DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Resource Assessment Galindo Creek Field Station California State University East Bay Concord, Contra Costa County, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Resource Assessment Galindo Creek Field Station California State University East Bay Concord, Contra Costa County, California BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT GALINDO CREEK FIELD STATION CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY EAST BAY CONCORD, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA JULY 2019 Prepared for Kathy Cutting Campus Support Coordinator California State University East Bay 4700 Ygnacio Valley Road Concord, CA 94521 Prepared by 822 MAIN STREET MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553 (925) 228-1027 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 1 Section 2. Study Methods ............................................................................................... 2 2.1. Data Resources ............................................................................................................. 2 2.2. Regulatory Framework ................................................................................................... 3 2.2.1 Sensitive Natural Communities ....................................................................... 3 2.2.2 Special-Status Species ................................................................................... 3 2.3. Personnel and Field Investigation .................................................................................. 4 2.4. Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 4 Section 3. Study Area Description ................................................................................. 6 3.1. Regional Setting ............................................................................................................. 6 3.1.1 East Bay Hills – Mount Diablo ......................................................................... 6 3.2. Local Setting .................................................................................................................. 6 3.2.1 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 7 3.2.2 Topography ..................................................................................................... 7 3.2.3 Climate ............................................................................................................ 7 3.2.4 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................... 7 3.1. Hydrology Characteristics .............................................................................................. 8 3.2. Vegetation Communities ................................................................................................ 8 3.2.1 Ruderal ............................................................................................................ 9 3.2.2 Non-Native Grassland ................................................................................... 10 3.2.3 Freshwater Marsh/Seep ................................................................................ 11 3.2.4 Northern Coyote Brush Scrub ....................................................................... 12 3.2.5 Great Valley Valley Oak Riparian Forest ....................................................... 12 3.3. Invasive Weeds ............................................................................................................ 13 3.4. Movement Corridors and Habitat Fragmentation ......................................................... 17 Section 4. Sensitive Natural Communities and Special-Status Species .................. 18 4.1. Sensitive Natural Communities .................................................................................... 18 4.2. Special-Status Plants ................................................................................................... 18 4.2.1 Federal and/or State Listed and California Rare Plant Species .................... 18 4.2.2 California Native Plant Society Listed Plant Species .................................... 18 4.3. Special-Status Wildlife ................................................................................................. 19 4.3.1 Amphibians .................................................................................................... 19 4.3.2 Reptiles ......................................................................................................... 20 4.3.3 Birds .............................................................................................................. 21 4.3.4 Mammals ....................................................................................................... 21 Section 5. Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................ 23 5.1. Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 23 5.1.1 Sensitive Natural Communities ..................................................................... 23 5.1.2 Special-Status Plants .................................................................................... 23 5.1.3 Noxious/Invasive Weeds ............................................................................... 23 5.1.4 Wildlife ........................................................................................................... 24 Section 6. References ................................................................................................... 25 Biological Resource Assessment – Galindo Creek Field Station, CSU East Bay, Concord, California i Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Soil Mapping Unit Characteristics in the Study Area ...................................................... 7 Table 2. Vegetation Communities in the Study Area .................................................................... 8 Table 3. Vegetation Community Classification Systems Comparisons ........................................ 9 Table 4. Invasive Weeds Observed in the Study Area ............................................................... 14 Table 5. Potentially Occurring Special Status Plant Species in the Study Area ......................... 19 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Study Area Vicinity Map ............................................................................................. A-2 Figure 2. Study Area on USGS Topographic Map .................................................................... A-3 Figure 3. Study Area shown on Aerial Photo ............................................................................ A-4 Figure 4. Soil Mapping Units in the Study Area ........................................................................ A-5 Figure 5. Vegetation Types in the Study Area .......................................................................... A-6 Figure 6. California Natural Diversity Database Special-Status Plant Species Occurrences within 5 Miles of the Study Area ............................................................ A-7 Figure 7. California Natural Diversity Database Special-Status Wildlife Species Occurrences within 5 Miles of the Study Area ............................................................ A-8 Figure 8. Invasive Weeds in the Study Area ............................................................................. A-9 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A Figures ........................................................................................................ A-1 APPENDIX B List of Plant Species Observed During April 2019 Site Visit ....................... B-1 APPENDIX C List of Wildlife Species Observed During April 2019 Site Visit .................... C-1 APPENDIX D Photos ......................................................................................................... D-1 Biological Resource Assessment – Galindo Creek Field Station, CSU East Bay, Concord, California ii Section 1 Introduction Section 1. INTRODUCTION Nomad Ecology, LLC (Nomad) prepared this Biological Resource Assessment for California State University (CSU) East Bay’s 54.45-acre Galindo Creek Field Station located in Concord, Contra Costa County, California. This biological resource assessment documents the biological resources found on the field station during a single reconnaissance visit conducted in 2019. The report discusses (1) methodologies used for background literature search and the biological reconnaissance survey; (2) results of the background literature search and field reconnaissance survey; (3) existing biological conditions including vegetation communities and invasive weeds present on site; (4) the location, extent, and habitat requirements of any sensitive biological resources, or wetlands that occur, or will likely occur, in the study area; (5) recommendations for further focused species surveys; (6) a map of vegetation communities (including invasive weed species) within the study area; (7) a list of plant species observed; and (8) a list of animal species observed. Biological Resource Assessment – Galindo Creek Field Station, CSU East Bay, Concord, California 1 Section 2 Study Methods Section 2. STUDY METHODS 2.1. DATA RESOURCES Background information for listed and special-status plant and wildlife species, and sensitive natural communities was compiled through a review of the following resources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in or may be Affected by Projects in Contra Costa County (USFWS 2019a) National Wetland Inventory for the Clayton Quadrangle (USFWS 2019b) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW): List of California Vegetation Alliances and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2019 Rare Plants Report
    Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Biological Monitoring Program 2019 Rare Plant Survey Report Brand’s Phacelia (Phacelia stellaris) Little mousetail (Myosurus minimus ) 21 April 2020 i 2019 Rare Plant Survey Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................................... 1 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 2 Protocol Development ........................................................................................................ 2 Survey Methods .................................................................................................................. 2 Training ............................................................................................................................... 3 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 4 Results ................................................................................................................................. 5 Targeted Surveys ................................................................................................................ 5 Species with Additional Requirements ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 3.4 Biological Resources for the Purpose of This EIR, Biological Resources Comprise Vegetation, Wildlife, Natural Communities, and Wetlands and Other Waters
    Impact Analysis Alameda County Community Development Agency Biological Resources 3.4 Biological Resources For the purpose of this EIR, biological resources comprise vegetation, wildlife, natural communities, and wetlands and other waters. Potential biological resource impacts associated with the program and the two individual projects are analyzed. Potential impacts are described quantitatively and qualitatively in Section 3.4.2, Environmental Impacts. This section also identifies specific and detailed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for potentially significant impacts on biological resources, where necessary. 3.4.1 Existing Conditions Regulatory Setting Federal Endangered Species Act Pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have authority over projects that may result in take of a species listed as threatened or endangered under the act. Take is defined under the ESA, in part, as killing, harming, or harassing. Under federal regulations, take is further defined to include habitat modification or degradation that results, or is reasonably expected to result, in death or injury to wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. If a likelihood exists that a project would result in take of a federally listed species, either an incidental take permit, under Section 10(a) of the ESA, or a federal interagency consultation, under Section 7 of the ESA, is required. Several federally listed species—vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California red‐legged frog (Rana draytonii), Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus), and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)—have the potential to be affected by activities associated with the Golden Hills and Patterson Pass projects as well as subsequent repowering projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Contra Costa County, California
    APPENDIX G BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT AND ARBORIST REPORTS Biological Resources Assessment for the Sufi Church Project Contra Costa County, California Prepared for: Meher Schools G-1 Prepared for: Meher Schools 999 Leland Drive Lafayette, CA 94549 925-938-9958 Prepared by: EDAW 2099 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 204 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 279-0580 June 18, 2008 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SUFI CHURCH PROJECT, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA G-2 The information provided in this document is intended solely for the use and benefit of Meher Schools. No other person or entity shall be entitled to rely on the services, opinions, recommendations, plans or specifications provided herein, without the express written consent of EDAW, 2099 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 204, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. G-3 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................. i 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND METHODS .............................................................................1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS.............................................................................................5 2.1 SETTING......................................................................................................................5 2.2 PLANT COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE HABITATS........................................................5 3.0 SPECIAL-STATUS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.......................................................7 3.1 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS ...........................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Extrapolating Demography with Climate, Proximity and Phylogeny: Approach with Caution
    ! ∀#∀#∃ %& ∋(∀∀!∃ ∀)∗+∋ ,+−, ./ ∃ ∋∃ 0∋∀ /∋0 0 ∃0 . ∃0 1##23%−34 ∃−5 6 Extrapolating demography with climate, proximity and phylogeny: approach with caution Shaun R. Coutts1,2,3, Roberto Salguero-Gómez1,2,3,4, Anna M. Csergő3, Yvonne M. Buckley1,3 October 31, 2016 1. School of Biological Sciences. Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science. The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia. 2. Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, UK. 3. School of Natural Sciences, Zoology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland. 4. Evolutionary Demography Laboratory. Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. Rostock, DE-18057, Germany. Keywords: COMPADRE Plant Matrix Database, comparative demography, damping ratio, elasticity, matrix population model, phylogenetic analysis, population growth rate (λ), spatially lagged models Author statement: SRC developed the initial concept, performed the statistical analysis and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. RSG helped develop the initial concept, provided code for deriving de- mographic metrics and phylogenetic analysis, and provided the matrix selection criteria. YMB helped develop the initial concept and advised on analysis. All authors made substantial contributions to editing the manuscript and further refining ideas and interpretations. 1 Distance and ancestry predict demography 2 ABSTRACT Plant population responses are key to understanding the effects of threats such as climate change and invasions. However, we lack demographic data for most species, and the data we have are often geographically aggregated. We determined to what extent existing data can be extrapolated to predict pop- ulation performance across larger sets of species and spatial areas. We used 550 matrix models, across 210 species, sourced from the COMPADRE Plant Matrix Database, to model how climate, geographic proximity and phylogeny predicted population performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Resources Assessment
    Biological Resources Assessment Valle Vista Properties HAYWARD, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: William Lyon Homes, Inc. 2603 Camino Ramon, Suite 450 San Ramon, California 94583 Contact: Scott Roylance WRA Contact: Mark Kalnins [email protected] Date: July 10, 2017 Revised: November 16, 2017 2169-G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94702 (415) 454-8868 tel [email protected] www.wra-ca.com This page intentionally blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 3 2.1 Sensitive Biological Communities .............................................................................. 3 2.2 Special-Status Species .............................................................................................. 8 2.3 Relevant Local Policies, Ordinances, Regulations ..................................................... 9 3.0 METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 9 3.1 Biological Communities ............................................................................................ 10 3.1.1 Non-Sensitive Biological Communities ...................................................... 10 3.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities .............................................................. 10 3.2 Special-Status Species ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited
    Literature Cited Robert W. Kiger, Editor This is a consolidated list of all works cited in volumes 19, 20, and 21, whether as selected references, in text, or in nomenclatural contexts. In citations of articles, both here and in the taxonomic treatments, and also in nomenclatural citations, the titles of serials are rendered in the forms recommended in G. D. R. Bridson and E. R. Smith (1991). When those forms are abbre- viated, as most are, cross references to the corresponding full serial titles are interpolated here alphabetically by abbreviated form. In nomenclatural citations (only), book titles are rendered in the abbreviated forms recommended in F. A. Stafleu and R. S. Cowan (1976–1988) and F. A. Stafleu and E. A. Mennega (1992+). Here, those abbreviated forms are indicated parenthetically following the full citations of the corresponding works, and cross references to the full citations are interpolated in the list alphabetically by abbreviated form. Two or more works published in the same year by the same author or group of coauthors will be distinguished uniquely and consistently throughout all volumes of Flora of North America by lower-case letters (b, c, d, ...) suffixed to the date for the second and subsequent works in the set. The suffixes are assigned in order of editorial encounter and do not reflect chronological sequence of publication. The first work by any particular author or group from any given year carries the implicit date suffix “a”; thus, the sequence of explicit suffixes begins with “b”. Works missing from any suffixed sequence here are ones cited elsewhere in the Flora that are not pertinent in these volumes.
    [Show full text]
  • 0506 NVC Student Housing Admin Draft ISMND.Docx
    Napa Valley College Student Housing Project Initial Study / Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration August 12, 2020 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Napa Valley College Student Housing Project Prepared for: Napa Valley Community College District 2277 Napa-Vallejo Highway Napa, CA 94558 Prepared by: GHD Inc. 2235 Mercury Way, Suite 150 Santa Rosa, California 95407 August 12, 2020 Napa Valley College Student Housing Project – Initial Study/Proposed MND Table of Contents Project Information ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 Introduction and CEQA Requirements ........................................................................... 1-1 CEQA Lead Agency Contact Information ....................................................................... 1-1 Project Background and Objectives ............................................................................... 1-1 Project Description ......................................................................................................... 1-2 Environmental Protection Actions Incorporated Into the Proposed Project ................... 1-9 Required Agency Approvals ......................................................................................... 1-12 Tribal Consultation ........................................................................................................ 1-12 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Alameda Whipsnake: the Fasttest Snake in the West by Mike Westphal
    Alameda Whipsnake: The Fasttest Snake in the West by Mike Westphal A narrow footpath circles the crest of Mt. Diablo. The sunlight comes early to this high place and in May will warm the rocky soil around the manzanita bushes early in the morning, once the fog has burned away. If you were a snake - a fast snake, a snake that hunted lizards by day - you would live in a place like this, a place among the shrubbery where you could heat up and go. If you, on the other hand, up and go. If you, on the other hand, were a person and Photo by Sheila Larsen / USFWS wanted to pay a call on the Alameda whipsnake, you might also come here. A simple wooden rail follows the footpath on the downhill side. Walk slowly along the rail and watch the ground. Be quiet and alert. The Alameda whipsnake does not wait. If it sees you and doesn’t want to hang around, it will be gone before you even know what you’re looking at. If you are careful enough, you may see a rare and beautiful snake - a snake built for speed. Its body is long (to six feet) annd whiplike (hence the name). The neck is slender, topped with a darting head that houses the big eyes of a visual predator. In color, it is the deep, deep green traditional to British racecars; it is detailed on either side with a bold orange stripe. The whipsnake is polished and glossy in the morning sun. Stare at it as long as you can, for this is no "sit-and-wait" predator, and will soon move away to chase down a fat lizard for breakfast.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D Species Accounts Appendix D Species Accounts
    Appendix D Species Accounts Appendix D Species Accounts Table of Contents San Joaquin Spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana) ...................................................... 1 Recurved Larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum) ........................................................ 4 Big Tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa) .................................................................... 6 Congdon’s Tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) ..................................... 8 Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak (Cordylanthus palmatus) ....................................... 10 Livermore tarplant (Deinandra bacigalupii) ........................................................ 11 Longhorn Fairy Shrimp ......................................................................................... 12 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp ..................................................................................... 15 Callippe Silverspot Butterfly ................................................................................ 18 California Tiger Salamander ................................................................................. 21 California Red-Legged Frog .................................................................................. 25 Foothill yellow-legged frog .................................................................................. 28 Alameda Whipsnake ............................................................................................ 31 Central California Coast Steelhead .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Botanical Priority Guidebook
    Botanical Priority Protection Areas Alameda and Contra Costa Counties the East Bay Regional Park District. However, certain BPPAs include Hills have been from residential development. public parcels or properties with other conservation status. These are cases where land has been conserved since the creation of these boundaries or where potential management decisions have the poten- Following this initial mapping effort, the East Bay Chap- \ ntroduction tial to negatively affect an area’s botanical resources. Additionally, ter’s Conservation Committee began to utilize the con- each acre within these BPPAs represents a potential area of high pri- cept in draft form in key local planning efforts. Lech ority. Both urban and natural settings are included within these Naumovich, the chapter’s Conservation Analyst staff The lands that comprise the East Bay Chapter are located at the convergence boundaries, therefore, they are intended to be considered as areas person, showcased the map set in forums such as the of the San Francisco Bay, the North and South Coast Ranges, the Sacra- warranting further scrutiny due to the abundance of nearby sensitive BAOSC’s Upland Habitat Goals Project and the Green mento-San Joaquin Delta, and the San Joaquin Valley. The East Bay Chapter botanical resources supported by high quality habitat within each E A S T B A Y Vision Group (in association with Greenbelt Alliance); area supports a unique congregation of ecological conditions and native BPPA. Although a parcel, available for preservation through fee title C N P S East Bay Regional Park District’s Master Plan Process; plants. Based on historic botanical collections, the pressures from growth- purchase or conservation easement, may be located within the and local municipalities.
    [Show full text]
  • Gymnaconitum, a New Genus of Ranunculaceae Endemic to the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau
    TAXON 62 (4) • August 2013: 713–722 Wang & al. • Gymnaconitum, a new genus of Ranunculaceae Gymnaconitum, a new genus of Ranunculaceae endemic to the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau Wei Wang,1 Yang Liu,2 Sheng-Xiang Yu,1 Tian-Gang Gao1 & Zhi-Duan Chen1 1 State Key Laboratory of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, P.R. China 2 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269-3043, U.S.A. Author for correspondence: Wei Wang, [email protected] Abstract The monophyly of traditional Aconitum remains unresolved, owing to the controversial systematic position and taxonomic treatment of the monotypic, Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau endemic A. subg. Gymnaconitum. In this study, we analyzed two datasets using maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference methods: (1) two markers (ITS, trnL-F) of 285 Delphinieae species, and (2) six markers (ITS, trnL-F, trnH-psbA, trnK-matK, trnS-trnG, rbcL) of 32 Delphinieae species. All our analyses show that traditional Aconitum is not monophyletic and that subgenus Gymnaconitum and a broadly defined Delphinium form a clade. The SOWH tests also reject the inclusion of subgenus Gymnaconitum in traditional Aconitum. Subgenus Gymnaconitum markedly differs from other species of Aconitum and other genera of tribe Delphinieae in many non-molecular characters. By integrating lines of evidence from molecular phylogeny, divergence times, morphology, and karyology, we raise the mono- typic A. subg. Gymnaconitum to generic status. Keywords Aconitum; Delphinieae; Gymnaconitum; monophyly; phylogeny; Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau; Ranunculaceae; SOWH test Supplementary Material The Electronic Supplement (Figs. S1–S8; Appendices S1, S2) and the alignment files are available in the Supplementary Data section of the online version of this article (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iapt/tax).
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Environment Study Addendum
    Natural Environment Study Addendum State Route 1 HOV Lanes Tier I Corridor Analysis of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes and Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternatives (05 SCR-1-PM 7.24-16.13) and Tier II Build Project Analysis 41st Avenue to Soquel Avenue/Drive Auxiliary Lanes and Chanticleer Avenue Pedestrian-Bicycle Overcrossing (05 SCR-1-PM 13.5-14.9) EA 0C7300 April 2018 For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in Braille, large print, on audiocassette, or computer disk. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please call or write to Caltrans, Attn: Matt Fowler, California Department of Transportation – District 5, 50 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401; 805-542-4603 Voice, or use the California Relay Service 1 (800) 735-2929 (TTY), 1 (800) 735-2929 (Voice), or 711. This page intentionally left blank. State Route 1 HOV Lanes Project Natural Environmental Study Addendum CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT STUDY ADDENDUM METHODS .......................................... 1 2 RESOURCES AND IMPACTS EVALUATION............................................................................... 1 2.1 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES ....................................................................................... 1 2.2 SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES .................................................................................... 3 2.2.1 California
    [Show full text]