San Luis Valley Regional Habitat Conservation Plan Draft for Public Review

7.2Implementation

Implementing Agreement and Permit Terms and Conditions

7.3HCP Participation

7.4Additional Assurances, and Changed or Unforeseen Circumstances

Changed Circumstances

In developing this HCP, the Applicants and the Service have identified the potential “changed circumstances” that can reasonably be anticipated to affect the covered species and plan area, and have agreed upon the Applicants’ responsibility under this HCP to implement conservation and mitigation measures to address such changed circumstances should they occur during the term of this HCP. The reasonably anticipated changed circumstances, and the Applicants’ obligations connected thereto, are as follows:

1. 
   Habitat loss from floods, prolonged drought, fire, or other naturally occurring events or processes. These naturally occurring, but unpredictable, events are part of the dynamics associated with riparian communities that may occur over the duration of this HCP. These events may alter, destroy, and renew riparian habitats, but on balance are not expected to have long-term detrimental effects on the covered species or their overall habitat availability. Based on the monitoring and adaptive management guidelines described in Section 6, the loss of habitat area or quality on mitigation lands will be monitored over time to ensure adequate habitat recovery. If adequate recovery from active restoration or natural regeneration does not occur, the affected parcel or habitat area would no longer be eligible for mitigation credit, and the Applicants would identify and secure replacement mitigation acres (see Section 5).
   
2. 
   Habitat loss due to long-term climate change. Changes in global climate patterns have the potential to affect localized habitat conditions due to changes in precipitation patterns, irrigation practices, surface and ground water conditions, as well as the growth and vigor of native riparian vegetation. A great deal of uncertainty currently exists in understanding future climate change and how it will affect ecological systems (Service 2009a). Currently reported projections³⁰ call for small increases in both annual average temperature and precipitation in the Valley and its watershed by 2050 (Climate Wizard 2011). While changes to precipitation and habitat are likely given trends, the timing, magnitude, and nature of those changes and their subsequent effects on riparian habitat and the covered species in the Valley are not known. Potential general secondary effects from climate change (such as fire, floods, or invasive species) are addressed individually.

   Based on the monitoring and adaptive management guidelines described in Section 6, the loss of habitat area or quality on mitigation lands will be monitored over time to ensure adequate habitat recovery. If adequate recovery from active restoration or natural regeneration does not occur, the affected parcel or habitat area would no longer be eligible for mitigation credit, and the Applicants would identify and secure replacement mitigation acres (see Section 5). If the Applicants are unable to satisfy their ITP commitments due to habitat or hydrological changes resulting from climate change, the Applicants would be allowed to amend this HCP, subject to the terms described in Section 7.6.

   
   
3. 
   Habitat loss or changes from invasive species. Localized infestations of invasive plant species may alter or destroy riparian habitat function, but are considered part of the overall habitat matrix, and are not expected to have long-term detrimental effects on the covered species or their overall habitat availability. Localized habitat loss from typical invasive species would be handled as described above in item 1.

   Salt cedar (Tamarix spp.) is an aggressive exotic tree species that has replaced native riparian tree species throughout the southwestern United States, and also provides habitat for the flycatcher at lower elevations. Removal of any salt cedar in the Valley is a covered activity, and Applicants firmly believe that the biological benefits of salt cedar eradication in the Valley outweigh its value as habitat for the covered species. In the event that riparian habitat on mitigation lands is overtaken by salt cedar, the habitat area would no longer be eligible for mitigation credit, and the Applicants would identify and secure replacement mitigation acres.  Affected areas would again become eligible for mitigation after it is successfully restored to native species (see Section 5.2).

   In the event that covered species occupancy is documented in habitat dominated by salt cedar or another invasive species, the Applicants will work with the Service to determine the appropriate response for incidental take, native habitat restoration, and HCP mitigation.
   

4. 
   Habitat loss from development or other non-covered activities. A variety of development-related activities have the potential to impact or eliminate riparian habitat in the Valley. These activities include residential, commercial, or any other development, the construction of private roads or driveways, and the construction or expansion of golf courses. These activities are not covered by this HCP and would be subject to individual compliance and enforcement under the ESA. Such enforcement would not require additional measures by the Applicants.

   If development or other non-covered activities occur on mitigation lands in a manner that reduces or eliminates that quality or quantity of riparian habitat, the affected area would be removed from the mitigation pool and would be replaced by mitigation credits in an alternate and suitable location.

   
   
5. 
   Small changes in habitat or impact assumptions. Small changes in the estimated impacts of the covered activities (see Section 6.2) due to changes in habitat mapping or new information that alters impact assumptions may occur over the life of the ITP. If changes to habitat mapping or impact calculations are documented but are up to 15 percent greater than the impact values reported in this HCP, no additional measures by the Applicants are required. If such changes exceed 15 percent, an amendment to the ITP map be required, subject to the terms described in Section 7.6.
   
6. 
   Downlisting or delisting of covered species due to recovery efforts. No additional measures by the Applicants are required.
   
7. 
   Critical habitat designation for species covered by this HCP (including potential future changes or amendments to the ESA critical habitat provisions). No additional measures by the Applicants are required. (May require reinitiation of intra-Service consultation).
   
8. 
   Future listing of a nonlisted covered species. Should the cuckoo become listed under the ESA, take authorization of this species on the permit would immediately become effective, as prescribed by regulation (63 FR 35, February 23, 1998).
   
9. 
   New Listing of Additional Riparian Species. While it does not constitute a “changed circumstance” as described above and in 50 CFR § 17.3 (because it would not affect the species currently covered by this HCP), the new listing of additional riparian species is a foreseeable possibility that may need to be addressed in the future. In the event that a non-covered species may be affected by covered activities and becomes listed under the ESA, Applicants will implement “no-take/no-jeopardy” measures as identified by the Service until the permit is amended to include such species, or until the Service notifies Applicants that such measures are no longer needed to avoid jeopardy to, take of, or adverse modifications of the critical habitat of the non-covered species. For example, the Northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens), which is known to occur in the Valley, was petitioned to be protected under the ESA (Service 2009b). In the event that the leopard frog, or other riparian species, is listed in the Valley, the following options are available to provide ESA compliance to the Applicants and beneficiaries under this HCP: a) amend this HCP to include the new species, impacts to that species, and subsequent mitigation requirements (per Section 7.6); b) develop a separate HCP or other ESA compliance mechanism that specifically addresses the activities, habitat, and geographic area affected by the newly listed species; or c) individuals and entities could comply with the ESA on a case-by-case basis.
   
10. 
    Withdrawal by local units of government. The District and Applicants have prepared this HCP on behalf of the Applicant Counties and municipalities and all of their residents. Fulfillment of the Applicants’ commitments to address covered take is not dependent upon participation by any of the other local governments, and no additional measures will be required of the Counties or municipalities to address non-participation by one or more of the other local government jurisdictions. If any of the local jurisdictions elect to not participate in this HCP, covered activities within the boundaries of the jurisdiction would no longer receive incidental take coverage. In the event of any such withdrawal, no additional commitments shall be required of the Applicants unless it is necessary to mitigate for the take of covered species that occurred pursuant to the terms of the ITP before its withdrawal, as determined by the Service in collaboration with the Applicants. If needed, the Applicants would be allowed to amend this HCP, subject to the terms described in Section 7.6.
    
11. 
    Withdrawal by one or more of the Counties. The collective participation of the Counties strengthens the HCP’s effectiveness. However, no single County contains all of the riparian habitat in the Valley, or bears a disproportionate responsibility for the implementation of this HCP. Accordingly, no additional measures will be required of a participating County in the event of nonparticipation by another County. However, if one or more of the Counties declines ITP coverage, the remaining Applicants would be permitted to adjust habitat mapping, impact projections, and mitigation requirements accordingly. The non-participating County would be responsible for any necessary ESA compliance, including individual mitigation for incidental take. If needed, the remaining Applicants would be allowed to amend this HCP, subject to the terms described in Section 7.6.
    
12. 
    Withdrawal by the State. If the State of Colorado withdraws its support for, and participation in, this HCP, the other Applicants will consider their ability to fulfill the State’s commitments and financial responsibilities. In the event of any such withdrawal, no additional commitments shall be required of the Applicants unless it is necessary to mitigate for the take of covered species that occurred pursuant to the terms of the ITP before its withdrawal, as determined by the Service in collaboration with the Applicants. If the other Applicants determine they are unable or unwilling to fulfill the State’s commitments, the Applicants will work with the Service to amend or revoke this HCP and ITP (see Section 7.6).
    
13. 
    Withdrawal or elimination of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District. If the District determines at a later date that it can no longer administer the HCP implementation, the other Applicants will fulfill the District’s role and responsibilities. If the District or its revenue source cease to exist, and the Applicants determine they are unable or unwilling to fulfill the District’s commitments, the Applicants will work with the Service to amend or revoke this HCP and ITP. However, there is no reason to suspect that the District will not participate in this HCP, or will cease to exist during the life of this HCP.
    

Unforeseen Circumstances

1. 
   Require the commitment of any additional land, water, or financial compensation by the Applicants, partners, or covered landowners in this HCP; or
   
2. 
   Impose additional restrictions on the use of land, water, or natural resources otherwise available for use by the Applicants, partners, or covered landowners in this HCP under the original terms of this HCP.
   

Identification of Changed or Unforeseen Circumstances

• 
  Provide written notice to the Service within 30 days after learning that a changed circumstance described above has occurred. As soon as practicable, but not later than 90 days after learning of the changed circumstance, Applicants will modify their activities in the manner and to the extent required by this HCP, and report to the Service on its actions.
  
• 
  If the Applicants or Service become aware of unforeseen circumstances as described above, they will notify the other and take the actions described in the previous Section 7.4) and the Permit.