existing conditions, which do not include the
    development restrictions and other requirements of the Ranchwide Agreement, for purposes of analysis. Other than the
    Proposed MSHCP Alternative, the alternatives do not incorporate Ranchwide Agreement limitations as they are the
    result of the evolution of the Covered Lands planning process, which did not include these restrictions.


2-4
Z:\Projects\j540501\PROJ\MAPS\EIS_Figs\Fig2-6_Condor_2mi_buff.mxd 6/25/2008




                                                                                                                                                            Condor Study Area 2-Mile Buffer
                                                                                                                                                            Tejon Ranch
                                                                                                                                                            Tejon Mountain Village Planning Area
                                                                                                                                                            Condor Study Area
                                                                                                                                                            Covered Lands


                                                                              IMG SOURCE: USGS 30m DEM

                                                                                                                      Miles                                                                   FIGURE
                                                                                      0                              4                     TEHACHAPI UPLAND MSHCP DRAFT EIS
                                                                                            O C T O B E R 3 1 ,, 2 0 0 8
                                                                                            OCTOBER 31 2008                   California Condor Study Area and 2-Mile Buffer 2.6
 
      TMV Specific Plan Boundary
      Established Open Space Boundary
      Condor Study Area
      TMV Planning Area Open Space Boundary
      MSHCP Covered Lands
      Initial Mitigation Lands
      Remaining Mitigation Plans
Note: The precise boundaries of the Remaining Mitigation
Lands in TMV Planning Area Open Space will be mapped
as development occurs.
                                        Miles
              0                        4




                                       TMV



                                                                           Kern County


                                                                          Los Angeles County




                                                           TEHACHAPI UPLAND MSHCP DRAFT EIS FIGURE
                                                                  MSHCP Mitigation Lands       2.7
 
                                                           Final road alignments and extent of
                                                           disturbance areas to be determined
                                                           by TMV, LLC, and Kern County
                                                           pursuant to the TMV Specific Plan.




                                                                                                                                                               Location Map
                                                                                                           Final road alignments and extent of
                                                                                                           disturbance areas to be determined
                                                                                                           by TMV, LLC, and Kern County
                                                                                                           pursuant to the TMV Specific Plan.
           TMV Specific Plan Boundary

           Condor Study Area Boundary

           MSHCP Covered Lands
           Initial Mitigation Lands (37,099 acres of the
           Established Open Space that comprises the
           Condor Study Area and 10,772 acres of the
           TMV Planning Area Open Space)
           Remaining Mitigation Lands (56,523 acres
           of the Established Open Space and 12,229                                                                                              Kern County
           acres of TMV Planning Area Open Space)
           Roads                                                                                                                            Los Angeles County
  Note: The precise boundaries of the Remaining Mitigation
  Lands in TMV Planning Area Open Space will be mapped
  as development occurs.
                                                                                                                                                       Miles
                                                                                                                                      0               2
SOURCE: Forma, 2008


                                                                                                                                                                              FIGURE
                                                                                                                   TEHACHAPI UPLAND MSHCP DRAFT EIS
                                                                                                 Initial and Remaining MSHCP Mitigation Lands 2-8
 
                                                                                                                 Miles
                                                             Condor Study Area                 0                4
                                                             Tejon Ranch Boundary
                                                             Covered Lands
                                                             Not a Part




                                                         *    Development includes 16 acres of disturbance
                                                              for the Bear Trap Turnout
                                                              Impovement Project on this DWR parcel




                                                                                                             *DWR




                                                                                                                                                    Kern County

                                                                                                                                                 Los Angeles County
Z:\Projects\j540501\PROJ\MAPS\EIS_Figs\Fig2-7_Alt1.mxd




                                                                                    Los
                                                                                        Ang
                                                                                        Ven

                                                                                           ele
                                                                                            tura

                                                                                               sC
                                                                                                 Cou

                                                                                                  oun
                                                                                                     nty

                                                                                                      ty




                                                                                                                          TEHACHAPI UPLAND MSHCP DRAFT EIS FIGURE
                                                                                                                         No Action / No MSHCP Alternative             2.9
 
              TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
                                                              Draft Environmental Impact Statement
                                                      Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

proposed MSHCP, this section describes the same activities for comparative purposes. The differences
between these activities are described for each alternative in this chapter and throughout this EIS. Most of
these activities would occur throughout the Covered Lands in each of the alternatives, including the No
Action/No MSHCP Alternative. Certain limitations would apply to the activities that could occur in the CSA or
2-Mile Buffer in the No Action/No MSHCP Alternative. Except as specifically noted, the following activities
would occur throughout the Covered Lands in the No Action/No MSHCP Alternative.

•   Livestock grazing and range management activities. Livestock grazing and range management
    activities would include breeding; grazing; calving; livestock movement; and construction, operation, and
    maintenance of watering facilities, feeding areas, fences, and corrals. These activities would continue
    throughout the Covered Lands. Grazing levels at total head numbers of 14,5000 cattle would continue
    consistent with current practices.
•   Fuel Management. Grazing is the primary fuel management strategy used in the Covered Lands
    and would continue with the No Action/No MSHCP Alternative. Additional fuel management to
    protect new development and occupied structures would also be required to meet applicable fire
    protection standards, but for purposes of this EIS, fuel management associated with development is
    accounted for as part of the assessment of development activity impacts.
•   Filming. On-scene filming activities generally consist of temporary on-scene activities such as the
    erection and dismantling of props; temporary installation of trailers and equipment for film crews;
    filming of on-camera action; catering; rehabilitation of disturbed areas; and the movement of film
    crews to and from locations. No explosives would be used within the CSA or the 2-Mile Buffer, and
    there would be no permanent structures or production facilities.
•   Passive Recreation (with the exception of hunting). Recreational activities would include
    equestrian activities, including horseback riding, breeding, boarding, feeding, training, and events at
    the equestrian facility located near the southern end of Castac Lake; individual and organized
    bicycling events; camping; hiking; bird watching and other nature study; other land or water-based
    recreational activities under the control of TRC; and all travel on the Covered Lands associated with
    these recreational activities. The commercial hunting program at TRC, which is regulated by the
    California Department of Fish and Game, is not a Covered Activity under any alternative; no take of
    any federally protected species is authorized, and the hunting program must continue to be managed
    to avoid the take of any federally protected species.
•   Farming and irrigation systems. Most of TRC's farming operations are located on the San Joaquin
    Valley Floor and are not within the Covered Lands. Some creek diversions that support valley floor
    farming operations are located within the Covered Lands above the San Joaquin Valley. The
    diversion activities within the Covered Lands are limited to the operation and maintenance of a single
    weir structure, a water intake and conveyance pipe, and a flow meter within Tejon Creek.
    Approximately 24 acres of noncommercial, experimental grape and fruit tree crops are located in the
    Covered Lands. Farming and irrigation activities would continue throughout the Covered Lands.
•   Repair, maintenance, and use of roads. A network of generally unpaved roads used for the
    grazing operation and for access to hunting and other recreational activities crosses the Covered
    Lands. Two paved roads providing access to the California Aqueduct and to the National Cement
    plant also occur in the Covered Lands. Road construction, repair, and maintenance would occur in
    the No Action/No MSHCP Alternative.
•   Maintenance and construction of utilities. Most utilities in the Covered Lands would be placed
    under roadways when they are constructed. Aboveground utilities would only be installed where
    underground utilities are impracticable. Water tanks, electrical substations, and sewage treatment
    facilities to serve development areas would be constructed, as feasible, in locations where they are
    not visually prominent and minimize effects on sensitive resources. Existing utilities would be
    maintained, replaced, or relocated within 1,000 feet of existing overhead structures, as necessary,
    throughout the Covered Lands. No new overhead utilities would be constructed in the CSA or 2-Mile
    Buffer in the No Action/No MSHCP Alternative.



                                                                                                         2-5
TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

•     Back Country Cabins. Nine back country cabins are currently present on the Covered Lands. Use
      of these cabins would continue. In addition, maintenance and relocation of these cabins would be
      allowed. No cabins would be relocated or constructed in the CSA or 2-Mile Buffer in the No Action/No
      MSHCP Alternative. For purposes of this EIS, the construction of additional cabins are considered
      development and accounted for as part of the development program analysis.
•     Ancillary Ranch Structures. Existing structures that support ranching activities include squeezes,
      loading chutes, holding and feeding fields, corrals, branding traps, barns, sewage disposal facilities,
      roads, and livestock and wildlife watering facilities, as well as employee housing and other structures
      on the Covered Lands. Ancillary ranch structures would be preserved and maintained throughout the
      Covered Lands. In addition, new structures could be built to support ranch needs.
•     Fencing. Existing fences would be maintained and new fencing could be constructed as required
      throughout the Covered Lands.
•     Lebec/Existing Headquarters. TRC's corporate headquarters are located immediately east of I-5
      and within the approximately 410-acre Lebec/Existing Headquarters area. Currently, this area
      includes a number of corporate headquarters buildings, an antique shop, a post office, a church, and
      several single-family residences. Existing activity in the Lebec/Existing Headquarters area would
      continue to occur in the No Action/No MSHCP Alternative. Construction of additional structures
      within this area is considered for purposes of this EIS as a development activity.
Perpetual Ranch-wide Ban on Lead Ammunition. Hunting is not a Covered Activity, but does occur
throughout the Covered Lands. TRC banned the use of lead ammunition on its lands effective January 1,
2008. The ban will occur in perpetuity over the entire 270,365 acres of the ranch, including the Covered
Lands, and applies to all hunters registering with TRC's Wildlife Management Operation for hunting access
licenses. The “Private Wildlands Habitat Enhancement and Management Area License” issued to TRC by the
California Department of Fish and Game also includes a provision relating to the lead use ban. The ban also
applies to all TRC employees or third parties who are engaged in any animal damage control or nuisance
abatement activities on the ranch. This ban is assumed to occur in each of the alternatives and would be
implemented and enforced by TRC through the issuance of hunting permits and by the execution of "Notice,
Acknowledgement and Agreement Relating to the Lead Ammunition Ban and the Protection of the California
Condor" and "Hunting Rules and Regulations" by all hunters on ranch property. Examples of the lead ban
documents used by TRC are appendices to the MSHCP. A lead ammunition ban was also recently adopted
for the condor’s historic range by the State of California (Cal. Fish & Game Code, Sec. 3004.5).

2.3.2.1.2 Open Space
Under the No Project/No MSHCP Alternative, the CSA and 2-Mile Buffer would not include the commercial
and residential development set forth in the Kern County General Plan; only the Plan-Wide Activities as
described above would occur in these areas. As such, approximately 72,822 acres (or 51%) of the Covered
Lands would not be developed under this No Action/No MSHCP Alternative.

2.3.2.1.3 Commercial and Residential Development Activities
Development consistent with the existing Kern County General Plan would occur throughout the
approximately 56,922 acres of the Covered Lands that are located outside of the CSA and 2-Mile Buffer
areas. This includes seven areas designated as specific plan required. Approximately 5,897 residential
units and 6,512,220 square feet of commercial development would occur in the No Action/No MSHCP
Alternative.

As previously explained, under all alternatives, TCWD would provide water, sewer, and recycling services to
serve the existing and planned Covered Activity development areas within the Covered Lands. Construction
of this turnout would result in disturbance of approximately 8 acres. However, to be conservative, 16 acres of
disturbance is included for the TCWD turnout under all four alternatives.




2-6
                 TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
                                                                      Draft Environmental Impact Statement
                                                              Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

The total disturbance associated with the No Action/No MSHCP Alternatives is approximately 10,618 acres.4
The remaining 46,304 acres of Covered Lands on which development would occur would be devoted to large-
lot (consistent with the 1 dwelling unit (DU) per 20 or 80 acres designations) rural/agricultural uses.

2.3.3 Proposed MSHCP Alternative
TRC has applied to the Service for a permit pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the FESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §§
1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended, for incidental take of the Covered Species. To meet the requirements
for a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, TRC (the legal entity that owns the ranch) has developed the proposed
MSHCP. The requested term of the ITP is 50 years. The Service has provided TRC with technical assistance
during the preparation of the MSHCP.

The Proposed MSHCP Alternative also includes implementation of a comprehensive, permanent land
preservation and development program for the Covered Lands and the remaining areas of Tejon Ranch under
the Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement (Ranchwide Agreement). The Ranchwide
Agreement was executed in June 2008 by several major environmental organizations including National
Audubon Society, The Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Endangered Habitats League, the
Planning and Conservation League (Resource Groups) and TRC. With regard to the Covered Lands, the
Ranchwide Agreement provides for:

•    The permanent protection of and permanent prohibition of development on 116,523 acres of the 141,886
     acres of Covered Lands.
•    The option for the Resource Groups to acquire conservation easements or fee on an additional 12,795
     acres of Covered Lands based on an appraisal methodology and process implemented by state officials in
     California under applicable state law. If these acquisition options are exercised, 129,318 acres of the
     141,886 acres of Covered Lands would be preserved, with a permanent prohibition of development on
     approximately 91% of the Covered Lands.
•    The protection and stewardship of these open space lands would also be enhanced by the creation and
     funding of an independent new non-profit corporation, the Tejon Ranch Conservancy, and by the
     development and implementation of resource management and enhancement programs at the ranch.
•    TRC would continue its historic ranching and stewardship role on the ranch and also pursue its
     development objectives for one major project within the Covered Lands—Tejon Mountain Village—and the
     Resource Groups would not oppose these efforts.

The result of the Ranchwide Agreement provisions is depicted in Figure 1.2. The Ranchwide Agreement does
not change the permitting requirements in effect for ranch activities, nor does it change the jurisdiction of any of
the agencies with permitting jurisdiction over these activities (including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
4
    The land disturbance acreage associated with development activities considered under each alternative was
    calculated with the following methodology. Where a specific acreage for a development area is identified in the Kern
    County General Plan (such as the Specific Plan Required designations) or is known from a proposed project (such as
    the proposed TMV project’s development envelope), the identified acreage was utilized as the disturbed acreage. In
    commercial areas that are not a part of a planned development where specific acreage is known, the area designated in
    the General Plan for commercial activity was assumed to be fully disturbed. In agricultural areas designated by the Kern
    County General Plan that allow for one dwelling unit per 20 or 80 acres, a disturbance area of 2 acres per dwelling unit
    was assumed. This disturbance factor reflects the amenities and services typically associated with homes on large rural
    lots, which are more likely to include amenities such as horses or barns. The assumed disturbance area also reflects the
    fact that each home in a rural development generally requires ancillary, dedicated roadway and other infrastructure
    development. Thus, the disturbance acreage reflects a subset of the area throughout which development activities would
    occur (in this case, 56,922 acres).
    The disturbance acreage calculated for all alternatives is based on the projected level of residential and commercial
    development that would occur. While the Plan-Wide Activities (described above) would likely result in some small
    amount of disturbed acreage as well, this level of disturbance is difficult to predict and would represent only a small
    fraction of the total disturbance acreage under each alternative. Thus, the disturbance numbers provided account for
    only development activity and do not attempt to quantify disturbance that might result from Plan-Wide Activities.


                                                                                                                        2-7
TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

Future activities on the Covered Lands that are contemplated by the Ranchwide Agreement, but that would
also be subject to obtaining any additional regulatory approvals required by the Service or other agencies with
jurisdiction over these projects, include an offer for dedication of approximately 10,000 acres to accommodate
the re-routing of the Pacific Crest Trail across the ranch and the development of other potential enhancements
in public access including the creation of a new California State Park.

The protection and stewardship of the lands to be preserved as open space under the Ranchwide Agreement
also includes limitations on the expansion and modification of certain existing Plan-Wide Activities, as well as
additional conditions for the planned development projects including TMV. For example, under the Ranchwide
Agreement, the number of backcountry cabins is capped at the existing nine cabins, and there are limitations
on the expansion and relocation of these cabins to assure the protection of the conservation values of the
ranch. Additionally, the acreage amounts that can be used for mineral extraction purposes within the Covered
Lands were reduced by approximately two-thirds from the acreage amounts designated by Kern County. The
preserved open space areas of TMV were also expanded to protect additional ridgeline and canyon features.
These and related measures to protect and enhance the natural resource values of the ranch are part of the
Proposed MSHCP Alternative as described further below (Figure 2.10) and are referenced in the MSHCP and
this EIS where relevant.

2.3.3.1     Covered Activities
2.3.3.1.1 Plan-Wide Activities. Many of the Plan-Wide Activities described above would occur under the
Proposed MSHCP Alternative but would also be subject to more restrictions designed to protect the
conservation values of the open space areas of the ranch as required by the Ranchwide Agreement. The
Ranchwide Agreement includes standards to assure the continued preservation of existing natural resource
values at the ranch and also includes a process for the development of open space baseline reports and
management practices for various activities over time. Standards set forth in the Ranchwide Agreement are
noted where applicable; management practices to be developed over time would be required to comply with
the MSHCP. Unless limitations are specifically noted, the following activities would occur throughout the
Covered Lands.

•     Livestock grazing and range management activities. Livestock grazing and range management
      activities would continue to occur under the Proposed MSHCP Alternative to the same extent as under
      the No Action/No MSHCP Alternative.
•     Fuel Management. The grazing program serves as the primary fuel management program for the
      Covered Lands. Additionally, a Fuel Management Plan approved by the Kern County Fire
      Department would be developed for approximately 1,700 acres in the TMV Planning Area as part of
      the TMV project and would address vegetation management including fuel load modifications.
      Outside of the TMV Planning Area, fuel management activity would be primarily limited to cattle
      grazing. The Ranchwide Agreement would result in the creation of Established Open Space areas
      within the Covered Lands subject to the oversight of the Tejon Ranch Conservancy (Conservancy)
      (see Section 2.3.3.1.2), and the Ranchwide Agreement also provides for the development and
      implementation of a Fuel Management Plan for these areas. Any such fuel management programs
      would be required to comply with the MSHCP and are subject to FWS review and approval for
      consistency with the MSHCP and FESA.
•     Filming. Filming activity would proceed under the Proposed MSHCP Alternative to the same extent as
      in the No Action/No MSHCP Alternative.
•     Passive Recreation (with the exception of hunting). Recreational activities would proceed under
      the Proposed MSHCP Alternative to essentially the same extent as in the No Action/No MSHCP
      Alternative. A public access program, including possibly a visitor center, would also be developed as
      part of the Conservancy program for the ranch. This public access plan would be required to comply
      with the MSHCP and would be subject to FWS review and approval for consistency with the MSHCP
      and FESA. In addition, TRC has agreed to offer for dedication approximately 10,000 acres to relocate
      a segment of the Pacific Crest Trail to cross the Tehachapi range, 75% of which is within the Covered



2-8
                                                                                                                   Miles
                                                              Condor Study Area                  0                4
                                                              Tejon Ranch Boundary
                                                              Covered Lands
                                                              Not a Part




                                                         TMV Planning Area




                                                              O SO

                                                         *   Development includes 16 acres of disturbance
                                                             for the Bear Trap Turnout
                                                             Impovement Project on this DWR parcel




                                                                                                                           *DWR




                                                                                                                                                             Kern County
Z:\Projects\j540501\PROJ\MAPS\EIS_Figs\Fig2-8_Alt2.mxd




                                                                                                                                                          Los Angeles County
                                                                                           Los
                                                                                               Ang
                                                                                               Ven

                                                                                                  ele
                                                                                                   tura

                                                                                                      sC
                                                                                                        Cou

                                                                                                         oun
                                                                                                            nty

                                                                                                             ty




                                                                                                                                  TEHACHAPI UPLAND MSHCP DRAFT EIS FIGURE
                                                                                                                                     Proposed MSHCP Alternative            2.10
 
                TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
                                                                  Draft Environmental Impact Statement
                                                          Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

     Lands. The California State Parks has expressed an interest in potentially creating a State Park on
     some portion of the ranch, and the University of California Natural Reserve System has expressed an
     interest in studying the viability of establishing a University of California Nature Reserve. However,
     neither the development of the Pacific Crest Trail nor the state park reserve are Covered Activities
     under the MSHCP. Any such program would be required to comply with the MSHCP and, if such
     programs include activities that are beyond the scope of the Covered Activities, further FESA
     authorization may be required at that time. Future public access programs would also be required
     with all applicable legal requirements, including compliance with environmental and land use laws.
•    Farming and irrigation systems. Farming and irrigation activities would occur under the Proposed
     MSHCP Alternative to the same extent as in the No Action/No MSHCP Alternative. New surface water
     diversions would not be allowed within the conservation easement area of the Covered Lands.
•    Repair, maintenance, and use of roads. Existing road repair, maintenance, and use would
     continue to occur under the Proposed MSHCP alternative. New road construction in the open space
     areas created outside of TMV under the Ranchwide Agreement is more restrictive, however, in that
     new road construction would only occur if such activities did not significantly impair the conservation
     value of the affected land as determined by the Conservancy.5
•    Maintenance and construction of utilities. With respect to aboveground and subsurface utilities,
     Covered Activities include: (a) maintenance or replacement of utilities in existence as of the effective
     date throughout the Covered Lands in their current locations (existing utilities); (b) within the TMV
     Planning Area and/or the Lebec/Headquarters areas, relocation of existing utilities within 1,000 feet of
     existing locations; (c) development of new and expanded utilities within the commercial and
     residential development areas set forth in Table 2-1, provided that such utilities would either be
     undergrounded (including all new power lines) or, if aboveground, such utilities, including without
     limitation water tanks, electrical substations, and water and sewage treatment facilities to serve
     development areas, would be constructed in locations, as feasible, where they are not visually
     prominent and minimize effects on sensitive resources; and (d) within the TMV Planning Area Open
     Space and Established Open Space, utilities constructed underground within roadways or disturbed
     areas that are in existence as of the effective date. To the extent TRC determines it is not feasible to
     locate underground utilities within existing roadways, disturbed areas, or development areas, the
     location would be subject to FWS review and approval. Third-party utilities do not have incidental take
     authority under the ITP, and expansion or construction of new utilities on Mitigation Lands is not a
     Covered Activity.
•    Back Country Cabins. Maintenance and use of the existing back country cabins would occur under
     the Proposed MSHCP Alternative to generally the same extent as in the No Action/No MSHCP
     Alternative. Under the Ranchwide Agreement, the existing nine back country cabins could be expanded,
     constructed new, relocated, or removed, in a non-TMV open space area if such activity does not
     significantly impair the conservation value of the affected land as determined by the Conservancy.
     No new cabins could be constructed unless one of the existing nine cabins is removed or demolished.
•    Ancillary Ranch Structures. Maintenance of ancillary ranch structures, described above, would
     occur under the Proposed MSHCP Alternative to generally the same extent as in the No Action/No
     MSHCP Alternative. Ancillary ranch structures would be preserved and maintained throughout the
     Covered Lands. TRC may maintain, expand existing, construct new, relocate, or remove any such
     ancillary ranch structures on the MSHCP Mitigation Lands provided that such activity is de minimus.
     De minimis activities would include, but not be limited to, maintenance, expansion, construction,
     relocation, or removal of such structures, including any squeezes, loading chutes, holding and
     feeding fields, corrals, catch pens, minor watering facilities (such as troughs), water distribution and
     irrigation facilities, branding traps, roadways, signs, and other, similar types of activities, and de
     minimis activities would not include construction of new barns, roads, watering facilities that are not

5
    Roads and other infrastructure required to provide service to the development areas are not subject to this
    Conservancy restriction, but for purposes of this EIS are addressed as part of the development activity impacts.



                                                                                                                2-9
TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

    minor (such as stock ponds and modifications of springs, ponds, and other natural water bodies),
    power transmission lines and other associated facilities, oil and gas pipelines and associated
    facilities, and other, similar types of activities. The enlargement, expansion, or new construction of
    ancillary ranch structures in existing locations, within existing footprints, and without a substantial
    increase in height, also constitutes a de minimis activity.
•   Fencing. Maintenance and construction of fencing would occur under the Proposed MSHCP
    Alternative to generally the same extent as in the No Action/No MSHCP Alternative. New fencing
    could only be built in the non-TMV open space, however, to the extent that the new fencing, by
    design or location, would not unreasonably interfere with the movement, nesting, or foraging of
    wildlife, as determined by the Tejon Staff Biologist.
•   Lebec/Existing Headquarters. Existing headquarters activities would continue under the Proposed
    MSHCP Alternative to the same extent as in the No Action/No MSHCP Alternative.
•   Mitigation, Monitoring, and Management Activities. Mitigation, monitoring, and management
    would be necessary to carry out identified mitigation and implement goals and objectives for Covered
    Species included in the MSHCP that may result in the incidental take of Covered Species (e.g.,
    habitat restoration that includes temporary disturbance pending re-vegetation and related
    enhancements) and activities that may result in the nonincidental take or take for scientific purposes
    of Covered Species (e.g., temporary capture and relocation to prevent injury or death, and measures
    to discourage habituation) are included as Covered Activities.
2.3.3.1.2 Open Space Areas
Under the MSHCP Alternative, over 129,318 acres (91%) of the Covered Lands could be permanently
preserved if all of the open space lands under conservation easement option are acquired under the
Ranchwide Agreement, and 116,523 acres of such lands (82% of the Covered Lands) would be permanently
preserved even if none of these options were exercised. Other than certain limited Plan-Wide Activities, as
described above, no development would be a Covered Activity in these areas, and no development would
occur on the MSHCP Mitigation Lands. The Open Space areas are described below.

Established Open Space: The implementation of the Ranchwide Agreement results in the permanent
conservation of approximately 93,522 acres of the Covered Lands, including the entirety of the CSA. Potential
commercial and residential development of this area consistent with the Kern County General Plan would not
occur. Included in the Established Open Space is the whole of the approximately 37,100-acre CSA. The CSA
includes very high value California condor habitat and areas of historically frequent condor foraging and
roosting activity within the Ranch based on telemetry and observational data. The CSA would be subject to the
same limitations as the reset of the Established Open Space. Dedication of the Established Open Space
would occur as described below.

Potential Open Space: The Ranchwide Agreement also provides the Resource Groups with the option to
acquire conservation easements, and potentially fee title, over approximately 12,795 acres of the Covered
Lands during the option period. If acquired and transferred to the Conservancy, the Potential Open Space
areas would be subject to permanent protection, including a conservation easement, and managed as
Covered Lands pursuant to the MSHCP. Even if not acquired, TRC has no current plans to develop the
Potential Open Space area and is not seeking authorization for such development in the Proposed MSHCP
Alternative.

TMV Planning Area Open Space: Approximately 23,000 acres within the 28,253-acre TMV Planning Area
would be permanently preserved as Planned Open Space. The TMV Planning Area Open Space includes
1,772 acres of fuel modification. The TMV Planning Area Open Space is required to be preserved as
mitigation, and such conservation is subject to the terms of the MSHCP Implementing Agreement and would
be phased as described below.

Total Open Space within Covered Lands: The Proposed MSHCP alternative would permanently preserve
93,522 acres throughout the Covered Lands and 23,001 acres in the TMV Planned Open Space area. These



2-10
                TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
                                                                    Draft Environmental Impact Statement
                                                            Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

areas comprise approximately 116,523 acres, or 82% of the Covered Lands. Together, these Open Space
Areas comprise the MSHCP Mitigation Lands. Dedicated conservation of MSHCP Mitigation Lands would be
phased. According to the terms of the Implementing Agreement, a conservation easement is required to be
recorded on the Initial Mitigation Lands, which includes the CSA portion of the Established Open Space and a
portion of the TMV Planning Area Open Space (see Figures 2-7 and 2-8), prior to commencement of grading
of the TMV Project. At the FWS’ discretion, the FWS may agree to extend for up to one year the obligation to
record a conservation easement over the TMV Planning Area Open Space portion of the Initial Mitigation
Lands. If such an extension is granted, TRC must record an irrevocable offer to dedicate prior to initiation of
grading of the TMV Project. Conservation of the remaining Mitigation Lands, which include the areas of the
Established Open Space outside of the CSA (Figures 2-7 and 2-8), would be committed prior to the end of the
permit term in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Implementing Agreement.

If the 12,795 acres of potential open space under option as part of the Ranchwide Agreement are acquired
during the option period, a total of 129,318 acres, or 91%, of the Covered Lands would be permanently
preserved and managed as Covered Lands pursuant to the MSHCP.

2.3.3.1.3 Commercial and Residential Development Activities.
Development within Covered Lands would be limited to the 28,253-acre TMV Planning Area and the 410-acre
Lebec/Headquarters Area in the Proposed MSHCP Alternative. Approximately 26,417 acres of this land is
within the boundaries of the proposed TMV project, which is the subject of a Specific Plan entitlement
application filed in May 2008 with Kern County. Under this alternative, the remainder of the TMV Planning Area
and the Lebec/Headquarters Area would be developed in a manner consistent with the Kern County General
Plan as described below. The proposed MSHCP Alternative would result in the development of approximately
3,633 residential units and 1,804,390 square feet of commercial development within the Covered Lands.

Tejon Mountain Village Planning Area: The TMV Planning Area is composed of three primary components:
                                                                              6
the TMV Specific Plan Area, a small area west of I-5, and the Oso Canyon area.

The TMV Specific Plan Area is approximately 26,417 acres of the 28,253-acre TMV Planning Area in the
southwest portion of the Covered Lands. This portion of the TMV Planning Area includes the low-density TMV
project. The TMV project would include up to 3,450 residences, up to 160,000 square feet of commercial
development, two golf courses, an equestrian center, up to 750 hotel rooms, and up to 350,000 square feet of
support uses (e.g., hotel lobby support services, food and beverage service, golf clubhouses, equestrian
facilities, and private recreation facilities). The project would include various planning and enforcement
mechanisms to minimize disturbance associated with the planned development. (See MSHCP Section 7.2.)
The net development disturbance area associated with the TMV project is approximately 5,082 acres.

The TMV Planning Area includes a 153-acre portion of the Covered Lands located west of I-5. Development of
approximately 173 dwelling units and 304,920 square feet of commercial space would be consistent with the
Kern County General Plan land use designations in this area. No development plans currently exist for the
portion of the TMV Planning Area west of I-5.

The Oso Canyon area is located in the southeast portion of the TMV Planning Area. There are no plans to
develop the Oso Canyon area at this time. Any such development would be subject to the development yields
proposed in the TMV Specific Plan Area and would not result in additional dwelling units or commercial space,
nor would it support construction.




6
    The TMV Planning Area includes within the O'Neil Canyon Area, a 17-acre area designated for extensive agriculture in
    the Kern County General Plan. According to the General Plan, this area could be developed with one dwelling unit.
    Although TRC has no plans to develop this area, a dwelling unit and an associated 17-acre disturbance area has been
    included in the analysis in this EIS.



                                                                                                                  2-11
TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

The total development assumed to occur in the TMV Planning Area under the Proposed MSHCP Alternative
includes 3,624 dwelling units and 464,920 square feet of commercial development. Approximately 5,252 acres
would be disturbed by development and 23,001 acres would be preserved as Planned Open Space.

Lebec/Existing Headquarters: The Lebec/Existing Headquarters area is approximately 410 acres (which
include approximately 265 acres that could be developed and 145 acres that would not be developed) and is
located along I-5 in the northerly portion of the Covered Lands. Currently, this area includes the corporate
headquarters buildings, an antique shop, a post office, a church, and several single-family residences. TRC
has no current development plans for this area. Development of up to nine dwelling units and 1,339,470
square feet of commercial development would be consistent with the Kern County General Plan land use
designations in this area. This would result in a disturbance of approximately 265 acres.

Tejon-Castac Water District: TCWD would provide water, sewer, and recycling services to serve the
existing and planned Covered Activity development areas within the Covered Lands. TCWD's activities
are Covered Activities. As previously explained, although the TCWD turnout construction is expected to
result in disturbance of approximately 8 acres, a 16-acre disturbance area is included to be conservative.

Under the combined TMV Planning Area and Lebec/Exisiting Headquarters areas, a total of 3,633 dwelling
units and 1,804,390 square feet of commercial space is assumed to occur in the Proposed MSHCP
Alternative. This development would result in a disturbance area of approximately 5,533 acres, or 4% of the
Covered Lands.

2.3.3.2   Conservation Measures

A number of conservation measures would be undertaken in the Proposed MSHCP Alternative in order to
minimize effects from Covered Activities to Covered Species. Conservation measures can be
categorized into three groups: avoidance, minimization, and mitigation. Avoidance measures avoid the
potential effect. Minimization measures reduce the potential effect to lesser levels over time. Mitigation
measures compensate for the potential effect after avoidance and minimization measures have been
considered.

The primary conservation measure under the Proposed MSHCP Alternative is the permanent preservation of
at least 116,523 acres (82%) of the Covered Lands, as described above and provided for in the Implementing
Agreement. If acquired by the Conservancy, up to an additional 12,795 acres of land would be managed as
Covered Lands pursuant to the MSHCP. Upon initiation of construction of the Tejon Mountain Village, the
MSHCP requires that the MSHCP Mitigation Lands be permanently protected by phased recordation of
conservation easements or equivalent legal restrictions over all such lands by the end of the permit term. The
preserved Open Space would protect most of the critical and suitable habitat for the Covered Species. These
areas would be managed in a manner consistent with their historic use and, therefore, would not affect use by
Covered Species.

In addition to the permanent preservation of the vast majority of the Covered Lands, the Proposed MSHCP
Alternative includes a number of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that would further ensure
achieving the goals of the enhancement of conservation and recovery of the California condor, as well as
conservation of suitable habitat for all Covered Species, and avoidance or minimization of impacts on
individual plants and animals. A summary of the conservation measures that would be included in the
Proposed MSHCP Alternative are provided in Table 2-1. For more detail regarding these conservation
measures, refer to Sections 4.4 and 7.2 of the MSHCP.




2-12
               TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
                                                                   Draft Environmental Impact Statement
                                                           Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

Table 2.1. Avoidance, Mitigation, and Minimization Measures

Measures Specific to California Condor
Avoidance/Minimization of    1. Retain professional environmental education specialists to create and disseminate
Exposure to Microtrash          a condor educational curriculum, which includes information about types of
                                microtrash that can be ingested and how to eliminate microtrash in the area.
                             2. TRC will ensure that routine community maintenance activities include regular
                                efforts to eliminate microtrash. All trash receptacles will be fitted with animal and
                                weather-proof lids.
                             3. The Tejon Ranch Biologist (see below) or designated TRC employees will be
                                assigned to be with all film crews to enforce rules regarding microtrash and ensure
                                proper clean-up procedures.
Avoidance/Minimization of    1. The condor education program described above will include information concerning
Disturbances to Condors         prohibited behaviors related to condors, and be implemented through the
                                covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) to be enforced in perpetuity and
                                recorded on each private parcel within TMV or by similarly enforceable means.
                             2. Construction workers, filming crews, TRC staff, and residential and commercial
                                occupants and their guests will be required to cease any behavior that constitutes
                                an attractive nuisance or otherwise presents an unreasonable and avoidable
                                danger to California condors upon direction by TRC and/or TMV LLC in
                                coordination with the Tejon Ranch Biologist.
                             3. Recreational activities, particularly organized events and filming projects in areas
                                where condors are known or expected to occur, will be closely regulated to
                                minimize any effects that could disturb feeding or roosting condors.
                             4. Information described above regarding microtrash and appropriate behavoir upon
                                encountering condors will be disseminated to guests and/or visitors to all back
                                country cabins.
Avoidance/Minimization of    The TMV project has been significantly redesigned to remove previously proposed
Loss of Foraging Habitat     development located within or near the upper ridgelines in the project site that provide
                             important foraging and flyover habitat for California condors. The project will avoid
                             and permanently preserve the most important condor foraging habitat within TMV and
                             the east-west flight corridor between Grapevine Peak and Tunis/Gehgus Ridge located
                             within the project area. This configuration will also minimize the potential for condor
                             habituation as well as microtrash ingestion by avoiding development in areas most
                             used by condors.
Avoidance/Minimization of    1. On Grapevine, Middle, Squirrel, Silver, Lolas, and Gehgus ridges, or any other
Collisions with Powerlines      ridge within the TMV Planning Area deemed by a qualified biologist as suitable
and Artificial Structures       habitat for condors, the following restrictions apply:
                                   a. TRC shall not place, or allow any third person to place, antennae outside of
                                      existing antenna farms or place new antennae or extend current antennae
                                      within an existing antenna farm if any such antenna would be higher than other
                                      existing antennae in the existing farm. Currently, the tallest antenna is 100 feet
                                      high.
                                   b. TRC may construct and maintain, or allow any third person to construct and
                                      maintain, phone towers consisting of single telephone/cell phone poles of
                                      standard height or other similar structures outside of existing antenna farms,
                                      but the tops of such phone towers and electricity poles must not extend above
                                      any of the above-identified ridges likely to be used by California condors. In
                                      addition, if such towers would require the use of stabilizing guy wires, proposals for
                                      such tower designs shall be subject to the review and approval of the Tejon Ranch
                                      biologist (discussed below) to determine if the tower design and/or location would
                                      pose a threat to condors.
                                   c. All surfaces on new antennae and phone towers shall be designed and
                                      operated with anti-perching devices. All antennae and phone tower sites shall




                                                                                                                      2-13
TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

                                     be kept clean of debris, such as cable, trash, construction materials, etc.
                            2. No wind farms will be constructed anywhere on the Covered Lands. TRC also has
                               the right to restrict wind farms on neighboring Gorman Ranch, and will exercise this
                               right throughout the term of the ITP. Additionally, the prohibition on wind farms shall
                               be maintained on the MSHCP Mitigation Lands in perpetuity, except that individual wind
                               turbine devices, which have the primary purpose to serve electrical generation needs on
                               site where the device and location is approved by the FWS, shall not be subject to the
                               ban.
                            3. Because of the potential for raptors, including the California condor, to collide with wind
                               turbines, the installation of such turbines will be prohibited on all residential and
                               commercial lots within Covered Lands. However, individual wind turbines, which have
                               the primary purpose to serve electrical generation needs on site, may be constructed if,
                               after review and approval by the FWS, such turbines are of a design and in a location
                               that would not pose a threat to condors.
                            4. No new aboveground high voltage towers, transmission lines, or other aerial
                               obstructions within lands developed by TMV will be built within the project area.
                               Relocation of existing towers and lines will be permitted within 1,000 feet of existing
                               lines as long as the potential for injury or harm to condors will be avoided.
                            5. After the effective date of the ITP, TRC will require agreements with entities that
                               have the authority to place any new aboveground power, communication, or other
                               utility lines on the ranch to place any such facilities only with the consent of TRC.
                               TRC will seek to enter into consensual agreements with those entities that may
                               otherwise exercise such authority without the consent of TRC. Such agreements
                               will provide for lines to be fitted with anti-perching devices and located within
                               existing utility corridors to the extent practicable. TRC may also encourage such
                               entities, including entities installing underground utilities, to seek certificates of
                               inclusion or become "lessees" under the ITP. If TRC constructs any such lines, it
                               will satisfy the same criteria, in addition to the restrictions on construction and
                               maintenance of such infrastructure required above. These activities would not be
                               Covered Activities unless they are located on Covered Lands and are conducted by
                               TRC or by entities that have become third-party lessees as defined in the Implementing
                               Agreement, certificate of inclusion holders, or operate under required or consensual
                               agreements written or modified to give TRC control, including authority to require
                               compliance with all applicable MSHCP and ITP requirements. The tallest antenna
                               constructed at either existing antenna farm on the Ranch is 100 feet high. Tejon can
                               control the construction of higher antennae because the terms of existing leases give
                               TRC this right. Also, to build an antenna over 100 feet tall requires the approval of the
                               Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the concurrent installation of FAA-approved
                               lighting. The FAA approval would trigger a new consultation requirement with the FWS,
                               and the terms under which the FWS would make its jeopardy/non-jeopardy
                               determination for any such new antennas would need to be negotiated and agreed to at
                               that time.
Avoidance/Minimization of   While the incidence of habituation has substantially declined, with the implementation
Habituation to Human        of recently modified habituation aversion training to condors prior to release and due to
Activities and Artificial   mentoring by adult condors of younger individuals, some of these measures were
Structures                  nevertheless deemed necessary to minimize the potential for habituation and/or
                            attraction to human structures or activities. These measures are required by the
                            MSHCP and will be incorporated into the CC&Rs governing residences subject to
                            these measures.
                             1. Development on the ridges within the TMV Project area will be designed and
                                constructed to be low profile so as not to pose an attractant to overflying and/or
                                foraging California condors, and will generally be of relatively low density.
                             2. On the ridges within the TMV Project area, the following restrictions will apply:
                                   a. TRC will not place, or allow any third party to place, antennae outside of
                                      existing antenna farms or place new antennae or extend current antennae
                                      within an existing antenna farm if any such antenna would be higher than other
                                      existing antennae in the existing farm. TRC may construct and maintain, or



2-14
              TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
                                                                 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
                                                         Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

                                    allow any third party to construct and maintain, phone towers consisting of
                                    single telephone/cell phone poles of standard height or other similar structures
                                    outside of existing antenna farms, but the tops of such phone towers and
                                    electricity poles must not extend above any of the above-identified ridges likely
                                    to be used by California condors.
                                 b. All surfaces on new antennae and phone towers will be designed and operated
                                    with anti-perching devices. All antennae and phone tower sites will be kept
                                    clean of debris, such as cable, trash, and construction materials.
Measures to Mitigate        The FWS has determined that California condors that become attracted to human
Unavoidable Impacts         activity and that are not deterred from previous aversion training received while in
                            captivity, and that are not discouraged by deterrence efforts after becoming habituated
                            to human structures or activities, must be captured and relocated, undergo additional
                            aversion training and be re-released, or be permanently removed from the wild.
                            Deterrence activities may include loud noises, arm-waving, use of restrained dogs or
                            water hoses, and other non-injurious methods to scare a California condor away from
                            a structure or area of human activity. The incidental take will have occurred when the
                            FWS determines, from the report of its biologist or the Tejon biologist and after
                            conferring with Tejon Ranch, that the bird is habituated (i.e., all deterrence measures
                            have failed) and must be captured and relocated or removed from the wild to a feeding
                            center or other receiving facility. As previously discussed, the MSHCP proposes that
                            such take could feasibly occur during the life of the MSHCP and proposes a maximum
                            of four such takes. No lethal takes of the California condor are requested under an
                            ITP.
                            Tejon Ranch expects that, except in emergency situations or when immediate action is
                            necessary to ensure capture, the FWS will first confer with Tejon Ranch and provide
                            the company with a full explanation of the necessity for relocation of the California
                            condor or removal of the bird from the wild.
                            The following additional measures would be implemented to mitigate the taking of
                            California condors:
                             1. Translocation of a habituated California condor. Should any non-lethal incidental
                                take, as described above, occur due to the failure of deterrence efforts, TRC
                                commits to payment of the cost of capture, monitoring, relocating or removal of the
                                habituated bird.
                             2. Capture and care of an injured California condor. Should any such FESA non-lethal
                                incidental take occur from a Covered Activity on Covered Land that results in a
                                physical injury of a California condor, TRC will pay the full cost of capture by a FWS
                                biologist of the affected condor, any veterinary treatment for any injury to it, and its
                                removal to a breeding center or receiving facility when the FWS determines that
                                such actions are necessary as a result of Covered Activities.
Measures to Contribute to   The Proposed MSHCP Alternative would include certain measures to be undertaken
Conservation and Recovery   by TRC and other entities (including FWS personnel and authorized non-FWS
of the California Condor    personnel connected with the California condor recovery program) that are intended to
                            contribute to the conservation and recovery of the California condor in the wild. These
                            measures include:
                             1. The Configuration, Establishment, and Management of the CSA Within the
                                Covered Lands. As previously noted, the CSA includes very high-value California
                                condor habitat and areas of historically frequent condor foraging and roosting
                                activity within the ranch based on telemetry and observational data. Under the
                                Proposed MSHCP Alternative, the entirety of the CSA would be preserved in
                                perpetuity. As mitigation under the MSHCP, the CSA would be permanently
                                conserved by a conservation easement to be reviewed and approved by the FWS
                                according to the terms of the MSHCP Implementing Agreement. The CSA would be
                                managed by the Tejon Ranch Conservancy under the guidance of a resource
                                management plan, which will be subject to FWS review and approval for
                                consistency with the MSHCP and the FESA.
                             2. Establishment of Supplemental Feeding Station(s), Trap and Release Sites. TRC
                                and the FWS also believe, based on the best available science and consultations



                                                                                                                  2-15
TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

                        with FWS and other experts on the California condor, that construction and
                        operation of a feeding station(s), as part of a supplemental feeding program, and
                        establishment and operation of a trap and release site will contribute to the
                        conservation and recovery of the California condor. TRC's responsibilities include
                        designing the supplemental feeding program (in consultation with the FWS),
                        constructing and operating feeding stations, and allowing the FWS to establish a
                        trap and release site at each station on an as-needed basis to capture and/or
                        release individual condors. To these ends, TRC will fully implement the following
                        measures under this MSHCP to contribute to California condor recovery:
                           a. In cooperation with the FWS and in association with TMV LLC, TRC will
                              identify two feeding sites to serve as a repository for food carcasses either
                              within the northernmost or easternmost TMV Planning Area Open Space,
                              within the Established Open Space areas north of TMV, or within the CSA
                              (which is also Established Open Space), as agreed upon by TMV, TRC, and
                              the FWS.
                           b. No structures, other than an electrified fence to ward off predators and support
                              posts for remote cameras to record condor feeding activity, will be built on or
                              near the feeding sites. Food carcasses will generally be stillborn calves
                              supplied by a local dairy or ranch or dead cattle or other large animals (e.g.,
                              deer, pigs, etc.) that have been determined to be free of lead and other
                              contaminants. The frequency of carcass placement will be determined by TRC
                              depending on overall use of the feeding station by condors. Any buffer required
                              for a feeding station will be limited to no more than 1 square mile in size.
                           c. The program will be managed and implemented by the Tejon Staff biologist
                              who will perform the duties associated with implementing the program and who
                              will be approved and/or trained by FWS personnel prior to supplying the
                              designated feeding sites with carcasses in order to be consistent with
                              established protocols for FWS-managed supplemental feeding stations.
                           d. The supplemental feeding program will be initiated upon issuance of the ITP by
                              the FWS. The supplemental feeding program will continue until the 50-year
                              term of the ITP or until the FWS determines that a supplemental feeding
                              program is no longer necessary for the recovery of the species, whichever
                              comes first. While not subject to the conditions of the MSHCP, an interim
                              supplemental feeding program may be voluntarily implemented by TRC, in
                              cooperation with the FWS, beginning in January 2009, to provide an
                              opportunity to implement and test feeding program procedures and protocols.
                           e. To accomplish this, representatives of TRC, the Tejon Ranch Conservancy (as
                              appropriate), and the FWS will meet no later than January 31 of each calendar
                              year (unless otherwise mutually agreed to by TRC and the FWS) to determine:
                                   i. the specific objectives and needs of the supplemental feeding program
                                      on the Covered Lands for the upcoming year.
                                  ii. the specific supplemental feeding activities and measures and their
                                      location(s) that will be implemented to accomplish those objectives and
                                      needs, except that the FWS may simply elect, by written notice, to
                                      continue any supplemental feeding activities or measures that were
                                      implemented in the previous year.
                           f. At the FWS’ option, TRC will allow for the establishment of a trap and release
                              site for California condors within the CSA or at active supplemental feeding
                              stations, as appropriate to contribute to the survival and recovery of the
                              species in the wild. To accomplish this, the FWS will, at the meeting described
                              above, identify to TRC what, if any, trap and release site it intends to establish
                              and operate in the CSA in the upcoming calendar year. The location and
                              operation of any such trap and release site must be biologically sound, as
                              determined by the FWS, and may not significantly inhibit or prevent TRC or its
                              lessees from carrying out their customary and/or legally permissible activities
                              as expressly conditioned under the MSHCP. The location and operation of any
                              trap and release site will be determined as provided above.




2-16
TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
                                             Draft Environmental Impact Statement
                                     Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

        3. Establishment and Enforcement of a Perpetual, Ranch-Wide Ban on Lead
           Ammunition. On February 23, 2007, TRC announced that effective January 1,
           2008, it would establish and enforce a perpetual ban on lead ammunition
           throughout the ranch. The ban applies to all hunters registering with Tejon's
           Wildlife Management Operation for hunting access licenses. California
           subsequently enacted the Ridley-Tree Condor Conservation Act, which bans lead
           ammunition in the range of the California condor effective July 1, 2008.
           To ensure that the ban on lead ammunition will successfully contribute to reducing
           the incidence of lead poisoning to condors, TRC has embarked on an aggressive
           hunter awareness and enforcement program, which includes the following
           components:
              a. All hunting permittees must acknowledge and sign a notice and agreement that
                 addresses the lead ammunition ban and the protection of the California
                 condor.
              b. All hunting permittees must acknowledge and sign an agreement that defines
                 hunting rules and regulations on Tejon Ranch.
              c. All hunting permittees must acknowledge and sign a hunting permit that
                 reiterates that the possession or use of ammunition containing lead is
                 prohibited and that violation of this prohibition will result in immediate expulsion
                 from the ranch, permanent termination of all future hunting privileges, and
                 liability to TRC and state and federal governments, and that states that the
                 permit is not valid unless the notice and agreement regarding lead ammunition
                 and protection of condor and the hunting rules and regulations agreement
                 have been acknowledged and signed.
        4. Funding for Additional GPS Transmitters for California Condors. TMV LLC will
           provide funding to install additional GPS satellite tracking transmitters on condors
           currently not carrying such transmitters to allow for the continuous, real-time
           monitoring of the location of wild, free-flying California condors.
        5. Hiring of Full Time Biologist. Prior to initiating construction of the Tejon Mountain
           Village development in the Covered Lands, TRC will retain the services of a full-
           time biologist (Tejon Staff biologist). The Tejon Staff biologist's primary function will
           be to assist TRC in minimizing and mitigating any interactions between humans
           and California condors within the Covered Lands and in administering the
           avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures pertaining to condors within this
           MSHCP. The Tejon Staff biologist will not be required or allowed to handle or
           interact with California condors other than incidentally or in emergency situations
           and only if he or she has been issued by the FWS a scientific permit under Section
           10(a)(1)(A) of the FESA and is permitted to do so by applicable federal and state
           law; handling of California condors is the responsibility of the California Condor
           Recovery Team. Specific functions of the biologist are set forth in Section 4.4.3.5
           of the MSHCP.
           The Tejon Staff biologist, as time permits and subject to performance of his or her
           California condor-related duties, may also perform or assist in the performance of
           other biological and scientific function on the ranch.
        6. Other Conservation or Conservation-Related Measures.
           a. Within 60 days of the effective date of the ITP, TRC will designate a point of
              contact who will act as a coordinator for all California condor management issues
              arising on the ranch with respect to obligations of TRC under this MSHCP.
           b. TRC will distribute to its employees a disclosure sheet on California condors that:
              (i) describes the California condor’s protected status; (ii) explains TRC’s role in
              California condor life history and the California condor recovery program; (iii)
              describes how to recognize and identify California condors that may be using the
              ranch; (iv) specifies all obligations under the MSHCP that may affect TRC
              employees, including the obligation to report any dead or injured California
              condors to supervisors or the TRC contact person, who will inform the FWS; (v)
              requires the reporting of all California condor sightings made by TRC personnel
              to a suitable person (e.g., the designated contact person or Tejon Biologist); and



                                                                                               2-17
TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

                                 (vi) provides any further information that may be relevant to California condor
                                 protection on the ranch and requirements under the MSHCP.
                              c. TRC will also implement such other conservation programs for the California
                                 condor as are mutually agreed to by TRC and the FWS.
Measures for all Covered Species
Commercial and              1. Setbacks will be incorporated into the design of commercial and residential
Residential Development:       Covered Activities located at the boundary of Open Space areas identified in this
Design Measures                MSHCP that are adequate to avoid or minimize the introduction of exotic plant and
                               animal species such as Argentine ant and urban runoff in adjacent natural areas.
                            2. Ground disturbances will be avoided in riparian areas, except as necessary for road
                               crossings and culverts.
                            3. Downcast lighting will be required for commercial and residential Covered Activities
                               located at the boundary of Open Space areas.
                            4. BMPs for water quality protection (pollutants, erosion, sedimentation) will be
                               incorporated into the project design as required by the Clean Water Act and Porter-
                               Cologne Water Quality Laws.
                            5. Development within 0.25 mile of golden eagle nests will be restricted to low-density
                               residential (e.g., mountain residential), and homes will be sited to minimize visibility
                               to golden eagle nests.
                            6. Within 2 years prior to commencement of development within any fuel modification
                               zone located within 1 mile of Castac Lake, the project biologist will identify
                               preferred diurnal perches and high-quality roost trees (trees with greater than 12-
                               inch diameter at breast height) for bald eagles for conservation, as approved by the
                               Kern County Fire Department. Management standards will be applied to these
                               preferred diurnal perches and high-quality roost trees; the management standards
                               may include selectively thinning, planting, and girdling trees. The project biologist
                               will also identify for preservation preferred roosting areas that are well-protected
                               from wind (e.g., in a canyon or blocked by trees), including a 500-foot setback from
                               such areas, as approved by the Kern County Fire Department.
                            7. Design features will be incorporated at the boundary between riparian/wetland
                               foraging and wintering habitat for special-status birds and development that are
                               adequate to avoid and minimize the introduction of exotic plant and animal species
                               and urban runoff in adjacent natural areas.
                            8. Development activity will be designed to avoid permanent effects on potential
                               pollinators by avoiding impacts to habitat within 325 feet of striped adobe lily and
                               Tehachapi buckwheat occurrences.
Commercial and              1. Pre-construction surveys in modeled potential habitat areas for occupied nests,
Residential Development:       Fully Protected species, and the Tehachapi buckwheat will be conducted.
Pre-Construction Measures   2. For occupied bird nests, the project biologist will establish appropriate buffers for
                               active nests detected during pre-construction surveys, in compliance with
                               applicable regulatory protocols. Active nests and designated buffers will be shown
                               on appropriate planning maps. Construction within the buffers will be avoided until
                               the nests are abandoned or until the young have fledged or been reared.
                            3. For Fully Protected species, the project biologist will monitor construction activities
                               to assure avoidance of any harm to individuals and will have the authority to direct
                               the cessation of field activities likely to cause any such harm.
                            4. For the Tehachapi buckwheat, no occurrences are known or likely to exist within
                               the TMV Planning Area or Lebec/Existing Headquarters areas identified for
                               Commercial and Residential Development Covered Activities, but the biologist will
                               have the authority to direct the cessation of field activities that would adversely
                               affect this endemic plant species.
Commercial and              1. BMPs to protect surface water quality (pollutants, erosion, sedimentation) during
Residential Development:       construction in compliance with Clean Water Act and Porter-Cologne requirements
Construction-Related           will be implemented.



2-18
               TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
                                                                   Draft Environmental Impact Statement
                                                           Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

Measures                      2. Contractor/construction personnel pre-construction meetings with educational
                                 information about MSHCP requirements and Covered Species will be held.
                                 Disturbance/grading perimeters will be fenced or flagged to identify the extent of
                                 authorized disturbance areas and boundary of non-disturbance areas.
                              3. If construction for development activities is proposed within 325 feet of Tehachapi
                                 buckwheat occurrences, the project biologist will perform weekly construction
                                 monitoring to ensure avoidance of construction activities in Tehachapi buckwheat
                                 occurrence area.
Commercial and                1. Home Owners’ Associations will be provided with educational information regarding
Residential Development:         acceptable recreational activities, pets, wildlife, and Open Space area uses.
Long-term Measures            2. CC&Rs to be enforced in perpetuity for each parcel will prohibit the feeding of the
                                 California condor, the bald eagle, and other wildlife species on TMV.
                              3. Signage will be installed adjacent to Castac Lake indicating that feeding bald
                                 eagles is prohibited, and appropriate signage will be installed near commercial and
                                 project recreational use areas reminding users of prohibited activities (such as
                                 wildlife feeding) within Open Space areas.
                              4. An Integrated Pest Management Plan, which will be subject to FWS review and
                                 approval for consistency with the MSHCP and the FESA, will be developed and
                                 implemented in conjunction with development, ranchwide operations, and management
                                 of Open Space. Implementation of the Integrated Pest Management Plan will avoid and
                                 minimize impacts related to fertilizers, pesticides, and water quality, but it will also
                                 provide mitigation by providing guidelines for the eradication of nonnative, invasive
                                 species including bullfrogs and Argentine ant. A framework Integrated Pest
                                 Management Plan will be developed for review and approval by FWS within 18 months
                                 following permit issuance, to be followed by project-specific pest management plans for
                                 specific development uses (commercial, residential, golf courses) and for specific ranch
                                 operations and open space management. The project-specific pest management plans
                                 will be subject to review and approval by FWS and will be prepared prior to initiation of
                                 related Covered Activities. The framework Integrated Pest Management Plan will
                                 include the guidelines and standards for subsequent project-specific pest management
                                 plans and will identify specific Covered Activities for which project-specific pest
                                 management plans will be prepared. This measure will benefit each of the Covered
                                 Species.
Plan-Wide Activities:         A grazing management plan, which will be subject to FWS review and approval for
Grazing Management Plan       consistency with the MSHCP and the FESA, will be prepared that regulates livestock
                              grazing and range management activities to continue to maintain existing habitat for
                              Covered Species while continuing to provide for commercial ranching, fire protection,
                              and carcass feeding opportunities for California condors. The plan will benefit each of
                              the Covered Species and will incorporate the following principles:
                               1. Cattle grazing will continue to be consistent with light-to-moderate grazing levels
                                  comparable to past and current grazing practices. Existing levels of grazing
                                  accommodate 14,500 head of cattle on Tejon Ranch, including within Covered
                                  Lands, rotated seasonally.
                               2. Grazing management techniques that would continue will include (1) grazing
                                  practices that have been shown to be consistent with high levels of biodiversity and
                                  species populations, which may include exclusion fencing in riparian areas, and (2)
                                  seasonal grazing and related rotational practices that are important for protecting
                                  specific Covered Species. The purpose of seasonal exclusions is to remove cattle
                                  from a specific area for a specific time period for the benefit of a specific resource
                                  or species.
Plan-Wide Activities: Other   1. Environmental baseline surveys of the ranch will be conducted.
Measures                      2. Repair, maintenance, and use of roads and maintenance and construction of
                                 utilities within Open Space areas will include efforts to minimize the footprint and
                                 use BMPs for the design and installation of any such infrastructure.
                              3. The selection of appropriate locations for access, trails, and facilities, per the public
                                 access plan, which will be subject to FWS review and approval for consistency with



                                                                                                                     2-19
TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

                               the MSHCP and FESA, will minimize impacts to the Open Space areas. The public
                               access plan will be prepared within 18 months following permit issuance.
                            4. An Integrated Pest Management Plan will be developed and implemented in
                               conjunction with development, ranchwide operations, and management of Open
                               Space, as described above.
                            5. Implementation of federal and state regulatory requirements for riparian areas in
                               conjunction with Plan-Wide Activities will avoid and minimize impacts to suitable
                               habitat for Covered Species associated with riparian areas.
Measures to Mitigate       The primary mitigation associated with the project is the dedication and preservation of the
Unavoidable Impacts        MSHCP Mitigation Lands: 93,522 acres of Established Open Space (including the CSA),
                           and 23,001 acres of TMV Planning Area Open Space. Dedicated conservation of those
                           lands will be phased. Upon initiation of construction of the Tejon Mountain Village
                           development, the MSHCP Mitigation Lands will be permanently protected by phased
                           recordation of conservation easements or equivalent legal restrictions over the Initial and
                           Remaining MSHCP Mitigation Lands by the end of the permit term. Under that agreement,
                           even if no development is approved, the terms of the Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land
                           Use Agreement will continue to apply to the lands.
                           In addition, although not mitigation, per the terms of the Tejon Ranch Conservation and
                           Land Use Agreement, 12,795 acres of Potential Open Space may be preserved if
                           acquired. In that event, the Potential Open Space is also required to be managed in
                           accordance with the MSCHP for the permit term.
                           In addition to the Open Space system, habitat restoration/enhancement for unavoidable
                           impacts to riparian/wetlands under a no net loss policy, consistent with wetland permitting
                           requirements, is required. The goal of restoration is to emulate the structure, functions,
                           services, diversity, and dynamics of the habitat or ecosystem. Within the TMV Planning
                           Area, additional avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to satisfy the federal
                           and state Clean Water Act requirements will also satisfy the goals and objectives for
                           riparian-related Covered Species. This goal generally will be achieved through compliance
                           with the Clean Water Act requirements for creation, enhancement, and restoration of
                           wetlands/riparian habitats.



In addition to the avoidance and minimization measures noted above for Commercial and Residential
Development Activities and Plan-Wide Activities, which generally apply to several Covered Species, a number
of the species-specific objectives presented in Section 7.1 of the MSHCP include action items to be
undertaken in conjunction with implementation of Covered Activities. These action-oriented objectives are
summarized in Table 2-2. These action-oriented objectives, together with the avoidance and minimization
measures noted below, form key elements of the conservation strategy for the Covered Species.




2-20
               TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
                                                                     Draft Environmental Impact Statement
                                                             Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

Table 2.2. Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Covered Species

                                                                                                   Assumptions /
 Action                                                                          Species           Notes
 Pre-construction surveys will be conducted in suitable habitat (including       All amphibians    Species to be
 aboveground visual searches and pitfall trapping, including relocation of                         surveyed will
 any trapped individuals).                                                                         depend upon
                                                                                                   habitat suitability.
 Construction activities in modeled suitable habitat will be monitored.          All amphibians    —
 Grazing management plan (implementation and monitoring).                        All amphibians    —
 Environmental baseline surveys of the ranch.                                    All amphibians    Species to be
                                                                                                   surveyed will
                                                                                                   depend upon
                                                                                                   habitat suitability.
 Pre-activity surveys for Covered Activities not related to commercial and       Covered           Species to be
 residential construction will be conducted.                                     Habitat           surveyed will
                                                                                                   depend upon
                                                                                                   habitat suitability.
 Management standards will be applied to preferred diurnal perches and           Bald Eagle        —
 high-quality roost trees
 The Project Biologist will install signage adjacent to Castac Lake indicating   Bald Eagle        —
 that feeding bald eagles is prohibited.
 Interpretive and educational signage will be installed at Castac Lake,          Bald Eagle        —
 informing the public about bald eagles, their habitat requirements, and their
 sensitivity to human disturbance during the wintering season for the
 species (late October through March).
 Submit results of surveys and relocation efforts to CDFG.                       Burrowing owl     —
 If active golden eagle nest sites are observed on site, a nest-specific         Golden eagle      —
 viewshed analysis will be prepared
 Surveys for breeding least Bell’s vireos and purple martins will be             Least Bell's      —
 conducted for construction activities in proximity to breeding/foraging         vireos & purple
 habitat scheduled for the breeding season (April through August).               martins
 European starling monitoring, removal, and management methods will be           Purple martin     —
 implemented if determined necessary by the Project Biologist.
 Prior to implementation of starling management measures, the Project            Purple martin     —
 Biologist will develop a management plan.
 At the discretion of a qualified Project Biologist, a pre-construction live-    Tehachapi         —
 trapping program will be conducted for Tehachapi pocket mouse in suitable       pocket mouse
 habitat in the project disturbance zone and within 100 feet of disturbance
 zone no earlier than 7 days prior to commencement of activities resulting in
 permanent ground disturbance. A pre-construction trapping program would
 be conducted for 5 nights in suitable habitat to trap and remove as many
 individuals as possible and relocate them in suitable habitat away from the
 project disturbance zone.




                                                                                                                   2-21
TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives


                                                                                                     Assumptions /
 Action                                                                           Species            Notes
 If construction for development activities is proposed within 325 feet of        Tehachapi          —
 Tehachapi buckwheat occurrences, the Project Biologist will perform              buckwheat
 weekly construction monitoring. The Project Biologist’s construction
 monitoring tasks will include reviewing and approving protective fencing,
 dust control measures, and erosion control devices before construction
 work begins; conducting a contractor education session at the
 preconstruction meeting; and reviewing the site weekly (minimum) during
 construction to ensure the fencing, dust control, and BMP measures are in
 place and functioning correctly and that work is not directly or indirectly
 impacting the plants. Monitoring reports will include remedial
 recommendations and issue resolution discussions when necessary.
 Establishment of setbacks in design features of development and map              All                —
 them to protect species.


 Conduct pre-construction surveys in modeled potential habitat areas for          All avian          Species to be
 occupied nests, Fully Protected species, and the Tehachapi buckwheat.            Covered            surveyed will
                                                                                  Species, all       depend upon
                                                                                  Fully Protected    habitat suitability.
                                                                                  Covered            Any Fully
                                                                                  Species, and       Protected species
                                                                                  Tehachapi          and/or active bird
                                                                                  buckwheat.         nests will be
                                                                                                     avoided; other
                                                                                                     species may be
                                                                                                     trapped and
                                                                                                     relocated.
 For occupied bird nests, the Project Biologist will establish appropriate        All native avian
 buffers for active nests detected during pre-construction surveys, in            Covered
 compliance with applicable regulatory protocols. Active nests and                Species
 designated buffers will be shown on appropriate planning maps.
 Construction within the buffers will be avoided until the nests are
 abandoned or until the young have fledged or have been reared.
 For Fully Protected species, the Project Biologist will monitor construction     All Fully          —
 activities to ensure avoidance of any harm to individuals and will have the      Protected
 authority to direct the cessation of field activities likely to cause any such   Covered
 harm.                                                                            Species
 Implement contractor/construction personnel pre-construction meetings            All                —
 with educational information about MSHCP requirements and Covered
 Species.
 Fence or flag disturbance/grading perimeters to identify extent of               All                —
 authorized disturbance areas and boundary of nondisturbance areas.
 Implement BMPs to protect surface water quality (pollutants, erosion,            All                —
 sedimentation) during construction in compliance with Clean Water Act and
 Porter-Cologne requirements.
 CC&Rs for each parcel will prohibit the feeding of the California condor, the    All                —
 bald eagle, and other wildlife species on TMV.
 Home Owners’ Associations will be provided with educational information          All                —
 regarding acceptable recreational activities, pets, wildlife, and Open Space
 areas.




2-22
               TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
                                                                   Draft Environmental Impact Statement
                                                           Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives


                                                                                            Assumptions /
 Action                                                                          Species    Notes
 An Integrated Pest Management Plan will be developed and implemented            All        —
 (including eradication of nonnative invasive species, including bullfrogs and
 Argentine ant) in conjunction with development, ranch wide operations, and
 management of Open Space.
 The installation of infrastructure within Open Space areas (recreational and    All        —
 educational support)



2.3.3.3 Monitoring and Reporting

Monitoring. TRC would implement a compliance and effectiveness monitoring program (see Sections 4.5
and 7.3 of the MSHCP) to achieve the following goals: to ensure that avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and
conservation measures are fully implemented; to determine if impacts to Covered Species on the Covered
Lands have correctly been anticipated; and to determine if the avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and
conservation measures are effective as predicted.

2.3.3.4    Adaptive Management
Habitat conservation plans are required to contain adaptive management provisions when there are
substantial gaps in the knowledge of the covered species that may pose significant risk after the issuance of
an incidental take permit. These uncertainties may include lack of ecological data (e.g. food sources, foraging
habits, territory size, etc.), uncertainty about habitat or species management, uncertainty regarding the
effectiveness of certain conservation strategies or measures, or uncertainty about the extent of potential
effects posed by the covered activities.

The primary conservation strategy that would be implemented under the Proposed MSHCP Alternative is
the permanent preservation of at least 116,523 (82%), and as many as 129,318 (91%), acres of Covered
Lands. This Open Space area would be managed, consistent with historical use, in a manner that
promotes the conservation of and prevents impacts to the Covered Species. Thus, it is not anticipated
that gaps in knowledge would result in significant new risks to the Covered Species. Nevertheless,
ecosystems are dynamic environments of interacting processes and biotic and abiotic components, and
ecological processes are not linear. They may function at different spatial and temporal scales.
Consequently, adaptive management of ecosystems, landscapes, and associated species requires a
flexible, inductive approach where ecological theory and field experimentation are combined to monitor the
status of the system and respond to the unexpected. With implementation of Covered Activities, human
presence would increase somewhat in conjunction with commercial and residential development.
Management and adaptive management activities would be directed toward avoiding and minimizing threats
to Covered Species that may result from increased human presence in proximity to conserved open space.
Measures to manage these threats are also included in the species goals and objectives presented in
Section 7.1 of the MSHCP.

Adaptive management measures undertaken as part of this MSHCP would be coordinated with the
management strategies and adaptive management standards as they emerge for the Ranchwide
Agreement. In particular, sharing of baseline information and monitoring and reporting data in an
accessible, uniform database would facilitate adaptive management efforts.            Certain adaptive
management activities such as exotics control or grazing management, if carried out within Covered
Lands as well as throughout the ranch, may increase research value and benefits for Covered Species.

With regard to the California condor, because the entire population was brought into captivity by the FWS to
establish a captive breeding program, the condors that have been and are being released from the program
represent a unique population that likely behave differently than the wild-bred birds prior to the breeding
program being established. In addition, aggressive supplemental feeding programs have been established to



                                                                                                          2-23
TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

ensure that the released condors have access to a stable source of lead-free food. Consequently, how
condors that utilize Tejon Ranch would adapt to some of the conservation and mitigation strategies included in
the Proposed MSHCP Alternative is not entirely known. Therefore, the following measures and processes
would be employed, should an adaptive management approach be necessary.

1. If, as a result of ongoing monitoring by the Tejon Staff biologist and FWS (due to ongoing analysis of
   radio telemetry data), it is determined that condors are not regularly utilizing the established
   supplemental feeding stations on the ranch, or if the feeding station location is inadvertently exposing
   condors to microtrash, human disturbance, or other factors that could potentially harm or disturb
   condors, an evaluation will be conducted by TRC and the FWS as to potential causes for the low use
   or non-use or potential remedies to remove the source(s) of the harm or disturbance. In both
   instances, consideration shall be given to relocating the feeding station to a site approved by both the
   FWS and TRC.

2. If, as a result of ongoing monitoring by the Tejon Staff biologist and FWS (due to ongoing analysis of
   radio telemetry data), it is determined that condors are regularly ingesting microtrash on the Covered
   Lands, if they are observed engaging in habituation behaviors in areas within the Covered Lands
   where ingestion of microtrash is likely to occur, or if they are observed colliding with or landing on
   artificial structures on the Covered Lands, an evaluation shall be conducted by Tejon Ranch and the
   FWS as to potential remedies to resolve the issue to reduce the instances of microtrash ingestion,
   collisions, and/or habituation. Potential remedies can include increased education and awareness to
   Tejon residents, guests, staff, and workers regarding the dangers of microtrash, increased monitoring
   of events and activities that are potential sources of microtrash, including for example more frequent
   collection of microtrash, and revision of guidelines regarding location of antennaes and/or towers, as
   set forth in the Implementing Agreement.

3. If, as a result of ongoing monitoring by the Tejon Staff biologist and FWS (due to ongoing analysis of
   radio telemetry data), it is determined that California condors are using areas of the Covered Lands
   on which development has occurred or is occurring, the FWS will be alerted to the locations and
   areas in which condors are occurring, and the FWS will consider implementing various actions to
   deter condors from occurring within developed areas. Consideration should be given to ensuring that
   carcass dumps and gut piles from hunter-killed game animals are being deposited at locations
   appropriately distant from existing development.

Given the significant set-aside of land for the California condor within Covered Lands, including the MSHCP
Mitigation Lands and the CSA, as well as preservation called for under the Ranchwide Agreement, and given
the additional measures to be implemented by Tejon Ranch to aid in the conservation and recovery of the
species, the adaptive management program incorporated into this MSHCP does not extend to changes that
would result in further restrictions on the amount or location of development within the development areas or
the ability to continue grazing in accordance with the grazing levels comparable to past grazing practices
(14,500 head of cattle). However, this should not be construed to restrict the continuing duty of the FWS to
ensure that implementation of the MSHCP does not exceed permitted incidental take limits and that the
MSHCP and ITP are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the California condor.

2.3.3.5   Term of Incidental Take Permit
With the Proposed MSHCP Alternative, the Service would issue an ITP with a 50-year term. TRC has applied
for a 50-year permit term based upon the approximate amount of time needed to complete contemplated and
foreseeable development within the Covered Lands and to provide conservation benefits to Covered Species.

2.3.4 Condor HCP Alternative
The Condor HCP Alternative would involve approval of a habitat conservation plan and ITP for only the
California condor. Measures intended to protect the other Covered Species in the proposed MSHCP would
not be included in the HCP. No development would occur within the CSA under the Condor HCP Alternative.



2-24
              TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
                                                              Draft Environmental Impact Statement
                                                      Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

The Condor HCP Alternative would include development within the TMV Planning Area and development
consistent with the Kern County General Plan outside of the CSA and TMV Planning Areas (Figure 2.11).

2.3.4.1   Activities Considered in Analysis
2.3.4.1.1 Plan-Wide Activities
The Plan-Wide Activities that would occur under the No Action/No MSHCP Alternative would also occur in the
Condor HCP Alternative. Plan-Wide Activities that comply with the HCP could also be completed within the 2-
Mile Buffer area, including the construction of new back country cabins and new ancillary ranch facilities. In
addition, the mitigation, monitoring, and management activities described for the No Action/No MSHCP
Alternative would occur under the Condor HCP Alternative.

2.3.4.1.2 Open Space Areas
The Condor HCP Alternative includes approximately 23,000 permanently preserved acres within the TMV
Planning Area. The 37,099 acre CSA would be preserved for the 50-year duration of the ITP. Additional
open space areas that would be created and protections that would be required by the implementation of
the Ranchwide Agreement are assumed not to occur for purposes of the EIS comparative analysis under
the Condor HCP Alternative. Assuming for purposes of the EIS analysis that the CSA is treated as
preserved land, notwithstanding the 50-year limitation of its required preservation, a total of 60,100 acres
would be preserved as Open Space under this alternative (as opposed to 72,822 under the Proposed
MSHCP Alternative).

2.3.4.1.3 Commercial and Residential Development Activities.
Development in the Condor Only HCP Alternative would occur on the approximately 70,425 acres located
outside of the CSA and the TMV Open Space, resulting in a total of 12,409 acres of disturbed land (as
opposed to 10,618 under the No Action/No MSHCP Alternative). The remaining 58,016 acres would be
devoted to large-lot (consistent with the 1 DU per 20 or 80 acres designations) rural/agricultural uses.
Development would include the TMV Planning Area as described in Section 2.3.3.1.3 and residential and
commercial development consistent with the Kern County General Plan in the remaining portions of the
Covered Lands outside of the CSA. A total of six specific plan required areas would be developed. A total of
7,100 dwelling units and 4,940,710 square feet of commercial development would occur within the Covered
Lands under the Condor HCP Alternative. In addition, TCWD would provide services as described in the No
Action/No MSHCP Alternative.

2.3.4.2   Conservation Measures
The avoidance, minimization, minimization, and conservation measures included under this alternative are
limited to those set forth for the California condor in the MSHCP. For example, no development activity would
be permitted in the CSA, and supplemental condor feeding stations would be established. However, in
contrast to the Proposed MSHCP Alternative, under the Condor HCP the protections within the CSA would
only be guaranteed for the 50-year term of the ITP. The protection measures for the other Covered Species
would have been determined as a result of project-specific review and approval processes triggered by
applicant requests. The application of FESA species protection measures at a project-specific level would
have met applicable legal requirements but would not have provided for the comprehensive level of resource
planning and corresponding species protection measures at the Covered Lands scale.

2.3.4.3   Monitoring and Reporting

Compliance Monitoring. TRC would implement a compliance and effectiveness program to achieve the
following goals: to ensure that avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and conservation measures are fully
implemented; to determine if impacts to the California condor on the Covered Lands have correctly been
anticipated; and to determine if the avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and conservation measures are
effective as predicted.




                                                                                                         2-25
TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

2.3.4.4   Adaptive Management

The adaptive management approach under the Condor HCP is limited to those set forth for the California
condor in the MSHCP. For example, if monitoring demonstrates that condors are not regularly utilizing the
supplemental feeding stations, an evaluation would be conducted to determine potential explanations and
remedies. However, in contrast to the Proposed MSHCP Alternative, under the Condor HCP, the protections
within the CSA would only be guaranteed for the 50-year tem of the ITP, and the additional commitments of
permanently preserved lands would not be made.

2.3.4.5   Term of Incidental Take Permit

As with the Proposed MSHCP Alternative, the Service would issue an ITP with a 50-year term under this
Condor HCP. TRC has applied for a 50-year permit term based upon the approximate amount of time needed
to complete contemplated and foreseeable development within the Covered Lands.

2.3.5 MSHCP General Plan Buildout Alternative
As with the Proposed MSHCP, the MSHCP General Plan Buildout Alternative would result in the approval of
an MSHCP and the issuance of an ITP under FESA. Development would not occur within the CSA, but would
occur elsewhere within the Covered Lands. However, the development program would be implemented as set
forth in the Kern County General Plan. The restrictive development program in the Proposed MSHCP
Alternative, which limits development to the Lebec/Headquarters area and the TMV Planning Area, would not
be implemented. Additionally, the TMV project would not be implemented but as many as seven additional
concentrated mixed residential/commercial development areas would be implemented as set forth in the Kern
County General Plan. Large lot (20 and 80 acre) residential development would occur on the remainder of the
development portions of the Covered Lands (Figure 2.12).

2.3.5.1   Activities Considered in Analysis

2.3.5.1.1 Plan-Wide Activities

The Plan-Wide Activities that would occur under the No Action/No MSHCP Alternative would also occur in the
MSHCP General Plan Buildout Alternative. Plan-Wide Activities that comply with the MSHCP could also be
completed within the 2-Mile Buffer Area, including the construction of new back country cabins and new
ancillary ranch facilities. In addition, the mitigation, monitoring, and management activities described for the
Proposed MSHCP Alternative would occur under the MSHCP General Plan Buildout Alternative.

2.3.5.1.2 Open Space Areas

The 37,099-acre CSA would be preserved for the 50-year term of the MSHCP, as with the Condor HCP
Alternative. However, the approximately 23,000-acre permanent open space within the TMV Planning
Area would not be created, and for purposes of this EIS Alternatives analysis, the open space
preservation program in the Ranchwide Agreement would also not be implemented. The result would be
no permanent dedication of open space, and only the 50-year dedication of 37,099 acres of the CSA.
This represents 35,723 fewer acres of open space preserved than under the No Action/No MSHCP
Alternative.

2.3.5.1.3 Commercial and Residential Development Activities.

A total of 8,752 dwelling units and 6,762,690 square feet of commercial development would be built
throughout a 92,645-acre portion of the Covered Lands under the MSHCP General Plan Buildout
Alternative, resulting in a total of 13,764 acres of disturbed land (as opposed to 10,618 under the No
Action/No MSHCP Alternative). The remaining 78,881 acres devoted to large-lot (consistent with the 1 DU
per 20 or 80 acres designations) rural/agricultural uses. Development would include seven specific plan
required developments. In addition, TCWD would provide services as described in the No Action/No
MSHCP Alternative.


2-26
                                                              Condor Study Area
                                                                                                                Miles
                                                              Tejon Ranch Boundary        0                    4
                                                              Covered Lands
                                                              Not a Part




                                                         TMV Planning Area




                                                              O SO

                                                         *    Development includes 16 acres of disturbance
                                                              for the Bear Trap Turnout
                                                              Impovement Project on this DWR parcel




                                                                                                                        *DWR




                                                                                                                                                         Kern County

                                                                                                                                                      Los Angeles County
Z:\Projects\j540501\PROJ\MAPS\EIS_Figs\Fig2-9_Alt3.mxd




                                                                                        Los
                                                                                            Ang
                                                                                            Ven

                                                                                               ele
                                                                                                tura

                                                                                                   sC
                                                                                                     Cou

                                                                                                      oun
                                                                                                         nty

                                                                                                          ty




                                                                                                                               TEHACHAPI UPLAND MSHCP DRAFT EIS FIGURE
                                                                                                                                       Condor HCP Alternative              2.11
 
                                                              Condor Study Area                               Miles
                                                              Tejon Ranch Boundary            0              4
                                                              Covered Lands
                                                              Not a Part




                                                          *   Development includes 16 acres of disturbance
                                                              for the Bear Trap Turnout
                                                              Impovement Project on this DWR parcel




                                                                                                                      *DWR




                                                                                                                                                       Kern County

                                                                                                                                                    Los Angeles County
Z:\Projects\j540501\PROJ\MAPS\EIS_Figs\Fig2-10_Alt4.mxd




                                                                                     Los
                                                                                         Ang
                                                                                         Ven

                                                                                            ele
                                                                                             tura

                                                                                                sC
                                                                                                  Cou

                                                                                                   oun
                                                                                                      nty

                                                                                                       ty




                                                                                                                             TEHACHAPI UPLAND MSHCP DRAFT EIS FIGURE
                                                                                                             MSHCP General Plan Buildout Alternative                     2.12
 
              TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
                                                               Draft Environmental Impact Statement
                                                       Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

2.3.5.2   Conservation Measures

The avoidance, minimization, minimization, and conservation measures included under this alternative include
those that are included in the MSHCP, with the exception that the preserved land component of these
measures is limited to the 50-year preservation of the 37,099-acre CSA and none of the additional permanent
open space commitments would be made. Additional avoidance areas would nevertheless be achieved
through conservation measures designed to avoid impacts to high-value species habitat and direct impacts to
species (e.g., avoidance of occupied nests for protected species), but the acreage amount for these avoided
areas cannot be predicted with certainty, and the obligation to avoid would only be triggered by the presence of
the protected species (or other trigger as identified in the MSHCP), and thus is not subject to ready
quantification for the purpose of this EIS comparative analysis.

2.3.5.3   Monitoring and Reporting
Compliance Monitoring. TRC would implement a compliance and effectiveness program to achieve the
following goals: to ensure that avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and conservation measures are fully
implemented; to determine if impacts to the Covered Species on the Covered Lands have correctly been
anticipated; and to determine if the avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and conservation measures are
effective as predicted.

2.3.5.4   Adaptive Management

The adaptive management approach under the MSHCP General Plan Buildout Alternative includes those that
are included in the MSHCP. However, under this alternative, the preserved land component of these
measures is limited to the 50-year preservation of the 37,099-acre CSA. Thus, the level of adaptive
management required under the MSHCP General Plan Buildout Alternative, particularly with regard to the non-
condor Covered Species, is likely to be much greater than under the Proposed MSHCP Alternative.

2.3.5.5   Term of Incidental Take Permit

As with the Proposed MSHCP and Condor HCP Alternative, the Service would issue an ITP with a 50-year
term. TRC has applied for a 50-year permit term based upon the approximate amount of time needed to
complete contemplated and foreseeable development within the Covered Lands.

2.3.6 Summary and Comparison of Alternatives
The following section summarizes the major components of each of the alternatives.

•   The No Action/No MSHCP Alternative. The No Action/No MSHCP Alternative would not permit
    development in the CSA and the 2-Mile Buffer, which represent 72,822 acres of known high-quality
    California condor habitat and the portion of Covered Lands most frequently used by California
    condors (based on record of historic use). Take of the other Covered Species would be avoided
    through localized development-specific avoidance measures (e.g., by siting residential structures and
    ancillary development within areas of 20- and 80-acre parcels that avoid species take).

    The remaining approximately 56,922 acres under this alternative would be developed consistent with
    Kern County General Plan land use designations and would include an approximately 10,618-acre
    disturbance footprint within which urban-type commercial and residential development would occur,
    with the remaining 46,304 acres devoted to large-lot (consistent with the 1 DU per 20 or 80 acres
    designations) rural/agricultural uses. Urban-type commercial and residential development under this
    alternative would include 5,897 dwelling units and 6,512,220 square feet of commercial buildings.
    The large-lot rural/agricultural uses under this alternative would include 1,282 dwelling units on
    individual 20- to 80-acre parcels.

•   The MSHCP Alternative. The MSHCP Alternative assumes that a 50-year incidental take permit would
    be issued for all Covered Species and Covered Activities on Covered Lands, as well as implementation



                                                                                                           2-27
TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

    of the Ranchwide Agreement. No development would occur within the CSA, and pursuant to the
    Ranchwide Agreement described above, approximately 116,523 acres (approximately 82%) of the
    Covered Lands (which includes the entirety of the CSA) would be permanently precluded from
    development and preserved as open space. The Ranchwide Agreement also provides for an option to
    acquire and record a conservation easement on an additional 12,795 acres within the Covered Lands.
    If the options are fully exercised, approximately 129,318 (91%) of the Covered Lands would be
    preserved as open space under this alternative.
    The limited amount of development to be authorized under this Alternative would occur in two
    locations of the Covered Lands that are adjacent to the I-5 corridor: the TMV Planning Area and the
    Lebec/Existing Headquarters area. TMV Planning Area development would include approximately
    3,624 dwelling units and up to 464,920 square feet of commercial development within a total
    disturbance area of approximately 5,252 acres. A number of planning and enforcement mechanisms
    (see MSHCP Section 7.2) would be incorporated into the TMV project that minimize disturbance
    associated with residential development. Approximately 23,000 acres would be permanently
    preserved as open space within the TMV Planning Area.
    Although no development plans currently exist for the 410-acre Lebec/Existing Headquarters area, the
    Proposed MSHCP Alternative assumes that the current General Plan designations, which would allow
    for up to nine dwelling units and 1,339,470 square feet of commercial development, would occur within
    the Lebec/Existing Headquarters area.
    The total amount of Covered Activity development that would occur in both the TMV Planning Area and
    the Lebec/Existing Headquarters areas under the MSHCP Alternative includes 3,633 dwelling units and
    1,804,390 square feet of commercial development.
    The net disturbance area in the MSHCP Alternative is smaller than the disturbance that would occur in
    the other alternatives, including the No Action/No MSHCP Alternative. The MSHCP Alternative also
    incorporates planning and enforcement mechanisms designed to minimize plan-wide and development
    impacts (see MSHCP Section 7.2), and permanently preserves a much larger portion of the Covered
    Lands as open space. Under the MSHCP Alternative, approximately 5,533 acres of the Covered Lands
    (approximately 4%) would be disturbed by development activities within the TMV Planning Area and
    Lebec/Existing Headquarters area, as opposed to 10,618 acres (or 7% of the Covered Lands) under the
    No Action/No MSHCP Alternative.

•   Condor HCP Alternative. The Condor HCP Alternative would result in the issuance of an ITP covering
    only the California condor. This alternative would not include the comprehensive protective measures
    that would apply to all of the Covered Species in the Proposed MSHCP Alternative. Additionally, the
    37,099-acre CSA would be preserved for only the 50-year duration of the ITP rather than preserved in
    perpetuity.
    The Condor HCP Alternative would also include development of the TMV project, including the
    preservation of approximately 23,000 acres within the TMV Planning Area that would be conserved as
    open space. The remainder of the Covered Lands under this alternative would be developed
    consistent with Kern County General Plan land use designations. In total, development would occur
    over 70,425 acres, of which approximately 12,409-acre would be disturbed acreage where urban-type
    commercial and residential development would occur, with the remaining 58,016 acres devoted to
    large-lot (consistent with the 1 DU per 20 or 80 acres designation) rural/agricultural uses. Urban-type
    commercial and residential development under this alternative would include 7,100 dwelling units and
    4,940,710 square feet of commercial buildings. The large-lot rural/agricultural uses under this
    alternative would include 1,070 dwelling units on individual 20- to 80-acre parcels.

•   MSHCP General Plan Buildout Alternative. The MSHCP General Plan Buildout Alternative would
    include issuance of an ITP and MSHCP for development in the locations, densities, and intensities
    set forth in the current Kern County General Plan, except that as with other alternatives no
    development would be allowed in the CSA. The MSHCP General Plan Buildout Alternative would not
    include any permanently preserved acreage within the Covered Lands because the preservation



2-28
               TEHACHIPI UPLAND MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
                                                              Draft Environmental Impact Statement
                                                      Chapter 2.0 Proposed MSHCP and Alternatives

    commitments associated with the TMV project and the Ranchwide Agreement would not be
    implemented; however, the 37,099-acre CSA area would be preserved for the 50-year period of the
    MSHCP.
    The remaining approximately 92,645 acres under this alternative would be developed consistent with
    Kern County General Plan land use designations and would include an approximately 13,764-acre
    disturbance footprint within which urban-type commercial and residential development would occur,
    with the remaining 78,881 acres devoted to large-lot (consistent with the 1 DU per 20 or 80 acres
    designations) rural/agricultural uses. Urban-type commercial and residential development under this
    alternative would include 8,752 dwelling units and 6,762,690 square feet of commercial buildings.
    The large-lot rural/agricultural uses under this alternative would include 2,063 dwelling units on
    individual 20- to 80-acre parcels.
The following table shows the open space and development provided for in the four alternatives.

Table 2.3. Comparison of Alternatives

                                    No Action/No
                                      MSHCP            Proposed HCP        Alternative A       Alternative B
                                     Alternative         Alternative      (General Plan)      (Larger CCSA)
Development Disturbance
                                       10,618              5,533              12,409               13,764
(acreage)
Open Space (acreage)                   72,822          Up to 129,318          60,100               37,099
Residential Dwelling Units              5,897              3,633              7,100                8,752
Commercial Development
                                      6,512,220          1,804,390           4,940,710            6,762,690
(square footage)




                                                                                                            2-29
 

								
To top