Goleta City Council
October 17, 2023

Therefore, the MBHMP would not create any significant airport safety hazards and no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Implementation of the MBHMP would involve fuel management activities under the Community Wildfire Protection Program. These activities would not involve construction of any new facilities or change in land use that would interfere with an adopted emergency response plan. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The MBHMP includes the Community Wildfire Protection Program to be consistent with the intent of the City’s CWPP and ensure fire safety and habitat protection are balanced. This program includes actions supporting the implementation of the CWPP’s 100-foot-wide fire buffer around homes and structures in the Ellwood Mesa eucalyptus groves. The Program would also coordinate with City- approved wildland fire experts during the planning and implementation of any fuel treatments. The Tree Management Program would reduce fire hazard, improve public safety, and eliminate trees that are threatening the sustainability of the butterfly aggregation sites, including dead, diseased, and dying trees. Removal of hazardous trees, in combination with the maintenance of fire buffers and understory clearing, would reduce the risk of fire in the Coverage Area. Therefore, implementation of the MBHMP would have the beneficial effect of reducing exposure of people or structures to risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required or recommended.

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 101 10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
w
aste discharge requirements or
o
therwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality? □ ■ □ □
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainabl
e
gr
oundwater management of the basin? □ □ ■ □
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course o
f a
s
tream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
silt
ation on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
am
ount of surface runoff in a
m
anner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
w
hich would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
d
rainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
p
olluted runoff; or □ □ ■ □
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ ■ □
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
□ □ □ ■
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 102
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
s
ustainable groundwater management
plan? □ ■ □ □
Existing Setting
Devereux Creek and a tributary run through the Coverage Area, and portions of the Coverage Area overlay the western portion of the Goleta Groundwater Basin (Basin 3-016). The Coverage Area includes areas in the 100-year flood zone, as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FEMA 2018). Portions of the Coverage Area are also in the Potential Tsunami Runup Area as shown in Figure 5-2 of the General Plan Safety Element (City of Goleta 2006a).

Thresholds of Significance
A significant impact on hydrology and water quality would occur if the MBHMP resulted in any of the impacts noted in the above checklist, pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the City’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual assumes a significant impact on hydrology and water resources would occur if the MBHMP would:
 Be located in an urbanized area of Santa Barbara County and the project construction or re
development individually or as a part of a larger common plan of development or sale would disturb one or more acres of land
 Increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site by 25 percent or more  Result in channelization or relocation of a natural drainage channel  Result in removal or reduction of riparian vegetation or other vegetation (excluding non-native vegetation removed for restoration projects) from the buffer zone of any streams, creeks, or w
etlands
 Be an industrial facility that falls under one or more categories of industrial facility regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase I industrial storm water regulations
 Discharge pollutants that exceed the water quality standards set forth in the applicable NPDES permit, the Central Coast RWQCB Basin Plan, or otherwise impair the beneficial uses of a
re
ceiving waterbody
 Result in a discharge of pollutants into an “impaired” waterbody that has been designated as such by the SWRCB or the Central Coast RWQCB under Section 303 (d) of the Federal Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act (i.e., the Clean Water Act)  Result in a discharge of pollutants of concern to a receiving waterbody as identified in by the Central Coast RWQCB
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 103 Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Surface Water
The Coverage Area is under the jurisdiction of the Central Coast RWQCB. The Central Coast RWQCB released an update to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin on September 27, 2017 (2017 Basin Plan; Central Coast RWQCB 2017). The 2017 Basin Plan describes beneficial uses and water quality objectives for surface waters in the basin, monitoring and assessment protocols and policies, and management principles relating to the protection and improvement of surface water quality.

Devereux Creek runs through the Coverage Area. Per the 2017 Basin Plan, Devereux Creek has designated beneficial uses of Municipal and Domestic Supply, Groundwater Recharge, Freshwater Replenishment, Water Contact Recreation, Non-Contact Water Recreation, Commercial and Sport Fishing, Warm Freshwater Habitat, and Wildlife Habitat (Central Coast RWQCB 2017). Devereux Creek is listed as impaired on the SWRCB’s 2014-2016 303(d) list due to high levels of fecal coliform and low dissolved oxygen concentrations (SWRCB 2018). Implementation of the MBHMP would not involve construction of new facilities that could substantially degrade water quality and would not increase impervious surface cover generating increased polluted runoff. Covered activities under the MBHMP could involve limited ground disturbance in the Coverage Area, in turn generating temporary runoff of sediment and other pollutants to nearby waterbodies, including Devereux Creek. Application of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers associated with native planting, eucalyptus restoration, and invasive species eradication activities could result in runoff of chemical pollutants into adjacent waterbodies.

Ground-disturbing activities greater than one acre are subject to the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit (Order 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012- 0006-DWQ). Pursuant to the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit, these activities would prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to minimize construction-related pollutant discharge. Common BMPs required in SWPPPs include installation of silt fences, post-grading revegetation, and regular stormwater quality monitoring.

However, given the nature of covered activities under the MBHMP, most, if not all, activities would be smaller in scale and involve less than one acre of ground disturbance. Such activities include adjustments to trail locations, installation of culverts or water bars, construction of drainage crossings, installation of irrigation systems, or small-scale drainage channel clearing following flood events. These activities would have the potential to result in temporary sediment erosion and water quality impacts. Individually, these covered activities would not be subject to the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit. Furthermore, application of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides could result in runoff into nearby waterbodies, including the impaired Devereux Creek.

Increased nutrient loading associated with fertilizer runoff to Devereux Creek could increase eutrophication, ultimately reducing dissolved oxygen and exacerbating the waterbody’s existing impairment. These impacts would be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated.

City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 104
Groundwater
Portions of the Coverage Area overlie the western portion of the Goleta Groundwater Basin. In May 2010, GWD and La Cumbre Mutual Water Company published the Final Groundwater Management Plan for the Goleta Groundwater Basin (GWD and La Cumbre Mutual Water Company 2010). The plan contains basin management objectives, basin yield and storage, and recommended future strategies. As the basin is adjudicated under the 1989 Wright Judgment, it has a “Very Low” basin priority under the California Department of Water Resources Final 2018 Basin Prioritization (California Department of Water Resources 2019) and is not required to prepare a Groundwater Sustainability Plan under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

The MBHMP would not include any groundwater pumping or injection which would conflict with the Groundwater Management Plan for the Goleta Groundwater Basin. Similar to surface water impacts, application of chemical fertilizers, herbicides, or pesticides associated with covered activities would have the potential to result in leaching of pollutants to underlying groundwater.

This impact would be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated.

Overall, impacts related to surface water and groundwater quality would be potentially significant.

Incorporation of Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 and HWQ-2 would reduce water quality impacts to a less than significant level by minimizing erosion during ground-disturbing activities and reducing application and migration of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides used during covered activities. These mitigation measures would minimize the potential for degradation of surface water or groundwater resources, and therefore, would ensure the MBHMP would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. As a result, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially wit h
gr
oundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No impervious surfaces are proposed under the MBHMP, and the majority of the Coverage Area includes pervious surfaces allowing for groundwater infiltration. The MBHMP would not involve on- site pumping of groundwater. Irrigation may occur in the Coverage Area to support native plantings or eucalyptus restoration. Irrigation water would provide additional recharge benefits to the underlying aquifer, with water supplied from reclaimed water or existing potable supplies. Any potable water would be provided by GWD, which has adjudicated, appropriative groundwater extraction rights based on the Goleta Groundwater Basin’s safe yield. GWD does not pump water from the West sub-basin of the Goleta Groundwater Basin, which the Coverage Area overlies.

Therefore, the MBHMP would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 105 c.(i) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or situation on- or off-site?
c.(ii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? c.(iii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
c.(iv) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would impede or redirect flood flows? The MBHMP would not involve construction of any new facilities or change in land use that would substantially alter drainage patterns of the area. No new impervious surfaces are proposed, and therefore, runoff patterns would not be substantially altered, nor would any conditions contributing to an exceedance of the area stormwater drainage system be created. The natural drainage of the Coverage Area would result in passive detention and natural filtration of stormwater runoff. The MBHMP would not result in flooding, erosion, or siltation.

Clearing and re-contouring of drainage ways may occur as covered activities under the Tree Management Program. Such activities would repair drainage ways following flood events to protect trees. Impacts associated with alteration of the Coverage Area’s drainage pattern would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
According to Figure 5.20 of the 2017 Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Coverage Area is not located in a dam inundation zone (County of Santa Barbara 2017).

Portions of the Coverage Area along Devereux Creek are in a FEMA-designated flood hazard zone and other portions of the Coverage Area are subject to flooding by a tsunami. Implementation of the MBHMP would not involve construction or installation of any structures or facilities that would use, process, or store pollutants that could be released in the event of inundation. Therefore, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 106
Mitigation Measures
HWQ-1 Erosion Control Best Management Practices
Prior to commencement of any ground-disturbing activities not covered by a SWPPP prepared in compliance with the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit, the City or City- authorized contractor shall implement the following erosion control BMPs:
 Ground-disturbing activities shall occur between April 1 and September 30 to coincide with the dry season and avoid impacts to overwintering monarch butterflies.  Silt fencing, straw bales composed of rice straw (that are certified to be free of weed seed), fiber rolls, gravel bags, mulching erosion control blankets, soil stabilizers, and storm drain filters shall be used, in conjunction with other methods, to prevent erosion throughout the Coverage Are a
an
d siltation of stream channels and detention basins.
 Temporary berms and sediment basins shall be constructed to avoid unnecessary siltation into local waterways during ground-disturbing activities.
 Erosion controls which protect and stabilize exposed soils shall be used to prevent movement of materials. Potential erosion control devices include plastic sheeting held down with rocks o r
s
andbags over exposed soils and use of silt fences or berms of hay bales.  Frequency of sediment removal from detention basins, locations and types of erosion and sediment control structures, and materials that would be used in the Coverage Area during M
BHMP activities shall be specified.
 All exposed soils present in and around the disturbed area shall be stabilized within seven days of ground disturbance using mulch, geotextile binding fabrics, and/or native, drought-tolerant revegetation, as necessary.

H
WQ-2 Chemical Application Control Plan
Prior to commencement of native planting, eucalyptus grove restoration, invasive species eradication, and pest control activities, the City shall prepare and implement a Chemical Application Control Plan to be approved by the City Biologist. The plan shall identify thresholds to determine when fertilizer, herbicide, or pesticide application is necessary, the chemical to be used, and the rate, timing, and placement of application. Pesticides or insecticides shall be used only when necessary to cure a problem and in positively identified pre-emergent situations, not as a preventive measure or as a regular, periodic application.

When pesticide or herbicide application is deemed necessary, use of chemical forms that are the least toxic to non-target organisms shall be employed. Only slow release organic fertilizers shall be used in the Coverage Area to minimize the potential for eutrophication in Devereux Creek. The application of fertilizers, herbicides, or pesticides shall be minimized during winter months when the greatest precipitation is likely to occur.

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 107 11 Land Use and Planning

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? □ □ □ ■
Existing Setting
The Coverage Area is an undeveloped area zoned Recreation (Rec) and with a General Plan land use designation of Open Space/Passive Recreation.

Thresholds of Significance
A significant land use and planning impact would occur if the MBHMP resulted in any of the impacts noted in the above checklist, pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The City’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual does not contain City-specific land use and planning thresholds.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Implementation of the MBHMP would not divide an established community because the MBHMP would not change the existing land use or result in any new structures in the Coverage Area.

Therefore, implementation of the MBHMP would not conflict with the City’s Zoning Ordinance or General Plan. The covered activities are allowed under the City’s Zoning Ordinance and General Plan for open space and passive recreation because the MBHMP would preserve habitat for butterflies and promote visitors at the preserve through the outreach programs. The Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan includes several goals, policies, and actions intended to achieve the City’s vision for open space, parks, and recreation facilities that are accessible to all members of the community. The MBHMP would be consistent with several guiding principles of the Open Space Element, including:

City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 108
 Provide and maintain, in coordination with other agencies, a system of parks, open spaces, and recreation facilities that are accessible to and will meet the needs of present and future users of all age groups.
 Manage, operate, and maintain park, recreation, and open space facilities (including trails) in a
m
anner that is responsive to the site and adjacent neighborhoods and balances the needs of the community with available funding.
 Preserve Goleta’s existing open space areas, including its beaches and Pacific shoreline, sensitive habitat areas, and agricultural lands, and increase the amount of permanently protected open space as opportunities for acquisition arise.  Provide for convenient public access to Goleta’s beach and shoreline areas and protect these areas for coastal-dependent and coastal-related recreation use.  Manage open space areas in a manner that provides for public access, passive and active recreational use, and enjoyment, consistent with protection of natural and scenic resource values.
 Provide and maintain a system of trails that will connect major parks and open space areas with each other, neighborhoods, the regional trail system, and Los Padres National Forest.

Additionally, the MBHMP would be consistent goals and supporting policies contained in the Open Space Plan, particularly those related to monarch butterfly and habitat protection, including the following (City of Goleta 2004):
 Protect, enhance, and, where feasible, restore ESHAs in the Open Space Plan Area.  Focus high priority habitat enhancement and restoration initial improvements and opportunities on invasive exotic species control in wetlands, enhancement and restoration of riparian and non-riparian wetlands, ensuring the long-term vitality of the monarch groves, and enhancement and restoration of native habitats that are under-represented in the Open Space Plan Area.
 Protect and maintain existing monarch butterfly populations in the Open Space Plan Area, and manage the habitats to be self-sustaining.
 Manage public access to protect butterflies and their habitat, while promoting public enjoyment, education, and scientific research.
 Conduct scientifically sound studies using appropriate and cautious methods to maintain and improve habitat conditions to ensure long-term viability of the population.

Figure 3-2, Park and Recreation Plan Map, of the Open Space Element shows the Coverage Area is classified as Regional Open Space. This designation in the General Plan indicates the area is contiguous to or encompasses significant natural resources and may include areas of historical, environmental, or ecological value. These areas may contain special amenities or features that attract people from throughout Goleta and the surrounding region. The MBHMP, including its goals and programs, is consistent with the preservation and protection of natural values and passive recreation in the Regional Open Space designation in the General Plan.

The MBHMP would also implement Policy OS-5 of the General Plan by protecting and enhancing the Coverage Area’s ESHAs. The Coverage Area is not included in any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or natural community conservation plans. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 109 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required or recommended.

City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 110
T
his page intentionally left blank.

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Mineral Resources

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 111 12 Mineral Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
□ □ □ ■
c. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
□ □ □ ■
Existing Setting
Although oil extraction activities took place on Ellwood Mesa in the 1970s-1980s, according to the mineral yearbook produced by the California Geological Survey and the USGS (2003), no major nonfuel mineral–producing areas are located in Goleta. In addition, the mineral land classification maps for Santa Barbara County (California Division of Mines and Geology 1989) show no known areas of significant aggregate resources in Goleta. According to the General Plan, most of Goleta is mapped as containing mineral deposits of unknown significance, and a small portion of the city is mapped as having no significant deposits (City of Goleta 2006a).

Thresholds of Significance
A significant impact on mineral resources would occur if the MBHMP resulted in any of the impacts noted in the checklist above, pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The City’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual does not contain City-specific mineral resources thresholds.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 112
The MBHMP would not result in the loss of availability of any known mineral resource or identified mineral resource recovery site. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required or recommended.

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Noise

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 113 13 Noise

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
□ ■ □ □
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? □ □ ■ □
c. For a project located within the vicinity of
a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
□ □ ■ □
Noise Background
Noise is unwanted sound resulting in a disturbance of human activity. Environmental noise levels typically fluctuate over time, and different types of noise descriptors are used to account for this variability. Noise level measurements include intensity, frequency, and duration, as well as time of occurrence. Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). Because of the way the human ear interprets sound level, a sound must be approximately 10 dBA greater than the reference sound to be judged as twice as loud. In general, a 3 dBA change in community noise levels is noticeable, while 1 to 2 dBA changes are typically not perceived. Quiet suburban areas generally have noise levels in the range of 40 to 50 dBA, while arterial streets are in the 50 to 60+ dBA range. Normal conversational levels are in the 60 to 65 dBA range, and ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA can interrupt conversations.

Noise levels typically attenuate (or drop off) at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance from point sources (such as construction equipment). Noise from lightly traveled roads typically attenuates at a rate of approximately 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance, while noise from heavily traveled roads typically attenuates at approximately 3 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures. For example, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by approximately 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm breaking the line-of-sight reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA (Federal Transit Administration 2018). The manner in which homes in California are constructed generally provides a City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 114
reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 35 dBA with closed windows (Federal Highway Administration 2011).

In addition to the instantaneous measurement of sound levels, the duration of sound is important since sounds occurring over a long period of time are more likely to be an annoyance or cause direct physical damage or environmental stress. The equivalent noise level (Leq) is one of the most frequently used noise metrics and considers both duration and sound power level. The Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level equal to the same amount of energy contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time (essentially, the average noise level). Typically, Leq is summed over a one-hour period. The highest root mean squared (RMS) sound pressure level in the measuring period is the Lmax. The lowest RMS sound pressure level in the measuring period is the Lmin.

The time period in which noise occurs is also important since noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than during the day. Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a 10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a 5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a 10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Noise levels described by Ldn and CNEL usually do not differ by more than 1 dBA. In practice, CNEL and Ldn are used interchangeably.

Vibration Background
Vibration is a unique form of noise because its energy is carried through buildings, structures, and the ground, whereas noise is simply carried through the air. Thus, vibration is generally felt rather than heard. Some vibration effects can be caused by noise (e.g., the rattling of windows from passing trucks). This phenomenon is caused by the coupling of the acoustic energy at frequencies close to the resonant frequency of the material being vibrated. Typically, groundborne vibration generated by human-made activities attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the vibration increases. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as particle velocity in inches per second and is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB).

The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources inside buildings such as the operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads.

Coverage Area Setting
The Coverage Area is an open space preserve; therefore, dominant noise levels in the Coverage Area are from conversations of recreational users and visitors. A small portion of the northern boundary of the Coverage Area adjacent to Hollister Avenue is in the roadway’s existing and future 60 dBA CNEL noise contour (see Figures 9-1 and 9-3, General Plan Noise Element, City of Goleta 2006a). The Coverage Area is not in the existing or future 60 dBA CNEL noise contour for the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport (Figures 9-2 and 9-4, General Plan Noise Element, City of Goleta 2006a). Sensitive receptors closest to the Coverage Area include residences adjacent to the northern and western boundaries of the Coverage Area, as well as Ellwood Elementary School and the Mariposa at Ellwood Shores assisted living facility north of the Coverage Area across Hollister Avenue.

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Noise

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 115 Regulatory Setting
City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Noise Element The General Plan Noise Element identifies noise sources in Goleta and land use compatibility standards for proposed development to minimize exposure of residents to excessive noise levels (City of Goleta 2006a). Additionally, the Noise Element contains policies and programs pertaining to noise generation and exposure in Goleta that are relevant to the MBHMP:

POLICY NE 6.2 ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS IN OPEN SPACE AREAS The City shall enforce restrictions or prohibitions on motorized vehicles in City-owned open-space areas unless such operation is allowed by permit. Signage stating such restrictions or prohibitions shall be provided and maintained in good order, and the need for additional signage shall be considered periodically.

P
OLICY NE 6.4 RESTRICTIONS ON CONSTRUCTION HOURS
The City shall require, as a condition of approval for any land use permit or other planning permit, restrictions on construction hours. Noise-generating construction activities for projects near or adjacent to residential buildings and neighborhoods or other sensitive receptors shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Construction in nonresidential areas away from sensitive receivers shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Construction shall generally not be allowed on weekends and State holidays. Exceptions to these restrictions may be made in extenuating circumstances (in the event of an emergency, for example) on a case by case basis at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Environmental Services. All construction sites subject to such restrictions shall post the allowed hours of operation near the entrance to the site, so that workers on site are aware of this limitation. City staff shall closely monitor compliance with restrictions on construction hours, and shall promptly investigate and respond to all noncompliance complaints.

P
OLICY NE 6.5 OTHER MEASURES TO REDUCE CONSTRUCTION NOISE The following measures shall be incorporated into grading and building plan specifications to reduce the impact of construction noise:
 All construction equipment shall have properly maintained sound-control devices, and no equipment shall have an unmuffled exhaust system.
 Contractors shall implement appropriate additional noise mitigation measures including but not limited to changing the location of stationary construction equipment, shutting off idling equipment, and installing acoustic barriers around significant sources of stationary construction noise.
 To the extent practicable, adequate buffers shall be maintained between noise-generating machinery or equipment and any sensitive receivers. The buffer should ensure that noise at the receiver site does not exceed 65 dBA CNEL. For equipment that produces a noise level of 95 dBA at 50 feet, a buffer of 1,600 feet is required for attenuation of sound levels to 65 dBA.

City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 116
City of Goleta Municipal Code
Chapter 9.09 of the Goleta Municipal Code contains the City’s noise ordinance. The ordinance broadly prohibits any unnecessary noises or sounds that are physically annoying to persons of ordinary sensitiveness or which are harsh, prolonged, unnatural, or unusual in their use, time or place as to occasion physical discomfort to the inhabitants of Goleta. The ordinance also restricts loud or unreasonable noise, music, percussion, or other sounds amplified by any musical instrument, drum, radio, loudspeaker, or other sound amplifying device during specified hours.

Thresholds of Significance
A significant noise impact would occur if the MBHMP resulted in any of the impacts noted in the above checklist, pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Additional thresholds are contained in the City’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual. The City’s adopted thresholds state that exterior CNEL noise levels in excess of 65 dBA would result in a significant noise impact on sensitive receptors. Additionally, noise from grading and construction activity within 1,600 feet of sensitive receptors would be presumed to result in a potentially significant impact. The manual recommends mitigating such impacts by limiting construction within 1,600 feet of sensitive receptors to weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project result generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in am
bient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Existing noise sources in the Coverage Area include cars in the parking area and conversations from people walking through the Coverage Area. Motorized transportation is limited to the parking area adjacent to Hollister Avenue. As shown in Table 9-1 of the General Plan, existing ambient noise level at the residences near the Coverage Area is approximately 58 dBA Leq. Therefore, ambient noise levels are below the City’s adopted threshold for residential uses of 65 dBA CNEL.

Permanent Noise Impacts
While trail improvements and educational programs may improve the visitor experience at the Coverage Area, implementation of the MBHMP would not involve construction of new uses in the Coverage Area or expand the existing parking lot facilities, and therefore, would not substantially increase the number of visitors. Accordingly, the MBHMP would not result in a permanent increase in ambient noises above the City’s standards.

Temporary Noise Impacts
Implementation of the MBHMP would involve habitat restoration, trail maintenance, and other activities under the Natural Resources Management Programs. These types of activities would mostly involve hand tools, but may involve mowers or other mechanical equipment, such as chainsaws. Tree removals and pruning may require the use of trucks and lifts. Additionally, culvert installation, drainage clearing following flood events, and trail maintenance activities may require occasional use of heavy construction equipment, including backhoes and bulldozers. Table 7 summarizes typical noise levels associated with construction equipment that may be used during covered activities.

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Noise

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 117 Table 7 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment On-site
Typical Level (dBA)
25 Feet from the Source
Typical Level (dBA)
50 Feet from the Source
Typical Level (dBA)
100 Feet from the Source
Backhoe 86 80 74
Dozer 91 85 79
Loader 86 80 74
Saw 82 76 70
Shovel 88 82 76
Truck 90 84 78
Noise levels assume a noise attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance.

Source: Federal Transit Administration 2018.

While temporary in nature, covered activities—including tree removal and pruning, trail maintenance, and drainage clearing—would occur within 1,600 feet of residences located adjacent to the Coverage Area. Given the proximity of these activities to sensitive receptors, they would be presumed to result in a potentially significant impact unless mitigation is incorporated, according to the City’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual.

Mitigation Measure N-1 restricts noise-generating MBHMP activities to hours recommended in the City’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual. The measure would further reduce potential construction noise associated with covered activities by requiring sound-control devices on construction equipment, consistent with Policy NE 6.5 of the General Plan Noise Element.

Because the MBHMP would implement the City’s recommended construction noise mitigation and would further reduce construction noise through installation of sound-control devices, impacts related to temporary noise associated with MBHMP activities would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?
Implementation of the MBHMP would not involve construction of new facilities, and therefore, use of heavy construction equipment would be limited. During implementation of the Natural Resources Management Programs, trail and tree maintenance activities would involve equipment such as chainsaws and hand tools. However, these types of equipment are not associated with high vibration levels. Drainage clearing and re-contouring, trail relocation, and culvert installation activities may require the occasional use of heavy equipment. Such activities would not require pile- driving or other construction methods capable of generating substantial ground-borne vibration.

Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 118
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
There are no private airports or airstrips in the vicinity of the Coverage Area. The Coverage Area is approximately 1.7 miles west of the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport but outside the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport’s 60 dBA noise contour. Although there may be occasional aircraft overflights, these would occur at high altitudes where noise generation would be expected to be less than 60 dBA. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Mitigation Measures
N-1 Noise Management
Consistent with mitigation recommended in the City’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual, all noise-generating MBHMP activities, including, but not limited to, tree removal, pruning, trail maintenance, and riparian restoration, shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. Noise-generating MBHMP activities shall not occur on weekends or State holidays.

If diesel-powered construction equipment is necessary, all such equipment shall have properly maintained sound-control devices, and no equipment shall have an unmuffled exhaust system.

Equipment shall not be left to idle while not in use.

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Population and Housing

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 119 14 Population and Housing

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
□ □ □ ■
b. Displace substantial amounts of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? □ □ □ ■
Existing Setting
According to the California Department of Finance (DOF), Goleta’s population is 31,949 people (DOF 2018). The estimated average household size is 2.78 persons and there are 12,021 housing units (DOF 2018). Upon buildout of the General Plan (anticipated to occur by the year 2030), Goleta’s population is expected to reach 38,100 (City of Goleta 2006a).

The Coverage Area is undeveloped and does not include any dwelling units.

Thresholds of Significance
A significant impact on population and housing would occur if the MBHMP resulted in any of the impacts noted in the above checklist, pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The City’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual does not contain City-specific population and housing thresholds.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Implementation of the MBHMP would not involve construction of any residential units which would increase Goleta’s population. The MBHMP would occur at Ellwood Mesa, and therefore, would not displace any existing housing or require the displacement of any people, as no housing is present in the Coverage Area. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 120
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required or recommended.

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Public Services

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 121 15 Public Services

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
1 Fire protection? □ □ □ ■
2 Police protection? □ □ □ ■
3 Schools? □ □ □ ■
4 Parks? □ □ □ ■
5 Other public facilities? □ □ □ ■
Existing Setting
Fire protection/Emergency services for the Coverage Area are provided by the Santa Barbara County Fire Department. The fire station closest to the Coverage Area is Station #11 located at 6901 Frey Way, just off of Storke Road and south of Hollister Avenue and the Camino Real Marketplace (approximately two miles driving distance). During long-term implementation of the MBHMP, Fire Station #10, which has been approved by the City but not yet constructed, will provide additional coverage. This station will be located on the north side of Hollister Avenue west of Cathedral Oaks Road, approximately 0.5 mile from the Ellwood Mesa parking lot. The City’s General Plan identifies three standards with respect to the provision of fire protection services, which include:
 A firefighter-to-population ratio of one firefighter on duty 24 hours a day for every 2,000 persons is the ideal goal, however, one firefighter for every 4,000 persons is the absolute maximum population that can be adequately served
 A ratio of one engine company per 16,000 persons, assuming four firefighters per station, represents the maximum population that the Santa Barbara County Fire Department determined can be adequately served by a four-person crew  A five-minute response time in urban areas
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 122
Police services are provided by the County Sheriff’s Department under contract to the City. Law enforcement services include 24-hour police patrol for traffic enforcement, accident investigation, vehicle abatement, and parking control, as well as detective services for special investigations.

Specialized functions through the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department are provided as needed. Services are also available for special events and/or natural disaster response.

Public schools in the vicinity of the project site include the Ellwood Elementary School, located north of the Coverage Area across Hollister Avenue.

The project site includes the Ellwood Mesa Open Space, which is considered a “regional open space” according to the City’s General Plan (see Figure 3-2 and Table 3-1 of the Open Space Element).

Thresholds of Significance
A significant impact on public services would occur if the MBHMP would resulted in any of the impacts noted in the above checklist, pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the City’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual includes thresholds of significance for potential impacts on area schools. Specifically, under these thresholds any project that would generate enough students to generate the need for an additional classroom using current State standards, would result in a significant impact on area schools. Current State standards for classroom size are as follows:
 Grades K –
2: 2
0 students/classroom
 Grades 3 – 8: 2
9 students/classroom
 Grades 9 – 12: 2
8 students/classroom
Project-Specific Impacts
a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision o
f new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisio n
o
f new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisio n
o
f new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision o
f new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisio n
o
f new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Public Services

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 123 governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities?
The MBHMP includes the Community Wildfire Protection Program, which provides practices to manage the eucalyptus groves and ensure consistency with the City’s CWPP to reduce the ignitability of homes and structures. The risk of potential wildfires in the Coverage Area would be reduced by the CWPP and its policies and actions, as well as the Tree Management Program. The Tree Management Program would reduce fire hazards, improve public safety, and eliminate trees threatening the sustainability of the eucalyptus groves. The MBHMP would not involve construction of new residential uses; therefore, the MBHMP would not increase population nor increase demand for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other facilities. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required or recommended.

City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 124
T
his page intentionally left blank.

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Recreation

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 125 16 Recreation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated? □ □ □ ■
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? □ □ ■ □
Existing Setting
Goleta has six City16 public parks, 4 private parks, and eight18 public open spaces, totaling approximately 482526 acres (City of Goleta 200618a). This equates to approximately 1516.4 acres per 1,000 residents (based on a current [2018] population of 31,949 [DOF 2018]). Approximately 40 percent of Goleta’s two-mile Pacific shoreline is held in City ownership (City of Goleta 2017a). The City’s parks and open space areas provide many opportunities for passive recreation and enjoyment of natural areas. Areas specifically developed for active recreational uses are less abundant, with approximately three acres of developed park land per 1,000 residents.

The Coverage Area encompasses the Sperling Preserve/Ellwood Mesa, a City-owned regional open space preserve. The preserve includes opportunities for recreation with extensive trails linking to a series of regional trails and access to Ellwood Beach. Following the July 2017 field study, which indicated over 1,200 trees in the eucalyptus forest were dead and hundreds more degraded or dying, numerous trails through the Coverage Area were closed indefinitely due to public safety hazards posed by the possibility of dead or dying trees falling.

Thresholds of Significance
A significant impact on recreation would occur if the MBHMP resulted in any of the impacts noted in the above checklist, pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The City’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual does not contain City-specific recreation thresholds.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
The Coverage Area is located in Ellwood Mesa Open Space and includes passive recreation opportunities, including hiking and wildlife viewing. The MBHMP is designed to preserve and City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 126
enhance butterfly habitat with specific programs related to natural resources management and monitoring, research, and adaptive management. Implementation of the MBHMP would also improve safety by allowing for the removal of dead trees that present a risk to recreational users in the Coverage Area. These programs, combined with the MBHMP’s outreach programs, would improve conditions in the Coverage Area, thereby improving the visitor experience and possibly increasing recreational use.

Recreational use of the Coverage Area has been temporarily inhibited due to the closure of trails following the discovery of over 1,200 dead trees in July 2017. Since that time, recreational use of the Coverage Area has been diminished below its historical use. Although implementation of the MBHMP may increase recreational use in the Coverage Area, this increase would not be substantial and is not expected to exceed historical use of the Coverage Area prior to trail closures.

Furthermore, the MBHMP would not expand the capacity of the Coverage Area because it would not accommodate additional vehicle trips to the area through additional parking or site access.

Implementation of the MBHMP would not involve construction of any new residences and would not result in a population increase that would increase demand for recreational facilities.

The Trail Management Program would maintain and enhance the quality and safety of trails in the Coverage Area, thereby avoiding potential long-term degradation and trail closures. Maintaining the quality of and access to passive recreation opportunities in the Coverage Area would ensure that the Ellwood Mesa Open Space, including the Coverage Area, would continue to accommodate existing visitors. If these trails were not maintained, recreational users may choose to visit alternative facilities, resulting in increased demand at the City’s other recreational facilities.

Therefore, implementation of the MBHMP would have the beneficial impact of preventing increased demand at other recreational facilities by improving and maintaining amenities in the Coverage Area. Given that implementation of the MBHMP would not increase demand for recreational facilities or substantially increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks, it would not result in substantial physical deterioration of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Various trail management activities, including but not limited to removal of safety hazards, installation of trail boundary posts, and trail relocations, are covered activities under the MBHMP’s Trail Management Program. These covered activities could result in adverse physical effects on the environment, which are documented throughout this IS-MND. All impacts associated with implementation of the MBHMP, including trail management activities, would be less than significant or less than significant with incorporation of applicable mitigation measures contained in this document. As a result, impacts related to recreational facilities would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required or recommended.

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Transportation
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 127 17 Transportation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)? □ □ ■ □
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
g
eometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
i
ncompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ □ ■
Existing Setting
The major highways and arterial streets that serve the Coverage Area include US 101 and Hollister Avenue. US 101, located north of the Coverage Area, is a multi-lane interstate freeway serving the Pacific Coast between Los Angeles and the state of Washington. The freeway is the principal route between Goleta and the cities of Santa Barbara, Carpinteria, and Ventura to the south as well as the cities of Buellton and Santa Maria to the north. Access to US 101 from the Coverage Area is via Hollister Avenue to Storke Road to the east or Cathedral Oaks Road to the west.

Hollister Avenue, located immediately north of the Coverage Area, is an arterial roadway which serves as the primary east-west surface street through Goleta south of the freeway. Hollister Avenue is a four-lane, divided arterial with on-street bike lanes. Improvements to the Hollister Road corridor completed in 2018 include separate, off-street bike and pedestrian lanes along the portion of Hollister Avenue north of the Coverage Area and the adjacent residential neighborhood to the east.

Thresholds of Significance
A significant, project-generated traffic impact would occur if the MBHMP resulted in any of the impacts noted in the above checklist, pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Additional thresholds of significance are set forth in the City’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual. According to the manual, a potentially significant traffic impact would occur if:

The addition of project traffic to an intersection increases the volume to capacity ratio or 1. number of trips by the values provided below.

City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 128
Level of Services (including the project) Increase in Volume to Capacity Ratio (greater than) A 0.20
B 0.15
C 0.10
Or the addition of: Number of Trips
D 15
E 10
F 5
Project access to a major road or arterial road would require a driveway that would create an 2. unsafe situation or a new traffic signal or major revisions to an existing traffic signal.

The project adds traffic to a roadway that has design features (e.g., narrow width, road side3. ditches, sharp curves, poor sight distance, inadequate pavement structure) or receives use which would be incompatible with a substantial increase in traffic (e.g., rural roads with use by farm equipment, livestock, horseback riding, or residential roads with heavy pedestrian or re
creational use, etc.) that will result in potential safety problems with the addition of project or c
umulative traffic.

Project traffic would utilize a substantial portion of an intersection(s) capacity where the4. intersection is currently operating at acceptable levels of service (A-C) but with cumulative traffic would degrade to or approach LOS D (volume to capacity ration of 0.81) or lower.

Substantial is defined as a minimum change of 0.03 for intersections which would operate from

0.80 to 0.85 and a change of 0.02 for intersections which would operate from 0.86 to 0.90, and

0.01 for intersections operating at anything lower.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation s
ystem, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? While trail maintenance and outreach programs may improve the visitor experience, implementation of the MBHMP would not involve construction of new facilities, expansion of existing facilities, or a change in land use in the Coverage Area. As a result, the MBHMP would not substantially increase the number of visitors to the Coverage Area. Therefore, the number of trips to and from the Coverage Area would remain similar to historical conditions and would not contribute to an exceedance of intersection capacity at nearby intersections.

Covered activities, such as tree removal and pruning, revegetation, habitat restoration, and trail maintenance, may require occasional truck trips to the Coverage Area. Additionally, drainage clearing, trail maintenance, and culvert installation activities would require truck trips by maintenance workers performing these activities. These activities would not require large quantities of soil import or export generating substantial truck trips. Trips associated with covered activities would be temporary and intermittent, adding a nominal number of trips to area roadways. This impact would be less than significant.

The Coverage Area is accessible via the Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District bus lines 25, 2630, 2660, and 2740, which stop on Hollister Avenue. The MBHMP would not substantially increase the number of visitors to the Coverage Area or otherwise affect public transit.

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Transportation

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 129 The Coverage Area is accessible and would remain accessible via bicycle and pedestrian facilities along Hollister Avenue. Tree removal and pruning, revegetation, trail maintenance, and habitat restoration activities may require temporary closure of trails in the Coverage Area. Many trails in the Coverage Area have been closed indefinitely since July 2017 due to safety hazards posed by dead or dying trees. Implementation of the MBHMP would remove these hazards, in turn restoring access to trails and improving active transportation opportunities and safety in the Coverage Area.

Therefore, no impact would occur.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) identifies criteria for evaluating transportation impacts.

Specifically, the guidelines state that vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. As discussed above, the MBHMP would not substantially increase visitors to the Coverage Area and would not involve construction or expansion of facilities to accommodate additional vehicle trips (e.g., expanded parking facilities). Furthermore, the MBHMP would enhance active transportation opportunities by improving the quality and safety of trails in the Coverage Area.

According to Section 15064.3(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, land use projects within 0.5 mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor are presumed to have a less than significant impact with respect to transportation. The Coverage Area is located less than 0.1 mile from the Hollister/Viajero bus stop, served by the 25, 2660, and 2740 bus lines. These lines connect to the Hollister Avenue Transit Corridor, which begins east of the Coverage Area at Pacific Oaks Road. Because the MBHMP would not substantially increase visitors to the Coverage Area, the Coverage Area is served by existing transit and active transportation facilities, and the MBHMP would enhance active transportation opportunities in the Coverage Area, implementation of the MBHMP would not substantially increase vehicle miles traveled. The MBHMP would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), and this impact would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? The Coverage Area is accessed by vehicle via Hollister Avenue and residential streets to the north.

Implementation of the MBHMP would not change access to the Coverage Area. These roadways do not have design features or receive uses that would be incompatible with the nominal number of truck trips that would occur in conjunction with covered activities under the MBHMP. The MBHMP would not install any driveways along a major or arterial roadway, and does not involve any other features that would create or increase hazards. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 130
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Implementation of the MBHMP does not involve construction of any new structures impeding emergency access. The MBHMP includes the Trail Management Program, which would involve trail maintenance improving trails and access in the Coverage Area. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required or recommended.

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 131 18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in a Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historic
al
R
esources, or in a local register of
h
istorical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or □ □ □ ■
b. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 2024.1. In applying the crite
ria
s
et forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significant o
f
t
he resource to a California Native
American tribe. □ □ □ ■
Existing Setting
As of July 1, 2015, Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) of 2014 was enacted and expanded CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21084.2). It further states the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3).

PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is:

1. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local registe r
o
f historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance o f
th
e resource to a California Native American tribe.

City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 132
AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources.

The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document may be adopted or certified.

Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed in the jurisdiction of the lead agency. a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 that is a resource determined by the le ad
age
ncy, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 2024.1? Tribal cultural resources are defined in PRC Section 21074 as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either:
 Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources
 Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1 To date, no tribal cultural resources have been identified in the Coverage Area and no tribal representatives have requested consultation regarding potential resources in the Coverage Area.

The City prepared and mailed letters to local Native Americans on December 21, 2018. Under AB 52, tribes have 30 days to respond and request consultation, giving tribes until January 21, 2019 to provide a response. As of the date of this draft document, the 30-day response period has ended and no tribal representatives requested formal consultation with the City.

NO IMPACT
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required or recommended.

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 133 19 Utilities and Service Systems

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects? □ □ ■ □
b. Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years? □ □ ■ □
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
□ □ □ ■
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals? □ □ ■ □
e. Comply with federal, State, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? □ □ ■ □
Existing Setting
Wastewater Treatment
The Goleta West Sanitary District (GWSD) provides sewer service in the project area via its system of sewer mains which ultimately connect to the Goleta Sanitary District’s (GSD) main treatment plant at 1 William Moffett Place adjacent to the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport. Treatment of wastewater collected by GWSD is provided through a contract with GSD. The GSD treatment plant has a capacity of 9.7 million gallons per day (based on average daily flow), but is currently limited to a permitted discharge of 7.64 million gallons per day pursuant to a NPDES permit issued by the USEPA in concurrence with the State’s Central Coast RWQCB. The GWSD is allocated 40.78 percent City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 134
of the capacity at the sewage treatment plant, which equates to about 3.12 million gallons per day (City of Goleta 2006a).

Water Supply
GWD is the water purveyor for Goleta. GWD operates under the Wright Judgment, which prohibits overdrafting of the Goleta Groundwater Basin. GWD draws its water supply from surface water from Lake Cachuma, groundwater from the Goleta Groundwater Basin, recycled water from GSD, and imported water from the State Water Project. In December 2015 GWD acquired 2,500 acre feet of supplemental water from another State Water Project contractor through the Central Coast Water Authority Supplemental Water Purchase Program to augment existing supplies in response to a fourth consecutive year of drought. In the last 10 years, GWD has obtained approximately 60 percent of its water supplies from Lake Cachuma, 15 percent from the State Water Project, 7 percent from recycled water, 17 percent from groundwater, and 1 percent from supplemental water purchases (GWD 2017a).

Landfill Capacity and Solid Waste
All nonhazardous solid waste in Goleta is handled at the Tajiguas Landfill and South Coast Recycling and Transfer Station, both of which are owned and operated by the Santa Barbara County Public Works Department. The management of solid waste by the Santa Barbara County Public Works Department includes collection, recycling, disposal, and mitigation for illegal dumping. Marborg Industries provides collection services in Goleta. Waste generated in Goleta is handled at the South Coast Recycling and Transfer Station where recyclable and organic materials are sorted for recycling and composting. The remaining solid waste is transported to and disposed of at the Tajiguas Landfill.

Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services permits Tajiguas to accept up to 1,500 tons of municipal solid waste and yard waste per day. Tajiguas has a remaining capacity of approximately

4.3 million cubic yards as of March 2016. The South Coast Recycling and Transfer Station processes 550 tons of waste per day and has a maximum permitted capacity of 595 tons per day (City of Goleta 2006a; CalRecycle 2018).

Electrical Service
Electrical service to Goleta and the South Coast region is provided by Southern California Edison Company. Southern California Edison Company maintains substations in Goleta, including the Hollister Avenue and Glen Annie substations, as well as electrical distribution lines (City of Goleta 2004).

Natural Gas
SoCalGas provides natural gas service to approximately six million residential and business customers across 20,000 square miles of southern California, including Goleta (SoCalGas 2019a).

Goleta, including the Coverage Area, is located in SoCalGas’ Coastal Zone. SoCalGas operates the La Goleta Natural Gas Storage Field, a naturally occurring underground storage reservoir in the porous sandstone of the Vaqueros Formation located approximately 3.4 miles east of the Coverage Area (SoCalGas 2019b). La Goleta is one of four SoCalGas storage facilities in southern California, interconnected by regional transmission lines.

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 135 Thresholds of Significance
A significant impact on utilities and service systems would occur if the MBHMP would result in any of the impacts noted in the above checklist, pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, under the City’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual, a project generating 196 tons of solid waste/year, after receiving a 50 percent credit for source reduction, recycling, and composting, would result in a project-specific, significant impact on Goleta’s solid waste stream. Any project generating 40 tons/year, after receiving a 50 percent credit for source reduction, recycling, and composting, would make an adverse contribution to cumulative impacts to Goleta’s solid waste stream.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The Coverage Area includes existing restroom facilities at the parking lot along Hollister Avenue and would not involve construction of any new restroom facilities. Implementation of the MBHMP would not result in a substantial increase in the number of visitors to the Coverage Area. Therefore, implementation of the MBHMP would not increase wastewater generation.

Trail improvements and new trails developed under the MBHMP would be unpaved. Therefore, the MBHMP would not increase the extent of impervious surface cover in the Coverage Area.

Consequently, the MBHMP would not increase stormwater runoff or result in the need for new or expanded storm water drainage control facilities. No new electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities would be constructed to serve the Coverage Area.

The MBHMP would not involve new development or an increase in population requiring expansion of water treatment or distribution facilities. However, installation of irrigation drip lines and storage tanks is a covered activity under the Tree Management Program. This covered activity may require limited soil disturbance and vegetation removal. Storage tanks would be located above ground to avoid existing eucalyptus trees, and drip lines would be installed a maximum of six inches below ground surface. Following installation of driplines, soil would be replaced to existing contours and irrigation would support new and existing vegetation in the Coverage Area. Other potential environmental impacts of MBHMP covered activities, including installation of irrigation facilities, are assessed throughout this document and were found not to cause any significant environmental effects. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Implementation of the MBHMP would not involve any change in land use or new development that would increase water demand. The MBHMP would not result in construction of new or expanded facilities but would maintain existing facilities in the Coverage Area. Irrigation in the Coverage Area is a covered activity under the Tree Management Program. Irrigation water would be provided via water trucks or on-site water tanks as needed using existing potable or reclaimed water supplies.

Assuming an average water tank size of 3,600 gallons (McLellan Industries 2014) and twice weekly City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 136
filling of the tank to accommodate water application during the region’s approximately 26-week dry season, irrigation water application would total approximately 0.6 acre feet per year. According to the GWD 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, this amounts to less than 0.01 percent of GWD’s projected 2020 water supply (GWD 2017b). As discussed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, irrigation water would also provide additional recharge benefits to the underlying aquifer if supplied from reclaimed water. This impact would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected dem and
i
n addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
As discussed under threshold a, the MBHMP would involve no increase in wastewater generation.

No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e. Would the project comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statute s
and r
egulations related to solid waste?
Implementation of the MBHMP would not involve any change in land use or expansion of the open space area which would lead to a permanent increase in solid waste generation. Additionally, implementation of the MBHMP would not result in a substantial influx of additional visitors to the Coverage Area. The MBHMP includes a Waste Management Program to remove waste from the Coverage Area. The Waste Management Program includes posting signs to prevent dumping in the butterfly habitat areas and educate visitors about the importance of removing trash from the butterfly habitat. Finally, the program would place trash cans in the parking lot for waste disposal.

Therefore, the MBHMP would reduce illegal dumping and disposal of waste.

Tree removals and pruning may generate greenwaste, such as leaf litter and woody biomass.

Downed trees would generally remain onsite, either in place in the groves or repurposed along trails as barriers or benches. Downed trees and other greenwaste may occasionally require off-site disposal, particularly tree trunks that cannot be mulched. Greenwaste generated by covered activities would be transported to the South Coast Recycling and Transfer Station, approximately 7.3 miles east of the Coverage Area. The South Coast Recycling and Transfer Station has a permitted capacity of 550 tons per day (County of Santa Barbara 2018). Assuming a eucalyptus tree is 150 feet tall with an average diameter of 3 feet, it would have a mass of approximately 27 tons (Meier 2019).

This amount of material would amount to approximately five percent of the facility’s daily permitted capacity. Given that off-site disposal of greenwaste would occur infrequently and only when on-site repurposing of downed trees is infeasible, the MBHMP would not generate waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Additionally, the MBHMP would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 137 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required or recommended.

City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 138
T
his page intentionally left blank.

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Wildfire
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 139 20 Wildfire
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
□ □ □ ■
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
□ □ □ ■
c. Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency wate
r
s
ources, power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment?
□ □ □ ■
d. Expo se people or structures to significant
risks, including downslopes or
downstream flooding or landslides, as
a
re
sult of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes? □ □ □ ■
Existing Setting
The entire South Coast region, including Goleta, is prone to large wildfires due to its hot, dry climate and expansive coverage of ignitable vegetation. During the summer and autumn months, strong off- shore “sundowner” winds can create fast-moving fires that spread rapidly from the sparsely- populated Santa Ynez Mountains downslope to developed communities along the coast. Recent wildfires in the vicinity of the Coverage Area include the 1990 Painted Cave Fire, 1997 Eagle Canyon Fire, 2008 Gap Fire, 2009 Jesusita Fire, 2016 Sherpa Fire, 2017 Whittier Fire, and 2017/2018 Thomas Fire.

While a natural ecological process in coastal chaparral systems, wildfire return intervals have decreased throughout southern California, resulting in more frequent ecological disturbance, loss of biodiversity, and colonization by non-native grass species (USFS 2018). Furthermore, post-fire conditions leave exposed mountain slopes and hillsides vulnerable to surface erosion and runoff.

Debris flows during post-fire rainy seasons can pose a risk to life and property and occur with little City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 140
warning. In southern California, as little as 0.3 inch of rain in 30 minutes can produce debris flows on post-fire landscapes (USGS 2018).

In March 2012, the City adopted the CWPP, which identifies key hazard treatments which are in balance with sustainable ecological management and fiscal resources (City of Goleta 2012).

Treatments described in the CWPP serve as general prescriptions intended to guide site-specific fuel reduction strategies.

Given the region’s susceptibility to large wildfires, the City of Goleta and County of Santa Barbara have developed “reverse 911” emergency notification systems to deliver fire-related updates, including weather forecasts and evacuation orders. The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office’s Aware and Prepare notification system alerts residents via text message to impending emergency situations throughout the county. In summer of 2008, the City implemented the Goleta City Alert system, capable of sending two million 60-second voice messages or hundreds of thousands of e- mails and text messages in an hour during fire or other emergency situations (City of Goleta 2019).

Thresholds of Significance
A significant wildfire impact would occur if the MBHMP resulted in any of the impacts noted in the above checklist, pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The City’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual does not contain City-specific wildfire significance thresholds.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
According to the Santa Barbara County Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map, the Coverage Area is located entirely within a moderate fire hazard severity zone (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CAL FIRE] 2012). The nearest very high fire hazard severity zone is located northwest of the Cathedral Oaks Road/US-101 interchange, approximately 0.5 mile from the Coverage Area. The MBHMP pledges support for the policies and activities contained in the CWPP, which includes policies intended to reduce fire hazards from fuel loads in the Coverage Area. The MBHMP also supports these efforts by calling for the maintenance and revegetation of the understory in and around aggregation sites with fire-resistant, native plant species. Furthermore, covered activities under the Tree Management Program and Catastrophic Event Response Program, including tree Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Wildfire

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 141 removals, would reduce wildfire risk in the Coverage Area by removing dead or dying trees that would serve as fuel, thereby providing a beneficial effect. Mitigation measure BIO-8 would require any stockpiling of potentially ignitable debris or greenwaste to be temporary in nature, with the duration of debris stockpiling specified in the annual Implementation Plan prior to commencement of covered activities. Removed dead or dying trees would be replaced with healthy trees, which are less fire-prone, and which, pursuant to mitigation measure BIO-7, would be monitored annually for a period of five years to ensure they remain healthy. Both of these measures would further address community concerns about wildfire impacts associated with implementation of the MBHMP. No expansion of the existing eucalyptus groves would occur.

The MBHMP does not propose construction or maintenance of any new infrastructure which may pose a fire risk. The Coverage Area contains existing power lines owned and operated by SCE. SCE has previously conducted vegetation removal efforts to reduce fuel loads and hazardous trees in the vicinity of these lines. These vegetation removal efforts would continue, subject to SCE’s own permits and easement rights.

The MBHMP would not involve construction of any structures, and therefore would not expose any additional people or structures to risk of wildfire. As noted in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.

Given its gentle sloping topography, the Coverage Area would not be susceptible to post-fire flooding, landslides, or slope instability. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required or recommended.

City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 142
T
his page intentionally left blank.

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 143 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Does the project:
a. Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
□ ■ □ □
b. Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
□ □ ■ □
c. Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
□ ■ □ □
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, impacts to special-status species would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 and HWQ-2. With adherence to these measures, the MBHMP would not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.

City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 144
As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, the Coverage Area is located in an area known to be archaeologically sensitive and, therefore, ground-disturbing activities would have the potential to unearth artifacts exemplifying major periods of California history or pre-history, if present.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce this impact such that it would be less than significant.

Overall, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Cumulative impacts could occur as a result of planned and pending development in the vicinity of the Coverage Area in combination with MBHMP activities. Certain environmental impacts are generally site-specific, such as impacts related to cultural resources, geology and soils, and hazards and hazardous materials. Consequently, planned and pending projects in the vicinity of the Coverage Area in combination with MBHMP activities are unlikely to result in cumulative impacts related to these resource areas.

Other environmental impacts, such air quality, GHG emissions, biological resources, hydrology and water quality, noise, and transportation, are cumulative in nature. Planned, pending, and approved projects in the City of Goleta within two miles of the Coverage Area include the Old Line 96 Abandonment project, Arco Habitat Restoration project, Citrus Village residential project, NRG Battery Storage project, Rancho Estates Mobile Home Park Fire Improvements, Pacific Beverage warehouse at Cabrillo Business Park project, the Cortona Apartments project, and the Fire Station 10 project. In total, these projects would add approximately 186 residential units, 98,780 square feet of warehouse/office space, an 11,600-square foot fire station, and a 500 KW battery storage facility (City of Goleta 2018b). Cumulative impacts as a result of construction and operation of these projects in concert with implementation of the MBHMP could be potentially significant.

As described in the discussion of environmental checklist Sections 1 through 20, with respect to all environmental issues, the MBHMP would have no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Additionally, the Coverage Area is adjacent to the existing 9.3-acre Coronado Butterfly Preserve, owned and maintained by the Land Trust for Santa Barbara County. As a result, implementation of the MBHMP would result in potentially beneficial cumulative impacts by restoring and enhancing monarch habitat near an existing preserve. Based on the minor and temporary nature of the activities that would occur under the MBHMP, with incorporated mitigation measures, and considering the impacts associated with other past, current, or probable future development in the area, the potential contribution to cumulative impacts for all issue areas would not be cumulatively considerable. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects o n
hum
an beings, either directly or indirectly?
Effects to human beings are generally associated with impacts related to air quality, hazards, and noise. Short-term air-quality impacts would be minimal and less than significant with implementation of AQ-1 to reduce fugitive dust generation during covered activities. As discussed in Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 145 Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the MBHMP would result in a less than significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials. Adverse effects on human beings would result mainly from noise generated during fuel management activities such as vegetation clearing and tree trimming near the adjacent residences. However, as stated in the Section 12, Noise, this impact would be less than significant with adherence to Mitigation Measure N-1. Implementation of the MBHMP would have the beneficial impact to humans of reducing the risk of falling trees, trail hazards, and wildfires in the Coverage Area. Overall, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures AQ-1, BIO-1 through BIO-9, CUL-1, HWQ-2, and N-1 would apply to this environmental resource area.

City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 146
T
his page intentionally left blank.

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
References

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 147 References
Bibliography
Althouse & Meade, Inc. 2017. Unpublished tree survey data, submitted to the City of Goleta. July 2017.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en
Baldwin, B.W. et al. (eds.). 2012. The Jepson Manual – Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition, University of California Press, 2012.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.

December 14, 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.

California Department of Conservation. 2018a. Santa Barbara County Important Farmland 2016. [map] Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Map published January 2018. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2016/sba16.pdf _____. 2018b. EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. Dos Pueblos Canyon Quad. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp
California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey (CGS) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003. Minerals Yearbook-2003.
https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/2003/castmyb03.pdf (accessed January 2019).

California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 1982. Mineral Land Classification: Portland Cement Concrete Aggregate and Active Mines of All Other Mineral Commodities in the San Luis Obisbo-Santa Barbara Production-Consumption Region. ftp://ftp.conservation.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_162/SR_162_Text.pdf (accessed January 2019).

California Department of Finance (DOF). 2018. Report E-5: Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2011-2018, with 2010 Benchmark. Demographic Research Unit. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ (accessed August 2018).

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2012. Santa Barbara County FHSZ Map. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_santabarbara (accessed January 2019).

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018a. California Natural Diversity Database, Rarefind5 (online). Commercial Version. Accessed August 2018.
_____. 2018b. Natural Communities List Arranged Alphabetically by Life Form (PDF). https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-
Communities#sensitive%20natural%20communities. Accessed January 2019.

City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 148
_____. 2018c. Special Animals List. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database. Quarterly Publication. September 2018.
_____. 2018d. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database. Quarterly Publication. October 2018. _____. 2018e. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. March 2018.

California Department of Transportation. 2018. Scenic Highways. http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/lap/livability/scenic-highways/ (accessed January 2019) California Energy Commission (CEC). 2019. Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). https://www.energy.ca.gov/portfolio/ (accessed January 2019) _____. 2018. Electric Generation Capacity & Energy. Data based on CEC-1304 QFER Database, updated May 8, 2018.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/electric_generation_capacity.html (accessed January 2019)
_____. N.d. California Energy Consumption Database. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/ (accessed January 2019)
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2018. Rare Plant Program. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-03). http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed August 2018.

California Native Plant Society. 1996. Policy on Invasive Species.

California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2018. Eucalyptus globulus plant profile. http://www.cal- ipc.org/ip/management/plant_profiles/Eucalyptus_globulus.php. Accessed August 2018.

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2019. California Renewables Portfolio Standard. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/RPS_Homepage/ (accessed January 2019).

CalRecycle. 2018. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS). Facility/Site Search. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/ (accessed December 2018).

Campbell GEO. 2010. Abandonment of Oil Wells, Water Production Wells, and Groundwater Monitoring Well, Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Project, 2010 Central Coast Center for Plant Conservation. 2007. Rare Plants of Santa Barbara County. Santa Barbara Botanical Garden. v. 1.8, rev Aug 6.

Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB). 2017. Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin. September 2017 Edition.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan /docs2017/2017_basin_plan_r3_complete.pdf
Channel Islands Restoration. 2013. Draft Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan, Ellwood Mesa Open Space/Sperling Reserve. Carpinteria, CA. August 24 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2018. Map No. 06083C1342H, effective September 28, 2018. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home (accessed December 2018).

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
References

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 149 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. FHWA-HEP-10-025.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_ab atement_guidance/revguidance.pdf (accessed December 2018) Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf (accessed December 2018).

Goleta, City of. 1998. Coastal Zoning Ordinance. Article II, Chapter 35 of the Goleta Municipal Code. https://www.cityofgoleta.org/home/showdocument?id=9228 (accessed January 2019). _____. 2003. Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual. Goleta, CA. _____. 2004. Private Utilities and Solid Waste – Background Report No. 23. https://www.cityofgoleta.org/home/showdocument?id=640 (accessed January 2019). _____. 2006a. City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, as amended. Approved on October 2, 2006. https://www.cityofgoleta.org/city-hall/planning-and-environmental- review/general-plan
_____. 2006b. City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. September 2006. https://www.cityofgoleta.org/city-hall/planning-and- environmental-review/general-plan/view-general-plan/general-plan-coastal-land-use-plan- final-eir
_____. 2006c. Final Environmental Impact Report for Comstock Homes and Ellwood Mesa Open Space Management Plan. Prepared by URS Corporation, 2006. _____. 2008. City of Goleta Environmental Review Guidelines. Adopted by Resolution No. 08-40. _____. 2011a. Ellwood Mesa Native Grassland Restoration Update, http://www.cityofgoleta.org/index.aspx?page=1070, January 2011. _____. 2011b. Goleta Urban Forest Management Plan. Originally adopted June 7, 2011. Amended and approved February 21, 2017.
http://www.cityofgoleta.org/home/showdocument?id=13701
_____. 2012. City of Goleta Community Wildfire Protection Plan. March 20, 2012. https://www.cityofgoleta.org/city-hall/planning-and-environmental-review/advance- planning-division/environmental-programs/community-wildfire-protection-plan _____. 2013. Summary of Ellwood Mesa Eucalyptus Tree Inventory and Forest Health Assessment, July 2013.
_____. 2014a. Final Climate Action Plan. July 2014.
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/home/showdocument?id=9735 (accessed January 2019) _____. 2014b. Goleta Climate Action Plan Adoption Staff Report. July 15, 2014. https://www.cityofgoleta.org/home/showdocument?id=9733 (accessed January 2019) _____. 2014c. Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Ellwood Mesa Coastal Trails & Habitat Restoration Project. Prepared by AMEC. June 2014. _____. 2017a. City of Goleta General Plan and Land Use Plan Map. October 2017. http://www.cityofgoleta.org/home/showdocument?id=15608
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 150
_____. 2017b. Goleta Urban Forest Management Plan. Originally adopted June 7, 2011. Amended and approved February 21, 2017.
http://www.cityofgoleta.org/home/showdocument?id=13701
_____. 2018a. Parks and Open Space. http://www.cityofgoleta.org/city-hall/public-works/parks- and-open-space
_____. 2018b. City of Goleta Cumulative Projects List – External. Updated July 1, 2018. https://www.cityofgoleta.org/home/showdocument?id=19600 (accessed January 2019). _____. 2019. City Alert. https://www.cityofgoleta.org/i-want-to/sign-up-for/city-alert (accessed January 2019).

Goleta, City of, County of Santa Barbara, and University of California, Santa Barbara. 2004. Draft Ellwood-Devereux Coast Open Space and Habitat Management Plan. Prepared by URS Corporation. March 2004. https://www.cityofgoleta.org/city-hall/planning-and- environmental-review/advance-planning-division/environmental-programs/ellwood-mesa- open-space
Goleta Water District (GWD). 2017a. Goleta Water District Water Supply Management Plan 2017 Update. May 2017.
_____. 2017b. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2017. http://www.goletawater.com/assets/uploads/GWD_2015UWMP_Final_June_2017.pdf _____. 2018. Drought Update. http://www.goletawater.com/summer-drought-update (accessed August 2018).

Goleta Water District and La Cumbre Mutual Water Company. 2010. May 11, 2010. http://www.goletawater.com/assets/uploads/documents/groundwater- management/Groundwater_Management_Plan_Final_05-11-10.pdf Griffiths, J., and F. Villablanca. 2015. Managing monarch butterfly overwintering groves: making room among the eucalyptus. California Fish and Game 101(1):40-50.

McLellan Industries. 2014. Water Trucks. http://www.mclellanindustries.com/watertrucks.html (accessed January 2019).

Meade, Daniel E., Jessica Griffiths, Charis van der Heide, Francis Villablanca. 2017. Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites, Santa Barbara County, Santa Barbara. Althouse and Meade, Inc., Paso Robles, California.

Meier, Eric. The Wood Database. 2019. https://www.wood-database.com/blue-gum/. Accessed January 2019.

National Park Service. 1983. Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Electronic document, online at http://www.nps.gov/history/local- law/Arch_Standards.htm.

Onken, Jill A. 1997. Phase 1.5 Archaeological Investigations at Santa Barbara Shores Park.

Confidential report on file with the Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Pelton, E., S. Jepsen, C. Schultz, C. Fallon, and S.H. Black. 2016. State of the Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites in California. 40+vi pp. Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
References
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 151 Rindlaub, K. 2009. 6830 Cartona Drive – Non-Wetland Report Clarification. Letter Report to Harwood White. August 13, 2009.

Santa Barbara Audubon Society. 2018. Santa Barbara County Breeding Bird Study. http://santabarbaraaudubon.org/santa-barbara-county-breeding-bird-study/ Santa Barbara, County of. 2017. Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. http://www.countyofsb.org/ceo/asset.c/3416 (accessed December 2018) _____. 2015. Seismic Safety & Safety Element. Adopted 1979, Republished 2009. Amended February 2015.
http://longrange.sbcountyplanning.org/programs/genplanreformat/PDFdocs/Seismic.pdf Santa Barbara, County of, Air Pollution Control District. 2010. Clean Air Plan, 2010. Available:
http://www.sbcapcd.org/cap.htm
_____. 2014., Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents. Available:
http://www.sbcapcd.org/apcd/ScopeContentMarch2014.pdf
Santa Barbara, County of, Planning and Development Department. 2010. Support for Use of Bay Area Air Quality Management District Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards. Interim GHG Emissions – Evidentiary Support, June 10, 2010.

Santa Barbara, County of, Public Works Department. 2018. Historical Rainfall Data. http://www.countyofsb.org/pwd/rainhistory.sbc. Accessed June 1, 2018. _____. 2018. South Coast Recycling and Transfer Station. http://www.countyofsb.org/pwd/southcoast.sbc (accessed August 2018).

Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.

SoCalGas. 2019a. Natural Gas Transmission. https://www.socalgas.com/stay-safe/pipeline-and- storage-safety/natural-gas-transmission (accessed January 2019). _____. 2019b. La Goleta Natural Gas Storage Facility. https://www.socalgas.com/stay-safe/pipeline- and-storage-safety/storage-facility-safety/goleta (accessed January 2019).

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2015a. Ali D’Oro Lot 67 (T10000005946). https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T10000005946 (accessed August 2018).
_____. 2015b. Southwest Diversified Property (T10000008065). https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T10000008065 (accessed August 2018).
_____. 2015c. S.B. Shores County Park/Arco (T10000005687). https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T10000005687 (accessed August 2018).
_____. 2018. Impaired Water Bodies 2014/2016 Integrated Report Approval Documents. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2014_2016.shtml (accessed December 2018).

City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 152
Strathman, Katrina, Johanna Rahman, and Ellen Hamingson. 2004. Diversifying understory vegetation in Eucalyptus forests. Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Poster presentation, Ecology And Impacts Of Blue Gum Eucalyptus In Coastal California Workshop.

Elkhorn Training Institute. June 3, 2004.

Storrer, John. 2011. Ellwood Well Abandonment Restoration Plan (Final).

Tierney, R. 2009. Biological Assessment. August 14, 2009.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 2018. USDA Field Office Climate Data: WETS Table for Santa Barbara Airport, Available at:
http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/?fips=06083. August 2018.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover; Final Rule, 50 CFR 17, Federal Register Vol 77 No. 118, pp 36728-36869, June 19, 2012.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018a. Critical Habitat Portal, Available at:
http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov. Accessed August 2018.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018b. Information, Planning, and Conservation System. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed August 2018.

United States Energy Information Administration. 2018. State Profile and Energy Estimates – California. Updated as of December 20, 2018. https://www.eia.gov/state/data.php?sid=CA Accessed January 2019.

United States Forest Service (USFS). 2014. CALVEG Dataset, Zone 7, South Coast, June 2014. _____. 2018. Fire in chaparral ecosystems. Last modified November 30, 2018. https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/fire_science/ecosystems/chaparral.shtml Accessed January 2019.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2018. Post-Fire Flooding and Debris Flow. Last modified October 31, 2018. https://ca.water.usgs.gov/wildfires/wildfires-debris-flow.html Accessed January 2019.

Western Region Climate Center. 2018. Recent Climate in the West. https://wrcc.dri.edu/. August 2018
Xerces Society, The. 2017. Protecting California’s Butterfly Grove: Management Guidelines for Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Habitat. 32+vi pp. Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.
_____. 2018. Western Monarch Count Resource Center: Western Monarch Butterflies Continue to Decline. https://www.westernmonarchcount.org/western-monarch-butterflies-continue-to- decline/. February 2018.

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
References

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 153 List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this IS-MND under contract to the City of Goleta. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control are listed below.

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Jennifer Haddow, PhD, Principal
Bronwyn Green, Senior Environmental Planner & Economic Analyst Christopher Julian, Program Manager/Senior Regulatory Specialist Heather Imgrund, Biologist/Project Manager
Melissa Whittemore, Senior Project Manager
Charis van der Heide, Associate Biologist
Kari Zajac, Associate Planner
Katie Green, Associate Planner
Elizabeth Wilson, Associate Planner
John Sisser, Associate Planner
April Durham, PhD, Arts + Culture Planner, Senior Technical Editor

Draft
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

January 2019

Prepared by:

Planning and Environmental Review Department
Public Works Department
130 Cremona, Suite B
Goleta, California 93117
(805) 961-7500

Attachment 4 - Appendix A

This Page Has Been Intentionally Left Blank.

City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan i January 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................V INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 1 POLICY .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan – Conservation Element ..................... 4 Ellwood Mesa Open Space Plan ......................................................................................... 5 Community Wildfire Protection Plan ............................................................................... 6 Goleta Urban Forest Management Plan ........................................................................... 6 PURPOSE........................................................................................................................................... 6 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................ 7 THE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................................................... 9 A. ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAMS ............................................................................................ 9

1. Municipal Management Program .......................................................................... 9

2. Fiscal Program ........................................................................................................11

3. Interagency Cooperative Program.....................................................................12

4. Community Wildfire Protection Program .......................................................13

5. Trail Management Program .................................................................................19

6. Waste Management Program..............................................................................20

7. Aesthetic Resources Management Program ....................................................21

8. MBHMP Review, Update, and Amendment Program ....................................22

9. Catastrophic Event Response Program ............................................................23 B. NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ...............................................26

10. Monarch Butterfly Management Program ........................................................26

11. Wildlife Habitat Management Program ............................................................27

12. Tree Management Program .................................................................................28 Table of Contents City of Goleta
January 2019 ii Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

13. Integrated Pest Management Program .............................................................. 34

14. Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Program ............................................ 35

15. Invasive Plant Management Program ................................................................. 38

16. Ecosystem-wide Management Coordination Program .................................. 41 C. OUTREACH PROGRAMS .................................................................................................... 43

17. Community Advisory and Docent Program .................................................... 43

18. Interpretive Program ............................................................................................ 44

19. Education Program ................................................................................................ 45 D. MONITORING, RESEARCH, AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ..... 47

20. Biological Monitoring Program ........................................................................... 47

21. Monarch Research Program................................................................................ 48

22. Adaptive Management Program ......................................................................... 49 E. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 51 F. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 52 G. LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................................................................. 53 City of Goleta ...................................................................................................................... 53 Althouse and Meade, Inc. .................................................................................................. 53 Rincon Consultants, Inc. .................................................................................................... 53 Agri-Turf Supplies, Inc. ....................................................................................................... 53

APPENDICES
Appendix A. Implementation Priorities, Schedule, and Estimated Costs ...................... A-1 Appendix B. Spectral Imaging and Analysis for Assessing Tree Health ........................... B-1 Appendix C. Native Plants to be Included in Habitat Restoration Efforts .................... C-1

City of Goleta Table of Contents
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan iii January 2019

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. CWPP Prescription Guidance for Butterfly Aggregation Areas Adjacent to Structures .................................................................................................................16 Table 2. Identified Threats and Potential Response Actions ...............................................30 Table A1. Implementation Priorities and Cost Estimates .................................................. A-1 Table A2. Cost Estimates by Action ...................................................................................... A-3

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Monarch Butterfly Aggregation Sites ......................................................................... 3 Figure 3. CWPP Related Fuel Reduction Zones within the MBHMP Area ......................15

Table of Contents City of Goleta
January 2019 iv Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

This Page Has Been Intentionally Left Blank.

City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan v January 2019

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan (MBHMP) outlines the programmatic approach and methods for the City of Goleta (City) to manage and improve the Ellwood Mesa eucalyptus forest for the benefit of the overwintering behavior of the m onarch butterfly ( Danaus plexippus ), other wildlife , and the public’s use and enjoyment.

Two key local policy documents drive the protection of the monarch butterfly: the Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (General Plan; City of Goleta 2006) and The Ellwood-Devereux Coast Open Space and Habitat Managem ent Plan (Open Space Plan ; City of Goleta et al. 2004). The Coastal Land Use Plan is not yet certified. These policy documents provide an important context for this MBHMP.

The 22 programs detailed in this MBHMP organize and integrate the many diverse aspec ts of habitat management into an overall plan that can be implemented in a clear and concise manner.

Each specific program identifies individual goals, policies, and actions to establish a well-organized and efficient process leading to a management strategy for the sustainability of monarch habitat at Ellwood Mesa. The programs are followed by implementation priorities, schedules, needs, and contacts for those responsible for the implementation.

The 22 programs are organized into four categories: Administrative Programs; Natural Resources Management Programs; Outreach Programs; and Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management Programs.
• The nine Administrative Programs are designed to assist the City with and inform the many MBHMP stakeholders of the details regarding implementation of the MBHMP. • The seven Natural Resources Management Programs articulate the goals, policies, and actions necessary to maintain and improve the many important natural resources, including biological diversity and ecosystem functions associated with the Ellwood Mesa eucalyptus groves and the monarch butterfly aggregation sites they support. • The three Outreach Programs are designed to provide information for visitors, educators, and students to help develop a broad appreciation for natural resources and local natural heritage, with a focus on monarch butterflies.
• The three Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management Programs provide a mechanism for assessing environmental conditions and conducting original studies to help understand the ecology of monarch butterflies, particularly at Ellwood Mesa. Information obtained from these programs and other sources can be used to adapt the MBHMP in response to additional information or changing conditions.

With adoption and implementation of this MBHMP, the City will fulfill a major commitment to the natural resources of Ellwood Mesa and its residents, and to all those committed to the conservation of monarch butterflies.

Executive Summary City of Goleta

January 2019 vi Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Funding for implementation of the MBHMP will be drawn from a variety of sources, which may include grants, donations, mitigation fees, and City funds. An implementation budget estimate is included in Appendix 1. On June 29, 2018, the California state budget for the 2018–2019 fiscal year was approved and included a provision allocating 3.9 million dollars to the City for management and restoration of the monarch butterfly habitats on Ellwood Mesa. The state funds will be maintained in an account separate from other City funds and will be used only for actions to restore, enhance, manage, and monitor butterfly habitats on Ellwood Mesa. In the near -term, this funding will be instrumental in getting the MBHMP’s programs operational and in addressing some of the imminent habitat issues that presently face the grove.

City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 1 January 2019

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND
Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) use of the eucalyptus groves on Ellwood Mesa in the City of Goleta (City), California has inspired many residents and visitors over the years to help in the preservation and conservation of this important na tural phenomenon. These eucalyptus groves occur in the City-owned Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space (Ellwood Mesa Open Space or Ellwood Mesa) (Figure 1).

Over-wintering monarch butterfly aggregations in Ellwood Mesa groves have numbered in the tens of thousands during some years, making Ellwood Mesa one of the most important sites for monarch butterflies in California (Pelton et al. 2016). Each fall, monarch butterflies in the western United States migrate to the coast of California from various locations throughout western North America. The butterflies arrive at Ellwood Mesa in mid -September and, as winter approaches, cluster into aggregation roosts , often called overwintering or wintering colonies. The butterflies remain until about mid-February, when they generally disperse inland.

The eucalyptus groves at Ellwood Mesa are called the Ellwood Complex. As shown on Figure 2, six monarch butterfly over-wintering sites occur in the complex: Sandpiper, Ellwood North, Ellwood West, Ellwood Main, Ellwood East, and Ocean Meadows. The Ellwood East site is on private property and not within the Ellwood Mesa Open Space and is therefore outside the scope of this Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan (MBHMP); however, it is included for context. The Ellwood Main site is located along Devereux Creek and is the primary aggregation site for over - wintering butterflies in Ellwood Mesa.

Information and data regarding the condition of the butterfly population and groves —as well as trends in butterfly health, number, and behavior—were compiled over the last several years through a collaborative effort between City staff and the City’s consultants—Althouse and Meade, Rincon Consultants, and Agri-Turf Supplies. Tracking butterfly numbers at Ellwood aggregation sites has been an ongoing effort that began in 1989 and has been maintained by the City since the City ’s incorporation in 2002 . A Habitat Assessment was completed for Ellwood Mesa in 2013 to document the habitat conditions and health of the eucalyptus groves on the mesa (Althouse and Meade, Inc. 2013). In 2017, during the 5-year drought, the condition of the eucalyptus trees was assessed at the aggregation sites, and tree mortality was determined throughout Ellwood Mesa. The development of management priorities was an expanded effort between City staff, the consultant team, the City’s monarch butterfly docents, and members of the public.

The monarch butterfly populations at Ellwood Mesa and in California statewide have declined at least 74% since the 1990’s (Pelton et al. 2016) . The monarch butterfly is listed on the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ’s (CDFW) Special Animals List with overwintering roosts designated as imperiled to vulnerable in the state (CDFW 2017). Currently, the species is under federal review for potential listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) plans to make its determination of whether this species warrants ESA listing by June 30, 2019.

Introduction City of Goleta

January 2019 2 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Figure 1. Vicinity Map

City of Goleta Introduction

Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 3 January 2019

Figure 2. Monarch Butterfly Aggregation Sites
Introduction City of Goleta

January 2019 4 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Photo 1. Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) Aggregation on Blue Gum (Eucalyptus globulus)
POLICY
Two key local policy documents drive the protection of the monarch butterfly: the Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (General Plan; City of Goleta 2006) and The Ellwood-Devereux Coast Open Space and Habitat Management Plan (Open Space Plan ; City of Goleta et al. 2004). These policy documents provide an important context for this MBHMP. Additionally, the City ’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) was used as a key reference. The Goleta Urban Forest Management Plan (as amended and approved February 21, 2017) was also used to guide management recommendations. A summary of related policies and/or actions is provided below.

Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan – Conservation Element Monarch butterfly overwintering sites are considered Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) under the Coastal Act because the occupied groves meet the definition of an ESHA in Section 30107.5 of the California Coastal Act. An ESHA is defined as follows:

Any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.

As such, autumnal and overwintering sites are protected by the Coastal Act and the General Plan.

Specifically, the General Plan protects monarch butterflies and associated habitat via General Plan Conservation Element Policy 4, Protection of Monarch Butterfly Habitat Areas. The objective of the policy is as follows:

City of Goleta Introduction

Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 5 January 2019

To preserve, protect, and enhance habitats for monarch butterflies in Goleta, including existing and historical autumnal and winter roost or aggregation sites, and promote the long-term stability of over- wintering butterfly populations.

The definition of butterfly habitat is stat ed in subpolicy CE 4.1 , Definition of Habitat Area , as follows:

Sites that provide the key elements essential for successful monarch butterfly aggregation areas and are locations where monarchs have been historically present shall be considered ESHAs. These elements include stands of eucalyptus or other suitable trees that offer shelter from strong winds and storms, provide a microclimate with adequate sunlight, are situated near a source of water or moisture, and that provide a source of nectar to nourish the butterflies.

Additional subpolicies pertaining to the protection of this important local resource are provided in Policy CE 4 of the General Plan Conservation Element and were used to guide the preparation of this MBHMP.

Ellwood Mesa Open Space Plan
The 230- acre Ellwood Mesa is part of a 652 -acre contiguous open space along the Ellwood- Devereux Coast that is managed by the City, the County of Santa Barbara, and the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB). In March 2004, these three agencies released The Ellwood- Devereux Coast Open Space and Habitat Management Plan (City of Goleta et al. 2004) . The sections of the plan applying to the Goleta properties (referred to as the Ellwood Mesa Open Space Plan) were adopted by the Goleta City Council on June 24, 2004.

The Ellwood Mesa Open Space Plan es tablishes the following goal and policies that guide the management actions related to the monarch butterfly and supporting habitat:

Monarch Goal 1. Protect and maintain existing monarch butterfly populations in the Open Space Plan Area, and manage the habitats to be self-sustaining.

Monarch Policy 1 . Manage public access to protect butterflies and their habitat, while promoting public enjoyment, education, and scientific research.

Monarch Policy 2. Conduct scientifically sound studies using appropriate and cautious methods to maintain and improve habitat conditions to ensure long-term viability of the population.

Monarch Policy 3. Implement phased habitat improvements using pilot programs, small-scale projects, and adaptive management.

Additional overarching management goals and policies are provided in the Ellwood Mesa Open Space Plan and were used to guide the preparation of this MBHMP.

Introduction City of Goleta

January 2019 6 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Community Wildfire Protection Plan
The City’s CWPP was adopted by the City Council on March 20, 2012. The purpose of the CWPP is to enhance community wildfire protection by identifying fire hazard treatments that are in balance with sustainable ecological management and fiscal resources. The CWPP presents design standard recommendations for fuel treatments specific to areas near butterfly aggregation sites that are intended to minimize adverse effects on adjacent habitat while reducing hazardous fuels. Key recommendations focus on the coordination between butterfly and wildland fire experts during planning and implementation of fuel treatment strategy prescriptions. The CWPP was used during the preparation of this MBHMP, and this MBHMP is intended to support implementation of the CWPP, which is further discussed in detail in Program 4 (City of Goleta 2012).

Goleta Urban Forest Management Plan
The Goleta Urban Forest Management Plan (GUFMP) (as amended and approved February 21, 2017) was also used to guide management recommendations. The GUFMP provides a guide for the long-term preservation and enhancement of the urban forest within the City‘s jurisdiction. The urban forest is defined as all public and private trees including the street tree system, trees in parks and other public lands, and trees on private properties throughout the City. The vision statement of the GUFMP is:

Goleta’s urban forest is a thriving and sustainable mix of tree species and ages that creates a contiguous and healthy ecosystem that is valued and cared for by the City and all of its citizens as an essential environmental, economic and community benefit.

The GUFMP Section 4.7 Very Mature Tree Care calls to establish a regular maintenance program for trees located in parks, open spaces, and median islands to ensure very mature tree health.

Mulching, fertilization, and pruning are three major practices use d to tend to mature trees. The MBHMP fulfills this section for a tree maintenance program for Ellwood Mesa eucalyptus groves.

PURPOSE
The purpose of the MBHMP is to provide a programmatic approach to management of the habitats that support the monarch butterfly seasonal aggregation areas at the Ellwood Mesa Open Space, as well as a variety of other plant and animal species and coastal access and recreation. The intent of the management approach is to maintain and improve habitat conditions to ensure long -term viability of the monarch butterfly population, while allowing for coastal access, education and compatible recreational opportunities . The 22 programs detailed in this MBHMP organize and integrate the many diverse aspects of habitat management into an overall plan that can be implemented in a clear and concise manner.

City of Goleta Introduction

Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 7 January 2019

METHODS
This MBHMP is the result of careful consideration of existing information, site surveys, inventory, and assessment of tree health within the groves, consultation with a broad array of professionals and interested public, and discussions with City staff. The City collaborated with Althouse and Meade, Inc. and Rincon Consultants, Inc. in the preparation of this MBHMP. This MBHMP is composed of 22 programs, each of which contains a goa l, one or more policies, and one or more actions associated with each policy. Information on program status, needs, and contacts are also included, as well as general priority and schedule information and an annual cost estimate (Appendix 1). A main focus of each program is to establish an implementation structure with targets and actions to achieve present and future goals. . The scope of this MBHMP includes monarch butterfly habitat in the City ’s Ellwood Mesa Open Space , including aggregation sites, fores t areas, and nectaring locations (refer to Figure 1 for a vicinity map and Figure 2 for a map of the butterfly aggregation sites and Habitat Management Area).

For the purposes of this MBHMP, the following definitions apply:

Program: a planned series of activities.

Goal: a broad statement of program intentions.

Policy: a set of plans or actions agreed upon by the interested parties.

Action: the process of doing something to achieve a goal.

Introduction City of Goleta

January 2019 8 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

This Page Has Been Intentionally Left Blank.

City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 9 January 2019

THE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
This MBHMP for the Ellwood Mesa Open Space is organized into four categories: Administrative Programs; Natural Resource Management Programs; Outreach Programs; and Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management Programs. These programs—including their goals, policies, actions, implementation priorities, and schedules—are described in the sections that follow.

A. ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAMS
Administrative programs are designed to assist the City and inform the many MBHMP stakeholders of the details regarding implementation of the MBHMP. Identifying specific programs and their goals, policies, and actions enables a well-organized and efficient process to be established that leads to a management strategy for the sustainability of monarch habitat at Ellwood Mesa.

It is the City ’s intent that the goals and policies of this MBHMP should be considered and incorporated into future land use planning and policy documents, such as General Plan amendments and a Local Coastal Program, as appropriate, as these documents are developed.

1. Municipal Management Program
Overview: This program focuses on the role of the City as manager of the Ellwood Mesa Open Space and , in particular, the role of the City in the implementation of this MBHMP. Habitats included in this MBHMP include primarily the eucalyptus groves and windrows used by monarch butterflies for winter aggregations at Ellwood Mesa, covering approximately 230 acres from Hollister Avenue south to the ocean bluffs and from UCSB west to the Sandpiper Golf Course. The eucalyptus groves and windrows occur in the context of coastal mesa grasslands, coastal scrub, riparian habitats, and residential development. Therefore, they are part of a larger coastal ecosystem and neighborhood, with management priorities for which the MBHMP is designed to be compatible.

Goal 1. To implement the MBHMP, with the City providing the administrative structure to oversee the programs and scheduling, and to interface with the community at large.

Policy 1-1. The City shall review, and revise as necessary, the MBHMP to reflect current data, butterfly conservation science, and management techniques that apply to the local monarch population.

Action 1-1.1. Conduct a public workshop to inform the community regarding the content and implementation of this MBHMP.

Action 1-1.2. Conduct environmental review of this MBHMP, including a public hearing.

The Habitat Management Plan City of Goleta

January 2019 10 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Action 1-1.3. Prepare any necessary revisions to this MBHMP to resolve any issues identified during public review.

Action 1-1.4. Submit this MBHMP to the Goleta City Council for review and discussion, followed by adoption and implementation.

Policy 1-2. During implementation of the programs, goals, policies, and actions described in this MBHMP, and during the planning and implementation of other projects that may affect monarch butterfly habitat within the Ellwood Mesa Open Space, protection of the environment and specifically of monarch butterfly habitat shall be given the utmost consideration.

Action 1-2.1. Whenever vegetation removal, ground disturbance, construction, or other activities with the potential to significantly disrupt habitat values are proposed within the MBHMP coverage area by the City or any other agency or utility, environmental protection measures shall be implemented. These measures shall be determined in coordination with a qualified biologist, and should normally shall include at a minimum pre-activity surveys for nesting birds or other wildlife, pre -activity surveys for monarch butterfly aggregations, presence of an environment al monitor during construction, and other protections , as deemed appropriate. The City will monitor these activities to ensure that environmental protection measures are used and that activities are limited to those permitted.

Policy 1-3. Because many of the MBHMP actions are related to trail improvements, tree work, and related project implementation monitoring and reporting, the City ’s Public Works Department shall oversee the implementation of this MBHMP. Public Works personnel overseeing implementation will have specific knowledge and experience to properly follow directives of this MBHMP.

Action 1-3.1. The City’s Public Works Department, Neighborhood Services and Public Safety Department, and Planning and Environmental Review Department will coordinate regularly regarding MBHMP implementation.

Policy 1-4. The MBHMP is an overarching, long-term conservation strategy, setting forth the broad objectives, desired outcomes, and management policies for the Ellwood Mesa monarch butterfly habitat. Periodic Implementation Plans shall identify and describe short-term actions needed to further the goals and objectives of the MBHMP, taking into consideration current conditions and funding levels at the time each Implementation Plan is prepared.

Action 1 -4.1. On an annual basis, or as warranted based on habitat conditions as determined by the City’s Public Works Department , prepare an Implementation Plan identifying the actions planned to implement the MBHMP’s programs, goals, policies, and actions during the coming year.

Action 1 -4.2. The City’s Public Works Department staff shall present each annual Implementation Plan at a public hearing for stakeholder input and City Council approval.

City of Goleta The Habitat Management Plan
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 11 January 2019

Program Status : This MBHMP has been completed and is in the process of undergoing environmental review.

Program Needs : A public workshop, MBHMP review and revision as needed, and a public hearing—followed by adoption by City Council—are to be achieved.

Program Contact: Public Works Department

2. Fiscal Program
Overview: Successful implementation of this MBHMP and related conservation of the Ellwood Mesa Open Space depend in part on the ability to provide funding for the various programs contained in this MBHMP. Funding will come from a variety of sources as identified herein.

Goal 2. To provide short -term (annual), long -term (endowment), and special project (grant) funding for the implementation of this MBHMP.

Policy 2 -1. The City shall consider providing annual funding to support MBHMP implementation.

Action 2-1.1. Consider appropriating General Fund, Special Revenue Fund, or Grant Fund monies, as available, during the bi-annual and mid-cycle budget processes.

Action 2-1.2. Consider including the implementation of MBHMP as a project sheet in the Capital Improvement Program annual budget.

Action 2-1.3. Develop an annual needs list from which the annual operating budget can be determined. This list should be included in the annual Implementation Plan (see Policy 1-3).

Policy 2-2. The City shall manage and use the City’s Ellwood Mesa Butterfly Fund (Butterfly Fund) (226-5-9800-706) to pay for the implementation of the MBHMP and special projects consistent with the requirements of the fund. The Butterfly Fund shall be supplemented by grant funds and compensatory mitigation fees, as available.

Action 2 -2.1. Manage the Butterfly Fund such that the fund may serve as an implementation funding source. Continue to identify grant funds to supplement the Butterfly Fund. Accept donations specific to the Butterfly Fund.

Action 2-2.2. Allow payments of compensatory mitigation fees into the Butterfly Fund, as deemed appropriate during CEQA analysis for projects with limited impacts on monarch butterfly habitat.

Program Status: The City provides annual funds in support of planning initiatives and general management needs at the Ellwood Mesa Open Space. With adoption of this MBHMP, funds can be The Habitat Management Plan City of Goleta

January 2019 12 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

earmarked annually for implementation of programs and specific actions within this MBHMP.

Furthermore, grants and other fundraising opportunities will exist for which City funds can be used as a local match to new funds raised from external sources. In the near term, the $3.9 million allocated in the State Budget will provide a vital funding source.

Program Needs: Adoption of this MBHMP so the Fiscal Program can be implemented.

Program Contact: Public Works Department

3. Interagency Cooperative Program
Overview: In today ’s complex regulatory environment, important sites for natural resource conservation can be subject to conflicting regulatory goals at the federal , state, county, and municipal levels. Management of threatened or endangered species that may occur in the future— and rare species and sensitive habitats at Ellwood Mesa—require careful coordination among regulatory partners so that conflicts are minimized.

Goal 3. To develop cooperative relationships with federal, state, county, and municipal agencies toward the implementation of integrated management practices favorable to the conservation of the monarch butterfly habitats at Ellwood Mesa Open Space.

Policy 3-1. The City shall pursue cooperative relationships with other agencies regarding regulatory goals and policies that the partners have in common concerning the Ellwood Mesa Open Space, in particular , goals and policies that have an impact on the manag ement of the monarch butterfly aggregation sites.

Action 3-1.1. As appropriate and productive, pursue cooperative relationships with federal agencies such as the USFWS and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to obtain potential permits, identify funding opportunities, and identify/pursue other potentially shared interests regarding the natural resources at Ellwood Mesa, with a focus on sustaining monarch butterfly aggregation sites.

Action 3-1.2. As appropriate and productive, pursue cooperative relationships with state entities such as the CDFW, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), UCSB, and California Coastal Commission (CCC) to obtain potential permits, identify funding opportunities, and identify/pursue other potentially shared interests regarding the natural resources at Ellwood Mesa, with a focus on sustaining monarch butterfly aggregation sites.

Action 3-1.3. As appropriate and productive, pursue cooperative relationships with Santa Barbara County departments (such as Agricultural Commissioner, Fire, Parks, Planning and Development, Flood Control, and Public Works) to obtain potential permits, identify funding opportunities, solve problems, and identify/pursue other potentially shared interests regarding the natural resources at Ellwood Mesa and adjacent properties, with a focus on sustaining monarch butterfly aggregation sites.

City of Goleta The Habitat Management Plan
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 13 January 2019

Program Status: City staff regularly coordinates with the County of Santa Barbara and UCSB.

Additionally, City staff has formed a functioning interdepartmental working relationship among the Public Works Department, Neighborhood Services and Public Safety Department, and Planning and Environmental Review Department regarding the management of Ellwood Mesa. Many additional productive relationships can be pursued related to the conservation of monarch and other butterflies.

Program Needs: Adoption of this MBHMP and implementation of its programs.

Program Contacts : Public Works Department, Neighborhood Services and Public Safety Department, and Planning and Environmental Review Department

4. Community Wildfire Protection Program
Overview: One of the most important efforts regarding coordination of potentially competing management goals is the identification and resolution of conflicts between the actions to protect the adjacent communities from the threat of wildfires while also providing protection of the habitats for seasonal aggregation of monarch butterflies at the Ellwood Mesa Open Space. The groves and windrows, composed primarily of blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), are fire-prone and can present a threat to residential communities adjacent to the butterfly habitats. The CWPP was produced in coordination with this MBHMP to provide management practices compatible with monarch butterfly aggregation site protectio n. The City ’s adopted CWPP provides important context for the management of these resources.

Ellwood North, Main, and West sites are the aggregation locations within the groves on Ellwood Mesa that are directly adjacent to residences along eucalyptus grov e boundaries (Figure 2). The Sandpiper site is not directly adjacent to structures, but it is adjacent to the Sandpiper Golf Course (Figure 2). In habitat areas that are not adjacent to structures, fuel treatments consist of mowing along the outside edge of the grove.

The Monarch Butterfly Aggregation Area Treatment Strategy section of the CWPP states that fuel treatments in areas near human developments are critical measures in the wildfire protection strategy for both residences and butterfly aggregations and habitat. Trees along grove edges provide wind and weather protection for aggregation sites. Therefore, it is important to maintain adequate tree density inside these edges (The Xerces Society 2017) . Larger trees are not the primary fuel of concern in the spread of wildfire; rather, the greater hazard and threat are understory vegetation, dead/downed trees, and fuels that could create fire ladders. The CWPP describes the prescription guidance for butterfly aggregation areas adjacent to structures and outlines approved actions to be taken within 100 ft. of structures to reduce the ignitability of those structures. Figure 3 shows the CWPP fuel reduction zones within the MBHMP area.

In butterfly aggregation areas within 100 ft. of homes, the fuel treatment strategy prescribed by the CWPP includes removal of u nderstory, ladder fuel , and dead/downed fuel . Careful thinning of smaller or unhealthy trees within 30 feet of the grove edge is recommended while considering the wind buffering needs of the aggregation site. Fuel reduction implementation and subsequent monitoring should involve input by City-approved monarch butterfly and wildfire professionals.

The Habitat Management Plan City of Goleta

January 2019 14 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Goal 4. To provide management practices within the eucalyptus groves and windrows that support healthy monarch butterfly habitat and are compatible with the City’s CWPP.

Policy 4-1. The goals, policies, and actions of this MBHMP shall be consistent with the intent of the CWPP to reduce the ignitability of homes and structures.

City of Goleta The Habitat Management Plan
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 15 January 2019

Figure 3. CWPP-related fuel reduction zones within the MBHMP area The Habitat Management Plan City of Goleta

January 2019 16 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Action 4-1.1. Support implementation of Goleta’s CWPP in the 100-ft. buffer from homes and structures as the 100 ft. extends into the Ellwood Mesa eucalyptus groves with actions outlined in below in Table 1 (as seen in Table 14 of the CWPP).

Table 1. CWPP Prescription Guidance for Butterfly Aggregation Areas Adjacent to Structures
Location
Primary Defense Zone (A)***
(0 – 30’)
Fuel Reduction Zone (B***
(30’ – 100’)
Fuel Type Based on Defensible Space PRC – 4291 and Firefighter Safety Grass/ Forbs Reduce fuel depth to 4 inches;
methods include mowing, masticating,
weed-whacking, biological browsing

Same treatment as (A); longer grass in
isolated open areas is acceptable.

Surface dead/
down material
Clear dead/down flammable materials;
methods include raking, hand-piling/
removal, masticating chipping/
dispersal on site

Reduce dead/down flammable material
to < 3” depth; methods same as (A).

Brush/ Shrub
fuel
Remove to a spacing (between edges of
brush) generally 2x brush height on
<20% slopes; methods include
masticating or hand -cutting, biological
browsing
Same Treatment as (A); a pocket or
clump of brush can be treated as one
large shrub in more open site
conditions.

Trees Overstory
without brush
understory
Trim or thin only trees that do not
provide protection to monarch
butterfly aggregation sites* Thin
smaller or unhealthy trees at 10 – 20
ft crown spacing (as determined by
slope, tree size and type); Leave
larger trees unless toppling hazard.**
Reduce ladder fuels by pruning lower
branches 6-15 ft up, or lower 1/3 of
tree height on trees smaller than 18
ft.

Trim or thin only trees that do not
provide protection to monarch
butterfly aggregation sites* Thin smaller
or unhealthy trees at approximately 10
ft crown spacing (as determined by
slope, tree size and type);. Leave larger
trees unless toppling hazard.** Reduce
ladder fuels by pruning lower branches
approximately 6 ft up, or lower 1/3 of
tree height on trees smaller than 18 ft.

City of Goleta The Habitat Management Plan
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 17 January 2019

Location
Primary Defense Zone (A)***
(0 – 30’)
Fuel Reduction Zone (B***
(30’ – 100’)
Fuel Type Based on Defensible Space PRC – 4291 and Firefighter Safety Trees Overstory
with brush
understory
Trim or thin only vegetation that
does not provide protection to
monarch butterfly aggregation sites*
Thin small or unhealthy trees at 10-20
ft crown spacing (based on slope, tree
size and type). Leave larger trees at
10 ft. crown spacing unless toppling
hazard.**( Reduce ladder fuels by
pruning lower branches 6-15 ft up, or
lower 1/3 of tree height on smaller
trees In understory: remove brush
ladder fuel. Methods include
masticating or hand-cutting.

Trim or thin only vegetation that does
not provide protection to monarch
butterfly aggregation sites* Thin small
or unhealthy trees to approximately 10
ft. crown spacing. Leave larger trees
unless toppling hazard.** Reduce ladder
fuels by pruning lower branches
approximately 6 ft up, or lower 1/3 of
tree height on smaller trees. In
understory remove brush ladder fuel.

In non-canopied areas, non-continuous
patches of shrubs or small trees in
openings is acceptable. Methods
include masticating or hand-cutting.
*As determined by the Goleta City Project Manager overseeing mitigation work in consultation with a City-approved monarch butterfly specialist and a City-approved wildland fire specialist. **As determined by the Goleta City Project Manager and Goleta City arborist. ***For further information specific to homeowner/structure mitigation measures see CWPP Section

6.2.1. Action 4 -1.2. Support implementation of Goleta’s CWPP , specifically in regard to guidelines that are not in potential conflict with the management of the groves that support monarch butterfly aggregation sites, as noted below.

Action 4 -1.3. Maintain and revegetate moderate cover of understory in and around aggregation sites with fire -resistant, native plant species (The Xerces Society 2017) (Appendix 3).

Action 4 -1.4. Conduct all wildfire protection work within 300 feet of butterfly aggregations areas between April 1 and September 15, outside of monarch butterfly overwintering season.

Action 4-1.5. Coordinate with City-approved butterfly and wildland fire experts during planning and implementation of any fuel treatments since conditions within groves can change and aggregation locations may shift.

Action 4 -1.6. Install a large, bilingual “NO PARKING -FIRE LANE” sign at Santa Barbara Shores access gate.

The Habitat Management Plan City of Goleta

January 2019 18 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Policy 4 -2. Trees in the groves containing monarch butterfly aggregation sites shall be managed, as feasible, to ensure their health and longevity in the context of a high fire hazard environment.

Action 4-2.1. Implement Program 12, Tree Management Program, to reduce fire hazard, improve public safety, and eliminate trees that are threatening the sustainability of the aggregation sites, including dead, diseased, and dying trees.

Photo 2. Evidence of Wildfire (Charred Trunks) at Main Grove – East, Ellwood Mesa Open Space
Program Status: The CWPP was adopted with the passage of Resolution No. 12-21 by the Goleta City Council on March 20, 2012. The Ellwood Mesa Implementation Plan is in environmental review.

Program Needs: Adoption and implementation of CWPP and the MBHMP will result in a reduction of wildfire hazards associated with eucalyptus groves.

Program Contact: Public Works Department

City of Goleta The Habitat Management Plan
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 19 January 2019

5. Trail Management Program
Overview: Public access trails are located through or adjacent to most of the monarch butterfly aggregation sites on Ellwood Mesa. These localized trails link to gether a series of regional trails, adjacent residential neighborhoods, and other preserves, such as the Coronado Butterfly Preserve managed by the Santa Barbara Land Trust and open space lands managed by th e University of California system. Public access, including organized field trips to see the seasonal aggregations of monarch butterflies, is an important part of the Ellwood Mesa experience. However, repeated and increasing access along the semi -formal trails can result in negative impacts on the habitats and overall site aesthetics. Additionally, the trees constituting the butterfly habitat do occasionally die, fall, and shed limbs, creating hazardous conditions for recreationalists at certain locations.

Goal 5. To develop and maintain public access trails that provide a safe and meaningful experience for visitors while also limiting impacts on habitats and wildlife, in particular, monarch butterflies and their seasonal aggregation sites.

Policy 5-1. The City shall maintain existing public access trails that provide a safe experience for visitors to the eucalyptus groves supporting seasonal monarch butterfly aggregation sites.

Action 5 -1.1. Maintain existing public access trails th rough the eucalyptus groves supporting monarch butterfly aggregation sites by reducing threats of trips, slips, and falls.

May use Trails Council and CCC to help with maintenance.

Action 5-1.2. Implement Program 12, Tree Management Program, to reduce the threats from falling tree limbs and trunks.

Action 5-1.3. Repair damage to trial boundary ropes and posts, as needed.

Action 5-1.4. Prevent damage to seasonal monarch habitat by installing additional trail boundary posts, ropes, and signs, as necessary, consistent with those at the Ellwood Main monarch aggregation area.

Action 5-1.5. Use wood chips on trails to reduce soil compaction and decrease erosion during wet months.

Action 5-1.6. Retain and maintain Ellwood Main visitor viewing area boundary signs and rails.

Action 5-1.7. Review locations of trail and viewing area delineations and adjust if needed to protect trees or butterflies, annually.

Action 5-1.8. Review trail conditions on an annual basis and provide recommendations on improvements and modifications regarding human safety, trail maintenance, and ecosystem health, including conservation of monarch butterfly habitat in relationship to location, The Habitat Management Plan City of Goleta

January 2019 20 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

condition, use of trails , and number of visitors . Include recommendations for any tree trimming, removal recommendations, or other tree safety issues in the annual Implementation Plan.

Action 5-1.9. Long-term closure of official trails is undesirable and should not be used as a management approach. It is preferable to remedy trail hazards promptly, or to allow trails to remain open with appropriate signage alerting users to the risks present.

Policy 5-2. Maintain and improve existing links between trails associated with eucalyptus groves that support monarch butterfly aggregation sites at Ellwood Mesa with t he adjacent Coronado Butterfly Preserve.

Action 5-2.1. Coordinate trail improvement activities with the Santa Barbara Land Trust and UCSB staff to ensure that improvements are compatible.

Action 5-2.2. Coordinate trail improvements with proposals for the Coastal and Juan Bautista De Anza trails that traverse Ellwood Mesa, which also link to trails within the eucalyptus groves that support monarch butterfly aggregation sites, to ensure protection measures are addressed for the aggregation sites.

Program Status: Public access trails already exist within the majority of the aggregation sites, but human safety issues exist because of the poor condition of many eucalyptus trees along the trails and eroded trail conditions. Impacts on eucalyptus groves supporting monarch butterfly aggregation sites also exist as a result of public access.

Program Needs: Dead and dying trees along trails and viewing areas present a public safety risk and risk to habitat stability. The Implementation Plan should detail work to be a ccomplished on an annual basis to maintain access and protect the public and sensitive habitat. Eroded trail conditions and overhanging trees can be public safety issues as well as tree health issues, necessitating trail improvements.

Program Contact: Public Works Department

6. Waste Management Program
Overview: Although the City’s Public Works Department staff conducts inspections and removes easily visible waste and trash, unauthorized off-trail use, homeless encampments, and related trash dumping periodically occur in the Ellwood Mesa’s eucalyptus groves. The City’s butterfly docents also remove trash and alert the Public Works Department staff when there are new accumulations of trash and/or other debris that are too large or abundant for hand removal.

Goal 6. To maintain a waste-, trash-, and debris-free butterfly habitat management area.

Policy 6-1. The City shall collect, remove, and appropriately dispose of all waste, trash, and debris that accumulate in habitat on Ellwood Mesa.

City of Goleta The Habitat Management Plan
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 21 January 2019

Action 6-1.1. Continue to remove existing accumulations of waste, trash, and debris from monarch butterfly habitat and dispose of them in an appropriate manner. Coordinate with Sheriff’s Office for removal of homeless encampments, if necessary.

Policy 6-2. The City shall inform visitors of the monarch butterfly habitat of rules relating to trash and debris policies associated with monarch butterfly habitat.

Action 6 -2.1. Post signs at appropriate locations stating open space user rules; for example, “Please take out your trash” and, “Day Use Only – Camping Prohibited.” Action 6-2.2. Educate the public through seasonal, on-site presence by the City’s butterfly docents about the importance of maintaining the groves free of trash.

Action 6-2.3. Place trash cans in the parking lot. Inspect annually and replace as needed.

Program Status: Despite trash removal attempts by Public Works Department staff and the City’s butterfly docent s, various sites throughout the monarch butterfly habitat at Ellwood Mesa accumulate trash and other debris from human activity.

Program Needs: Trash and debris should be removed, where feasible, from the Ellwood Mesa habitat that support monarch butterfly aggregation sites.

Program Contact: Public Works Department, Neighborhood Services and Public Safety Department

7. Aesthetic Resources Management Program
Overview: Portions of Ellwood Mesa eucalyptus groves suffer from grove senescence, drought, pests, disease, or lack of formal management efforts that maintain consistent aesthetic values.

Fencing and signs are irregularly installed and inconsistently maintained. They also lack a consistent theme. This MBHMP would provide a consistent management structure.

Goal 7. To integrate this MBHMP’s programs into an effort to improve the quality of aesthetic resources of the Ellwood Mesa, in particular , the eucalyptus groves and windrows supporting monarch butterfly aggregation sites.

Policy 7.1. The City shall provide stewardship and management oversight of the eucalyptus groves, in particular, those areas supporting monarch butterfly aggregation sites.

Action 7 -1.1. Adopt and implement this MBHMP, including its 22 management programs.

Action 7-1.2. Provide integration of program goals, policies, and actions to improve the overall aesthetics of the various grove s, including installation of a consistently designed The Habitat Management Plan City of Goleta

January 2019 22 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

interpretive program and strategically placed fencing, as more specifically outlined in Program 18, Interpretive Program.

Policy 7.2. Signs, fencing, and restoration efforts associated with monarch butterfly habitat on Ellwood Mesa shall be aesthetically compatible with natural conditions.

Action 7-2.1. Review signage and fencing design for compatibility with the Ellwood Mesa natural areas.

Action 7 -2.2. Review restoration plantings and activities for appropriate aesthetic compatibility.

Program Status: Adoption and implementation of this MBHMP will result in a more sustainable and visually pleasant user experience because of the improved aesthetic value of the Ellwood Mesa eucalyptus groves and monarch butterfly aggregation sites.

Program Needs: Adopt and implement this MBHMP.

Program Contact: Public Works Department

8. MBHMP Review, Update, and Amendment Program
Overview: Reviewing and updating key planning documents would ensure that the management goals and actions are working as intended. Updating and amending programs, when needed, would ensure that the planning document is responsive to the changing needs of the community and the resource.

Goal 8 . To maintain the relevance of this MBHMP with periodic reviews, updates , and amendments.

Policy 8-1. The City shall review this MBHMP as the need for updates and amendments arises (e.g., changes in physical conditions, regulations, or expansion of habitat management knowledge or strategies) or at least every 5 years.

Action 8-1.1. Conduct internal and public review of this MBHMP, as conditions warrant.

Action 8-1.2. Update information in this MBHMP, as conditions warrant.

Action 8-1.3. Amend programs, goals, polices, and actions in this MBHMP to reflect the results of the review and update process.

Action 8-1.4. Seek public input on amendments to programs, goals, polices, and actions in this MBHMP.

City of Goleta The Habitat Management Plan
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 23 January 2019

Action 8-1.5. Conduct environmental review, if necessary (new or modified policies and actions pose new impacts).

Action 8-1.6. Obtain approval by the Goleta City Council and adopt amended MBHMP.

Program Status: Adoption of this MBHMP by the City will provide the mechanism for review, update, and amendment.

Program Needs: Commitment to update this MBHMP to ensure that it is meeting the demands of the existing conditions.

Program Contacts: Planning and Environmental Review Department and Public Works Department

9. Catastrophic Event Response Program
Overview: The eucalyptus groves at Ellwood Mesa are at risk of catastrophic environmental events. For example, trees falling during powerful storms could cause collapse of additional trees, excessive fuel loads can spread wildfires, and infestations of insect pests can weaken or kill trees.

Because such potential catastrophic events are likely to occur within the monarch butterfly aggregation sites, Program 9 , Catastrophic Event Response Program , would put in place a preliminary plan of action to address the consequences of loss of trees or entire groves containing monarch butterfly aggregation sites.

For the purpose of this MBHMP, a catastrophic environmental event is defined as an event causing great ecological distress and damage, either sudden or gradual, across a significant portion of the monarch butterfly habitat within the Ellwood Mesa plan area. This is distinct from an emergency, which may involve emergency responders such as the fire department and would involve immediate actions under their direction to protect life and property. A qualifying catastrophic event could negatively affect a large portion of the eucalyptus groves within the Ellwood Mesa, or could cause substantial damage to single monarch butterfly overwintering site.

The response actions for catastrophic events would primarily involve restoration activities, would not necessarily be funded in the annual budget for this MBHMP and would likely require supplemental funding with approval from the City Council. Funding approved by the City Council should include a finding that the condition is a qualify ing catastrophic event. If such a finding is made, funding received through the State Budget or other sources may be also used to address catastrophic events.

As of this writing, the 5-year drought in Goleta from 2012 to 2016 has created dire conditions for the eucalyptus trees at Ellwood Mesa (County of Santa Barbara 2018). Arborists estimate that over 1,200 trees are dead or dying due to drought , drought stress, and infestation by pests across the Ellwood Mesa. The monarch overwintering sites are suffering from the die-back of trees with the loss of canopy and wind protection and loss of roosting branches. The last similar 5-year drought on record for the Goleta area was in 1947–1951 and was not as severe, with 58.05 consecutive rainfall inches, compared with 50.83 inches during the 2012–2016 drought years (County of Santa Barbara The Habitat Management Plan City of Goleta

January 2019 24 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

2018). Timing of rainfall since 2012 has also been more concentrated than in prior years, with the annual rainfall occurring in a small number of intense storm events rather than a larger number of small or gentle events. This concentration has come with an increased rainfall intensity, which leads to increased runoff, excess erosion and sediment transport, and decreased groundwater recharge.

The ultimate result has been less available water for uptake by trees.

The 5-year drought and the death of over 1,200 trees may qualify as a catastrophic event, if so determined by the City Council.

Goal 9. To prepare for possible catastrophic environmental events within the monarch butterfly aggregation sites by adopting a set of actions that potentially minimize the impacts and plan for a response should such events affect the groves in which aggregation sites are located.

Policy 9-1. The City shall adopt a set of protocols that could mini mize the impacts from potential catastrophic environmental events.

Action 9-1.1. Implement Program 12, Tree Management Program, to reduce potential impacts on eucalyptus groves that support monarch butterfly aggregation sites.

Action 9-1.2. Implement Program 4, Community Wildfire Protection Program, to reduce potential impacts on monarch butterfly aggregation sites from wildfire.

Action 9-1.3. Implement Program 13, Integrated Pest Management Program, to reduce the potential impacts from pest infestations.

Policy 9-2. The City shall assess the damage of catastrophic events as they occur and respond with corrective action to restore damaged monarch butterfly habitat.

Action 9-2.1. Measure the extent and assess the magnitude of the damage to the monarch butterfly overwintering habitat.

Action 9-2.2. Design and implement a response strategy with actions to correct and restore the habitat after the catastrophic event and include them in the annual Implementation Plan (Policy 1-3), if practical. When feasible, employ phased approaches with consistent monitoring to evaluate success or need for changes in strategy or actions.

Assign priorities, including sources of materials, constraints, and methods for debris management.

Steps for Response Strategy:

1. Define the extent of the damage to the monarch butterfly habitat within the plan area.

2. Divide affected area into sections for a phased approach, based on level of damage and importance of overwintering site compared to other areas.

3. Assign priorities to the divided sections of the damaged area.

City of Goleta The Habitat Management Plan
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 25 January 2019

4. Implement guidance from Programs 4, 12, and 13 for specifics in those areas.

Example Response Strategy for a catastrophic event that causes the die-back of 25% of the trees in the MBHMP area. The catastrophic event for this example could be fire, drought, pest, disease, wind storm, etc.

1. Consider whether the catastrophic event presents an imminent danger to the public, and install warning signage and/or closures as appropriate.

2. Assess and analyze the extent of the dead/dying trees in the forest at Ellwood Mesa in relation to the monarch butterfly aggregation areas.

3. Establish a phased approach for restoration activities, starting with the most affected areas. Tag and map the trees that are dead, dying, diseased, burnt, hazardo us, or otherwise affected by the catastrophic event. Confer with arborists, biologists, and/or other relevant specialist to select trees for removal to benefit the forest on a whole and facilitate restoration. Remove selected trees in the first phase area. The removed trees may be disposed of off=site or chipped for use on site as ground cover. Install new trees and native understory species with irrigation.

4. Monitor the success of the plantings and irrigation over a set time (e .g., 1–2 years).

Replace plantings, as needed.

5. Adjust restoration methods if necessary and implement phased approach at the next priority phase area for restoration.

6. Repeat steps 2 through 5 until every area has been attended to and restored.

7. Continue to monitor for the presence of monarch butterflies during the aggregation season and other wildlife.

Action 9-2.3. Request City Council approval for supplemental funding, with a finding that the condition is a catastrophic event. Use funding received from the State Budget, apply for grants, and/or accept private donations for the dedicated mission of monarch butterfly overwintering habitat restoration.

Program Status: Tree condition surveys that have been completed for Ellwood Mesa eucalyptus trees have identified the number of dead trees. Cause of tree mortality has been identified as drought and pest infestations. Ellwood Main and Ellwood North monarch butterfly aggregation sites contain many dead trees. In-depth planning for management and recovery of a living eucalyptus forest will be detailed in an annual Implementation Plan. Similar events have occurred in the past and are likely to be part of the future.

Program Needs: Development of a n Implementation Plan addressing the significant die -off of eucalyptus trees on Ellwood Mesa is underway. The City should have an ongoing response program in place so that careful and measured decisions following a catastrophic event can be implemented.

Program Contact: Public Works Department
The Habitat Management Plan City of Goleta

January 2019 26 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

B. NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Seven natural resources management programs are provided that articulate the goals, policies, and actions necessary to maintain and improve the many important natural resources, including biological diversity and ecosystem functions, associated with the Ellwood Mesa eucalyptus groves and the monarch butterfly aggregation sites they support.

10. Monarch Butterfly Management Program
Overview: The City ’s General Plan includes a policy specific to the protection of monarch butterfly habitat areas, including the habitat on E llwood Mesa. The City ’s Ellwood Mesa Open Space Plan further specifies the need to protect and maintain the eucalyptus habitat to be self - sustaining and identifies the need for managed public access, scientifically sound existing conditions studies, phased habitat improvements, and adaptive management. The primary focus of the Habitat Management Plan described below is to implement the directives of the General Plan and Ellwood Mesa Open Space Plan.

Goal 10. To ensure the ongoing use of Ellwood Mesa by the monarch butterfly.

Policy 10-1. The City shall implement management strategies that facilitate the use of Ellwood Mesa by monarch butterflies.

Action 10-1.1. Implement Program 12, Tree Management Program, to help facilitate the conservation of the monarch butterfly aggregation sites.

Action 10-1.2. Implement Program 20, Biological Monitoring Program, and Program 21, Monarch Research Program , to expand the body of knowledge and further the understanding of the monarch butterflies’ use of the resources at Ellwood Mesa.

Policy 10 -2. Preservation of aggregation sites on Ellwood Mesa shall be the focus of management activities, as feasible, and in coordination with Program 9, Catastrophic Event Response Program.

Action 10 -2.1. Should one or more catastrophic events result in impact s on the sustainability of monarch butterfly aggregation sites, consider alternative management and recovery strategies that incorporate goals for sustaining aggregation sites at Ellwood Mesa.

Policy 10-3. Ecosystem functions proposed for habitat restoration projects at Ellwood Mesa shall consider inclusion of native plant species.

Action 10-3.1. Implement Program 14, Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Program, as feasible, to improve conditions for native plants and animals and the ecosystem functions City of Goleta The Habitat Management Plan
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 27 January 2019

they provide in and adjacent to the eucalyptus groves containing monarch butterfly aggregation sites.

Policy 10-4. To avoid impacts on monarch butterflies while they are present at the Ellwood aggregation sites, no maintenance or restoration work shall be conducted in the aggregation sites from October 1 through March 31 of each year, unless authorized by a qualified biologist.

Action 10-4.1. Unless authorized by a qualified biologist, c onduct all site maintenance, tree trimming and removal, habitat restoration, exotic plant removal, and other potentially invasive activities between April 1 and September 30 of each year , when there would not likely be direct impacts on monarch butterflies.

Program Status: Monarch butterflies are important to the ecosystem of Ellwood Mesa and to the City’s sense of community. Development and implementation of this MBHMP is an important step in the active conservation of the monarch butterflies and their habitat at Ellwood Mesa.

Program Needs: New information about monarch butterflies regularly emerges from the scientific community, and the Ellwood Main site is an important site for the sustainability of monarchs. The more monarch butterfly biology is understood, the better Ellwood Mesa can be managed.

Program Contact: Public Works Department

11. Wildlife Habitat Management Program
Overview: Eucalyptus groves supporting seasonal aggregation sites for monarch butterflies also provide habitat for other wildlife species. Examples include or have included perche s for red - shouldered hawks, roosting sites for turkey vultures, and nesting sites for white-tailed kites, Cooper’s hawks, great horned owls, and acorn woodpeckers. This MBHMP identifies management strategies for conserving habitat for monarch butterflies t hat are intended to be consistent, where feasible, with management of habitat for other wildlife species.

Goal 11 . Manage eucalyptus groves at Ellwood Mesa for monarch butterflies in a manner consistent with ecosystem functions for other wildlife species that use the groves as habitat.

Policy 11 -1. The eucalyptus groves at Ellwood Mesa that support monarch butterfly aggregation sites shall be managed in a manner consistent with ecosystem functions supporting other wildlife species, where feasible.

Action 11-1.1. All personnel associated with the implementation of this MBHMP will receive educational information regarding the presence of monarch butterfly and other native wildlife species and the need to protect all native wildlife species.

Action 11-1.2. Preserve some trees with cavities to provide opportunities for cavity - nesting birds, such as acorn woodpeckers.

The Habitat Management Plan City of Goleta

January 2019 28 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Action 11-1.3. Avoid removal of or disturbance to trees or other woody vegetation during nesting bird season (March 1 5 to August 15), when feasibl e. If not feasible, a biological monitor will survey for nesting birds in the area of proposed vegetation removal and ensure no active nests are present prior to removal or disturbance.

Action 11-1.4. Limit vegetation removal and ground disturbance activi ties to the dry season. Avoid areas with open water in Devereux Creek and tributaries.

Policy 11-2. Program 14, Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Program, shall complement the Wildlife Habitat Management Program.

Action 11-2.1. Include native plant species that are important for wildlife habitat and food in enhancement and restoration projects (Appendix 3).

Action 11-2.2. Require a Planting Plan for any proposed enhancement plantings near the groves containing aggregation sites.

Action 11-2.3. Consider increasing mid-canopy and low-stature or groundcover native plant species to enhance wildlife habitat complexity and increase potential use of eucalyptus groves by a variety of wildlife species.

Action 11 -2.4. Implement restoration for the Devereux Creek r iparian corridor to improve functions for wildlife, consistent with the goals of this MBHMP for monarch butterflies.

Program Status: A variety of management actions have occurred in the Ellwood Mesa eucalyptus groves, including monitoring the butterfly populations, evaluating the health of the eucalyptus grove and individual trees, and educating the public regarding the sensitivity of the aggregation sites.

However, a comprehensive approach to managing and educating the public as to the importance of all native wildlife species that inhabit the Ellwood Mesa e ucalyptus groves will benefit both the visitors and the natural resources of the open space area.

Program Needs: Adoption and implementation of this MBHMP will include programs to improve the health of the habitats and their ecosystem functions for wildlife species in general, and monarch butterflies in particular.

Program Contact: Public Works Department

12. Tree Management Program
Overview: One of the most important aspects of this MBHMP is the set of management practices that would result in a sustainable eucalyptus forest that supports aggregation sites for monarch butterflies. Health of the individual eucalyptus trees, structure of the aggregation sites, and long-term sustainability of the groves supporting the sites are of primary importance. In response to these management needs, as well as concern for public safety within the groves and concern for wildfire City of Goleta The Habitat Management Plan
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 29 January 2019

hazards, City staff continues to work with professional biologists and arborists to develop protocols for managing the eucalyptus groves supporting monarch butterfly aggregation sites. The information obtained during inventories and assessments, and coordination with the development of the CWPP, resulted in the management recommendations as presented in this MBHMP.

Goal 12. To manage the eucalyptus groves within monarch butterfly aggregation sites at Ellwood Mesa in a manner that provides for (1) healthy trees, (2) suitable aggregation site structure, (3) sustainable butterfly aggregation sites, ( 4) public safety while visitors are on trails within the groves, and (5) sensitivity to wildfire hazards.

Policy 12-1. Eucalyptus trees in the groves within the MBHMP c overage area containing monarch butterfly aggregation sites shall be managed, as feasib le, to ensure tree health and longevity.

Action 12-1.1. Include guidance for necessary tree work in the annual Implementation Plan (Action 1-4.1). Tree work will take place in the month of September each year. The Implementation Plan should specify responsible parties, work locations, individual trees addressed, work to be accomplished, restoration measures, and methods and procedures for managing tree health . An annual plan is recommended but may be prepared on an as - needed basis based on conditions and progress of the previous Implementation Plan.

Action 12-1.2. Preliminarily identify potential threats to aggregation sites that may occur over time and develop a framework for mitigating the threats and maintaining/recovering suitable overwintering habitat. Threats may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Drought
• Pests
• Disease
• Fire
• Flood/erosion
• Vandalism
• Invasion by non-native plants (not including eucalyptus) These threats, as well as others, may arise and impair the function of Ellwood Mesa as habitat for overwintering monarch butterflies. When threats are encountered, a specific plan of action should be undertaken to address the needs of the situation. However, for planning purposes, the City should be prepared to undertake the response mea sures outlined in Table 2 below. Although not exhaustive , these measures represent a prudent suite of response tools to address future conditions. Measures listed below may prevent or rectify impacts from multiple types of threats, as the intent of the mea sures is to restore and encourage healthy habitat.

The Habitat Management Plan City of Goleta

January 2019 30 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Table 2. Identified Threats and Potential Response Actions Potential Actions/Tools
for Management Purpose/Goal/Target Threat/Cause
Selective removal of
standing dead trees
To protect the living trees from being taken
out if a dead tree falls, and to provide space
for growth of young trees.

Drought, disease,
pests, fire
Selective removal of
downed trees/debris
To open up space in the grove for younger
trees to grow and replace dead trees.

To reduce fuel load.

Drought, disease,
pests, fire
Watering/irrigation

To prevent trees (established and newly
planted) from declining in health because of
insufficient water, or attempt to recover
drought-stressed trees. Provide water to
establish replacement trees. Use of reclaimed
water should be explored.

Drought
Planting trees To correct habitat deficiencies such as:
 The overstory has become too sparse.
 Wind speeds in the grove are too strong.
 A tree died, fell over, or was removed.

Death of one or
more trees,
insufficient canopy,
or aggregation site
protection.

Planting understory species To add or create a diverse understory.

To add nectar sources.

To create variable edge barrier.

Non-native plants,
poor/homogeneous
understory
Planting nectar sources
within and near groves
To make nectar sources for adult monarchs
available near the overwintering sites.

Non-native plants,
understory lacking
nectar species
Selective pruning
To prune or remove understory plants when
they reduce monarch butterfly flight space or
aggregation areas. To protect/maintain the
open interior of the grove.

Understory
becomes too dense
Re-contouring/grading In the case of a flood, to correct erosion and reshape the drainage channel to protect
trees.

Flood/erosion
Installation of erosion
control best management
practices (BMPs)
To prevent future erosion and direct flows
away from erosion-sensitive areas (exposed
roots, etc.).

Flood/erosion

Action 12 -1.3. Thresholds should be established to direct professional review and potential ac tion to address conditions in the groves. Ultimately, it is envisioned that quantitative thresholds will be established based on the results of monitoring and scientific study within the groves (Programs 20, 21, and 22). However, until adequate reference data are available, action thresholds will be determined qualitatively by the City in consultation with a qualified monarch butterfly biologist.

City of Goleta The Habitat Management Plan
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 31 January 2019

Factors for Consideration:
• Did a major tree fall down in or adjacent to a known overwintering site? • Is a butterfly expert recommending that action be taken? • Has the butterfly overwintering population at a specific site decreased dramatically in a way that does not follow the populations at other sites in the vicinity? • Is there erosion or threat of exposed roots of trees in or adjacent to a known overwintering site?
• Has the tree canopy decreased noticeably and dramatically? • Has a certified arborist identified a high-risk tree that could degrade the aggregation site?
Steps for Taking Action:

1. Identify the threat (persistent or temporary, site-specific or large-scale).

2. Consult with a qualified monarch butterfly biologist, guided by the goals for a sustainable overwintering habitat.

3. Develop a plan of action.
• If the problem is large -scale, a prescribed action may be tak en in phases and the effect will be evaluated to assess success before any large-scale implementation of the action.
• Manipulative experiments may occur in coordination with adaptive management, such as pilot studies, to inform decisions.

4. Obtain approvals . Depending on the plan of action, authorization from the City Council, CCC, and/or resource agencies may be needed. Environmental review may also be required, depending on the scope.

5. Implement the plan of action.

6. Monitor and document results.
• Areas affected by response actions, especially major ones, should be included in the monitoring program conducted under Program 20, Biological Monitoring Program.

Action 12-1.4. Implement Program 13, Integrated Pest Management Program, to help maintain tree health and control infestation in the eucalyptus groves supporting monarch butterfly aggregation sites.

Action 12-1.5. Cut down or prune trees identified as a threat to butterfly aggregation sites because they may fall and cause injury or collapse o n other trees important to sustaining aggregation sites.

The Habitat Management Plan City of Goleta

January 2019 32 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Action 12-1.6. Maintain a living forest within the outline of pre-drought forest extent as determined with historic aerial photographs. R estore sections of the forest where dead zones occur due to multiple tree die-offs.

Action 12-1.7. Implement Program 14, Invasive Plant Management Program, particularly regarding non- native vines that could affect the quality of monarch butterfly habitat, following recommendations for eradication consistent with the California Inv asive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) and conservation priorities of monarch butterflies and their habitat.

Action 12 -1.8. Implement Program 20 , Biological Monitoring Program , to provide information regarding management of eucalyptus groves to ensure their health and longevity.

Action 12-1.9. Annually, identify conditions that threaten trees at aggregation sites and include recommended actions in the Implementation Plan to reduce perceived threats.

Action 12-1.10. Plant trees as needed to maintain grove density and improve monarch butterfly habitat. Plant in locations that improve aggregation site conditions as per the best available scientific analysis, and replant areas within historic eucalyptus grove extent where gaps have occurred from drought die-back.

Action 1 2-1.11 Following evaluation of compatibility with existing habitat and functionality with respect to butterfly habitat, conduct a pilot planting for any eucalyptus species considered for tree restoration that is not present in the MBHMP area as of 2018.

Policy 12-2. Eucalyptus trees in the groves containing monarch butterfly aggregation sites shall be managed, as feasible, to provide sustainable habitat for butterfly aggregation sites.

Action 12-2.1. When considering eucalyptus or other tree replacement actions, consider tree configurations that retain open areas for monarch butterfly patrolling and monarch overwintering preferences.

Action 12-2.2. Investigate potential enhancement to monarch butterfly patrolling habitat by reducing tree tangles and fallen debris.

Action 12-2.3. Remove hazard trees as necessary to protect monarch butterfly cluster locations, as consistent with goals for public safety.

Action 12-2.4. Implement, as feasible , Program 10 , Monarch Butterfly Management Program, to facilitate improvements in eucalyptus groves that help sustain aggregation sites.

Action 12-2.5. Protect blue gum saplings as necessary to encourage natural recruitment of trees in the eucalyptus forest.

City of Goleta The Habitat Management Plan
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 33 January 2019

Policy 12-3. Eucalyptus trees within the groves containing monarch butterfly aggregation sites shall be managed, as feasible and consistent with conservation of monarch habitat, to provide safe conditions for the visiting public.

Action 12-3.1. Prune and remove dead, dying, or particularly vulnerable tree trunks and branches that overhang trails and seating areas, or lay across trails, inside and near monarch butterfly aggregation sites to reduce the threat of injury from falling trunks and branches, debris on trails (trip hazards), or low-hanging material across trails that visitors could bump heads on.

Action 12 -3.2. As recommended by the City arborist and detailed in the annual Implementation Plan, conduct work designed to protect and improve the structure of aggregation sites.

Action 12 -3.3. As recommended by the City arborist and detailed in the annual Implementation Plan, remove or prune dead standing, dead suspended, dead on the ground, or thick understory trees both to improve grove tree health and monarch butterfly habitat and to correct hazard conditions for human safety along trails and at observation sites.

Action 12-3.4. Consider using downed, dead trees for seating along trails, or to add to slope stability or help control erosion, for preservation rather than removal, as feasible , considering human safety or wildfire threat.

Action 12-3.5. Remove ground debris, such as accumulations of branches and leaves, at trailheads in particular to reduce threat from wildfires, to reduce threat to human safety from obscured views, and to increase aesthetic appeal.

Action 12-3.6. In consultation with the City arborist, conduct an annual review of tree health in April and May at aggregation sites . D evelop and implement an annual Implementation Plan to address issues identified during the review, including potential need for tree removal or pruning, treatment of diseases or pests, and other potential recommendations.

Policy 12-4. Eucalyptus trees within the groves containing monarch butterfly aggregation sites shall be managed, as feasible, to provide for low wildfire hazards.

Action 12-4.1. Implement Program 4, Community Wildfire Protection Plan, to provide wildfire protection consistent with the City’s adopted CWPP.

Action 12-4.2. Reduce accumulations of dead, dry, and loose organic and other flammable material within eucalyptus groves to decrease potential for ground- level fires becoming canopy fires as a result of ladder effect of fire hazard materials. Sufficient downed wood, debris, and ground cover will be left in place to provide substrate and shelter for monarchs dislodged from clusters.

The Habitat Management Plan City of Goleta

January 2019 34 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Action 12-4.3. Remove accumulations of dead plant material along southern grassland margins of eucalyptus groves and at southern trailheads to reduce threat of grassland fires becoming eucalyptus grove fires as a result of fire hazard s at the boundary between grasslands and groves via mowing or selective weed-whacking. Herbicides shall not be used.

Action 12-4.4. Replace removed understory plants as recommended by the City monarch butterfly biologist with fire-resistant native shrubs to restore and improve habitat structure for monarch butterflies (Appendix 3).

Action 12-4.5. Coordinate (1) butterfly habitat management, (2) public access and safety needs, (3) fire management requirements, and (4) wildlife habitat restoration proposals to ensure management priorities and implementation of procedures that provide the most compatible result for the conservation of monarch butterflies, while also respecting the goals of the other MBHMP programs, as feasible.

Program Status: Although eucalyptus trees in some groves with monarch butterfly aggregation sites are in good health (e.g., Sandpiper and Ocean Meadows, both of which are more windrow-like than grove-like), others are of average health (Ellwood West), and some are rated poor (Ellwood East, Ellwood North, and the important Ellwood Main) . As of July 2017, a significant die-off of trees occurred from drought and pest infestation, resulting in over 1,200 dead trees on Ellwood Mesa.

Program Needs : Quantitative habitat condition standards based on best available science that establishes thresholds for action. With adoption of this MBHMP and implementation of the 22 programs—in particular, Program 12, Tree Management Program—the health of the eucalyptus groves supporting monarch butterfly aggregation sites is anticipated to improve and become a more sustainable resource.

Program Contact: Public Works Department

13. Integrated Pest Management Program
Overview: Eucalyptus trees are subject to a variety of pests and diseases that can i njure or kill trees. When trees occur in groves, the spread of pests and disease is facilitated by proximity to infected trees, resulting in the potential of widespread loses. Current and past infestations at Ellwood Mesa of blue gum and river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) include lerp psyllids on leaves, tortoise beetles, longhorned borer beetles, and orange sulfur fungus. Insect pests are often present in equilibrium with their predators and do not need further control. However, new threats to trees on Ellwood Mesa may occur that require pest control measures. Invasive non-native species such as English ivy and cape ivy also can be problematic, smothering entire trees and changing or destroying wildlife habitat (Refer to Program 15, Invasive Plant Management Program). Various approaches to pest management will be necessary to try experimentally to determine which approach works best for each pest without affecting native plant and animal species , including birds, and monarch butterflies and their seasonal aggregation sites.

City of Goleta The Habitat Management Plan
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 35 January 2019

Goal 13. Control or eradicate, as feasible, plant, animal, fungal, and other pests that would result in detectable impacts on monarch butterflies or degrade monarch butterfly habitat.

Policy 13-1. To maintain current knowledge of pests and diseases, the City shall conduct an annual inventory of organisms negatively affecting trees in the groves at Ellwood Mesa.

Action 13-1.1. Conduct an inventory of pests and diseases throughout the groves and windrows at Ellwood Mesa.

Action 13-1.2. Conduct an inventory of pests and diseases within the monarch butterfly aggregation sites in the Ellwood North, Ellwood West, Ellwood Main, Ellwood East, Sandpiper, and Ocean Meadows groves.

Policy 13-2. The City shall consider using a variety of approa ches to pest management to prevent pests and diseases from affecting eucalyptus groves, particularly those supporting seasonal aggregation sites for monarch butterflies.

Action 13-2.1. As feasible, experiment with different integrated pest management (IPM) approaches for different pest s and diseases to determine which approach best suits the conditions in eucalyptus groves at Ellwood Mesa.

Action 13-2.2. Implement wise management practices in the eucalyptus groves at Ellwood Mesa that do not facilitate the spread of pests and diseases in groves.

Action 13-2.3. Identify current problems that require immediate treatment and implement appropriate treatment protocols.

Action 13 -2.4. Implement a pest and disease monitoring program, as feasible, to determine success of treatments and any new infestations requiring treatment.

Program Status: Currently, no IPM approaches are implemented for eucalyptus trees at Ellwood Mesa. A tree inventory was conducted in 2017 that found over 1,200 dead eucalyptus trees on Ellwood Mesa City property. An Implementation Plan is in preparation to address tree health issues.

Program Needs : Adopt the MBHMP and implement the 22 MBHMP programs—including Program 13, Integrated Pest Management Program—to reduce the threat of impacts on tree health and sustainability and the potential for degradation of habitat supporting monarch butterfly aggregation sites.

Program Contact: Public Works Department

14. Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Program
Overview: This program focuses on the enhancement of the eucalyptus groves from a native plant and wildlife habitat perspective and on the restoration of the Devereux Creek corridor along the The Habitat Management Plan City of Goleta

January 2019 36 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

northern margin of Ellwood West, Ellwood Main, and Ellwood East groves. The mid -canopy vegetation and under story of the eucalyptus groves is generally lacking or in some situations is composed of non-native invasive plant species. Enhancement of groves with native plant species would benefit native wildlife. Various native plants are present but scattered within the groves. Most of these plant species have fleshy fruits and are bird-dispersed. Restoration of portions of Devereux Creek associated with eucalyptus groves, as feasible, is consistent with the goal to restore Devereux Creek. This restoration would provide important habitat for native plant and animal species and would potentially improve water quality flowing downstream to Devereux Slough and the Pacific Ocean.

Goal 14. To provide for the enhancement of native plant and animal habitats in the context of preserving the monarch butterfly habitat associated with established eucalyptus groves.

Policy 14-1. Establishment of appropriate native plants—in particular, ground cover, shrub, and mid-canopy species—shall be encouraged in the eucalyptus groves and along the Devereux Creek corridor outside of the eucalyptus groves.

Action 14-1.1. Plant experimental plots of native ground cover species to determine which species may result in sustainable populations.

Action 14-1.2. Focus enhancement efforts on native pl ants existing in the eucalyptus groves, such as toyon ( Heteromeles arbutifolia ), and native plants with nectar sources for monarchs (Appendix 3).

Action 14-1.3. Coordinate with Program 13, Integrated Pest Management Program, and Program 15, Invasive Exotic Plant Management Program.

Policy 14-2. Areas between eucalyptus groves shall be considered for habitat enhancement and restoration alternatives.

Action 14.2.1. Implement priority native plant restoration activities along Devereux Creek in areas outside of eucalyptus groves.

Action 14 -2.2. Eradicate non -native herbaceous cover, seedlings , and saplings (not including eucalyptus saplings) in areas between eucalyptus groves to encourage or actively plant local natives.

Policy 14.3. Restoration of Devereux Creek shall include appropriate actions to improve the habitat structure, ecological functions and processes, and native biodiversity of the existing native riparian areas.

Action 14-3.1. Restoration activities include establishment of a riparian area along the banks of Devereux Creek composed of native riparian tree species.

City of Goleta The Habitat Management Plan
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 37 January 2019

Action 14-3.2. Ensure that no restoration activities along Devereux Creek shall result in increased flooding.

Action 14-3.3. Coordinate to align efforts with other restoration projects under separate permits or mitigation plans for Devereux Creek.

Policy 14-4. Native plant species are considered to be local genotypes of plants occurring naturally within the Ellwood Mesa/Devereux Creek Ecosystem.

Action 14-4.1. Collect all plant materials for use in restoration projects from existing native plant populations in the Ellwood Mesa/Devereux Creek Ecosystem, where feasible.

Action 14 -4.2. Collect plant material from the nearest existing populations for re - introduction of extirpated species.

Action 14-4.3. Obtain native plants for use in restoration from local nurseries or growers within the Santa Barbara area, emphasizing contract-grown material of local genotypes.

Policy 14-5. No enhancement or restoration actions shall result in negative impac ts on the quality of the eucalyptus groves that provide monarch butterfly habitat.

Action 14-5.1. Coordinate with Program 10, Monarch Butterfly Management Program; Program 11, Wildlife Habitat Management Program; and Program 12, Tree Management Program.

Policy 14-6. No enhancement or restoration actions shall conflict with the goals and policies of the CWPP.

Action 14-6.1. Coordinate all enhancement and restoration activities with the guidelines and recommendations of the CWPP.

Program Status: An Implementation Plan that describes work activities to occur each year will accompany this MBHMP.

Program Needs : Adoption of this MBHMP and implementation of Program 14 , Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Program, and fund-raising necessary to design, permit, implement, and maintain the projects.

Program Contacts: Public Works Department and Planning and Environmental Review Department The Habitat Management Plan City of Goleta

January 2019 38 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Photo 3. Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), a Native Shrub or Small Tree in the Ellwood Main Grove

15. Invasive Plant Management Program
Overview: Cal-IPC has established a list of invasive, non-native plant species of concern regarding conservation of California natural heritage ( www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php). Invasive non-native plants are defined by Cal-IPC (2006) as “plants that 1) are not native to, yet can spread into, wildland ecosystems, and that also 2) displace native species, hybridize with native species, alter biological communities, or alter ecosystem processes.” Non-native invasive plants have been given High, Moderate, or Limited ratings by Cal -IPC, depending on the severity of their potential for resulting in impacts on wildland ecosystems.

The monarch butterfly aggregation sites at Ellwood Mesa are themselves characterized and dominated by non-native and potentially invasive plants species—most importantly blue gum, given a “Moderate” rating, and to a lesser degree river red gum, given a “Limited” rating. However, these stands of introduced trees are designated as an ESHA in the General Plan because of thei r importance to monarch butterflies as fall and winter aggregation sites. Several other aggressively invasive non-native plant species have prominent visual and habitat impacts within the monarch aggregation sites at Ellwood Mesa. These are mostly vines th at climb butterfly habitat trees, and herbaceous ground cover, which potentially endanger the character and sustainability of the City of Goleta The Habitat Management Plan
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 39 January 2019

aggregation sites. Examples of these deleterious invasive species at Ellwood Mesa and their ratings are listed below:
• “High” rating:
• Canary Islands ivy (Hedera canariensis)
• English ivy (Hedera helix)
• Cape ivy (Delairea odorata)
• Victorian box or mock orange (Pittosporum undulatum)
• “Moderate” rating:
• Panic veltgrass (Ehrharta erecta)
• Myoporum (Myoporum laetum)
• “Limited” rating:
• Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum)
• New Zealand spinach (Tetragonia tetragonioides)

Photo 4. Canary Islands Ivy (Hedera canariensis) along Trail and Growing up Trees at Ellwood Main
The Habitat Management Plan City of Goleta

January 2019 40 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Goal 15. To eradicate existing stands of invasive non-native species and prevent or control new occurrences of invasive non-native plant species within the monarch butterfly habitat at Ellwood Mesa.

Policy 15-1. The City shall undertake an inventory and generalized mapping program to identify, locate, and prioritize for eradication or control all invasive non- native plant species within the butterfly habitat at Ellwood Mesa.

Action 15-1.1. Identify and map all invasive non-native species identified by Cal-IPC as “High” priority species.

Action 15-1.2. Identify and map all invasive non-native species identified by Cal-IPC as “Moderate” priority species.

Action 15-1.3. Identify all invasive non-native species identified by Cal-IPC as “Limited” or unrated priority species and map any medium to large populations.

Policy 15-2. The City shall control all “High,” “Moderate,” and “Limited” priority invasive plant species within the monarch butterfly habitat, except those species for which monarch butterflies are dependent, as feasible.

Action 15-2.1. Control all “High” priority invasive non-native invasive plant species.

Action 15-2.2. Control all “Moderate” priority, non-native invasive plant species.

Action 15-2.3. Eradicate or control all medium or large stands of “Limited” or unrated priority non-native invasive plant species.

Policy 15-3. The City shall undertake annual monitoring as feasible to identify and eradicate or control new occurrences of “High” or “Moderate” priority invasive non-native plant species.

Action 15 -3.1. Implement monitoring of eradication efforts and potential new occurrences as part of Program 20, Biological Monitoring Program.

Action 15-3.2. Coordinate with other programs in this MBHMP, including Program 14, Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Program.

Program Status: Currently, no non-native invasive plants species control or detection program is in place for the eucalyptus groves at Ellwood Mesa.

Program Needs : Adoption of this MBHMP and implementation of the MBHMP programs, including Program 15, Invasive Plant Management Program.

Program Contacts: Public Works Department and Planning and Environmental Review Department City of Goleta The Habitat Management Plan
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 41 January 2019

16. Ecosystem-wide Management Coordination Program
Overview: The eucalyptus grove s, including those areas where seasonal monarch butterfly aggregation sites occur, do not exist as island ecosystems but in fact are part of a broader ecosystem of the Ellwood Mesa and Devereux Creek Watershed , including UCSB’s North Campus Open Space (Upper Devereux Slough) and Coal Oil Point Reserve. This MBHMP primarily addresses monarch butterfly eucalyptus tree habitat in the Ellwood Mesa Open Space.

Goal 16. To manage the eucalyptus trees supporting seasonal monarch butterfly aggregation sites by coordinating among the 22 programs directed toward the management of monarch butterfly habitat and to consider management of eucalyptus groves in the context of managing the entire Ellwood Mesa Open Space.

Policy 16-1. The City shall manage eucalyptus trees in the context of all eucalyptus habitat supporting monarch butterfly aggregation sites at Ellwood Mesa.

Action 16-1.1. When considering implementation of actions for each program, consider their relationships to other actions in the same program.

Action 16-1.2. When considering implementation of actions for each program, consider their relationships to actions in related programs.

Policy 16-2. The City shall manage eucalyptus trees supporting monarch butterfly aggregation sites in the context of all eucalyptus habitat at Ellwood Mesa.

Action 16-2.1. Through results of Program 20, Biological Monitoring Program, consider potential changes in monarch butterfly use of other aggregation locations at Ellwood Mesa, impacts of pests and diseases throughout the eucalyptus groves , or other relevant factors that can potentially affect monarch butterflies and their habitats at Ellwood Mesa.

Policy 16-3. The City shall manage eucalyptus trees supporting monarch butterfly aggregation sites in the context of all habitats at Ellwood Mesa.

Action 16-3.1. When considering implementation of management actions for eucalyptus trees, consider their relationships to management actions for other habitats and programs for all of Ellwood Mesa.

Program Status: The City regularly coordinates the management of Ellwood Mesa with adjoining public agency land managers , including UCSB and Santa Barbara County. The focus of these management meetings is to ensure that trails are connected, grant applications are coordinated, and general issues such as illegal encampments and police enforcement are discussed and collectively addressed.

Program Needs: Adopt this MBHMP and implement its 22 programs considering the potential interaction of the program actions and results. Examples include eradication of exotic plant species The Habitat Management Plan City of Goleta

January 2019 42 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

(Program 15, Invasive Plant Management Program) and removal of trash and debris (Program 6, Waste Management Program ), followed by habitat enhancement efforts (Program 14 , Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Program) within the affected sites in eucalyptus groves, in particular along affected trails (Program 5, Trail Management Program) with potential for additional erosion.

Program Contacts: Public Works Department and Planning and Environmental Review Department City of Goleta The Habitat Management Plan
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 43 January 2019

C. OUTREACH PROGRAMS
Outreach programs are designed to provide information to visitors, educators, and students to help develop a broad appreciation for natural resources and local natural heritage, with a focus on monarch butterflies.

17. Community Advisory and Docent Program
Overview: The residents of Goleta have been actively involved in the protection and acquisition of Ellwood Mesa over many decades, with a focus on the conservation of the monarch butterfly aggregation sites. The long-term sustainability of the eucalyptus groves and the aggregation sites they support will depend in part on the continuing public involvement in the process.

Goal 17. To provide a formal vehicle to involve public participation, the City shall engage with the City’s butterfly docents to provide recommendations to the Public Works Department.

Policy 17 -1. The City shall engage with the City ’s butterfly doc ents to review MBHMP implementation work plans and make recommendations to the Public Works Department.

Action 17-1.1. Identify a point of contact with the City’s butterfly docents, referred to the as the Butterfly Docent Coordinator, who will coordinate with and speak on behalf of the docents with the Public Works Department , Planning and Environmental Review Department, and Neighborhood Services and Public Safety Department.

Action 17-1.2. Set up regular meetings between the Butterfly Docent Coordinator and City staff.

Policy 17 -2. As needed, the City shall continue to support the City ’s Butterfly Docent Program, the Butterfly Docent Coordinator, and ongoing training for the docents to ensure that educational opportunities for the public are maintained and to demonstrate the City ’s stewardship of the eucalyptus groves.

Action 17-2.1. Continue to support the Butterfly Docent Program and the Butterfly Docent Coordinator.

Action 17-2.2. Continue to support and update the City of Goleta ’s monarch butterfly website at www.goletabutterflygrove.com.

Action 17-2.3. Continue to support development of educational materials to be used by docents during scheduled public tours of the monarch butterfly aggregation sites.

Action 17-2.4. Train docents in the details of this MBHMP.

The Habitat Management Plan City of Goleta

January 2019 44 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Action 17-2.5. Expand the pool of trained docents and encourage docent assistance with the implementation of this MBHMP.

Program Status: An active Butterfly Docent Program, including a Butterfly Docent Coordinator, has been in operation since 2007.

Program Needs: With adoption and implementation of this MBHMP, the existing docent program becomes part of the structure of this MBHMP. No formal volunteer program exists to assist in the implementation of this MBHMP.

Program Contacts: Neighborhood Services and Public Safety Department, Public Works Department, and Planning and Environmental Review Department.

18. Interpretive Program
Overview: Although there are a few signs identifying the Ellwood Main grove and several behavioral signs regarding trails, there are no interpretive signs that provide information regarding the biology of monarch butterflies , general aspects of Ellwood Mesa, and the importance of the aggregation sites. There is an interpretive sign program at the nearby Coronado Butterfly Preserve.

City butterfly docents at Ellwood Mesa provide an important role, and the City’s monarch website has important information and links to the National Geographic monarch web information.

However, for the casual visitor without web access and without the presence of a docent, there is no interpretive information to assist in understanding this significant biological phenomenon.

Goal 18. To establish a useful and informative interpretive signage program at Ellwood Mesa monarch butterfly aggregation sites that is environmentally sensitive and creates a minimum of intrusion into the habitats.

Policy 18-1. The City shall design and install an interpretive signage program that provides important information on the biology of monarch butterflies, the significance of the aggregation sites, and general information on Ellwood Mesa and the eucalyptus groves, when feasible.

Action 18-1.1. Apply for grant funding to design, construct, and install the interpretive signage program.

Action 18-1.2. Design, construct, and install an interpretive signage program that is sensitive to the environment.

Action 18 -1.3. Locate the interpretive signage program in key locations minimally intrusive to the sensitive habitats of Ellwood Mesa.

City of Goleta The Habitat Management Plan
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 45 January 2019

Policy 18-2. The Butterfly Docent Coordinator shall provide input during design, review the draft interpretive program, and make recommendations to the City’s Public Works Department.

Action 18-2.1. Involve the butterfly docents, as feasible, in all phases of development and review of the content and design of signs for the interpretive signage program.

Photo 5. Ellwood Main Grove Entrance Sign at Trailhead along Devereux Creek

Program Status : No on- site interpretive program currently exists for the eucalyptus gro ves supporting monarch butterfly aggregation sites.

Program Needs: Adopt this MBHMP—including Program 18, Interpretive Program—and include links to the city’s existing website and docent program.

Program Contact: Neighborhood Services and Public Safety De partment and the Public Works Department.

19. Education Program
Overview: Education has always been an important part of the Ellwood Mesa monarch butterfly enthusiasm expressed by the residents of the area. Local and regional schools participate on a The Habitat Management Plan City of Goleta

January 2019 46 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

regular basis, especially when monarch butterflies are using the seasonal aggregation sites. Also, the National Geographic educational information is available through the C ity’s website :
www.goletabutterflygrove.com. Therefore, it is important that education is a part of this MBHMP.

Goal 19. To provide educational experiences and information for K–12 students.

Policy 19-1. The City shall continue to work with K–12 students and their schools to explore educational experiences regarding Ellwood Mesa and the eucalyptus groves supporting monarch butterfly aggregation sites.

Action 19 -1.1. Continue to support the educational opportunities provided by the Ellwood Mesa eucalyptus groves and their monarch butterfly aggregation sites.

Action 19-1.2. Create educational materials regarding biology of monarch butterflies and their habitats.

Action 19-1.3. Continue to support the position of Butterfly Docent Coordinator.

Policy 19-2. The City shall continue to support its website containing educational materials regarding monarch butterflies.

Action 19 -2.1. Support, expand, and revise as necessary the City’s website www.goletabutterflygrove.com.

Program Status: The City has active participation in K–12 education programs, including scheduled docent-led tours of the aggregation sites when monarchs are present and presentations at local area schools during science fairs. The City ’s website also includes a link to the Monarch Teachers ’ Network.

Program Needs: Adoption of this MBHMP—including Program 19 , Education Program—will formalize the city’s contributions to K–12 students as part of this MBHMP for Ellwood Mesa.

Program Contact: Neighborhood Services and Public Safety Department City of Goleta The Habitat Management Plan
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 47 January 2019

D. MONITORING, RESEARCH, AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAMS
Monitoring and research programs provide the mechanism for assessing environmental conditions and conducting original studies to help understand the ecology of monarch butterflies, particularly at Ellwood Mesa. Information obtained from these programs and other sources can be used to adapt the MBHMP to improved or additional information or changing conditions.

20. Biological Monitoring Program
Overview: Background studies of monarch butterfly number, aggregation locations, environmental conditions, tree health, wildlife, botanical resources, and climate have been conducted at Ellwood Mesa over many years. However, more detailed studies are warranted regarding tree health and failure risk, aggregation site canopy cover and light intensity, wind patterns, microclimate, soil moisture and water demand, viable forest density, pest control, wildlife species, invasive non-native plants, eucalyptus tree health (including pest and diseases), enhancement and restoration projects within the groves, impacts from access trails, and other important aspects of the biological and physical resources related to monarch butterfly aggregation sites.

Goal 20: To develop and implement a monitoring program integrating various components of the biological resources and impacts related to the eucalyptus groves that sup port seasonal monarch butterfly aggregation sites.

Policy 20-1. The City shall maintain annual counts of the butterfly population at the various aggregation sites on Ellwood Mesa.

Action 20-1.1. Count and document monarch butterfly population number and cluster locations within the six Ellwood Mesa aggregation sites every year . The counts shall be conducted every 2 weeks through the overwintering season (October 1 through March 15) using the counting protocol established by Xerces Society , as funding allow s. Where possible, record the tree tag numbers of trees with clustering monarchs to establish habitat use patterns (Althouse and Meade 2018).

Policy 20 -2. The City shall conduct an annual assessment of ecosystem-wide tree and vegetation health on Ellwood Mesa, as funding allows.

Action 20-2.1. Track ecosystem-wide tree and vegetation health on Ellwood Mesa using high resolution multispectral and hyperspectral imaging and analysis, or similar appropriate means (Appendix 2).

Action 20-2.2. Coordinate results of the ecosystem -wide tree health assessment with Program 12, Tree Management Program, as feasible, to determine necessary and applicable management actions.

The Habitat Management Plan City of Goleta

January 2019 48 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Policy 20-3. Create a Monitoring Report, updated annually, resulting from the information obtained during the implementation of the various policies and actions called for in this MBHMP.

Action 20-3.1. Track the implementation of this MBHMP in the form of a Monitoring Report.

Action 20-3.2. Conduct a Visitor Impact Assessment as part of the monitoring program to determine use patterns and potential impacts on trails, changes in erosion of trails, and potential impacts on aggregation sites through which trails are located.

Action 20-3.3. Coordinate results of the monitoring reports with Program 22, Adaptive Management Program, as feasible, to determine if changes in management actions are necessary.

Program Status: Various studies and butterfly counts have been gathered on a somewhat irregular basis. The City recently conducted a Tree Inventory and Health Analysis. However, no formal regular monitoring program has been developed or implemented at eucalyptus groves, in particular those areas that support monarch butterfly aggregation sites.

Program Needs: Adopt and implement this MBHMP, including Program 20, Biological Monitoring Program.

Program Contact: Public Works Department

21. Monarch Research Program
Overview: Although the City has conducted field studies as part of the preparation of this MBHMP, the City has not actively encouraged scientific stud ies using appropriate and cautious methods to maintain and improve habitat of the Ellwood Mesa habitats.

Goal 21. Encourage research projects and identify funding for research associated with monarch butterflies and their habitats at Ellwood Mesa.

Policy 21-1. The City shall allow for certain research projects that investigate the biology of monarch butterflies and their habitats at Ellwood Mesa and that provide information helpful to this MBHMP management programs.

Action 21 -1.1. Evaluate requests for r esearch and , where approved, issue Scientific Research Permits to regulate the research efforts.

Action 21-1.2. Ensure that scientists use non-invasive research projects at Ellwood Mesa, in particular those that focus on monarch butterflies and their habitats, and require that the City of Goleta The Habitat Management Plan
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 49 January 2019

results of the research are provided to the City and posted on the City ’s website at www.goletabutterflygrove.com.

Action 21-1.3. Encourage research of the plants native to Santa Barbara County with regard to their ability to provide suitable monarch butterfly overwintering habitat and their applications for the restoration of the Ellwood Mesa.

Program Status : No formal, ongoing research projects are conducted at the Ellwood Mesa eucalyptus groves that support monarch butterfly aggregation sites.

Program Needs: Adopt and implement this MBHMP, including Program 21, Monarch Research Program.

Program Contact: Public Works Department

22. Adaptive Management Program
Overview: Management plans with ongoing maintenance, restoration, monitoring, and research programs generally develop an information base that helps provide insight into those portions of the implemented management plan that are performing well and those that could be performing better or differently with changing situations. In addition to the update and amendment process provided in Program 8, MBHMP Review, Update, and Amendment Program , the Adaptive Management Program provides a vehicle for the management authority to ma ke adjustments in management approaches on an as-needed basis, especially as new information provides new opportunities for improved management practices and resource stewardship.

Goal 22 . To establish an adaptive management approach to resource management at the eucalyptus groves that support s monarch butterfly aggregation sites and their surrounding environment at Ellwood Mesa.

Policy 22-1. The City shall use an adaptive management approach to resource management at the eucalyptus groves that supports monarch butterfly aggregation sites and their surrounding environment at Ellwood Mesa.

Action 22-1.1. Implement adaptive management procedures associated with all relevant programs of this MBHMP for Ellwood Mesa.

Action 22-1.2. Include a description of adaptive management actions in the Monitoring Report (Action 20.3-1).

Action 22-1.3. Conduct a review of management policies and actions every fifth year, as feasible, to determine possible patterns in change regarding monarch butterfly use of the aggregation sites and overall ecosystem health of the monarch butterfly habitat at Ellwood Mesa.

The Habitat Management Plan City of Goleta

January 2019 50 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Program Status : Currently, there are no adaptive management procedures associated with the management of the eucalyptus groves at Ellwood Mesa.

Program Needs: Adopt and implement this MBHMP, including Program 22, Adaptive Management Program.

Program Contact: Public Works Department
City of Goleta The Habitat Management Plan
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 51 January 2019

E. CONCLUSION
This MBHMP for the Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space provides a fully functional programmatic plan for the management of natural resources, focusing on habitat that supports the phenomenal occurrence of seasonal aggregations of thousands of monarch butterflies at six aggregation sites at Ellwood Mesa. With adoption and implementation of this MBHMP, the City of Goleta will fulfill a major commitment to the natural resources of Ellwood Mesa and its residents, and all those committed to the conservation of monarch butterflies.

The Habitat Management Plan City of Goleta

January 2019 52 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

F. REFERENCES
Althouse and Meade, Inc. 2013. Ellwood Monarch Butterfly Habitat Assessment. Prepared for the City of Goleta.

Althouse and Meade, Inc. 2018. Ellwood Mesa Implementation Plan. Prepared for the City of Goleta. July 2018.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2017. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Database (NDD). Special Animals List. Periodic publication. 65 pp.

Sacramento, CA. October 2017.

California Invasive Plant Pest Council ( Cal-IPC). 2006. California Invasive Plant Inventory. Cal-IPC Publication 2006-02. February. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. Available:
http://www.cal-ipc.org/docs/ip/inventory/pdf/Inventory2006.pdf.

City of Goleta, County of Santa Barbara, and University of California at Santa Barbara. 2004. The Ellwood-Devereux Coast Open Space and Habitat Management Plan. March.

City of Goleta. 2006. Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan. September. Planning and Environmental Review Department.

City of Goleta. 2012. City of Goleta Community Wildfire Protection Plan. March 20, 2012 County of Santa Barbara. 2018. Histor ical Rainfall Data. Public Works Department. http://www.countyofsb.org/pwd/rainhistory.sbc. Accessed June 1, 2018.

Pelton, E., S. Jepsen, C. Schultz, C. Fallon, and S.H. Black. 2016. State of t he Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites in California. 40+vi pp. Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.

The Xerces Society. 2017. Protecting California’s Butterfly Grove: Management Guidelines for Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Habitat. 32+vi pp. Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.

City of Goleta The Habitat Management Plan
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 53 January 2019

G. LIST OF PREPARERS
This MBHMP was collaborative effort. Consultants and City staff involved in the preparation of this plan are listed below.

City of Goleta
Anne Wells, Advance Planning Manager, Planning and Environmental Services Bob Morgenstern, Public Works Manager, Public Works Department Althouse and Meade, Inc.

Daniel E. Meade, Ph.D., Principal Scientist
Corey Meyers, Arborist
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Chris Julian, Program Manager/Senior Regulatory Specialist Charis van der Heide, Associate Biologist
Agri-Turf Supplies, Inc.

Robert Muraoka, Consulting Arborist
The Habitat Management Plan City of Goleta

January 2019 54 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

This Page Has Been Intentionally Left Blank.

City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan A-1 January 2019

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITIES, SCHEDULE, AND

ESTIMATED COSTS
For the purposes of this MBHMP, implementation priorities, scheduling, and cost estimates are provided on a general programmatic basis. Programs are ranked as Urgent, High, and Moderate priority. They also are given an Ongoing and Long-term (+/- 5-year) scheduling estimate. Cost estimates are on an annual basis, with staff time listed as such and some first -year estimates in brackets.

Table A1. Implementation Priorities and Cost Estimates
Program
Cost ($)
City Labor Cost
(hours)
Priority Schedule
Depart-
ment
Respon-
sible Annual
One-
Time Annual
One-
Time
A. Administrative Programs

1. Municipal Management
Program $16,000 $13,000 $26,000
(260)
$9,600
(96) High ASAP PW

2. Fiscal Program $1,000 — $19,600
(196) — High ASAP PW

3. Interagency Cooperative
Program $3,000 — $9,600
(96) — High ASAP PW,

NSPS, PER

4. Community Wildfire
Protection Program $8,000 — $7,800
(78) — Moderate Annually PW

5. Trail Management
Program $10,000 $10,000 $45,600
(456)
$24,000
(240) Moderate Annually PW

6. Waste Management
Program $1,500 — $10,400
(104)
$1,600
(16) Moderate Annually PW/NSPS

7. Aesthetic Resources
Management Program — — $7,000
(70) — Low Annually PW

8. MBHMP Review, Update,
and Amendment Program $10,000 — $12,400
(124) — Moderate Annually PW, PER

9. Catastrophic Event
Response Program $75,000 — $20,400
(204) — Moderate Annually PW
B Natural Resources Management Programs

10. Monarch Butterfly
Management Program $2,000 — $6,000
(60) — High Annually PW

11. Wildlife Habitat
Management Program $2,750 — $5,600
(56) — Moderate Annually PW
Appendix A City of Goleta

January 2019 A-2 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Program
Cost ($)
City Labor Cost
(hours)
Priority Schedule
Depart-
ment
Respon-
sible Annual
One-
Time Annual
One-
Time

12. Tree Management
Program $49,600 — $99,200
(992) — High ASAP PW

13. Integrated Pest
Management Program $11,500 $5,000 $11,600
(116) — Moderate As funding
is available PW

14. Habitat Enhancement
and Restoration Program $30,000 $40,000 $29,600
(296)
$16,000
(160) High ASAP PW, PER

15. Invasive Plant
Management Program $5,500 $27,500 $14,800
(148) — Moderate As funding
is available PW, PER

16. Ecosystem-wide
Management Coordination
Program
— — $5,000
(50) — Low Annually PW, PER
C. Outreach Programs

17. Community Advisory
and Docent Program $5,000 — $77,200
(772) — High Annually PW,

NSPS, PER

18. Interpretive Program $500 $3,000 $8,800
(88)
$6,000
(60) Moderate As needed PW, NSPS

19. Education Program — — $12,400
(124)
$2,000
(20) Moderate Annually NSPS
D. Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management Programs

20. Biological Monitoring
Program $20,000 — $8,000
(80) — High Annually PW

21. Monarch Research
Program $34,000 $40,000 $4,000
(40)
$4,000
(40) Low As needed PW

22. Adaptive Management
Program $5,000 — $8,000
(80) — Low Every 5
years PW
Totals $290,350 $138,500 $449,000
(4,490)
$63,200
(632)
Grand Total Over 5 Years $1,590,250 $2,308,200
(23,082) TOTAL: $3,898,450
PW = Public Works Department
NSPS = Neighborhood Services and Public Safety Department PER = Planning and Environmental Review Department

City of Goleta Appendix A
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan A-3 January 2019

Table A2. Cost Estimates by Action

Materials and
Contractors Cost ($)
City of Goleta Staff
Time (hours)
Notes/Assumptions Annual One-
Time Annual One-
Time
A. ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAMS

1. Municipal Management Program
Action 1-1.1 $4,000 — — 24 Prepare and conduct public
workshop, 40 consultant hours
Action 1-1.2 — $8,000 — — IS/MND
Action 1-1.3 — $5,000 — 40 Depends on quantity and scope of revisions
Action 1-1.4 — — — 32 4 hours for the review by 8
people
Action 1-2.1 — — 200 — City coordination
Action 1-3.1 $10,000 — 40 — Prepare annual Implementation Plan
Action 1-3.2 $2,000 — 20 — Prepare and conduct City
Council presentation, 20
consultant hours

2. Fiscal Program
Action 2-1.1 — — 24 — Accounting staff, 12 hours bi-
annually
Action 2-1.2 — — 8 — Accounting staff
Action 2-1.3 $1,000 — 8 — Annual needs list to be
included into Implementation
Plan, accounting staff to
determine operating budget
Action 2-2.1 — — 136 — 8 hrs/month + 40 hours grant
application coordinating
Action 2-2.2 — — 20 —
As compensatory mitigation
fees are paid

3. Interagency Cooperative Program
Action 3-1.1 $1,000 — 24 — 2 hr/month for coordination
meetings/calls with City staff
and consultants
Action 3-1.2 $1,000 — 48 — 2 hr/month for coordination
meetings/calls with City staff
and consultants
Action 3-1.3 $1,000 — 24 — 2 hr/month for coordination
meetings/calls with City staff
and consultants
Appendix A City of Goleta

January 2019 A-4 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Materials and
Contractors Cost ($)
City of Goleta Staff
Time (hours)
Notes/Assumptions Annual One-
Time Annual One-
Time

4. Community Wildfire Protection Program (CWPP)
Action 4-1.1 — — 12 — CWPP
Action 4-1.2 $2,000 — 40 — PW's site maintenance. the
majority of this cost is included
in Program 14
Action 4-1.3 — — — — Restrictions on timing of work
Action 4-1.4 $6,000 — 24 — Coordination with butterfly
and fire experts 2hr/mo prior
to work activates. Expert time
for consultation/surveys/
inspections monthly as
necessary
Action 4-2.1 — — 2 — Cost incorporated into
Program 12

5. Trail Management Program
Action 5-1.1 — — 192 — 2 days/month for trail
maintenance
Action 5-1.2 — — — — Cost incorporated into
Program 12
Action 5-1.3 $1,000 — — — Staff time in Action 5-1.1
Action 5-1.4 $5,000 $10,000 96 240 Installation cost & 2 wks x 3 staff; maintenance 1 day/mo
Action 5-1.5 — — 64 — 2 day effort x 2 staff x twice
during wet season
Action 5-1.6 — — 16 — 2 day effort once annually
Action 5-1.7 — — 8 — Annual review of trails
boundaries
Action 5-1.8 $4,000 — 40 — 5 days x 1 staff and risk
assessor, trails, arborist,
butterfly biologist
Action 5-2.1 — — 20 — Staff coordination time and
meetings
Action 5-2.2 — — 20 — Staff coordination time and
meetings

6. Waste Management Program
Action 6-1.1 — — 96 — 1 day/mo
Action 6-2.1 $1,500 — — 16 2 days staff time and signs
Action 6-2.2 — — 4 — Cost incorporated into
Program 17
City of Goleta Appendix A
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan A-5 January 2019

Materials and
Contractors Cost ($)
City of Goleta Staff
Time (hours)
Notes/Assumptions Annual One-
Time Annual One-
Time
Action 6-2.3 — — 4 — Inspection of trash cans
annually

7. Aesthetic Resources Management Program
Action 7-1.1 — — 10 — Read and adopt all programs
Action 7-1.2 — — 20 — Program 18
Action 7-2.1 — — 20 — Review signage and fencing.

Cost included in Program 5
Action 7-2.2 — — 20 — Staff time to review restoration
plans

8. MBHMP Review, Update and Amendment Program
Action 8-1.1 $1,000 — 32 — Staff and consultant time for review
Action 8-1.2 $2,000 — 24 — City staff and consultant's’ time for updates
Action 8-1.3 $2,000 — 24 — City staff and consultants’ time for updates
Action 8-1.4 $2,000 — 24 — City staff and consultants’ time for response to public
comments
Action 8-1.5 $3,000 — 12 — Update IS/MND, if necessary.

Consultant time
Action 8-1.6 — — 8 — City Council approval/meeting

9. Catastrophic Event Response Program
Action 9-1.1 — — 4 — Cost included in Program 12
Action 9-1.2 — — 4 — Cost included in Program 4
Action 9-1.3 — — 4 — Cost included in Program 13
Action 9-2.1 $25,000 — 80 — Expert/arborist/risk/biologist consultant time, plus materials
to assess
Action 9-2.2 $50,000 — 80 —
Expert/arborist/risk/biologist
consultant time, plus materials
to design and implement
strategy
Action 9-2.3 — — 32 — City staff time
B. NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

10. Monarch Butterfly Management Program
Action 10-1.1 — — 8 — Program 12
Action 10-1.2 — — 8 — Program 20 and 21
Action 10-2.1 — — 8 — Program 9
Action 10-2.2 $1,000 — 20 — Staying current with research, staff time, and consultant time
to inform staff.

Appendix A City of Goleta

January 2019 A-6 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Materials and
Contractors Cost ($)
City of Goleta Staff
Time (hours)
Notes/Assumptions Annual One-
Time Annual One-
Time
Action 10-3.1 — — 8 — Program 14
Action 10-4.1 $1,000 — 8 — Guidance to staff and education

11. Wildlife Habitat Management Program
Action 11-1.1 $1,000 — 40 — 0.5-hr training per employee Action 11-1.2 $750 — 8 — Arborist/biologist as needed
Action 11-1.3 $800 — — — Cost of nesting bird survey if needed, NBS biologist 1 day to
confirm nests $800
Action 11-1.4 $200 — 8 — Educate City/crew to avoid
water
Action 11-2.1 — — — — Program 14
Action 11-2.2 — — — — Program 14
Action 11-2.3 — — — — Program 14
Action 11-2.4 — — — — Program 14

12. Tree Management Program
Action 12-1.1 $4,800 — 40 — Monarch biologist (8 hrs) and arborist (16 hrs) site visits.
$2400. Implementation Plan
preparation 16 hrs. $2400. =
$4800. Quarterly site visits
32 hrs, IP 8 hrs
Action 12-1.2 — — — — Guidance for identifying threats
Action 12-1.3 — — — — Guidance for establishing
thresholds
Action 12-1.4 — — — — Program 13
Action 12-1.5 $23,800 — 20 — Arborist for 5 days: $4000, Butterfly biologist for 1 day to
confirm tree work: $800,
Wildlife biologist to monitor
work for 5 days: $4000,
Tree crew for 5 days: 15,000.
(Total = $23,800.) City staff to
check work for 5 days @4 hrs.
(Total = 20 hours.)
Action 12-1.6 — — — — Would be accomplished with
replanting restoration.

Action 12-1.7 — — — — Program 14
Action 12-1.8 — — — — Program 20
Action 12-1.9 $1,600 — — — Biologist/arborist field visit 2 days
City of Goleta Appendix A
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan A-7 January 2019

Materials and
Contractors Cost ($)
City of Goleta Staff
Time (hours)
Notes/Assumptions Annual One-
Time Annual One-
Time
Action 12-1.10 $5,000 — 60 — Container trees and labor
estimate, depends on # of
trees planted.

Action 12-2.1 — — — — Direction for restoration
design
Action 12-2.2 $800 — 32 — Biologist 1 field day, City staff labor for 4 x 4 days
Action 12-2.3 — — — — Included in 12-1.5
Action 12-2.4 — — — — Program 10
Action 12-3.1 $8,800 — 768 — Inspection of trails one per month (16 hr/mo=192hr/yr),
maintenance crew to
prune/remove hazard limbs and
trucks every month for 2 days
(3 crew, 2 d/mo = 576hr/yr).

Est. 768 total staff time plus
equipment. Arborist 5 days
$4000, butterfly biologist 1 day
to confirm tree work $800,
wildlife biologist to monitor
work 5 days $4000.

Action 12-3.2 — — — — Included in 12-1.5
Action 12-3.3 — — — — Included in 12-1.5
Action 12-3.4 — — — — Included in 12-1.5
Action 12-3.5 — — 48 — 3 days x 2 staff
Action 12-3.6 $4,800 — 8 — Implementation Plan.

Arborist: 20 hours.

Monarch biologist: 20 hours.

Report prep: 8 hours. @ 100/
hr.

City staff to review
Implementation Plan
Action 12-4.1 — — 0 — Program 4
Action 12-4.2 — — — Program 4
Action 12-4.3 — — — Program 4
Action 12-4.4 — — 8 — To review programs annually
Action 12-4.5 — — 8 — Staff time to coordinate

13. Integrated Pest Management Program
Action 13-1.1 — — — — Arborist pest assessment can
be done during annual plan site
visits, 12-3.6
Appendix A City of Goleta

January 2019 A-8 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Materials and
Contractors Cost ($)
City of Goleta Staff
Time (hours)
Notes/Assumptions Annual One-
Time Annual One-
Time
Action 13-1.2 — — — — Arborist pest assessment can
be done during annual plan site
visits, 12-3.6
Action 13-2.1 $5,000 — 40 — Estimate for experimental
techniques
Action 13-2.2 $2,000 — 20 — Guidance
Action 13-2.3 $3,000 — 24 — Pest inspection by specialist with recommendations; staff
time to review
Action 13-2.4 $1,500 $5,000 32 — Pest specialist to develop and maintain pest monitoring
program and materials, and
staff time to implement.

14. Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Program
Action 14-1.1 $20,000 $25,000 120 80 Container plants, planting, irrigation system, water,
maintenance, and monitoring;
Initial experimental plots
allowance. City staff
maintenance: 10 hr/month.

Action 14-1.2 — — — — Guidance
Action 14-1.3 — — — — Programs 13 and 15
Action 14-2.1 $10,000 $15,000 120 80 Container plants, planting, irrigation system, water,
maintenance, and monitoring;
Initial experimental plots
allowance. City staff
maintenance: 10 hr/month.

Action 14-2.2 — — — — Program 15
Action 14-2.3 — — 20 — Guidance
Action 14-3.1 — — 12 — Coordination activities
Action 14-3.2 — — 12 — Coordination activities
Action 14-3.3 — — 12 — Coordination activities
Action 14-4.1 — — — — Direction for collection
locations
Action 14-4.2 — — — —
Direction for collection
locations
Action 14-4.3 — — — — Direction for collection
locations
Action 14-5.1 — — — — Coordinate with Program 10,
11, 12
City of Goleta Appendix A
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan A-9 January 2019

Materials and
Contractors Cost ($)
City of Goleta Staff
Time (hours)
Notes/Assumptions Annual One-
Time Annual One-
Time
Action 14-6.1 — — — — Coordinate with Wildfire
Protection Plan

15. Invasive Plant Management Program
Action 15-1.1 $2,500 $5,000 Renew map every two years.

Initial mapping for 1511.1, 1.2,
and 1.3 = 40 hrs. Botanist: 10
hrs. GIS @ $100 = $5000
Action 15-1.2 — — — — Cost in 15-1.1
Action 15-1.3 — — — — Cost in 15-1.1
Action 15-2.1 $1,000 $7,500 36 Control invasive plants allowance. Hand removal,
herbicide. Hand crews CCC
for 5 days per year.

Action 15-2.2 $1,000 $7,500 36 Control invasive plants allowance. Hand removal,
herbicide
Action 15-2.3 $1,000 $7,500 36 Control invasive plants allowance. Hand removal,
herbicide
Action 15-3.1 — — 20 — Program 20
Action 15-3.2 — — 20 — Program 14

16. Ecosystem-wide Management Coordination Program
Action 16-1.1 — — 20 — Guidance for staff
Action 16-1.2 — — 10 — Guidance for staff
Action 16-2.1 — — 10 — Guidance for staff
Action 16-3.1 — — 10 — Guidance for staff
C. OUTREACH PROGRAMS

17. Community Advisory and Docent Program
Action 17-1.1 — — 4 — Hire docent coordinator
Action 17-1.2 — — 64 — 2 hrs/wk for 8 month (Aug–
Mar)
Action 17-2.1 $5,000 — 640 — 20 hrs/wk for 8 month (Aug– mar), supplies for the program
Action 17-2.2 — — 64 — 2 hrs/wk for 8 month (Aug–
Mar)
Action 17-2.3 — — — — Incorporated in Action 17-2.1
Action 17-2.4 — — — — Incorporated in Action 17-2.1
Action 17-2.5 — — — — Incorporated in Action 17-2.1

18. Interpretive Program
Action 18-1.1 — — 40 40 Staff prepare grant applications Action 18-1.2 $500 $3,000 20 20 Design and install signage Appendix A City of Goleta

January 2019 A-10 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Materials and
Contractors Cost ($)
City of Goleta Staff
Time (hours)
Notes/Assumptions Annual One-
Time Annual One-
Time
Action 18-1.3 — — 20 — Guidance for signs
Action 18-2.1 — — 8 — Guidance for signs

19. Education Program
Action 19-1.1 — — 80 — 1 hr/tour x 80 tours average,
by docents
Action 19-1.2 — — 20 20 Create education materials and
keep them updated
Action 19-1.3 — — — — Incorporated in Action 17-2.1
Action 19-2.1 — — 24 — Monthly updates. 12 x 2 hrs. =
24 hrs
D. MONITORING, RESEARCH, AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

20. Monitoring Program
Action 20-1.1 $4,800 — 20 — This could be docents for 48 hours: 4 hours per survey for
12 surveys
Action 20-2.1 $4,800 — — — Per year estimate. One field day with drone to cover 4
sites; camera use, analysis, and
brief report
Action 20-2.2 — — 20 — Staff coordination
Action 20-3.1 $3,000 — 4 — 30 hrs for biologist for
monitoring report, staff review
Action 20-3.2 $3,000 — 4 — 30 hrs for biologist for visitor impact assessment, staff review.

Action 20-3.3 $500 — 8 — Coordination of programs for
biologists and staff

21. Monarch Research Program
Action 21-1.1 — $15,000 16 40 Evaluate requests for research and issue permits as needed.

Action 21-1.2 — — 8 — Guidance for research permits

22. Adaptive Management Program
Action 22-1.1 — — 16 — 16 hours per year staff time
Action 22-1.2 — — 8 — 8 hours per year staff time
Action 22-1.3 — — 8 — 8 hours per year staff time
TOTALS $203,650 $63,500 3226 472

City of Goleta

Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan B-1 January 2019

APPENDIX B. SPECTRAL IMAGING AND ANALYSIS FOR ASSESSING TREE HEALTH
To monitor and determine vegetation health within the aggregate sites, spectral imaging and analysis will be used. In the last few decades, high resolution multispectral and hyperspectral imaging have become more commonly used by agricultural and horticultural industries to manage soil, fertilizing, and irrigation, and to monitor the health of crops. Spectral imaging is similar to digital photography except that instead of just collecting an image of three primary colors or bands (red, green, and blue; RGB) the multispectral camera sensor (spectrometer) divides the color range into multiple discrete bands of colors (typically 5 to 15 bands for multispectral to greater than 100 for hyperspectral) across the visible and near -infrared spectrums. In addition, the image captures data about the amount of light for each band that reaches the sensor. Since most plants with chlorophyll absorb light in the red (650 to 700 nm) and blue spectrum (425 to 475 nm) and ref lect green and yellow light (500 to 600 nm), changes in the ratio of light within these region s can be used to determine vegetation health over time or in comparison to known healthy vegetation. By using spectral imaging over traditional arborist technique s, small changes in vegetation health can be assessed rapidly, the data can be quantified, and management decisions can be monitored for effectiveness.

In addition, very little quantifiable information about the health of vegetation and butterfly use of aggregation sites has been studied.

To monitor the health of vegetation in aggregate sites, a ground-based imaging spectrometer will be used at set locations within the study area and within known aggregates sites. The spectrometer will be placed on a tripod at a known elevation and location within a study site. A series of images (both spectral and RGB) will be taken at a predefined aspect and slope of the tree canopy and surrounding vegetation. All perennial vegetation (trees and shrubs) within each image will be identified, and a visual assessment of vegetation health will be recorded and catalogued in order to track changes over time. For at least the first 2 or 3 years of the study, images should be taken three times during the year to help determine phe notypical color differences (variation in color due to genetics) between members of the same species and to calibrate seasonal changes. Afterwards, image frequency can be reduced to twice a year (at the beginning and middle of the growing season). For each spectral image, key individuals will be identified, and multiple pixel groups will be sampled across the foliage using multispectral imaging software and statistically analyzed to determine relative chlorophyll absorbance and reflectance, to indicate vegetation health.

By comparing changes in spectral signatures of like species and individuals, and by looking for abnormal changes for all species over time, the health of vegetation can be assessed. Individual, chronic changes to perennial vegetation can help determine which individuals are stressed and have a higher potential for mortality, while overall changes to the ecosystem can indicate climate stressors (e.g., drought) or toxic conditions (e.g., pollution). Since modern cameras are small and light enough to be mounted to unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), this technique can be used to determine whole forest health by sampling upper canopy foliage (once yearly) along with below canopy aggregation sites. This would allow for a whole ecosystem assessment an d would help determine stressed locations or individual species across the whole study area.

Appendix B City of Goleta

January 2019 B-2 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

This Page Has Been Intentionally Left Blank.

City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan C-1 January 2019

APPENDIX C. NATIVE PLANTS TO BE INCLUDED IN HABITAT

RESTORATION EFFORTS
The following plants are native to the Central Coast of California and are known to offer several valuable elements to enhance the quality and longevity of native coastal habitats, including: fall and winter nectar source for monarch butterflies, canopy for wind protection, food source for wildlife, drought resistance , and fire resistance. California native plants are plants that were present in California prior to the arrival of European explorers and colonists in the late 18th century. Native plant stock should be sourced from local populations.

Appendix C City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan C-2 January 2019 Restoration Native Plant List Location Purpose
Common Name (Scientific Name)
Over-
wintering
Site
Open Area
Adjacent to
Overwintering
Site
Devereux
Creek
Understory
Windbreak
Nectar
Source
Wildlife
Habitat
and Forage
Fire
Resistant
Drought
Tolerant
Erosion
Control
Trees
coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) X X X X X X
western sycamore (Platanus
racemosa)
X X
toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) X X X X X X X
arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) X X* X X
hollyleaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia) X X* X X X
Shrubs
seacliff buckwheat (Eriogonum
parvifolium var. parvifolium)
X X* X
California bay laurel (Umbellularia
californica)
X X X* X
California wax myrtle (Myrica
californica)

X X X
lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia) X X X* X X X X
golden currant (Ribes aureum) X X X X X X
mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) X X* X
California brittlebush (Encelia
californica)
X X* X X X
California goldenrod (Solidago
veluntina ssp. Californica)
X X* X X
California goldenbush (Ericameria
ericoides)
X X* X X
saltmarsh baccharis (Baccharis
glutinosa [douglasii])

X X X X
coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis) X X* X X
black sage (Salvia mellifera) X X* X X
City of Goleta Appendix C
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space
Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan C-3 January 2019

Restoration Native Plant List Location Purpose
Common Name (Scientific Name)
Over-
wintering
Site
Open Area
Adjacent to
Overwintering
Site
Devereux
Creek
Understory
Windbreak
Nectar
Source
Wildlife
Habitat
and Forage
Fire
Resistant
Drought
Tolerant
Erosion
Control
seaside fleabane (Erigeron glaucus) X X* X X
purple sage (Salvia leucophylla) X X X X
blueblossom (Ceanothus thyrsiflorus) X X* X X
heart-leaved Keckiella (Keckiella
cordifolia)
X X X X* X X
Groundcovers
black figwort (Scrophularia atrata) X X X X X* X X
purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra) X X X X
blue-eyed grass (Sisrinchium bellum) X X* X X X
bluedicks (Dichelostemma capitatum) X X* X X
Santa Barbara honeysuckle (Lonicera
subspicata var. supspicata

X X X X X X
Sticky monkeyflower (Diplacus
aurantiacus)
X X X X* X X
X* indicates species that bloom during the overwintering period (October – March) Appendix C City of Goleta

January 2019 C-4 Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Plant List References
The Theodore Payne Foundation for Wildflowers and Native Plants, Inc. Fire Resistant Native Plants with High Wildlife Value. Sun Valley, CA. Available; http://www.theodorepayne.org/plants/fire_resistant.htm.

The Xerces Society. 2017. Protecting California’s Butterfly Grove: Management Guidelines for Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Habitat. 32+vi pp. Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.

City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan 154
T
his page left intentionally blank.

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Comments and City of Goleta Responses on the
Draft Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration B-1 No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 1 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Sharleen Marie The parking lot is a great place for benches from fallen trees, interpretive signs, to make it more attractive for people to start their walks.

Comment noted. The MBHMP calls for this
kind of use.

Aesthetics
2 8/20/18 Email Barbara Massey Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan and Implementation Plan and the areas preservation should not be under the jurisdiction of the Public Works Department.

These plans should be the responsibility of the Planning and Environmental Review Department.

Comment noted. MBHMP calls for
monarch and natural resource education
for the staff involved in the management
activities.

Authority/ Agency
3 8/20/18 Email Barbara Massey The Public Works Dept. is not qualified to deal with environmentally sensitive Monarch Butterfly habitat. They don’t have the necessary personnel that is environmentally trained and knowledgeable about the habitat to adequately plan and manage this important area.

Comment noted. MBHMP calls for
monarch and natural resource education
for the staff involved in the management
activities
Authority/ Agency
4 8/16/18 Email Alfred Smith Page 14 Background, Third Paragraph:

Recommend indicating who is responsible for Ellwood East and what if any support they are providing to the plans. (There is some mention later in the document, but it would help to mention it here as well.)
Comment noted. Parcels in this area may
be incorporated into the MBHMP area as
acquired by the City.

Authority/ Agency
5 8/16/18 Email Alfred Smith Page 21 - 58:

Is it possible to indicate anticipated workload by Plan number (top level, not each sublevel)? All but one or two action items identify the Public Works Department as POC.

Is it feasible for the Public Works Dept to undertake all this work?
In cases where more than one POC is indicated, recommend a lead is suggested.

Comment noted. Estimates of staff hours
for each program are included in
Attachment 1 of the MBHMP and Public
Works will be responsible for meeting
those needs to implement the MBHMP.

Authority/ Agency
6 9/3/18 Letter FOTEM Empower Planning and Environmental Review Department with Oversight of the MBHMP
Comment noted. Public works is the
department responsible for management
actions. Public works personnel are
expected to be hired with specific
knowledge and experience to properly
follow directives of the MBHMP. The
Planning Department does not manage
open space areas.

Authority/ Agency
Attachment 4 - Appendix B
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan B-2
No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 7 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock The MBHMP and IP should not be under the jurisdiction of the Public Works Department. These plans should be
overseen by the Planning and Environmental Review
Department, although Public Works and Neighborhood
Services will carry out many of the actions. The Public Works Department doesn’t have the necessary focus to deal with what is essentially a planning process or the personnel qualified to deal with environmentally sensitive habitat.

Comment noted. Public works is the
department responsible for management
actions. Public works personnel are
expected to be hired with specific
knowledge and experience to properly
follow directives of the MBHMP. The
Planning Department does not manage
open space areas.

Authority/ Agency
8 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Cris Lange Under the MBHMP, need to take a look at what other agencies are doing in the grove, like SCE. We need to have an umbrella to have everyone know what others are doing.

Undergrounding powerlines is super important. Irrigation is super important.

Comment noted. Language added to
Action 1-2.1 to clarify.

Authority/ Agency
9 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Tim Burges, SB
Shores
The plan needs a definition of emergency – are we already there? Very concerned about anything that is cart-blanche.

Concerned about what happened last year – almost lost a lot.

Comment noted. Language added in
Section 9 to distinguish emergency
actions.

Definitions/
Terminology
10 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Julie Gilmore Explain Fuel Reduction Zones? Comment noted. The City adjusted Figure 3 and added Table 1 in the MBHMP that
describe the CWPP zones.

Definitions/
Terminology
11 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Julie Gilmore Explain Fuel Reduction Zones? (discussion continued) Comment noted. The City added additional information describing fuel reduction
zones in Table 1.

Definitions/
Terminology
12 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Cris Lange I don’t like the Riparian “forest” because it sounds huge. Comment noted. The City removed the term “forest” to describe these areas.

Definitions/
Terminology
13 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Cris Lange Transitioning to riparian forest will impact monarch ESHA Comment noted. The City adjusted language in section 14.3 to clarify that
native planting would occur in areas
already occupied by non-eucalyptus
vegetation.

Restoration
14 9/3/18 Letter Barbara Massey The plans are weak without specific protections for the butterflies and trees. There is far too much use of the wording “managed, as feasible”, which further weakens the plans. There are no protections in these plans to keep a large number of trees from being cut down at any time
without the Council’s or public’s knowledge or approval.

Comment noted. Definitions/
Terminology
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Comments and City of Goleta Responses on the
Draft Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration B-3 No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 15 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock Terminology and mapping
There is no clear and consistent definition of the various parcels included—or not included—in the “Ellwood Mesa
Open Space Plan.” The only map in the plan shows the
location of center of major monarch overwintering sites, but doesn’t identify the different parcels of land.

Comment noted. The MBHMP provides a
map (Figure 2) that shows the Monarch
Butterfly Habitat Management Plan
Coverage Area. The coverage area is
defined biologically by the availability of
suitable monarch butterfly habitat; it is not
defined by parcels.

Definitions/
Terminology
16 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock Please map and clarify the terminology in the Plan. It should match what is in the General Plan. If you use the name
Ellwood Mesa or the Ellwood Mesa Open Space Plan it
should be defined in relationship to the named parcels in the General Plan, with only one definition for each name.

Comment noted. The MBHMP provides a
map (Figure 2) that shows the Monarch
Butterfly Habitat Management Plan
Coverage Area. It is not defined by parcels.

Definitions/
Terminology
17 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Eurie, Pacific
Oaks
Does the plan consider and protect the owl population at Ellwood?
Comment noted. The plan considers owls
and other wildlife during management
actions by including pre-activity surveys
for nesting birds and incorporating
management strategies for monarch
butterfly habitat conservation that are
intended to be consistent, where feasible,
with other wildlife habitat management.

Misc. Clarification
18 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Jessie Altstatt Overwintering season for monarchs and nesting season for birds need to be respected when there is work being done in the habitat
Comment noted. This is addressed in
administrative programs, Action 1-2.1.

Restoration
19 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock Since the purpose of the plan is to maintain and enhance the included areas as monarch butterfly habitat for migrating, overwintering butterflies, some language should be included that explains the monarch butterfly life cycle and habitat needs during their overwintering phase to those not familiar who might be reading and interpreting the plan in the future Comment noted. The MBHMP is a working
document that prescribes policies and
actions for management. Information
regarding monarch biology and habitat is
to be reviewed and used to inform
MBHMP actions into the future (Programs
20, 21, and 22.)
Misc. Clarification
20 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Wes Herman,
retired fireman
Suggest not using blue gums at all. Red ironbark more
drought tolerant, blue gums big fire risk.

Comment Noted. The City included both
red iron bark and blue gums as species to
be planed under final 2018 IP. The City will
continue to consider a range of species
while implementing the MBHMP.

Fire
21 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Tim Burges, SB
Shores
The Fire Figure has lots of areas do not have that yellow fill.

Is it property line?
Comment noted. The fire figure was
revised to reflect setbacks from structures
as per the CWPP.

Fire
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan B-4
No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 22 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Jennifer Loftis implementing fire plan is not in the IP. Will it be in the next IP?
Comment noted. The FP actions can be
implemented now as maintenance.

Fire
23 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Jennifer Loftis The Fire Plan was done in 2012. what have you done? Comment noted. The City has done some work clearing and moving downed wood.

Misc. Clarification
24 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Cris Lange Request for the City to do a referendum for undergrounding wires to reduce fire risk and destruction from pruning and topping trees.

Comment noted. Fire
25 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Wes Herman,
retired fireman
At end of Carmel and Pismo. 6-inch fire hydrant lines
without hydrants.

Comment Noted. City goal is to provide
funding to the GWD to install two new
hydrants.

Fire
26 8/15/18 Email Paul Pease,
Island Oak Lane
I live in The Bluffs and absolutely love to observe the Monarchs over-wintering, especially in the area near
Sandpiper as it is so serene. However, many of the non- native eucalyptus trees in that area have fallen down, taking other eucalyptus trees with them, and seem to be drying out (perhaps invaded by pests). It’s not just a danger to the people walking in the area, but the dead eucalyptus trees become a rather volatile fuel source for fire. I have also seen encampments in that area with evidence of cooking
campfires. Some of the recent devastating and fast-moving wildfires that have occurred in California and our community were caused by cooking campfires.

Comment Noted. Enforcement actions are
conducted by the Sheriff.

Fire
27 8/15/18 Email Paul Pease,
Island Oak Lane
Has there been a re-assessment by the Fire Department
regarding a potentially dangerous wildfire that would
destroy the Monarch Butterfly habitat caused by a campfire and fueled by the new eucalyptus deadwood as well as live eucalyptus oil?
Comment noted. The Community Wildfire
Plan addresses these risks and the City will
be consulting with the County Fire
Department and CalFire for specifics on
Ellwood Mesa.

Fire
28 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock To reduce threat of fire the Plan should include a feasibility study of undergrounding some or all of the power lines that are adjacent to monarch ESHA.

Comment noted. Fire
29 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock The extension of Santa Barbara Shores Drive that is a major access for fire-fighting equipment. The road and the culvert underneath it should be kept in good repair so that it is always passable and structurally sound.

Comment noted. Fire
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Comments and City of Goleta Responses on the
Draft Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration B-5 No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 30 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock Is there some comparison of the fire- resistant qualities of the recommended native plants with the fire-resistant
qualities of those plants that are already there? If the non- native plants provide better fire resistance they should be allowed to remain. Removing them will reduce coverage
until the new plants become established.

Comment noted. Actions 4-1.3 and 12-4.4
involve planting of fire-resistant native
understory plants. Native plants to be
included in habitat restoration efforts are
listed in Appendix 3 of the MBHMP.

Fire
31 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock At the public workshop a map was handed out that indicated fuel reduction zones along the groves that are close to structures, but also in the eastern windrow that contains the Ocean Meadows aggregation site where there are no structures near. The second paragraph on page 11 says, “In habitat areas that are not adjacent to structures, fuel treatment consist of mowing along the outside edge.” That seems inconsistent with the map. Please reconcile this and provide a new map if applicable
Comment noted. The fire figure has been
revised to reflect setbacks from structures
as per the CWPP.

Fire
32 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock Increased patrolling of the area for people violating the “No Smoking” and “No Campfires” rules, especially at night, could reduce the risk of fire. Apparently, the City is
constrained to give “homeless encampments” a 72-hour
notice before taking any action. But if there is a fire or evidence that there has been one—whether it is an “urban camper” or kids—there should be a way to take immediate action to eliminate the threat.

Comment noted. Enforcement actions are
conducted by the Sheriff.

Fire
33 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock The gate at the end of Santa Barbara Shores Drive is the only way for a fire-truck to access major portions of the monarch groves. There is not appropriate signage on the gate: it says “Fire Access Lane, illegal vehicles will be towed.” This is apparently not clear enough (no one thinks their vehicle is “illegal” if it is licensed) because sometimes vehicles have been parked in front of the gate making it inaccessible. A large, bi-lingual “NO PARKING” sign might do a better job of keeping this fire lane clear.

Comment Noted. “No Parking” signs are
included in the final 2018 IP.

Signs
34 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Tim Burges, SB
Shores
Lots of young trees in this forest. Lots of age classes, lots of recruitment.

Comment noted. Restoration
35 7/27/18 Email Lara Drizd,
USFWS
MBHMP Pg 63 - Appendix 3 - I noticed that you included
detailed instructions for tree planting efforts in the
Implementation Plan. I’d just like to add that the planting methods for natives can be quite different than they are for species we typically plant in our gardens. For instance, you usually want to avoid digging a hole much larger than your Comment Noted. More recent
methodologies have been used and cited
throughout the final 2018 IP.

Restoration
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan B-6
No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic pot. I might suggest adding a sentence to this paragraph here stating something to the effect of “natives will be planted according to appropriate planting methods which may vary by species.”
36 8/22/18 PTAC
Meeting
Lynn Kirby The Sperling parking lot is a great demonstration site for a demonstration garden; planters are already there and it’s close to a water source.

Comment noted. Restoration
37 8/22/18 PTAC
Meeting
Lynn Kirby Ellwood Cooper and his colleagues planted eucalyptus throughout CA from 1870 through 1900 as a renewable
wood source. It also came out as a complete failure.

Comment noted. Misc. Clarification
38 8/30/18 Email Lisa Stratton,

UCSB CCBER
The density could also have contributed to more intense competition for water between these water-loving and high water-use trees; which likely created problems during the drought. As such, it leads me to ask, why are this year’s planned tree plantings slated for Ellwood North? Will they potentially fill up the very holes or galleries that might make that area more supportive of Monarch’s in the future?
Comment Noted. Monarch butterflies
prefer thicker stands of tall vegetation for
wind protection that surrounds an open
center. The north area of Ellwood North is
currently too open and the roosting
monarchs are moving south into more
protected areas of the grove. The City’s
goal is to re-establish the wind barrier in
the northern area and leave a more-open
center for roosting.

Restoration
39 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Tim Burges, SB
Shores
Be careful when selecting the species of eucalyptus to plant.

Blue gum are very different from red ironbark. Red ironbark are incredible trees
Comment Noted. The City included both
red iron bark and blue gums as species to
be planed under final 2018 IP. The City will
continue to consider a range of species
while implementing the MBHMP.

Restoration
40 7/27/18 Email Lara Drizd,
USFWS
MBHMP Pg 64 - Plant List - You might consider adding black figwort (Scrophularia atrata) to the list. Black figwort is an important local species (really only found in SB county), drought tolerant, and great for bees and butterflies. And it was recommended by our botanist. :)
Comment noted. This species has been
added to the list of native plants to be
included in habitat restoration efforts
listed in Appendix 3 of the MBHMP.

Restoration
41 8/2/18 &
8/9/18
Stakeholder
meeting
Lisa Stratton,

UCSB CCERB
Native trees will be adaptive to climate change, reduce water use in creek and overall, not require pampering
proposed for planted Eucs.

Comment noted. Restoration
42 8/22/18 PTAC
Meeting
Lynn Kirby
You want to use only eucalyptus trees. The Pismo Beach
overwintering site uses a variety of trees to provide the necessary canopy. We already have pests and problems with eucalyptus - why are we not using a variety of trees? Street trees use a mixture/variety of tree types (not any one
species) to increase resilience against pests (won’t lose all at once). I want to see consideration of trees other than
Comment noted. The MBHMP would not
involve expansion of the existing
eucalyptus groves in the coverage area.

The final 2018 IP involves planting of 63
eucalyptus trees as replacement and/or
habitat enhancement trees. Within the
boundaries of the existing eucalyptus
Restoration
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Comments and City of Goleta Responses on the
Draft Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration B-7 No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic eucalyptus. groves, native plants will be limited to
understory species, including shrubs,
grasses, and forbs that are seen co-
occurring with the eucalyptus overstory in
other locations on Ellwood Mesa.
43 8/22/18 PTAC
Meeting
Phebe Mansur I heard an unconfirmed rumor that the Coastal Commission has some goal to remove eucalyptus trees throughout the state of CA. With that in mind, I agree with Commissioner Kirby in planting a variety of butterfly-friendly trees.

Comment noted. The MBHMP seeks find a
balance between natives and eucalyptus
species. The MBHMP would not involve
expansion of the existing eucalyptus
groves in the coverage area and would
involve planting native understory species.

Restoration
44 8/30/18 Email Lisa Stratton,

UCSB CCBER
I would add Lonicera subspicata var. subspicata – native honeysuckle which grows well out here and provides nectar and fruit and can be locally sourced. I would also consider adding Diplacus aurantiacus (Sticky monkey flower); Keckiela cordifolia (Heart leaf-Penstemon), which grows well in the shade and provides nectar; and Salvia spathacea
(Hummingbird sage).

Comment noted. This species has been
added to the list of native plants to be
included in habitat restoration efforts
listed in Appendix 3 of the MBHMP.

Restoration
45 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock Consider inclusion of native plants if the plant provides a service that actually improves conditions for monarch
butterflies and improves the sustainability of the groves because that is the purpose of this plan. Either native or non-native plants can provide the things that butterflies and the groves need. Adding other goals complicates the plan and makes it more expensive to execute.

Comment noted. Goal 14 and supporting
policies and actions encourage the use of
appropriate native species both within the
eucalyptus groves and along Devereux
Creek.

Restoration
46 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Paula
Perotte
Going back to the 30 trees that SCE scalped, what kind of an effect does that have to the trees later on? I don’t know how they resprout after that.

Comment noted. Misc. Clarification
47 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Paula
Perotte
The understory that you are considering, our native
understory is typically paired with eucalyptus as an exotic.

Do these species grow well together?
Comment noted. Action 14-1.1 involves
planting experimental plots of native
species to determine which species can
support sustainable populations. Action
14-1.2 encourages the use of native plant
species currently growing in the
eucalyptus groves on Ellwood Mesa.

Misc. Clarification
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan B-8
No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 48 8/2/18 &
8/9/18
Stakeholder
meeting
Lisa Stratton,

UCSB CCBER
Native trees reduce fire risk, give off water, not oils like Euc’s. Plant native oaks and sycamores along all edges of groves by homes and down to creek as well as in all non- aggregation zones that could become fuel corridors. Native trees will better support other nectar providing species in understory.

Comment noted. Restoration
49 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Councilmember
Michael T.

Bennett
The conifer forests are impacted by the drought, the fires are dense and there’s not enough water to support the
density. I assume we would want to go back to having a
natural forest and we would want to be very careful about suggesting adding more trees. I would hope that we would do the science so the forest can be sustainable and it make sense to plant trees. If the science is behind it, then I will support it.

Comment noted. The MBHMP has
provisions for continued reference to and
adaptation of the Plan based on best
available science. Programs 16, 20, 21, and

22. Restoration
50 9/3/18 Letter FOTEM Although the MBHMP has policies that support maintaining the entire eucalyptus forest and re-planting of eucalyptus to replace removed trees, the Restoration Plant table in
Appendix 3 does not include any type of eucalyptus. We
request that a Restoration Plant list includes any species of eucalyptus that might be considered for planting to replace removed trees or for enhancement of the structure and
function of the monarch habitat.

Comment noted. The restoration species
list in Appendix 3 is named “Native Plants
to be Included in Habitat Restoration
Efforts”. It is not a list of eucalyptus tree
species proposed for use. Eucalyptus trees
are designated for use “To correct habitat
deficiencies such as: The overstory has
become too sparse, Wind speeds in the
grove are too strong, A tree died, fell over,
or was removed.” (Action 12-1.2, Table 1).

Tree species to be planted will be stated in
each IP, and may change over time with
site conditions.

Restoration
51 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock The plant list in Appendix 3 doesn’t indicate when the native plants included are blooming and could provide nectar for the butterflies. There are few native plants that provide winter nectar; some that provide fall nectar. The butterflies generally begin to leave in February, so spring or summer blooming plants won’t be useful for this function. It will be important to know whether native plants that are used will actually be useful to the butterflies, and provision of winter nectar is an important attribute.

Comment noted. Of the 27 native species
listed 23 produce nectar usable by
monarch butterflies, and 18 produce
nectar during the overwintering period
(Oct.- Mar.).

Restoration
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Comments and City of Goleta Responses on the
Draft Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration B-9 No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 52 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock There should be some explanation of how the non- deciduous blue gums enhance the microclimate, provide the structure, shelter, and open canopy that overwintering
aggregations need. In addition to providing shelter for monarch colonies, blue gum eucalyptus serves as a source of nectar during the winter when most native plants do not bloom.

Comment noted. The MBHMP is a working
document that prescribes policies and
actions for management. Information
regarding monarch biology, habitat, and
tree form and function is to be reviewed
and used to inform MBHMP actions into
the future (Programs 20, 21, and 22.)
Restoration 53 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Cris Lange Plant list needs blue gum added and whether plants are native to our specific area.

Comment noted. The plant list in Appendix
3 is of native plants from our area.

Restoration
54 8/30/18 Email Lisa Stratton,

UCSB CCBER
In my comments sent a few weeks ago, see attached pdf, I suggest some zones that might be suitable for prioritizing native tree planting. These are zones outside of the core aggregation areas and along the creek channels and
adjacent to the homes where native plants will serve these purposes:

1. Help protect against wildfire;

2. Reduce water use in the creek and keep flows which will benefit diverse wildlife;

3. Be more sustainable in the face of climate change;

4. Support a higher diversity of native insects, birds, reptiles and herps; and

5. Be less vulnerable to a single pest or disease the way the current monoculture is vulnerable.

Comment noted. Restoration
55 9/3/18 Letter FOTEM Finally, 2018 IP does not directly replace the blue gum eucalyptus removed in 2017 with other blue gum
eucalyptus. Rather, mostly ironbark are proposed for
replanting. While we understand there may be certain
benefits to ironbark in terms of its relative drought
resistance, it has different characteristics than blue gum which are typically taller and provide a valuable source of nectar for overwintering monarchs. We request that at a minimum 29 blue gum be replaced proximate to the
removal locations, in addition to the ironbark replanting proposed
Comment noted. As has been discussed in
public meetings, there is great advantage
to planting red iron bark eucalyptus in the
site proposed. The 2018 IP also specifies
the blue gum eucalyptus will be planted.

The monarch butterfly specialist will
designate planting points for each tree to
maximize benefit to the aggregation site,
placing the drought resistant iron bark
eucalyptus in a wind break configuration
and the blue gums near the aggregation
center. Action 1 of the 2018
Implementation Plan requires details to be
included in a tree restoration planting
map.

Restoration
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan B-10
No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 56 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Paula
Perotte
Are they at risk of disease just from the fact that they’ve been cut like that?
Comment noted. Misc. Clarification
57 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Paula
Perotte
But not all the trees they trimmed were dead? So they could be stressed even more.

Comment noted. Misc. Clarification
58 8/15/18 Email Paul Pease,
Island Oak Lane
Are there considerations for removing the dead eucalyptus danger and re-planting with more native tree species, such as oaks?
Comment noted. Restoration of native
plantings would occur in supporting areas
Restoration
59 8/22/18 PTAC
Meeting
Lynn Kirby The Mexican overwintering site is a fir forest and has no eucalyptus trees. If we are replanting and there is a rumor that they are going to take out the eucalyptus, I believe we should plant no eucalyptus trees. We don’t want City
Council 100 years from now to ask why we replanted with trees that are already failing.

Comment noted. Restoration
60 8/30/18 Email Lisa Stratton,

UCSB CCBER
Regarding the Restoration Plant list. This is mostly good, but I would remove seaside fleabane (Erigeron glaucus), “blue blossom (Ceanothus thyrsiflorus) and dwarf coyote bush
(Baccharis pilularis ssp. pilularis “pigeon point” ) as these are cultivars or not locally sourceable.

Comment noted. Restoration
61 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Wes Herman,
retired fireman
Asked about $3.9M – feasibility of using this, etc. Comment noted. City is applying for funds to the Coastal Conservancy.

Funding
62 8/16/18 Email Alfred Smith Page 13 Executive Summary:

Is the $3.9M “one-year money”? That is, does it all have to be spent in the 2018-2019 fiscal year?
What is the fiscal year for this money?
Has the money arrived? If not, when is it expected?
The paragraph states that the money can only be spent on “restore, enhance, manage, and monitor” activities. This does not line up with the “Admin, Management, Outreach, Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive Management” plans
identified earlier in the summary. Recommend words are
added to clarify which part of the proposed plans are
covered and which are not. For the ones that are not (if any), please identify estimated budgets necessary and
potential sources.

Comment noted. City is applying for funds
to the Coastal Conservancy.

Funding
63 8/22/18 PTAC
Meeting
Lynn Kirby Please describe the details/ Terms of the $3.9M grant from the State of CA. My understanding is that we cannot use this grant money to fund the current implementation plan.

Comment noted. City is applying for funds
to the Coastal Conservancy.

Funding
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Comments and City of Goleta Responses on the
Draft Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration B-11 No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 64 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Pro
Tempore Stuart
Kasdin
The cost table in the appendix is our regular on going
budget, our maintenance of effort. And the extra grant is on top of it?
Comment noted. City is applying for funds
to the Coastal Conservancy.

Funding
65 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Pro
Tempore Stuart
Kasdin
It is not clear to me that the current time spending on this project is not included in the cost table.

Comment noted. Funding
66 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Pro
Tempore Stuart
Kasdin
I would like to see a 5-year plan for how we are doing to spend the $3.9M that includes irrigation.

Comment noted. Funding
67 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Pro
Tempore Stuart
Kasdin
If you take the money and put it into a butterfly fund, will people be able to bill their hours to this butterfly fund from different departments? Will this be a simplifying process? Does this make sense from an accounting perspective?
Comment noted. Funding
68 8/31/18 Support
letter
Emma Pelton,
Xerces Society
We are writing to you to express our support of the Draft Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch
Butterfly Habitat Management Plan and 2018
Implementation Plan.

Comment noted. General Support
69 8/31/18 Support
letter
Emma Pelton,
Xerces Society
We also recognize the incredible expertise that Dan Meade of Althouse and Meade and Charis van der Heide of Rincon Consultants bring to monarch butterfly habitat conservation, and encourage you to continue consulting with both parties to quickly develop and implement a habitat restoration and management plan for this site, and to address hazards
posed by dead trees with minimal disruption to the monarch butterflies. In addition, the Xerces Society is deeply invested in monarch butterfly conservation, and we would be happy to provide further input on the management and restoration of monarch butterfly overwintering habitat within Ellwood Mesa.

Comment noted. General Support
70 8/31/18 Support
letter
Emma Pelton,
Xerces Society
We also support the proposed actions of the 2018
Implementation Plan to replant eucalyptus trees to replace the 28 trees which were removed from the grove in 2017.

Replacement tree planting is critical so that the
microclimatic conditions that monarchs require can be
restored as soon as possible. The proposed tree planting, as well as other activities such as implementing an irrigation plan, assessing the grove for hazard trees, and monitoring monarch’s use of the grove align with the Xerces Society’s approach to monarch butterfly overwintering site
restoration which is summarized in our recently published Comment noted. General Support
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan B-12
No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic guide for land managers: Protecting California’s Butterfly Groves: Management Guidelines for Monarch Butterfly
Overwintering Habitat.
71 7/27/18 Email Lara Drizd,
USFWS
I’m in full support of what your group has put together and I don’t think any major changes are needed. You all did an awesome job!
Comment noted. General Support
72 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Cris Lange I support the letter from attorney for FOTEM and the details that are included. Thank you for taking a detailed look at this letter.

Comment noted. General Support
73 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Pro
Tempore Stuart
Kasdin
I appreciated getting this staff report and learning that we are moving this process along and it was really well written.

Thank you
Comment noted. General Support
74 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Councilmember
Kyle Richards
We respect to the feedback you requested, I do support the site that was chosen. I think it makes sense for the reasons you describe.

Comment noted. General Support
75 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Councilmember
Kyle Richards
I would encourage us to consider areas where we can plant more trees. I’m sure we have plans to do that and I think we should plant as many trees sooner than later.

Comment noted. Restoration
76 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Wes Herman,
retired fireman
Do red ironbark eucs encourage monarch overwintering? Comment noted. Yes, red iron bark does support monarch butterflies.

Misc. Clarification
77 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Lori Gastin Coronado seep important area for birds. Urge restoration work be done in creek
Comment noted. Restoration
78 8/2/18 &
8/9/18
Stakeholder
meeting
Lisa Stratton,

UCSB CCBER
The Plan focused almost solely on Monarch Butterfly and needs to think more broadly about species support,
sustainability, etc. See breeding records from Breeding Bird Study showing that you get nearly double the diversity of breeding birds in oaks (57 species) than in Eucalyptus (32).

Comment noted. Restoration
79 8/2/18 &
8/9/18
Stakeholder
meeting
Lisa Stratton,

UCSB CCBER
Data from USFWS status of Monarch paper and Griffith and Villablanca paper demonstrate that Butterflies do not prefer Eucalyptus and that in Central CA they prefer pines and cypress and oaks disproportionately to their low cover in the groves.

Comment noted. This paper states it
should not be considered relevant in Santa
Barbara County and south.

Restoration
80 8/20/18 Email Barbara Massey The way this document is written, it seems that it still permits the cutting down of trees, planting in inappropriate areas, planting trees other than eucalyptus trees, and the ability to do anything staff wants without review. There needs to be more oversight of the habitat.

Comment noted. The Plan calls for the
appropriate review and monitors to be
involved. All project specifics will be
outlined in the Implementation Plans and
be open for review by the public.

Restoration
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Comments and City of Goleta Responses on the
Draft Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration B-13 No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 81 8/20/18 Email Barbara Massey There are a number of things seriously wrong with the Management and Implementation Plans. Far too much
emphasis is placed on public access to the detriment of the aggregation sites. It needs to be remembered that the
Monarch Butterfly Habitat is an important and valuable
environmental resource and not for the entertainment of the public.

Comment noted. Human Impacts 82 8/16/18 Email Alfred Smith Pg. 12 Executive Summary, Last paragraph:
“With adoption and implementation of this MBHMP, the
City will fulfill a major commitment to the …”
What major commitment? Did the City make a
commitment?
The sentence implies the entire MBHMP needs to be
“adopted and implemented”. Is that the case?
Is there significant benefit by “adopting and implementing” something less?
Comment noted. The Open Space Plan
monarch policies 1, 2, and 3 calls for
implementing habitat improvements to
benefit the butterflies. The City is
committed to maintaining the
overwintering habitat.

Authority/ Agency
83 8/16/18 Email Alfred Smith Page 14 Background, Second Paragraph:
“…have numbered in the tens of thousands during some
years, Making Ellwood Mesa one of the most important sites for monarch butterflies in California”
Is this statement misleading? “Status of Ellwood Mesa-
Related Tree Projects, Emergency Permit And Habitat
Management Plan” presented to City Council 20 Feb 2018
indicates 2011 was the last time anything like these
numbers have been recorded. All years since then were less than 10,000 and three were less than 3000. Recommend a
population by year chart be included in the report to give proper context.

Comment noted. Regarding Ellwood Main,
The Xerces Society states, “ This is the
premier Monarch site in Southern
California……..” https://xerces.org/where-
to-see-monarchs-in-
california/#sanluisobispo
Ellwood Main is ranked at the 4th out of
50 most important monarch butterfly
aggregation sites in California. “Sites in
which the monarch populations have
undergone the greatest declines, yet host
the largest proportion of the remaining
population have the highest ranking.”
Pelton, Jepsen, Shultz, Fallon , and Black.
2016. State of the Monarch Butterfly
Overwintering Sites in California. The
Xerces Society for Invertebrate
Conservation.

Misc. Clarification
84 8/16/18 Email Alfred Smith Page 14 Background, Second Paragraph:

Is there a reference to support the claim that “Ellwood Mesa <is> one of the most important sites for monarch butterflies in California.”? A reference would add weight to the claim.

Comment noted. The reference is included
in the MBHMP. Pelton, Jepsen, Shultz,
Fallon , and Black. 2016. State of the
Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites in
California. The Xerces Society for
Invertebrate Conservation.

Misc. Clarification
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan B-14
No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 85 8/22/18 PTAC
Meeting
Jessica Altstatt Consider other wildlife uses of the area. For example, the seep at the end of Coronado is very important for birds and other wildlife as a source of fresh water.

Comment noted. Restoration
86 8/30/18 Email Lisa Stratton,

UCSB CCERB
Ellwood North grove was likely used increasingly less by Monarchs from 1994 to 2011 because of the lack of
management (e.g. regular logging or thinning), which
effectively created too DENSE a woodland with a lack of open flight areas or gallery for the butterflies (page 20). This speaks to a need to do some active management of the
overall woodland to keep these open areas.

Comment noted Restoration 87 8/31/18 Support
letter
Emma Pelton,
Xerces Society
We are supportive of the Habitat Management Plan’s
programs; in particular, the Natural Resources Management Programs and Monitoring, Research, and Adaptive
Management Programs which are focused on protecting
monarchs and restore or enhance their overwintering
habitat at Ellwood Mesa.

Comment noted General Support
88 8/31/18 Support
letter
Emma Pelton,
Xerces Society
Western monarchs overwintering in coastal California have declined more than 95% since the 1980s and the migratory population faces a high risk of extinction in the next few decades. The Ellwood Main overwintering site is among the most important western monarch habitat – of the hundreds of sites in California where monarchs spend the winter, Ellwood Main is ranked as the fourth highest priority to conserve, based on the historic monarch population and
overall degree of population decline. Other overwintering sites found within the Ellwood Complex are also important for monarchs and the entire forested area likely acts as a network of more and less suitable habitat which offers the butterflies’ redundancy and resiliency to occupy the best habitat in a given year or within a season. Thus,
management decisions at the Ellwood Complex have a
greater potential to help – or harm – the overall western monarch population than management activities at most
other western monarch overwintering sites.

Comment noted Restoration
89 9/2/18 Email Karl Rider I would encourage the establishment of an indigenous plant community dominated by the California fan palm,
Washingtonia filliformis. The fan palm is adapted to the site, provides wintering protection and has a long lifespan better than 500 years in this fire dependent ecosystem. With the knowledge of what a 120 yr old eucalyptus stand looks like and its difficulties of management, we can give future
Comment noted Restoration
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Comments and City of Goleta Responses on the
Draft Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration B-15 No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic generations a more diversified landscape, able to meet the many goals of conservation, preservation, production, safety and recreation. A diverse mosaic of vegetation types and ages is the most productive and resilient defense to a
catastrophic event that is likely to effect the current monotype stand.
90 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Cris Lange Understory and debris is important for monarchs when they fall to the ground. Can’t remove debris before allowing new plants to establish and replace it.

Comment Noted. The final 2018 IP will
incorporate this concern and is not calling
to remove all debris. .

Restoration
91 8/2/18 &
8/9/18
Stakeholder
meeting
Lisa Stratton,

UCSB CCBER
Eucalyptus trees have been shown to reduce creek flows
through excessive transpiration, thereby reducing habitat quality. If diversify with native trees have a better chance of having sustainable creek flows which support butterflies and other wildlife and long term survivorship of species adapted to coastal California (e.g. oaks, sycamores, willows, toyon).

Comment Noted. Restoration
92 8/9/18 Email Lisa Stratton,

UCSB CCBER
I should clarify that we don’t have a vision for the long term elimination of the Eucalyptus grove, but for creating a patchwork of native areas along the edges and between the aggregation areas that will be implemented in a strategic and incremental manner as trees die to create a mixed age, diverse woodland that is sustainable in the long run and continues to support psilids for warblers, trees for hawks and woodland for butterflies WITH important nectar
providing, flowering plants. Such a system would be more sustainable in the face of climate change, increased drought, increased fire, reduced water availability... and would reduce threats to residences nearby without compromising function for desired species.

Comment Noted. Restoration
93 8/30/18 Email Lisa Stratton,

UCSB CCBER
Meade also notes that one of the more highly used areas in this section was in an area where there was a tree fall and ensuing opening which allowed a Toyon to get established that became a focal point for ‘basking’ by the Monarchs (page 44). The point being that a thinner, safer, less fire- prone Eucalyptus Forest with native plants is a favorable condition for Monarchs; far more than an un-managed “do nothing because the public doesn’t want to see anything done” philosophy that has defined management for the past 10 years.

Comment Noted. Restoration
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan B-16
No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 94 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Paula
Perotte
As for the location, Ellwood North is the most accessible. It’s not the best prime butterfly habitat.

Comment Noted. Restoration
95 9/3/18 Letter FOTEM Action 2-2.2 allows payments of compensatory mitigation fees into the Butterfly Fund, for projects with “limited impacts on monarch butterfly habitat.” It is critical that the City not allow projects that impact monarch butterfly
habitat. Action 2-2.2 should be revised to clarify that payment of compensatory mitigation fees are only allowed where projects have implemented all available measures to avoid impacts to monarch butterfly habitat, or to directly mitigate impacts on- site where appropriate, before projects may turn to compensatory mitigation.

Comment noted. Restoration
96 9/3/18 Letter Barbara Massey There is not enough Council and public review of the actions of staff in implementing the plan. Too many inappropriate and unapproved actions have been taken that damaged the habitat in the last two years. There needs to be better protections put in place to stop tree removal and pruning without Council review.

Comment noted. The Plan calls for the
appropriate review and monitors to be
involved. All project specifics will be
outlined in the Implementation Plans and
be open for review by the public.

Authority/ Agency
97 8/30/18 Email Lisa Stratton,

UCSB CCBER
Native understory planting should occur where there are openings in the “aggregation” areas and in conjunction with targeted weed control activities. In addition, native trees are used by Monarchs and other butterflies and native trees, if established soon enough, can help provide the
environmental amelioration benefits that support the use of the aggregation areas. As such, I think a more specific, say 5- year or 10-year action plan that addresses current die-off areas as well as strategic restoration planting in specific, mapped areas, would provide the clarity, direction, and guidance to allow for effective management of the
restoration component of the plan. This is particularly important in light of the very limited window for removing dead trees and other restrictions on the timing of work in the grove and in light of the commendable commitment to using locally collected seed and plant material.

Comment noted. Restoration
98 9/3/18 Letter Barbara Massey The Monarch Butterfly Habitat is an important and valuable environmental resource to be preserved and is not for the entertainment of the public. Public safety should be
maintained by keeping the public from any area that might present a safety threat.

Comment noted. MBHMP Programs 5
(trails), 6 (waste management), 7
(aesthetics) provide management
guidelines for public use. Implementation
of the MBHMP will improve public safety
while protecting monarch habitat.

Human Impacts
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Comments and City of Goleta Responses on the
Draft Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration B-17 No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 99 8/22/18 PTAC
Meeting
Lynn Kirby There is no mention of handicap accessibility in any of these plans. This has always been a problem out there and I
cannot believe this is not a requirement of the state.

Comment noted. Handicap Access
100 8/22/18 PTAC
Meeting
Lynn Kirby Would be nice to at least have a ADA-accessible trails map to show where someone who is handicapped can have a
nature experience. Where do I park my car? Some signage would be very helpful.

Comment noted. ADA parking spots are
present at the parking lot. All new signage
locations are depicted on Figure 3 of the
final 2018 IP with a majority being located
at main entry points to the grove and
minimized within the grove itself. Further,
a separate permit for improved trail routes
and designs and additional trail area
restoration is currently under review by
the Coastal Commission for the Ellwood
Mesa outside of the butterfly habitat.

Handicap Access
101 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Eurie, Pacific
Oaks
What is our general impression on how to handle the
problem of homeless encampments on Ellwood Mesa?
Comment noted. Encampment problems
are addressed by the Sheriff.

Human Impacts
102 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
City Manager
Michelle
Greene
About the homeless encampments Comment noted. Encampment problems are addressed by the Sheriff.

Human Impacts
103 8/7/18 Email Kevin Duffy One VERY important point missed was the city’s OBLIGATION TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF Invasive,
Destructive, Persistent PRESENCE OF semipermanent
CAMPERS who:
1) Create a public health risk (hepatitis) by using this environment as a toilet.
2) Accumulate then leave behind weathered piles of
personal items , trash, and yes hypodermic needles, all of which I have photo documented and presented
numerous times to city staff, council, etc.
3) Destroy shrubs, trees , disturb natural habitat , displace wildlife by hiding camps deep in thickets.
4) Create a fire hazard with camp fires and smoking.

Comment noted. Encampment problems
are addressed by the Sheriff.

Human Impacts
104 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Julie Gilmore Will the plan address busloads of people coming up from LA? City did a good job of directing them to the parking lot; still lots of impact. Will plan address this?
Comment noted. The MBHMP addresses
visitor issues in Sections 5, 6, 11, 12, 18
and 20.

Human Impacts
105 9/4/18 Email Ken Knight Provide greater detail on the estimated amount of water and irrigation infrastructure needed for both newly planted young trees and strategic mature Blue Gum Eucalyptus to survive and thrive.

Comment noted. A watering and
monitoring program is discussed in the
final 2018 IP for Coastal Commission
review and approval.

Irrigation
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan B-18
No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic  Underestimating water needs is a major reason why
restoring the redwoods at Stow Grove has been so
difficult. A 5 year irrigation plan may be necessary if the current drought continues. Irrigation water may not be
available or prohibitively expensive.
106 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Pro
Tempore Stuart
Kasdin
What is the plan for long-term irrigation for the a whole of Ellwood Mesa?
The MBHMP allows for use of water tanks
to irrigate new plantings. Specific irrigation
plans would be outlined in the IP’s.

Irrigation
107 8/9/18 Stakeholder
meeting
Bob
Morgenstern
The Plan won’t work if we don’t replace what nature is no longer providing.

Comment noted. Irrigation
108 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Pro
Tempore Stuart
Kasdin
I really want to see the irrigation plan for the whole of Ellwood Mesa.

Comment noted. Irrigation
109 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Councilmember
Michael T.

Bennett
It would seem that the only water that we have available is the reclaimed water and we are not using anywhere near
what is being produced. And we do have the pipes on
Hollister Ave. Is the plan to bring it into the top end of Santa Barbara Shores?
Comment noted. Irrigation
110 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Councilmember
Michael T.

Bennett
Will the current high salt content in the reclaimed water have an impact on the habitat?
Comment noted. Irrigation
111 8/20/18 Email Barbara Massey The plans are weak without specific protections for the butterflies and the trees. There is far too much use of the wording “managed, as feasible,” which further weakens any protections. There are no protections in these plans to keep a large number of trees from being cut down at any time without the Council’s or public’s knowledge. This is exactly what the Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management and
Implementation Plans were supposed to stop.

Comment noted. Definitions/
Terminology 112 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock This plan should make it clear that the intention is NOT to REPLACE blue gum eucalyptus with native trees in any part of the eucalyptus grove—not in the “gaps” or along the edge of the groves, or on the banks of the creek.

Comment noted. Language clarified to
designate areas of native planting in areas
already occupied by non-eucalyptus
vegetation
Restoration
113 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Mandi Burgess planting on Ellwood North for variety of reasons, probably will run into same reasons that make it difficult to plant – water, access. What tools and resources will you use in the future when you need to plant further in? City of SB uses gatorbags, close off…
Comment Noted. A watering program is
envisioned and included in the final 2018
IP.

Restoration
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Comments and City of Goleta Responses on the
Draft Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration B-19 No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 114 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Paula
Perotte
Ok, and if you need watering, you can get the kids to come down from Ellwood School and do some watering for us.

Comment noted. Public Involvement
115 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Paula
Perotte
I think Ellwood North is a fine location. Comment noted. General Support 116 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Sharleen Marie Put a tank up and drip Ellwood Main. Comment noted. Restoration 117 8/9/18 Stakeholder
meeting
Lisa Stratton,

UCSB CCBER
This plan needs to be more sustainable in the long term and support a higher diversity of species over time
Comment noted. Restoration
118 8/30/18 Email Lisa Stratton,

UCSB CCBER
Finally, I think you and your consultants have done a good job overall with the plan and I would like to propose that the City contract with CCBER to do a number of the
recommended actions. In particular, I think our staff could do a good job of conducting regular invasive plant
monitoring program for the plan area. We could provide
recommendations for action and oversight and/or
monitoring of any work done by crews you hire to
implement the work. We are concerned about weeds
spreading from adjacent areas into campus and see weeds as a significant threat to the monarchs and all users of the open space. We also think we could help support a research program on insect biodiversity in and out of the grove
because our director, Katja Seltmann, is an entomologist.

These are just two realms outside of helping with providing plants and restoration expertise where we think we can
become effective and long term, affordable partners in
restoring the larger Ellwood-Devereux Open Space.

Comment noted. Restoration
119 9/4/18 Email Ken Knight Provide a more detailed assessment of the ongoing costs and level of service needed to maintain a reasonable level of risk to the public using the area.
 The nature of Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees will require a level of ongoing maintenance similar to and exceeding
that provided to street trees.

Comment noted. Restoration
120 9/3/18 Letter Barbara Massey Instead of maintaining, replacing, and improving the eucalyptus groves, this plan is more interested in the
removal of trees and the public use of the Ellwood Mesa Monarch Butterfly Habitat.

Comment noted. Restoration
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan B-20
No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 121 8/2/18 &
8/9/18
Stakeholder
meeting
Lisa Stratton,

UCSB CCBER
Lack of management in grove is leading to proliferation of saplings, particularly along southern edge. These many
smaller trees are faster growing, use more water resources, compete with the large trees that support the monarchs.

Management of woodland should involve active removal of saplings and small trees and planting of native trees.

Comment noted. Restoration
122 8/30/18 Email Lisa Stratton,

UCSB CCBER
Further on this line of thinking is another comment from the 2013 document (page 23), which indicates in some areas the woodland is spreading to the south. This is an undesirable outcome because of the other habitat values on Ellwood
Mesa. The southern edge, and any spreading edges, need to be managed. This also speaks to the need for a map.

Comment noted. The eucalyptus current
boundary would not be expanded.

Restoration
123 8/30/18 Email Lisa Stratton,

UCSB CCBER
My overall point is that active management is needed and that integration with natives is important. The document suggests this, but I’m not sure it is spelled out clearly enough in terms of say a map of zones for native planting or with specific desired ‘tree densities” or other measures that would support a clear next step in terms of defining active management goals for each September. This kind of
specificity is important and should save money over time.

Comment noted. Restoration
124 9/2/18 Email Karl Rider I would like to caution on the less is more approach that was mentioned several times throughout the meeting. While
there are widely divergent goals of the different shareholder groups, there could be enough consensus to move forward with active planning to implement the 2018 goals. Active management of these goals will be needed to accomplish
the timeframe that was mentioned (5yrs) to be eligible for the funding if I understood correctly. Actively managed lands are more productive, more resilient to change, and allow greater opportunities for recreation. This land has been actively managed for the last 120 years and its current use and importance is a testament to the success of actively managing land.

Comment noted. Restoration
125 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Ana Citrin It should be a public map… Comment noted. Definitions/ Terminology
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Comments and City of Goleta Responses on the
Draft Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration B-21 No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 126 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Ana Citrin It would be helpful to go back and see that map because I haven’t been able to find that map in the GP. I thought the zoning of the additional parcels was consistent, even though one area has a playground and is a little different. If you look at the draft MBHMP that was published on the City’s
website forever, and the print out included in the
comments, it clearly includes additional area.

Comment noted. Misc. Clarification 127 8/22/18 PTAC
Meeting
Jessica Altstatt How is canopy cover measured? What metrics are used? What is the baseline/reference point? If the baseline is from within the past five years, it will be reduced due to the drought. What are we trying to get back to? Also, are we taking into account the recent Edison tree removal?
Comment noted. Mapping will include up-
to-date aerials, historic references, and
current best practices.

Misc. Clarification
128 8/16/18 Email Alfred Smith Page 14 Background, Last Paragraph:

Recommend that a footnote be added to provide the
implications of terms like “Special Animals List” and
“imperiled to vulnerable”.

How did those designations influence recommendations?
Comment noted. Reference added. Misc. Clarification
129 8/16/18 Email Alfred Smith Page 19 Community Wildfire Protection Plan:
“...butterfly and wildland fire experts…”
Recommend a footnote to indicate who these experts were.

Comment noted. Experts will be City-
approved.

Misc. Clarification
130 8/21/18 Email Chris Messner The Urban Forest is defined as all public and private trees.

Including Street Tree Systems, trees in Parks and other Public Lands
Under Resolution No. 12-78 -and- Ordinance No. 12-16, the UFMP clearly calls for a public Commission to advise and develop plans for all of the Urban Forest.

Comment noted. Authority/ Agency
131 8/21/18 Email Chris Messner UFMP Chapter 1.0, First paragraph:
“The City of Goleta initiated the development of this urban Forest Management plan to provide a guide for long term preservation and enhancement of the urban forest within the City’s jurisdiction.”
Comment noted. Reference added. Misc. Clarification
132 8/21/18 Email Chris Messner UFMP Chapter 1.0, Third paragraph:
“The Urban forest consists of all public and private trees, which include the street tree system, trees in parks and other public lands,… This plan deals with the City trees, focusing on those trees which line streets, walkways, parks and other City owned areas.”
Comment noted. Misc. Clarification
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan B-22
No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 133 8/21/18 Email Chris Messner UFMP Chapter 1.0, Policy Goals:

1.0.1 “Implement the Urban Forest Management Plan
covering all City areas, and all new land use development applications within the City of Goleta.”
Comment noted. Misc. Clarification
134 8/21/18 Email Chris Messner UFMP Chapter 4.15.1, Guidelines:

Use UFMP adopted procedures for defining and designating the protection of Heritage/landmark trees on city property.

Comment noted. Misc. Clarification
135 8/21/18 Email Chris Messner UFMP Chapter 4.15, Naming a Heritage Tree:

When considering a heritage tree designation, PTAC will also make a recommendation to the City Council on the naming of the heritage trees.

The name shall be informative:
a. Location
b. Common Name
i.e.: the Stow Grove Park Redwoods
the Ellwood Mesa Eucalyptus Grove
the Old Town Park Sycamore
(NOTE: reference of trees above are of Parks and Open
Space areas)
Comment noted. Misc. Clarification
136 8/21/18 Email Chris Messner UFMP Chapter 4.17:

Public tree Advisory Commission (PTAC)
“The Public Tree Advisory Commission was adopted by City Council through Resolution NO. 12-78, on November 6, 2012 (incorporated herein as Appendix
E). The Public Tree Advisory Commission should provide
advice to the Public Works Director and the City Council on how to plan and implement a City urban forestry
management program. The mission of the commission
should include advising, administration and management of City UFMP.”
Comment noted. Misc. Clarification
137 8/21/18 Email Chris Messner UFMP Appendix C, title of Appendix C:

PUBLIC TREE PLANTING GUIDELINES
Comment noted. Misc. Clarification
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Comments and City of Goleta Responses on the
Draft Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration B-23 No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 138 8/21/18 Email Chris Messner UFMP Appendix D Resolution 12-78, EXHIBIT “A” Duties and Responsibilities:

4. Review and provide suggestions to staff on the
implantation of public tree planting.

7. Coordinate with appointed City commissions and make
recommendations to staff on policies, standards,
guidelines and regulations for street trees and other
public trees located within City-owned open spaces.

Comment noted. Misc. Clarification
139 8/31/18 email Emma Pelton,
Xerces Society
I would state the overwintering population’s decline more bluntly on pg. 1. The way it’s currently written: “The
monarch butterfly populations at Ellwood Mesa and in
California statewide have been in decline for several years.” sounds like the species could be in relatively minor decline and that it’s only a recent phenomenon. I would suggest re- framing this sentence to include the decline number of
“over 95% since the 1980s” (Schultz et al. 2017) or at least “74% since the 1990s” (Pelton et al. 2016).

Comment noted. Additional language
included.

Misc. Clarification
140 8/30/18 Email Lisa Stratton,

UCSB CCERB
Action 12-1.10 says, “Replace removed trees at a one to one ratio with five-gallon container stock”. Is that replace with natives or non-natives? Needs clarification and seems wrong given the indication that too much forest density creates problems for Monarchs – add a caveat that allows you to integrate considerations for density, gallery areas, etc., and identify those areas specifically. You do something along those lines in Action 12-2.1, but please link tree planting to the criteria in 12-2.

Comment noted. Restoration
141 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Lori Gastin Lots of terms that are passive. “Shall encourage, as feasible, shall establish.” Lots of qualifiers.

Comment noted. Definitions/
Terminology
142 7/27/18 Email Lara Drizd,
USFWS
I wasn’t sure if I was able to view all of the figures in the Implementation Plan because a couple of blank pages
towards the end didn’t include the blank page notice.

Comment noted. Misc. Clarification
143 8/16/18 Email Alfred Smith Pg. 12 Executive Summary, Fourth paragraph:

Recommend the executive summary provides the reader
some indication of budget and schedule for each of the four bullet points. Without it, there is no way for the reader to grasp the magnitude of these plans.

Comment noted. Misc. Clarification
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan B-24
No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 144 8/16/18 Email Alfred Smith Methods:

Suggest the main focus should also include recommended
content of regular, concise reports to track progress and to whom they are delivered.

Comment noted. Monitoring reports are
included in MBHMP Action 20-3.1.

Misc. Clarification
145 8/21/18 Email Chris Messner It has come to my attention that some city staff in the past have argued that the PTAC only covers Street Trees. This erroneous statement was recently put forward again. I
would urge all staff who deal with tree, or open space, to actually read the City’s adopted UFMP. The Ellwood Mesa Grove needs to go before PTAC whether or not staff wishes that were so because the City Council has spoken.

Comment noted. Misc. Clarification 146 8/22/18 PTAC
Meeting
Jessica Altstatt A 1-page summary of the 2018 IP to describe “this is what we’re doing” would be helpful.

Comment noted. Misc. Clarification
147 8/22/18 PTAC
Meeting
Jessica Altstatt Why is this not a catastrophic event now? We’ve lost so many trees - how much worse can it get before we call it catastrophic?
Comment noted. The MBHMP requires
approval by the City Council of a finding
that an event is catastrophic (Section 9,
Policy 9-2 and Action 9-2.3). This provides
a public process and a decision by elected
officials.

Misc. Clarification
148 8/22/18 PTAC
Meeting
Lynn Kirby Work in the 2018 IP is to be done in the month of September. However, if this goes to City Council and gets tweaked, none of it will start until 2019, if things go well.

Comment noted. Misc. Clarification
149 9/3/18 Letter FOTEM Clarify Policy 1-1 to Ensure the MBHMP Reflects Current Data Regarding our Local Monarch Population. Suggested
language::Policy 1-1: The City shall review, and revise as necessary, the MBHMP to reflect current data, butterfly conservation science, and management techniques
regarding the local monarch population
Comment noted. Language will be clarified
to emphasis information applicable to the
local habitat.

Definitions/
Terminology
150 9/3/18 Letter FOTEM Changes such as the below recommended change to Policy 1-2 clarify that it is not protection of the environment in general, rather protection of monarch butterfly habitat specifically that is the MBHMP’s charge. Policy 1-2. During implementation of the programs, goals, policies, and actions described in this MBHMP, and during the planning and
implementation of other projects that may affect monarch butterfly habitat within the Ellwood Mesa Open Space,
protection of monarch butterfly habitat the environment shall be given the utmost consideration
Comment noted. Language in Policy 1-2 is
clarified.

Definitions/
Terminology
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Comments and City of Goleta Responses on the
Draft Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration B-25 No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 151 9/3/18 Letter FOTEM Policy 14.2 speaks about “Gaps in the eucalyptus groves” being considered for “restoration alternatives.” Where are the gaps that this policy refers to? Please clarify and provide a map
Comment noted. Language clarified. Definitions/
Terminology
152 9/3/18 Letter FOTEM Action 14-3.1 calls for the establishment of a riparian forest along the banks of Devereux using some native plants in or around the eucalyptus forest for windbreak, to fill out the understory, to provide nectar, or other functions that
benefit the monarchs. This action seems to call for the substitution of one type of ESHA (native riparian forest) for another (monarch ESHA) and essentially strip Ellwood of its most important monarch habitat. This policy seems to
directly contradict Policy 14.5 and others.

Comment noted. Language clarified to
designate areas of native planting in areas
already occupied by non-eucalyptus
vegetation
Definitions/
Terminology
153 9/3/18 Letter FOTEM Expressly Include Activities Undertaken by Utilities and Other Non-City Entities and Clarify Minimum Requirements.

Include additional language to include utilities and other non-City entities, and require City monitoring.

Comment noted. Although SCE has a
separate permitting pathway, language
added to include MBHMP standards.

Authority/ Agency
154 9/3/18 Letter FOTEM Goal 10. To facilitate ensure the ongoing use of Ellwood Mesa by the monarch butterfly.

Comment noted. Language clarified. Definitions/
Terminology
155 9/3/18 Letter FOTEM Policy 10-1. The City shall encourage implement management strategies that facilitate the use of Ellwood Mesa by monarch butterflies.

Comment noted. Language clarified. Definitions/
Terminology
156 9/3/18 Letter FOTEM Policy 10-2. Preservation of aggregation sites on Ellwood Mesa shall be a the focus of management activities, as
feasible, and in coordination with Program 9, Catastrophic Event Response Program.

Comment noted. Language clarified. Definitions/
Terminology
157 9/3/18 Letter FOTEM Policy 20-3: Create a Monitoring Report, updated annually, when feasible, resulting from the information obtained
during the implementation of the various policies and
actions called for in this MBHMP
Comment noted. Language clarified. Definitions/
Terminology
158 9/3/18 Letter FOTEM Action 20-3.1: Track the implementation of this MBHMP in the form of a Monitoring Report, preferably updated on an annual basis, and presented at a public workshop.

Comment noted. Language clarified. Definitions/
Terminology
159 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock Action 1-2.1 says, “…should normally include pre-activity surveys…as deemed appropriate.” Why would it ever be
inappropriate to do a pre-activity survey before doing
“activities with the potential to significantly disrupt habitat values?” It should say, “Shall include pre-activity surveys…” Comment noted. The phrase, “as deemed
appropriate”, follows a list of potential
surveys, and applies to the type of survey.

For example, it is not appropriate to
survey for nesting birds in October, when
birds are not nesting.

Definitions/
Terminology
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan B-26
No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 160 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock Policy 20-3 says a Monitoring Report should be updated annually when feasible.” Why wouldn’t it be feasible? That word should be removed.

Comment noted. Language clarified. Definitions/
Terminology
161 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock Action 20-3.1 says to “track the implementation of this plan in the form of a monitoring report preferably updated on an annual basis.” Take out “preferably” and add “presented in a public workshop.”
Comment noted. Language clarified. The
report will be a public document.

Misc. Clarification
162 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock Policy 8-1 speaks of a review for need for updates…at least every five years. But Action 22-1.3 talks about reviewing the plan every fifth year “as feasible.” Is this the same review or a different one? This second mention of a review implies that it might be an even longer interval before there is such a review and evaluation. Even if this is done every five years, that is still not very often.

Comment noted. Action 22-1.3 is in the
context of the adaptive management
program and calls for review of
management policies and actions with
respect to any changes in butterfly use or
ecosystem health. Goal 8 is a review of the
entire MBHMP, not just biology.

Misc. Clarification
163 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock Several of these policies and actions refer to managing aggregation sites, and not the entire ESHA. Others are like Policy 16-2 that says, “The City shall manage eucalyptus trees supporting monarch butterfly aggregation sites in the context of all eucalyptus habitat at Ellwood Mesa.”“ I am not sure what “in the context” means. Does it mean that all eucalyptus habitat will be maintained?
Comment noted. Definitions/
Terminology
164 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock It should be made clear that all eucalyptus forest designated as monarch ESHA should be maintained, not just
“aggregation sites.”
Comment noted. Definitions/
Terminology
165 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock Action 2-2.2 allows payments of compensatory mitigation fees to help fund the plan when a development project has impacts on monarch habitat. This is concerning because it suggests that a developer would be allowed to harm
monarch habitat and just pay mitigation fees. And perhaps the City would welcome this as a way to fund the plan.

Please clarify how this would not create a conflict of interest in the project approval process.

Comment noted. Funding
166 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock Policy 14.2 speaks about “Gaps in the eucalyptus groves” being considered for “restoration alternatives.” Where are the gaps that this policy refers to?
Comment noted. Language clarified. Definitions/
Terminology
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Comments and City of Goleta Responses on the
Draft Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration B-27 No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 167 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock Action 14-3.1 calls for the establishment of a native riparian forest along the banks of Devereux Creek composed of
native riparian tree species. This action would result in the replacing one type of ESHA (monarch habitat) with another (native riparian forest).

Comment noted. Language clarified to
designate areas of native planting in areas
already occupied by non-eucalyptus
vegetation.

Misc. Clarification
168 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Councilmember
Kyle Richards
Terminology and designations of the different areas
included in the MBHMP
Comment noted. Definitions/
Terminology
169 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Cynthia Brock Comments to the Implementation Plan, Figure 1 shows 22 dead trees and should also show the trees that were
removed.

Comment noted. Figure has been revised. Misc. Clarification 170 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Cynthia Brock Work will include trees proposed for removal Comment noted. The Final 2018 IP describes work to be done; no additional
trees are proposed for removal in the 2018
IP.

Misc. Clarification
171 7/27/18 Email Lara Drizd,
USFWS
MBHMP Pg 39-41 - Interpretive Program - If there’s anything we can do to help with outreach and education, please let us know. Diana has already sent me her curriculum for the Monarch MOVES program which I’m currently going
through. We also have a biologist in our office here who has been planting pollinator gardens with school groups for years and we could help out if you’re interested in having kids involved in restoration and planting efforts.

Comment noted. Public Involvement
172 8/20/18 Email Barbara Massey Docents need much better training so that they follow proper procedures. They should never go into areas not
approved for visitors even when there is a lack of butterflies at the approved sites. This could be used as a teaching moment to discuss what happens when an area is disturbed or when their numbers decrease.

Comment noted. Training of the docents is
the role of the monarch docent
coordinator.

Public Involvement
173 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Barbara Massey I don’t trust Public Works. Comment noted. Authority/ Agency 174 8/22/18 PTAC
Meeting
Lynn Kirby Public Works is responsible for implementing the 2018 IP. Is Public Works getting more staff to do this work?
Comment noted. Authority/ Agency
175 9/3/18 Letter Barbara Massey One of the worst parts of the Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management and Implementation Plans is that the Public
Works Department has been given the responsibility for
most of the Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management and
Implementation Plans. This is placing the very people who tried to cut down 100s of eucalyptus trees in charge of their care. The plans should be the responsibility of the Planning Comment noted Authority/ Agency
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan B-28
No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic and Environmental Review Department with any work done
by Public Works staff or qualified contractors.
176 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Ana Citrin It was encouraging to hear about the new management of an open space, however it is critical the staff members with biological resources expertise oversee implementation of this plan. PW is focused on getting the job done and here we need to ensure that the habitat is safeguarded.

Comment noted. Authority/ Agency
177 9/2/18 Email Karl Rider I encourage the commission to seek the advice of a forester, familiar with managing a similar stand type,
acknowledgement of the fact that this may need to be
sourced from the eucalyptus native range. The forester
would be able to discuss stand management, harvest
strategies, regeneration rates and timber uses of the stand.

Active management of the stand can be accomplished while addressing the various stakeholders needs. In keeping with the planters goals for the stand, an avenue could be
explored for utilizing the wood that could be fuel wood, building materials, chips for paths, grade control structures for riparian restoration or other uses that will enhance and help preserve the site.

Comment noted. Authority/ Agency
178 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Eurie, Pacific
Oaks
hard time to figure out who to contact. Add this info to signs? Call XX if you see issues with Ellwood.

Comment noted. Signs
179 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Mark Holmgren clarification of removal of pest-infestation. Psillids – lurps on leaves – can be considered infestation but mostly just
essential part/user of ecosystem.

Comment noted. Language clarified. Restoration
180 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Tim Burges, SB
Shores
Why is there a fire zone on the south east boundary? Comment noted. Maps have been revised. Fire 181 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Tim Burges, SB
Shores
Boundary of plan area: the Pebble Beach and SB shores area is included in the GP maps and in Ellwood Dev OSP. Why was this area excluded and can it be included in the final plan? Comment noted. Restoration
182 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Public Public wants to include this park area into the MBHMP Comment noted. Authority/ Agency 183 7/27/18 Email Lara Drizd,
USFWS
MBHMP Pg 1 - It was unclear to me how Ocean Meadows is
being treated. The Implementation Plan seems to imply that it’s not on City Property. I’m guessing the difference is that it doesn’t regularly have monarchs, despite the trees being in fairly good health?
Comment noted. Authority/ Agency
184 9/3/18 Letter FOTEM Request staff to expand boundary of the MBHMP to include Area S
Comment noted. Authority/ Agency
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Comments and City of Goleta Responses on the
Draft Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration B-29 No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 185 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock The area covered by the Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan (MBHMP) should encompass all monarch
ESHA on City-owned properties that were included in the Ellwood/Devereux Open Space Habitat Management Plan
(OSHMP).

Comment noted. Authority/ Agency
186 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Ana Citrin Plan area scope and what is included in that Area. The area between Santa Barbara Shores Drive and Pebble Beach Drive that is included in the Devereux-Ellwood Open Space Plan, including the City’s approved portion of it and included in all the General Plan maps. There is monarch ESHA in that area.

One plan map identifies key site 4 as an open coastal spot, it is not clear to me that it is the exclusive open plan map and seems as those the open space management plan contains
the guiding directives in terms of protecting monarch
habitat and this area is recognized as part of that plan, specifically the value of unoccupied groves are
acknowledged as providing backup of it. It is important that this additional area be preserved for the monarch butterfly.

We encourage you to extend the MBHMP boundary to
include this area. We have not heard a good reason as to why not. There is a small area with some playground
equipment that could easily be treated differently to protect what’s there for children.

Comment noted. Authority/ Agency
187 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Ana Citrin Boundary issue (continued) Comment noted. Authority/ Agency 188 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Ana Citrin Ellwood Mesa Boundary Issue Comment noted. The Open Space Element of the General Plan shows on Figure 3-2
Parks and Recreation Plan Map that the
Ellwood Mesa is #30, 31 and 34 and are
listed as Regional Open Space on Table 3-

1. Santa Barbara Shores Open Space is
labeled #33 and designated as
Neighborhood Open Space. These
different distinctions preclude the
inclusion of the SB Shores area with the
Ellwood Mesa area in the MBHMP.

Authority/ Agency
189 8/22/18 PTAC
Meeting
Jessica Altstatt The proposed restoration site is a good location - it is accessible for work and for visitors/education. It’s also easier to monitor and care for the trees.

Comment noted. Restoration
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan B-30
No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 190 8/22/18 PTAC
Meeting
Jessica Altstatt The west side of Ellwood North would be a good site for native restoration (shrubs or trees) - it is out of the fire management area and visible for educational purposes. It also provides greater light, which is lacking within the eucalyptus grove. This would be beneficial for birds, bees, butterflies, and the public.

Comment noted. Restoration
191 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Paula
Perotte
Do we set the replacement ratio or is that the CCC? Comment Noted. The total number of trees to be used in the restoration was
derived by calculating the number of trees
that could be planted and grow effectively
within the restoration area to maximize
the most suitable habitat and density
sought. A “ratio” was not used.

Misc. Clarification
192 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Paula
Perotte
If we want to increase the replacement ratio, would it be up to the Council? Because not all trees survive.

Comment noted. Yes, the MBHMP
requires Council approval of IP
recommendations.

Misc. Clarification
193 8/31/18 email Emma Pelton,
Xerces Society
Have you considered increasing the replacement ratio from 1:1 to 2:1? Just to account for some sapling mortality and/or have better wind protection sooner? However, it may
require later thinning which I can see might require careful public messaging.

Comment Noted. The total number of
trees to be used in the restoration was
derived by calculating the number of trees
that could be planted and grow effectively
within the restoration area to maximize
the most suitable habitat and density
sought. A “ratio” was not used.

Restoration
194 9/4/18 Email Ken Knight Provide an estimated survival rate of newly planted trees, and a follow up process to replant and maintain those trees.  This is a very challenging area to plant. It will be difficult to replant and irrigate after initial planting efforts have been completed.

Comment Noted. In any instance where a
planted restoration trees dies, it will also
be replaced in order to meet the 100%
survival goal in the final 2018 IP.

Misc. Clarification
195 9/4/18 Email Ken Knight Update the 2001 UC Cooperative Extension planting standards used in the Plan to 2018 planting standards, such as International Society of Arboriculture Best Management Practices for planting trees.
 There have been great advances in planting
methodologies over the last 17 years that have not
addressed in the Plan including soil testing, root shearing before planting and techniques for planting in dry,
compacted soils.

Comment Noted. More recent
methodologies have been used and cited
throughout the final 2018 IP.

Restoration
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Comments and City of Goleta Responses on the
Draft Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration B-31 No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 196 9/3/18 Letter FOTEM The 2018 IP is intended to include mitigation for the previous removal of 29 eucalyptus in 2017 authorized under an emergency permit from the Coastal Commission. We’re
concerned that the 2018 IP appears to include the absolute bare minimum, and should be revised to include additional eucalyptus planting proximate to the area where each of the 29 eucalyptus were removed under the 2017 emergency
permit, in addition to the proposed planting near Ellwood North
Comment Noted. The final 2018 IP
involves planting of 63 eucalyptus trees as
replacement and/or habitat enhancement
trees, with red ironbark eucalyptus
planted closer to the outer edge of the
restoration area and blue gum eucalyptus
planted closer to the interior of the
restoration area. This configuration will
mean that the heartier tree species will be
located on the outside of the grove,
thereby offering protection for the tree
species on the interior, to help ensure that
the enhanced habitat will be healthier and
therefore be more suitable for monarch
butterflies.

Restoration
197 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock Consider a higher mitigation ratio, or plan to plant additional trees when needed to re-create optimal structure and
desirable density of the forest.

Comment Noted. The final 2018 IP
involves planting of 63 eucalyptus trees as
replacement and/or habitat enhancement
trees, with red ironbark eucalyptus
planted closer to the outer edge of the
restoration area and blue gum eucalyptus
planted closer to the interior of the
restoration area. This configuration will
mean that the heartier tree species will be
located on the outside of the grove,
thereby offering protection for the tree
species on the interior, to help ensure that
the enhanced habitat will be healthier and
therefore be more suitable for monarch
butterflies.

Restoration
198 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Cynthia Brock Planting only 28 trees doesn’t provide adequate mitigation for the previously removed trees. Some of the trees
removed were very large, multi-trunk trees. One small tree won’t replace the function of the older trees for many
decades. If the mitigation ratio was higher, we could begin to restore the aggregation site buffers where the trees were removed as well as enhance the Ellwood North site. The
blue gum eucs that were removed could be replaced in
addition to adding the ironbark eucs. so plant more trees at least some of them in the areas where the trees were
removed especially near the aggregation sites
Comment Noted. The final 2018 IP
involves planting of 63 eucalyptus trees as
replacement and/or habitat enhancement
trees, with red ironbark eucalyptus
planted closer to the outer edge of the
restoration area and blue gum eucalyptus
planted closer to the interior of the
restoration area. This configuration will
mean that the heartier tree species will be
located on the outside of the grove,
thereby offering protection for the tree
species on the interior, to help ensure that
Restoration
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan B-32
No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic the enhanced habitat will be healthier and
therefore be more suitable for monarch
butterflies.
199 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Paula
Perotte
Why not ask the CCC to plant more than 1:1 replacement
ratio of trees?
Comment Noted. The final 2018 IP
involves planting of 63 eucalyptus trees as
replacement and/or habitat enhancement
trees, with red ironbark eucalyptus
planted closer to the outer edge of the
restoration area and blue gum eucalyptus
planted closer to the interior of the
restoration area. This configuration will
mean that the heartier tree species will be
located on the outside of the grove,
thereby offering protection for the tree
species on the interior, to help ensure that
the enhanced habitat will be healthier and
therefore be more suitable for monarch
butterflies.

Restoration
200 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Paula
Perotte
I like the idea of putting them all in this one area for now and there must be other areas that need it.

Comment Noted. Restoration
201 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Paula
Perotte
What I read about the questioning of the 1:1 seemed to be questioning whether that was going to die off of the
plantings and you need to accommodate for the survival
rate being 100% or 70%.

Comment Noted. Restoration
202 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Pro
Tempore Stuart
Kasdin
I see, so for the CCC, if you wanted to have a final take of 28 trees and we planted 40, they would want to see 40. They assume 100% survival rate and we would replace as we go along.

Comment Noted. Restoration
203 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Councilmember
Kyle Richards
Is there any other reason that we would want to not start planting aggressively now?
Comment Noted. Any restoration plantings
or other activities within the Ellwood Mesa
area will require approval by the Coastal
Commission before the City is permitted to
begin.

Restoration
204 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Paula
Perotte
The only reason I am questioning the 1:1 is because I
haven’t heard of 1:1. I’ve heard of 2 or 3
Comment Noted. No “ratio” was used in
the final 2018 IP, but rather a restoration
area and healthy planting distances and
methodology to derive 63 replacement
trees.

Restoration
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Comments and City of Goleta Responses on the
Draft Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration B-33 No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 205 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Councilmember
Kyle Richards
Regarding the density, I was thinking that if we had more, then we would look at a larger area, not putting more in the same area
Comment Noted. Restoration
206 9/3/18 Letter FOTEM The location of the replanted trees is problematic. While we understand that the proposed replanting in the Ellwood
North area carries certain benefits for the Ellwood North aggregation area, it does not directly mitigate for the trees lost. We encourage the City Council to direct Staff to revise the 2018 1P to include additional replanting of eucalyptus proximate to the locations where each of the 29 eucalyptus were removed.

Comment Noted. The proposed replanting
location presents the fewest problems for
successful replanting, and provides much
needed protection of a monarch butterfly
aggregation site. It is a high priority
restoration area, where the location of
dead tree removal is not. Removal of dead
trees does not carry a “mitigation”
requirement under the current permit, but
is a restoration activity. Trees in the
removal area will be replaced under the
guidance of an approved CDP from the
Coastal Commission, with the
recommendations set forth in the 2018 IP.

Restoration 207 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Cynthia Brock Will trees be planted to mitigate the removal of additional trees?
Comment Noted. No additional trees are
proposed for removal in the 2018 IP.

Misc. Clarification
208 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Cynthia Brock Will all the 28 replacement trees be planted along the western boundary Ellwood North and I guess we’ve had that answered, it would do nothing to mitigate the other areas where trees were removed. It doesn’t address the condition in the emergency permit that calls for restoration of
aggregation sites. 5 of the trees that were removed last year were within the buffer zones of Ellwood Main and West. The structure and function of those groves should be restored by planting some of these trees within the areas were trees were removed, especially within the aggregation sites.

Comment Noted. The proposed replanting
location presents the fewest problems for
successful replanting, and provides much
needed protection of a monarch butterfly
aggregation site. It is a high priority
restoration area, where the location of
dead tree removal is not. Removal of dead
trees does not carry a “mitigation”
requirement under the current permit, but
is a restoration activity. Trees in the
removal area will be replaced under the
guidance of an approved CDP from the
Coastal Commission, with the
recommendations set forth in the 2018 IP.

Restoration
209 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Ana Citrin Increase mitigation ratio is critical. You’re going to need to go the coastal commission every time you want to do one of these approved. Why not ask for additional planting and get authorization for irrigation in additional planting areas now so that you have the flexibility to do that and to truly restore this area and mitigation for the impacts that were previously done to this area.

Comment Noted. No “ratio” was used in
the final 2018 IP, but rather a restoration
area and healthy planting distances and
methodology to derive 63 replacement
trees.

Restoration
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan B-34
No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 210 9/3/18 Letter Barbara Massey There are no protections in these plans to keep a large number of trees from being cut down at any time without the Council’s or public’s knowledge or approval.

Comment Noted. Authority/ Agency
211 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Councilmember
Kyle Richards
Will there be a staff response to the comment letters? To what degree will we know that the comments have been
received and that we did anything about them?
Comment Noted. City staff has created a
matrix of comments and staff responses to
each comment received during public
discussions as well as those that were
emailed to the City.

Misc. Clarification
212 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Councilmember
Kyle Richards
What about when there is a conflict in the comments? With the type of species that we plant and the riparian areas? How do we manage that? Or will that come back to us?
Comment Noted. Conflicts are resolved
with the best available information.

Misc. Clarification
213 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Councilmember
Kyle Richards
I’d like to include the comments that were brought up today and the topic of the expansion area and the other concerns that were brought up today.

Comment Noted. Many of the comments
received during the public meeting guided
revisions to the draft IP and help form the
final 2018 IP that submitted to the Coastal
Commission for review as part of the
follow-on CDP to the 2017 EMP.

Misc. Clarification
214 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock The BMHMP assigns a large role to the docents to provide feedback about the management of the groves. While this group has valuable experience in the grove, there are many other members of the public who are very concerned and
also bring valid information.

Comment Noted. Each IP will be presented
at a public hearing for City Council review
and approval.

Public Involvement
215 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock Policy 18-2 makes the docents (through the docent coordinator) the only input for the signage program. What about all the other interested people? Their opinions and recommendations should also be sought. Add methods to
solicit recommendations from other interested persons.

Comment Noted. Policy 18-2 states the
Butterfly Docent Coordinator shall provide
input regarding the interpretative
program. The policy in no way restricts
public comment or inquiry.

Public Involvement
216 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Sharleen Marie What are we doing this year in September? City continued to edit the final 2018 IP throughout later months of 2018 and will
be submitting an application to the Coastal
Commission to formally permit the
emergency removal and pruning that
occurred in late 2017.

Misc. Clarification
217 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Sharleen Marie Will the City be cutting more trees? Removing vines? Planting things?
Not in 2018, but the City will consider if
removal of additional dead trees will be
necessary in the future. Any additional
work for restoration will be discussed in
detail in the final 2018 IP.

Misc. Clarification
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Comments and City of Goleta Responses on the
Draft Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration B-35 No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 218 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Eurie, Pacific
Oaks
What’s a stakeholder? Anyone who is interested in process including but not limited to agencies, staff,
council, public, neighbors at Coronado and
North Campus open space.

Misc. Clarification
219 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Eurie, Pacific
Oaks
Has there ever been any mgmt. of this area, ever? Yes, the forest was actively managed as a wood lot from its beginning in the 1870s
until the 1980s.

Misc. Clarification
220 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Mandi Burgess What do you want from us? what we want to see? Comment Noted. Staff has incorporated all relevant and applicable comments and
suggestions into the final 2018 IP, as
appropriate.

Misc. Clarification
221 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Cris Lange What is CCC reviewing? Comment Noted. The City will be including the final 2018 Implementation Plan in its
application to the Coastal Commission, as
required by the issued Emergency Permit.

The City anticipates work detailed within
the plan to begin in 2019.

Misc. Clarification
222 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
General public
comment
MBHMP page 126 says that down fuel does not play
important role. Has anything in the research changed since 2012?
Comment Noted. MBHMP monitoring,
research, and adaptive management
programs will obtain new information as it
becomes available.

Misc. Clarification
223 8/16/18 Email Alfred Smith Pg. 12 Executive Summary, Second paragraph:

Why is the UFMP not mentioned as a key policy document? Was the UFMP referenced at all when developing the plans? Comment Noted. Reference to the UFMP
was added to the policy section of the
document.

Authority/ Agency
224 8/22/18 PTAC
Meeting
Phebe Mansur Are you coordinating with the folks on the Coronado Plan? Comment Noted. The City coordinates Plans.

Misc. Clarification
225 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Paula
Perotte
Will the signage be going to the design review board? Comment Noted. Public signage within City-owned parks and open spaces is
determined by the City Council (and the
Coastal Commission within the Coastal
Zone areas of the City) and is installed and
maintained by Public Works. Signage
would likely only go to DRB if directed by
the Council to do so.

Misc. Clarification
226 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Pro
Tempore Stuart
Kasdin
If you put together a budget and an irrigation plan I presume after the MBHMP, would that be part of submitting this? Comment Noted. The final 2018 IP has
been revised to describe the restoration
work sought by the City.

Misc. Clarification
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan B-36
No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 227 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Pro
Tempore Stuart
Kasdin
So for the irrigation you will have already taken care of the introductory requirements and will then just need
permitting?
Comment Noted. The final 2018 IP has
been revised to describe the restoration
work sought by the City.

Misc. Clarification
228 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Cynthia Brock Will the 22 dead trees in Figure 1 be removed prior to restoration planting?
Comment Noted. Figure 1 depicts only
those trees that were previously removed
or pruned in 2017 under the Emergency
Permit.

Misc. Clarification
229 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Paula
Perotte
Did you get the direction that you wanted? Comment Noted. Staff has incorporated all relevant and applicable comments and
suggestion into the final 2018 IP, as
appropriate.

Misc. Clarification
230 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Paula
Perotte
The big question is the scope of the open space plan. I think we need to make it really clear what is the scope. I’m still a little confused as to the boundary and the scope of the plan.

How can we deal with it?
Comment noted. The MBHMP provides a
map (Figure 2) that shows the Monarch
Butterfly Habitat Management Plan
Coverage Area. It is not defined by parcels.

Authority/ Agency
231 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock Is the treatment different for “aggregation areas,” “roosts,” “trees supporting seasonal monarch butterfly aggregation sites,” “aggregation site buffers,” or the eucalyptus forest beyond the buffers.

There is no difference in the treatments
for these various areas.

Restoration
232 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock If other types of eucalyptus will be considered for restoration, a table should be added that shows those
different types and compares their attributes like size, growing habit, nectaring time, whether they are known to be used for aggregation, etc.

Comment Noted. Restoration in North
Ellwood associated with the emergency
removal of hazard Eucalyptus trees will
use both eucalyptus trees and native
understory. A variety of tree and plant
species are being considered throughout
the other areas of the grove.

Restoration
233 8/30/18 Email Lisa Stratton,

UCSB CCBER
Policy 14-2 says: “Gaps in eucalyptus groves shall be
considered for habitat enhancement and restoration
alternatives” – the subsequent actions are good – but could you add a strategic time line to this (now that funding is available) that says something like: A strategic planting plan and map will be created in 2018-19 with the goal of
addressing all current and developing gaps and restoration opportunities by (say) 2024.

Comment noted. Language clarified to
designate areas of native planting in areas
already occupied by non-eucalyptus
vegetation.

Restoration
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Comments and City of Goleta Responses on the
Draft Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan

Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration B-37 No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 234 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Barbara Massey Want eucs restored with eucs, not natives. Comment Noted. As discussed in the final 2018 IP, there would be 11 red ironbark
eucalyptus planted closer to the outer
edge of the restoration area, and 52 blue
gum eucalyptus planted closer to the
interior of the restoration area.

Restoration
235 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Mandi Burgess About eucs vs natives discussion Comment Noted. Restoration in North Ellwood associated with the emergency
removal of hazard Eucalyptus trees will
use both eucalyptus trees and native
understory. A variety of tree and plant
species are being considered throughout
the other areas of the grove.

Restoration
236 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Jennifer Loftis Dead trees prevent recruitment of understory – how are you doing restoration?
Comment Noted. The total number of
trees to be used in the restoration was
derived by calculating the number of trees
that could be planted and grow effectively
within the restoration area to maximize
the most suitable habitat and density
sought. A “ratio” was not used.

Restoration
237 8/2/18 &
8/9/18
Stakeholder
meeting
Lisa Stratton,

UCSB CCBER
No maps provided in plan, see below for proposed focus on doing active restoration of all non-aggregation areas with native trees which can reduce fire risk, establish early to continue to provide environmental amelioration of the
grove, support insects, birds, wildlife to complement
Eucalyptus trees
Comment Noted. The 2018 IP has been
updated with maps.

Restoration
238 9/3/18 Letter Barbara Massey There seems to be a continuing push from staff to restore eucalyptus trees with native plants, not eucalyptus trees. At the workshop the public strongly supported any restoration to be with the more appropriate eucalyptus trees.

Comment Noted. The MBHMP Identifies
planting eucalyptus as the action to
correct habitat deficiencies.

Restoration
239 9/3/18 Letter Barbara Massey There is also too much emphasis on clearing understory and removing fallen trees which are much needed by the other wildlife in the groves. I see this as no improvement or very little over current flawed plans.

Comment Noted. Restoration
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan B-38
No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 240 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Councilmember
Roger S. Aceves
Restoration with native understory makes good sense to
me. Assuming this is in the preferred restoration site, how would we deal with this? (photo on slide 5 of presentation) Comment Noted. Restoration in North
Ellwood associated with the emergency
removal of hazard Eucalyptus trees will
use both eucalyptus trees and native
understory. A variety of tree and plant
species are being considered throughout
the other areas of the grove.

Restoration
241 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Councilmember
Roger S. Aceves
Would the debris in the restoration area be removed? Comment Noted. The final 2018 IP will incorporate this concern and is not calling
to remove all debris.

Restoration
242 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
General public
comment
In terms of replanting: how are you defining success of trees that you are planting? Could die in 5-10 years. When do you say you’re done with the tree?
Comment Noted. The final 2018 IP
includes a tree monitoring program to
ensure replacement trees are successfully
established and have a 100% survival rate.

Restoration
243 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Wes Herman,
retired fireman
Post “no fire” signs at the entrances and at the beach Comment Noted. Signs 244 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Cynthia Brock Add “No Parking” signage at end of SB Shores drive to keep the fire access clear
Comment Noted. Signs
245 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Sharleen Marie Will the trail closure signs that are up stay there this season? Comment Noted. If approved by the Coastal Commission, the City would be
replacing trail closure signs with warning
signs, as shown on Figure 3 of the final
2018 IP.

Signs
246 8/16/18 Public
Workshop
Tim Burges, SB
Shores
Votes for “enter at your own risk” Do not try to protect everyone that goes through them.

Comment Noted. Signs
247 7/27/18 Email Lara Drizd,
USFWS
MBHMP Pg 16 - Signage/Fencing - It wasn’t clear to me if these activities would be done outside of the OW time
period. I would just add a note that installation and
maintenance of signage and fencing will be conducted in such a way as to not disturb overwintering monarchs.

Comment Noted. Signs
248 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock Most interpretive signage should be placed at the main entry points rather than in the forest. The parking lot and the Coronado Preserve are both good places for
informational and directional signs
Comment Noted. Signs
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Comments and City of Goleta Responses on the
Draft Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration B-39 No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 249 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock We should consider the possibility of using simple brochures, distributed at the parking lot or other main entry points to provide information, rather than installing a profusion of signs in our natural area. I think most people would deposit their brochures for re-use. And the forest wouldn’t be “littered” with obtrusive signs.

Comment Noted. Signs
250 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Councilmember
Kyle Richards
Questions about the trail closure signs, are we talking about an “enter at your own risk” sign? So, it would be open to the public just with more warnings about there is danger here so it decreases our liability?
Comment Noted. If approved by the
Coastal Commission, the City would be
replacing trail closure signs with warning
signs, as shown on Figure 3 of the final
2018 IP.

Signs
251 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Paula
Perotte
I will comment on the replacement of the trail signs with cautionary signs. We checked with JPA and the “enter at your own risk” is fine. I support that.

Comment Noted. Signs
252 9/4/18 Council
Meeting
Mayor Paula
Perotte
Will signage be approved by the DRB? Comment Noted. However, public signage within City-owned parks and open spaces
is determined by the City Council (and the
Coastal Commission within the Coastal
Zone areas of the City) and is installed and
maintained by Public Works.

Signs
253 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock Any further signage and fencing in the monarch groves should be required to be reviewed, in a public meeting, by the Design Review Board. The City itself should be held to standards as high as any commercial establishment or
developer is. And the public should be given just as much of a chance to comment on these features as they would on
any other project.

Comment Noted. However, public signage
within City-owned parks and open spaces
is determined by the City Council (and the
Coastal Commission within the Coastal
Zone areas of the City) and is installed and
maintained by Public Works.

Signs 254 9/3/18 Letter Cynthia Brock Signs directing tourists who want to visit monarchs should point them only to the Ellwood Main site. Tourism can be a destructive force in the groves and its impact should be limited by channeling groups to just one area where they can be controlled by fencing, docent presence, etc. Don’t provide other signals like cleared paths or seating areas that would visually direct tourists into the other aggregation sites.

Comment Noted. Signs
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan B-40
No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic 255 8/31/18 Letter Cherie Topper,
Santa Barbara
Audubon
Society
The MBHMP encompasses a significant riparian system (i.e., channels, tributaries) that has been heavily and negatively impacted by human activity as well by neglect. While the MBHMP mentions modest efforts to address riparian
degradation, we believe that a more concerted focus on
restoration and rehabilitation of this important habitat would benefit the monarch aggregation sites as well as the local ecosystem as a whole.

Although the primary focus of the MBHMP
is monarch butterfly habitat, improvement
of habitat for other wildlife species within
the coverage area is also a priority. This is
embodied in the Habitat Enhancement
and Restoration Program (Program 14),
which includes actions for habitat
enhancement and native restoration in
areas outside the butterfly groves, and
along Devereux Creek in particular (Action

14.3-1).

Native Habitats
256 8/31/18 Letter Cherie Topper,
Santa Barbara
Audubon
Society
Expanding on the above point, we believe the key to
successful restoration efforts is a carefully targeted
approach to the selection and design of native restoration sites. This might result, for example, in restoration efforts limited to within 50-100 feet of existing waterways, that is, wetter areas where some native vegetation (e.g., coast live oak and toyon) already exists. (One strategy here might be to remove competing eucalyptus and design restoration
around these natives; additionally, dead eucalyptus would need to be removed so as to allow sunlight to reach the restoration areas.) The attached annotated map suggests such possible areas. More precise siting ideally would be informed by bringing expert (hydrologic, geologic)
knowledge to bear on more detailed mapping of the seeps and springs that occur along the Ellwood segment of the More Ranch Fault (see attached), many of which are now
degraded, weakly expressed, or entirely obliterated. This fault is known to host persistently wet riparian habitats, which, among other attributes, makes it one of National Audubon’s Important Bird Areas (IBAs). Principles underlying this recommendation include the facts that:
a. Monarchs may aggregate in vegetation other than
eucalyptus
b. The habitat structure requirements needed to achieve correct micro-climate conditions can be achieved
through native as well as eucalyptus plantings.
c. Restoration with natives provides more diversity than eucalyptus alone.
d. Carefully sited and designed native habitats have the greatest likelihood of being self-sustaining and
While monarch overwintering in native
vegetation has been documented in San
Luis Obispo County and to the north,
native vegetation in Santa Barbara County
and southward does not tend to support
suitable monarch aggregation habitat for
the duration of the overwintering season
without the support of eucalyptus trees.

Integrating native species into restoration
designs is envisioned as part of the
MBHMP’s programs, but must be
undertaken cautiously to ensure that
butterfly habitat is not compromised. In
and near known aggregation sites,
replacement of eucalyptus with other
species would be considered experimental
and would only be implemented as part of
the research or adaptive management
programs until data show that maintaining
a climax aggregation site with native
species in Southern California is feasible.

The City is fully committed to enhancing
habitats within the Coverage Area for
other wildlife, in addition to monarchs, but
at least in the short term we expect the
focus for native plantings to be on areas
outside the eucalyptus groves. The
precipitous decline of the monarch
population, combined with the
extraordinary importance of wintering
habitat (and wintering habitat on Ellwood
Native Habitats
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Comments and City of Goleta Responses on the
Draft Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration B-41 No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic supportive of diverse insect and bird life. Mesa in particular) for the species, necessitates placing the highest priority on
butterfly habitat objectives. Proposed
actions such as better researching the
locations of historic seeps that could be
suitable for restoration are could be
conducted under the MBHMP’s research
program. As stated in MBHMP Action 12-

1.2 and Table 2, the selective removal of
standing dead trees is an option for active
management of the eucalyptus groves and
would be implemented where beneficial
for habitat or necessary for safety reasons.
257 8/31/18 Letter Cherie Topper,
Santa Barbara
Audubon
Society
We encourage the plan to provide for the gradual
replacement of dead eucalyptus outside monarch
aggregation areas with appropriately selected native trees Transitioning eucalyptus habitat to a
native tree habitat is not included in the
MBHMP, because the eucalyptus groves
are designated monarch butterfly ESHA
and converting them to another habitat
type is therefore inconsistent with the
General Plan. An ESHA area to be
converted to a different habitat type
would first need to have the ESHA
designation removed through a General
Plan amendment.

Native Habitats
258 8/31/18 Letter Cherie Topper,
Santa Barbara
Audubon
Society
The concern of damage by unleashed dogs is not addressed in the MBHMP and conflicts with two program goals, Trail Management Program Goal 5 and Waste Management
Program Goal 6.

While dogs are not addressed explicitly by
the MBHMP, the City’s municipal code
requires that dogs be on-leash on Ellwood
Mesa. Under MBHMP Policy 6-2 the City
would take steps, including signage,
informing visitors as to rules and
restrictions that apply within the grove.

Rules related to dogs, including proper
leash use and cleanup of animal waste,
could be addressed under this policy.

Dogs
259 8/31/18 Letter Cherie Topper,
Santa Barbara
Audubon
Society
The final plan, especially the Habitat Enhancement and
Restoration Program (Section 14), should include an
assessment of the impacts of all proposed actions on
potentially affected downstream habitats, such as North Campus Open Space (NCOS) and Coal Oil Point Reserve
(COPR).

The project’s impacts were described in
the IS/MND, which is available for public
review and comment until February 24th.

However, because all eucalyptus plantings
and enhancement would be confined to
the existing groves, which have been
dominated by eucalyptus for decades, no
Environmental
impacts
City of Goleta
Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan B-42
No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic adverse impacts related to the
introduction or spread of eucalyptus are
anticipated. Other impacts, such as those
from native habitat restoration and
signage to improve rules awareness,
would be positive.
260 8/31/18 Letter Cherie Topper,
Santa Barbara
Audubon
Society
The Coronado Seep is an important birding hot spot and the MBHMP should protect and preserve this spot.

The MBHMP does not recommend any
actions that would disrupt the Coronado
Seep.

Coronado Seep
261 8/31/18 Letter Cherie Topper,
Santa Barbara
Audubon
Society
The “Program Status” paragraph at the end of Section 14 states: “An Implementation Plan that describes work
activities to occur each year will accompany this MBHMP.” We applaud this element of the plan and trust it will be annually circulated for public review and comment well in advance of the work commencement date. This will ensure that it serves as an effective mechanism for public
communication and feedback and for project monitoring
and accountability.

Comment noted. We are hopeful that the
approach of using specific Implementation
Plans to further the goals of the
overarching MBHMP will be successful, for
all the reasons you’ve mentioned.

General Support
Comments Received during the Draft IS-MND Public Comment Period 262 2/25/19 Letter Jacqueline
Phelps, District
Supervisor,
California
Coastal
Commission
The commenter describes the background and context for
the MBHMP, noting that the health of eucalyptus groves at Ellwood Mesa has been compromised as a result of drought and pest infestation. The commenter further notes that the California Coastal Commission (CCC) issued an Emergency Coastal Development Permit (CDP) to the City in September 2017, authorizing removal of 29 dead or high-risk trees that posed a threat to public safety. As a condition of this Emergency CDP, the City is required to submit a complete CDP application addressing not only mitigation for the
removed trees, but also aggregation site restoration, habitat management, and trail repair and maintenance strategies.

The commenter states that the MBHMP, as written, lacks
specific project details and implementation actions and recommends inclusion of detailed measures into the
MBHMP to guide implementation of a comprehensive,
ecosystem-based approach for management of Ellwood
Mesa to fulfill the requirements of the Emergency CDP. The commenter adds that the plan should include alternatives for replacing removed and trimmed eucalyptus trees with native tree species and replacing them with a mixture of The MBHMP provides a long-term
conservation strategy built around broad
objectives, outcomes, and management
policies for Ellwood Mesa monarch
butterfly habitat. Policy 1-4 of the MBHMP
states that “periodic Implementation Plans
shall identify and describe short-term
actions needed to further the goals and
objectives of the MBHMP, taking into
consideration current conditions and
funding levels at the time each
Implementation Plan is prepared.” The
2018 Implementation Plan was released
along with the July 2018 draft of the
MBHMP and includes activities aimed at
satisfying conditions of Emergency CDP
issued to the City by the CCC. The purpose
of the 2018 Implementation Plan is to
address previous emergency tree removals
with restoration of the aggregation sites in
the groves and to reopen trails. Primary
MBHMP
Scope/Detail
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Comments and City of Goleta Responses on the
Draft Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve Open Space Monarch Butterfly Habitat Management Plan Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration B-43 No. Date Source Name Comment Staff Response Subject/Topic native and non-native tree species as well as incorporating as many native nectar producing species in the planting palette as possible.
tasks identified in the 2018 Implementation
Plan include conducting nesting bird and
monarch butterfly surveys, installation of
enhancement plantings and signage,
removal of existing closure signs, and long-
term replacement tree monitoring. The CCC
is currently reviewing the 2018
Implementation Plan.

The Draft IS-MND evaluates the 13 MBHMP
programs with potential to result in
environmental impacts, and includes the
range of specific covered activities that
could occur under these programs. Covered
activities for each of these programs are
listed in the Draft IS-MND, beginning on