Table of Contents

1 - INTRODUCTION ...... 2 History ...... 2 Project Purpose and Need ...... 2 Project Description ...... 3 Bridge Replacement ...... 3 Roadway Approaches ...... 7 Alisal Creek Realignment ...... 7 Safety ...... 7 Driveways ...... 9 Construction Schedule ...... 9 Construction Phasing ...... 9 Traffic Access and Detours ...... 9 Construction Equipment and Staging ...... 11 Utility Rerouting ...... 11 Surface Water Dewatering ...... 11 2 - STUDY METHODS ...... 12 Regulatory Requirements ...... 12 Federal Endangered Species Act ...... 12 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ...... 12 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ...... 12 Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186 ...... 12 Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management ...... 13 Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands ...... 13 Executive Order 13112 - Invasive Species ...... 13 California Endangered Species Act ...... 13 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act ...... 14 Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code ...... 14 Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code ...... 14 Native Plant Protection Act ...... 14 Senate Bill 857 (SB 857) - Fish Passage ...... 15 Studies Required ...... 15 Literature Search ...... 15 Field Reviews ...... 16 Survey Methods ...... 16 Survey Dates and Personnel ...... 16 Agency Coordination and Professional Contacts ...... 18 Limitations That May Influence Results ...... 19 3 - RESULTS: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 19 Description of the Existing Biological and Physical Conditions ...... 19 Physical Conditions ...... 19 Biological Conditions in the Study Area ...... 19 Habitat Connectivity ...... 22 Regional Species and Habitats and Natural Communities of Concern ...... 23

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  i Table of Contents

4 - RESULTS: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION ...... 23 Habitats and Natural Communities of Concern ...... 23 Discussion of Jurisdictional Waters ...... 31 Discussion of Invasive Species ...... 32 Special-Status Plant Species ...... 33 Discussion of Congdon’s Tarplant ...... 33 Special-Status Animal Species Occurrences ...... 34 Dicussion of California Tiger salamander ...... 34 Discussion of California Red-Legged Frog ...... 36 Discussion of Western Burrowing Owl ...... 37 DIcussion of Tricolored Blackbird ...... 38 Discussion of Nesting Birds (Class Aves) ...... 39 5 - CONCLUSIONS AND REGULATORY DETERMINATION ...... 40 Federal Endangered Species Act Consultation Summary...... 40 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Coordination Summary ...... 40 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Consultation Summary...... 40 Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186 Coordination Summary ...... 40 Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management Coordination Summary ...... 41 Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands Coordination Summary ...... 41 Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species Coordination Summary ...... 42 California Endangered Species Act Consultation Summary ...... 42 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Consultation Summary ...... 42 Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code Coordination Summary ...... 42 Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code Coordination Summary ...... 42 Native Plant Protection Act Coordination Summary ...... 43 Senate Bill 857 (SB 857) Fish Passages Coordination Summary ...... 43 6 - REFERENCES ...... 43 APPENDIX A USFWS AND NMFS OFFICIAL SPECIES LISTS ...... A-1 APPENDIX B CNDDB AND CNPS LISTS ...... B-1 APPENDIX C SPECIES DETECTED IN THE BSA ...... C-1 APPENDIX D DELINEATION OF JURISDICTIONAL WATERS REPORT ...... D-1

Figures

Figure 1: Project Location ...... 4 Figure 2: Biological Study Area ...... 5 Figure 3: Proposed Project ...... 6 Figure 4: Typical Cross-Section ...... 8 Figure 5: Construction Detour ...... 10 Figure 6: Vegetation, Land Use, and Photograph Key Location Map ...... 20 Figure 7: Site Photographs ...... 21

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  ii Table of Contents

Tables

Table 1: Project Impacts...... 2 Table 2: Survey Type, Date, and Personnel ...... 17 Table 3: Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Biological Study Area ...... 24 Table 4: Impacts to Waters of the United States and Streambed...... 31

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  iii Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Summary

This Natural Environment Study-Minimal Impacts (NES[MI]) has been prepared to provide the technical information regarding special-status species and other natural resources that may be encountered during the County of Monterey Public Works Department (County) Hartnell Road Bridge at Alisal Creek (County Bridge Number [No.] 44C-0110) Replacement Project (project). The project is receiving funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) with local assistance from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). As part of its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) assignment of federal responsibilities by the FHWA (effective October 1, 2012) and pursuant to 23 USC 326, Caltrans will be the lead federal agency for the Section 7 Consultation of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA).

The County, in cooperation with Caltrans District 5, proposes to replace the existing two-lane bridge on Hartnell Road in the County of Monterey, California, over Alisal Creek with a wider two-lane bridge. Hartnell Road passes through intensively cultivated agricultural fields in the area southeast of the City of Salinas.

The proposed project is anticipated to be a Categorical Exclusion with technical studies under NEPA. Additionally, the proposed project is anticipated to be an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) with technical studies under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The proposed project includes a Biological Study Area (BSA) of 4.5 acres (ac). Nineteen special-status species (7 plants, 12 animals) occur within the vicinity of the BSA. Ten of the 19 special-status plant and animal species potentially present in the BSA are federal or State listed as threatened or endangered. No suitable habitat was found to be present within the BSA for the 10 federal or State listed species. Similarly, the remaining 9 non-listed special-status species that are known from the region were all determined to be absent from the BSA due to a lack of suitable habitat and/or negative survey results.The proposed project is not anticipated to affect any special-status species or sensitive plant communities.

The BSA includes 0.029 ac of potential United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) wetland waters of the United States and 0.811 ac of potential USACE nonwetland waters of the United States as verified in a preliminary jurisdictional determination of the BSA. The BSA also supports 0.732 ac of potential California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) streambed. Impacts to each of these areas and each land cover types are summarized in Table 1 below:

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  1 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Table 1: Project Impacts.

Impact Type Land Cover Type or Total Permanent Temporary Jurisdictional Areas (acres) (acres) (acres) Agriculture 0.012 0.427 0.439 Arroyo Willow Thickets 0.036 0.003 0.040 Coyote Brush Scrub 0.038 – 0.038 Iceplant Mats 0.046 – 0.046 Road 0.524 0.036 0.560 Ruderal 1.064 0.468 1.532 Total 1.721 0.934 2.655 USACE Wetland Waters 0.013 0.002 0.015 USACE Non-Wetland Waters 0.571 0.046 0.617 CDFW Streambed 0.579 0.029 0.608

Permits are anticipated to be required and include a federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit authorization from the USACE, a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and a Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW.

1 - Introduction

History

PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of the proposed project is to bring the current bridge up to current structural standards, provide wider travel lanes and shoulders that comply with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards, improve access for large trucks,1 and enhance overall traffic safety.

The existing bridge does not meet AASHTO minimum lane and shoulder width standards and is functionally obsolete and structurally deficient (Caltrans 2013). Multiple chips and cracks exist throughout the underside of the bridge deck, many of which are located at key junctures where the bridge deck is fastened to the frame. Significant wear and tear is evident throughout the bridge, including minor rust flaking and corrosion on the bridge’s steel frame supports. In addition, the existing roadway approaches have no shoulders and do not meet current minimum lane, shoulder width, and design speed standards.

1 A California Legal Design Vehicle is a standard vehicle 65 feet (ft) long with a 60 ft turning radius.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  2 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

The proposed project will be funded by the Federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) including local toll credits, and a potential local match from State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds allocated by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC).

Project Description The County Public Works Department proposes to replace the existing two-lane bridge (Bridge No. 44C-0110) on Hartnell Road over Alisal Creek (proposed project) in the County of Monterey, California, and to construct in its place a wider two-lane bridge that meets current AASHTO requirements. The proposed project would also widen and improve the existing two- lane roadway for approximately 370–470 feet (ft) on either side of the bridge (roadway approaches). After construction, both the bridge and roadway approaches would contain two 12 ft lanes and two 8 ft shoulders and would meet current AASHTO minimum speed standards.

The bridge identification information is as follows: 05-MON-0-CR, BRLO-5944(103), at latitude: 36° 38' 37" and longitude: 121° 34' 42".

The Hartnell Road Bridge was constructed in 1945 and is a two-lane box culvert bridge over Alisal Creek in unincorporated Monterey County, approximately 6 miles (mi) south of the City of Salinas (Figure 1). The bridge is approximately 0.15 mi south of Alisal Road and 1.25 mi north of United States Route 101 (US-101). The existing bridge is 42 ft long and 21 ft wide with two 9 to 10 ft travel lanes and 2 ft unstriped shoulders.

According to the Caltrans California Road System Map, Hartnell Road is classified as a Local Collector Road and provides direct access to US-101. The roadway approaches have two 9 to 11 ft travel lanes and no shoulders, and contain distressed pavement. The roadway starts to curve beginning approximately 140 ft south of the bridge and ending approximately 40 ft north of the bridge. The curve in the roadway does not meet current design speed standards.

Hartnell Road generally runs north-south. Alisal Creek runs parallel to and adjacent to the roadway for the majority of its path within the BSA, which is approximately 4.5 ac. The creek takes a 90-degree turn to cross under Hartnell Road at the Hartnell Road Bridge and exits the bridge with another 90-degree turn (Figure 2).

BRIDGE REPLACEMENT The existing bridge would be replaced with a two-lane, cast-in-place, reinforced, double box culvert bridge. The new bridge would be approximately 63 ft long and 43 ft wide, with two 12 ft travel lanes and two unstriped 8 ft shoulders that meet AASHTO minimum lane and shoulder width standards. The roadway profile of the bridge would be raised by 2.2 ft to match the roadway improvements described below. The new bridge structure would be skewed at an approximate angle of 45 degrees to the roadway in order to facilitate the flow of the Alisal Creek. Wing walls would also be constructed to direct the flow through the culvert (Figure 3).

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  3 Hartnell Rd

Project Vicinity Ã156 San Ã25 Benito à County

1 Ã Ã183 Project Location

¤£101 Ã218 Monterey Ã68 County

LEGEND FIGURE 1 Biological Study Area

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement and Road Widening Project Monterey County, California 0 1000 2000 Federal Project Number BRLO-5944(103) FEET Project Location SOURCE: USGS 7.5' Quad., Natividad, CA (1984) I:\TRT1502\GIS\Hartnell_ProjectLocation.mxd (6/16/2016) LEGEND FIGURE 2 Biological Study Area

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement and Road Widening Project Monterey County, California 0 125 250 Federal Project Number BRLO-5944(103) FEET Biological Study Area SOURCE: Bing Aerial (2011); TRC (12/2015) I:\TRT1502\GIS\Hartnell_ProjectArea.mxd (6/16/2016) FIGURE 3

N Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project 0 40 80 Monterey County, California

FEET Federal Project Number BRLO-5944(103) SOURCE: TRC Proposed Project

I:\TRT1502\G\Proposed Project.cdr (1/5/2017) Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

ROADWAY APPROACHES The current roadway has two 9 to 11 ft travel lanes with no shoulders. The proposed project would widen the roadway approaches 368 ft north of the bridge and 471 ft south of the bridge to two 12-ft lanes with 8-ft unstriped outside shoulders (Figure 4). The new roadway would be constructed with 3-ft shoulder backing (a strip of granular material used to protect the outside edge of the roadway pavement) and side slopes of 4:1 on the side of the road opposite the creek. The roadway adjacent to Alisal Creek would be constructed with a 3-ft shoulder backing and a nonstandard slope of 2:1. In addition, the profile of the roadway approaches would be raised to meet current design standards for minimum slope. The existing roadway slope is less than the 0.25 percent allowed per AASHTO. Additionally, the existing roadway approaches would be repaved with a foundation of aggregate base asphalt and coated with a 0.5 ft of hot mix asphalt.

According to County’s Annual Average Daily Traffic (County 2015), Hartnell Road currently carries average daily traffic (ADT) of 2,300. The AASHTO standard for a Local Collector Road with an ADT of between 400 and 2,000 is 50 miles per hour (mph). The proposed project would require an exemption because it is being designed for a speed of 45 mph.

ALISAL CREEK REALIGNMENT Hartnell Road parallels the channelized Alisal Creek. As part of this project, a portion of Alisal Creek will be realigned and reconstructed outside of the footprint of the widened roadway and shoulders. At the proposed new bridge, the creek angle relative to the bridge would be changed from 90 to 45 degrees to improve the hydraulic capacity of the creek. However, the majority of the creek within the BSA would continue to flow parallel to Hartnell Road north and south of the bridge. The realigned creek channel would match the existing depth and longitudinal slope of the existing creek. At the bridge, the proposed elevation at the top of the culvert opening would remain the same. Wing walls would be constructed to direct the flow of the creek through the culvert.

SAFETY New concrete barriers would be constructed on the box culvert bridge on both sides of the road. A standard guardrail system (Midwest Guardrail System) would be installed at the edge of the concrete barriers at three of the four corners of the bridge to prevent motorists from striking the end of the concrete barriers. Because a standard guardrail may impact sight visibility from a private driveway on the southwest side of the bridge, a Quad Guard 25 ft Trinity Attenuating Crash Cushion (TRACCTM) crash cushion or similar shortened system would be installed on the southwest side of the bridge.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  7 FIGURE 4

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement 0 16 32 Federal Project Number BRLO-5944(103) FEET Monterey County, California Typical Cross-Section SOURCE: TRC I:\TRT1502\G\X-Sections.cdr (2/22/2016) Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

DRIVEWAYS Three private agricultural driveways are located within the project limits. The driveway connections to Hartnell Road would be modified to compensate for the widening and change in vertical profile of the roadway. One agricultural driveway is located just south of the existing bridge on the west side. Because of the close proximity of this driveway to the bridge and new guardrail, a 30 ft by 60 ft section of this driveway would be modified to connect to the new roadway and provide for adequate site visibility for the drivers exiting the driveway. The two other private agricultural driveways, one located southwest of the bridge and the other located northeast of the bridge, would require modifications to 20 ft by 20 ft sections of the driveway to connect to the new roadway. Driveway improvements would be constructed either within the existing right-of-way or within a temporary construction easement.

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Construction activities within the creek are planned to occur outside of the rainy season, when there is no surface water within Alisal Creek (April 15–October 15). Construction is expected to begin during the spring of 2018, with completion by the fall of 2018, for a total construction duration of 5 months. Construction within the creek would take approximately 3 months. Construction may be delayed due to funding or other considerations, in which case the project would begin in the spring of 2019 and be completed by the fall of 2019. The bridge would be closed to traffic during construction.

CONSTRUCTION PHASING Demolition of the existing box culvert will take place after the contractor has provided a temporary bridge across the creek for equipment use. Removal of the existing box culvert floor, sidewalls, wing walls, and box culvert roof will involve demolition using a bulldozer and dump truck. Once the existing box culvert is completely removed, construction of the new box culvert can take place. The new box culvert floor and joints will be cast in place in one concrete pour. A second pour will include the sidewalls, roof, and wing walls.

TRAFFIC ACCESS AND DETOURS Hartnell Road Bridge and the roadway approaches will be closed during construction. Vehicles traveling north on US-101 will be notified by advanced warning signage that Hartnell Road is closed to through traffic and will be routed northeast on Spence Road for 2 mi, then northwest on Alisal Road for 2.3 mi to Hartnell Road. Vehicles traveling south on US-101 will follow the same route, passing Hartnell Road and exiting US-101 on Spence Road and heading east for 2 mi, then northwest on Alisal Road for 2.3 mi to Hartnell Road. Vehicles traveling from the north and east to access US-101 (e.g., from Alisal Road or Old Stage Road) would be routed south on Alisal Road for 2.3 mi then southwest on Spence Road for 2 mi. The total detour is approximately 5–7 mi in length. (Figure 5).

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  9 PROJECT SIGNAGE

FIGURE 5

N Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Federal Project Number BRLO-5944(103) 0 1500 3000 Monterey County, California FEET Construction Detour SOURCE: TRC, Google Earth (2016) I:\TRT1502\G\Construction_Detour.cdr (3/24/2016) Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Three private driveways are located within the BSA. To minimize the impacts on these residents, access to these driveways by all vehicles, including large trucks and trailers, will be maintained at all times during project construction.

Once the existing bridge is demolished, access to the project site for construction vehicles only will be provided via a temporary bridge across Alisal Creek.

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND STAGING Typical excavators and earthmoving equipment would be operated near and within the creek bed. A pile-driving rig would be used to place piles at each abutment. A supporting crane would be required to place the reinforcement cage and pour the concrete in the piles. Materials and equipment that would be used during bridge construction would be staged at one location east of the bridge and just south of and adjacent to a private driveway (Figure 2). The staging area would occupy a total area of 0.5 acres.

UTILITY REROUTING Two utility pipelines are attached to the west side of the bridge. One is confirmed to be an AT&T underground facility. The contents of the other pipeline appear to be abandoned or for future use. These pipelines would be relocated onto the outside of the new culvert bridge and attached to the new concrete barrier.

Four joint utility poles, supporting Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and AT&T overhead electric lines, are located on the west side of the bridge and roadway within the project limits. Two of those poles are located at the edge of the proposed widened shoulder and will be protected in place. The other two joint utility poles are located within the limits of the proposed widened shoulder and will need to be relocated adjacent to the new roadway shoulder and within the right-of-way. PG&E will take the lead in the design of the relocated poles, the location of which will be provided in the final road design plans.

SURFACE WATER DEWATERING Construction of the proposed project is planned to occur outside of the rainy season when there is no surface water within the Alisal Creek (April 15–October 15). Therefore, no dewatering will be required, and no water diversion is anticipated to be needed. If water diversion becomes necessary, each cell of the two-cell box culvert will be constructed as water is diverted through a pipe in the other cell so that flow in Alisal Creek is maintained at all times.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  11 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

2 - Study Methods

Regulatory Requirements

FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Under provisions of Section 7(a)(2) of FESA, a federal agency that permits, licenses, funds, or otherwise authorizes a project activity must consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to ensure that its actions would not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. The occurrence of species listed under the FESA and known from the Salinas Valley region as well as designated critical habitat are considered in this NES(MI).

SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT The USACE regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. These waters include wetlands and nonwetland bodies of water that meet specific criteria. The USACE regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the federal CWA is founded on a connection, or nexus, between the water body in question and interstate commerce. This connection may be direct (through a tributary system linking a stream channel with traditional navigable waters), or it may be indirect (through a nexus identified in the USACE regulations). In order to be considered a jurisdictional wetland under Section 404, an area must possess three wetland characteristics: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Each characteristic must meet a specific set of mandatory wetland criteria. This NES(MI) provides details of USACE jurisdiction within the BSA and analyzes potential project effects to those features.

MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) must be designated in every fishery management plan. EFH includes “…those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” The MSA requires consultation with the NMFS for projects that include a federal action or federal funding and may adversely modify EFH. This NES(MI) analyzed EFH within the BSA.

MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT AND EXECUTIVE ORDER 13186 Native bird species and their nests are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 United States Code [USC] 703–712). The MBTA states that all migratory birds and their parts (including eggs, nests, and feathers) are protected. The MBTA prohibits the take, possession, import, export, transport, sale, purchase, barter, or offering for sale, purchase, or

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  12 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts) barter, of any migratory bird or its eggs, parts, or nests, except as authorized under a valid permit. The proposed project has the potential to impact nesting birds covered by this act.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988 – FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Executive Order (EO) 11988 is a flood hazard policy for all federal agencies that manage federal lands, sponsor federal projects, or provide federal funds to state or local projects. It requires that all federal agencies take necessary action to reduce the risk of flood loss; restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains; and minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare. Specifically, EO 11988 dictates that all federal agencies avoid construction or management practice that would adversely affect floodplains unless that agency finds that there is no practical alternative and the proposed action has been designed or modified to minimize harm to or within the floodplain. This NES(MI) analyzed potential impacts to floodplains.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990 – PROTECTION OF WETLANDS EO 11990 established a national policy to avoid adverse impacts on wetlands whenever there is a practicable alternative. On federally funded projects, impacts on wetlands must be identified. Alternatives that avoid wetlands must be considered. If wetland impacts cannot be avoided, then all practicable measures to minimize harm must be included and documented in a specific Wetlands Only Practicable Alternative Finding. This NES(MI) analyzed potential impacts to wetlands.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13112 - INVASIVE SPECIES EO 13112 requires federal agencies to combat the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States. The order defines invasive species as:

Any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.

FHWA guidance issued August 10, 1999, directs the use of the State’s noxious weed list to define the invasive plants that must be considered as part of CEQA analysis for a proposed project. This NES(MI) analyzed the proposed project’s potential to introduce or spread invasive species.

CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) is administered by the CDFW and prohibits the “take” of plant and animal species identified as either threatened or endangered in the State by the Fish and Game Commission (Fish and Game Code Sections 2050 to 2097). “Take” includes pursuit, hunt, kill, capture, or any other action that results in adverse impacts to a listed species.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  13 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Sections 2091 and 2081 of the CESA allow the CDFW to authorize exceptions to the “take” of the State-listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species for purposes including public and private development. The occurrence of species listed under the CESA and known from the Salinas Valley region are considered in this NES(MI).

SECTION 401 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT The RWQCB is responsible for the administration of Section 401 of the CWA. Typically, the areas subject to RWQCB jurisdiction coincide with those subject to USACE jurisdiction (i.e., waters of the United States, including any wetlands). The RWQCB also asserts authority over waters of the State under waste discharge requirements pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. This NES(MI) provides details of RWQCB jurisdiction within the BSA and analyzes potential project effects.

SECTION 1600 OF THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE The State Code of Regulations empowers the CDFW to issue Agreements for any alteration of the bed or bank of a river, stream, or lake where fish or wildlife resources may be substantially adversely affected. Streams (and rivers) are defined by the presence of a channel bed and banks, and at least an ephemeral flow of water.

The CDFW generally includes within the jurisdictional limits of streams and lakes any riparian vegetation present. Riparian vegetation typically includes plants (e.g., willows and alders) and other vegetation associated with stream banks or lake shoreline. This NES(MI) provides details of CDFW jurisdiction within the BSA and analyzes potential project effects.

SECTIONS 3503 AND 3503.5 OF THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE The Fish and Game Code (cited sections) protects the nests and eggs of most birds, including raptors (Falconiformes and Strigiformes) and the bird species protected under the MBTA. The proposed project has the potential to impact nesting and foraging habitat for birds.

NATIVE PLANT PROTECTION ACT California’s Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) requires state agencies to utilize their authority to conserve endangered and rare native plants. Provisions of the NPPA prohibit the taking of listed plants and require notifying the CDFW at least 10 days in advance of any change in land use. This allows CDFW to salvage listed plant species that would otherwise be destroyed. The project sponsor (i.e., the County) is required to conduct botanical inventories and consult with CDFW during project planning to comply with this act and the applicable sections of CEQA for rare or endangered plants. This NES(MI) analyzed potential effects to endangered and rare native plants within the BSA.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  14 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

SENATE BILL 857 (SB 857) - FISH PASSAGE This bill requires projects within streams currently or historically occupied by anadromous fish to be constructed so as not to present a barrier to anadromous fish passage at any life stage. This bill pertains to actions regardless of funding source or level and includes rehabilitation, new construction or maintenance actions that extend the life of the existing culvert or crossing. A barrier can be a physical, thermal or hydrological impediment to fish passage that is a partial or complete barrier to any life stage as defined by NMFS and the CDFW assessment protocol. This NES(MI) analyzed anadromous fish passage within the BSA.

Studies Required

LITERATURE SEARCH A literature review and an on-site field investigation determined the specific studies needed for this NES(MI) by identifying sensitive biological resources that could occur within the BSA. The reviewed databases include the following:

• Updated USFWS letter dated January 5, 2017. List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project (USFWS 2017) (Appendix A).

• NMFS Official Species list generated by LSA Senior Biologist Matthew Willis for the Natividad quadrangle on January 5, 2017 (NMFS 2017) (Appendix A).

• CDFW California Natural Diversity Data base (CNDDB) Rarefind 5. This database covers special-status animals and plant species as well as natural communities of concern occurring in California. Search was conducted for records in the Prunedale, San Juan Bautista, Hollister, Salinas, Natividad, Mt. Harlan, Spreckels, Chualar, and Gonzales, California United States Geological (USGS) Survey 7.5 minute quadrangles and specifically within a 2-mile radius of the BSA (Natividad and Chualar) (CDFW 2017). The most recent search was conducted on January 5, 2017 (Appendix B).

• California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02) (CNPS 2017). The most recent search was conducted on January 5, 2017 (Appendix B).

• USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper (USFWSb 2017).

• Natural Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey. This search was conducted on September 30, 2015. Depending on the content of the database, searches for special-status species, critical habitat, and/or other sensitive features were conducted for those sensitive resources expected to occur on or near the BSA.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  15 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

FIELD REVIEWS Initial on-site field investigations were conducted in April 2015 to identify vegetative communities, habitats for special-status species, potential jurisdictional waters, and other biological resource issues. Based on the literature review and initial field investigations, the following field surveys were completed in the spring and summer of 2015:

• General Biological Assessment Survey

• Special-Status Plant Surveys; and

• Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters.

SURVEY METHODS General Biological Survey A general biological field survey was conducted on April 15, 2015, by LSA Biologists Eric Lichtwardt, Tim Milliken, Jodi Ross-Borrego, and Matthew Willis. During the course of the survey, the BSA was searched for the presence of special-status plants and wildlife, and the suitability of habitats to support special-status species was assessed. All plant and animal species observed or otherwise detected during the survey were noted (Appendix C).

Rare Plant Surveys LSA botanists Mr. Milliken and Mr. Willis conducted protocol-level rare plant surveys on April 15, May 29, and July 9, 2015. These surveys followed the CDFW Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plants Population and Natural Communities (CDFW 2009). Three surveys were conducted to cover the blooming periods of all the species that could occur in the BSA.

Jurisdictional Delineation TRC Biologist Michael Farmer conducted a jurisdictional delineation on April 21, 2015, and TRC Biologist Amber Amelingmeier conducted a jurisdictional delineation on March 28, 2016, according to the Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Environmental Laboratory 2008) and CDFW guidelines and regulations (i.e., Fish and Game Code Sections 1600–1616). Analyses of current aerial photographs, topographic maps, and soils information were included in the site evaluation. The results of this delineation are detailed in a separate report (Appendix D).

SURVEY DATES AND PERSONNEL The field surveys were conducted as shown below in Table 2:

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  16 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Table 2: Survey Type, Date, and Personnel

Personnel Company Type of Survey Survey Date(s) Eric Lichtwardt, Tim LSA General biological and wildlife April 15, 2015 Milliken, Jodi Ross- survey, vegetation and habitat Borrego, and mapping, special-status species Matthew Willis and habitat assessments Tim Milliken and LSA Rare plant surveys April 15, May 29, Matthew Willis and July 9, 2015 Michael Farmer TRC Delineation of jurisdictional areas April 21, 2015 Amber Amelingmeier TRC Updated delineation of March 28, 2016 jurisdictional areas

Mr. Lichtwardt has over 25 years of professional field experience conducting biological field studies in California and other western states and is a senior staff member (Associate/Senior Biologist) at LSA. His primary expertise is vertebrate zoology. He has worked with a number of special-status vertebrate species, including native freshwater fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, bats, and other small mammals. He is authorized on federal and State permits to survey for and/or handle a number of federally listed species including California red-legged frogs (Rana draytonii), California tiger salamanders (Ambystoma californiense), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), and least Bell’s vireo (Vireo belli pusillus). Mr. Lichtwardt has experience mapping vegetation and habitat types and has prepared a wide variety of environmental documents including NESs, Biological Assessments (BAs), biological resource sections for Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), essential fish habitat assessments, wildlife hazard assessments (WHAs), and other biological resource reports.

Mr. Milliken, LSA botanist and certified arborist, has 19 years of professional experience conducting botanical surveys for rare and special-status plant species, noxious weeds, wetland plants, trees, and nonvascular plants (i.e., lichens and bryophytes). Mr. Milliken has conducted botanical work for a variety of project types including NESs, BAs, biological resources surveys, preconstruction surveys, construction monitoring, mitigation banks, and wetland determinations. His work entails analyzing impacts to vegetation, mapping plant communities, conducting tree inventories, and conducting rare plant surveys. Mr. Milliken has been a Certified Arborist for over 12 years and has worked on projects with tree issues in the Bay Area and along the Central Coast of California.

Ms. Ross-Borrego has 14 years of professional experience conducting biological studies throughout California. Ms. Ross-Borrego is primarily responsible for assisting various clients in conducting and managing the coordination of biological resource evaluations and assessments; managing and overseeing construction compliance projects; and preparing biological reports for transportation projects including proposed bridge replacement projects, freeway interchanges, road widening, and interchange modifications; and environmental permitting. She works with

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  17 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

resource and regulatory agencies to analyze impacts and recommend mitigation measures as part of the CEQA/NEPA documentation for both private- and public-sector projects.

Mr. Willis has over 10 years of experience conducting biological fieldwork, managing projects, and preparing biological technical reports throughout California. While Mr. Willis works on a wide variety of projects, he specializes in general biological resource assessments, botanical surveys, special-status species surveys, construction monitoring, vegetation mapping, project management, and regulatory compliance and permitting. Mr. Willis has conducted fieldwork and taught throughout California, including coastal areas and ranges, the Sierra Nevada Mountains, the Central Valley, desert regions, off-shore islands (Santa Catalina Island), and urban environments. Mr. Willis has conducted focused surveys for numerous plant species, burrowing owl, least Bell’s vireo, California red-legged frog, coastal California gnatcatcher, desert tortoise, and flat-tailed horned lizard. Additionally, he has facilitated mammal trapping projects and conducted research concerning endangered species, including California condor and Morro Bay kangaroo rat.

Mr. Farmer has more than 17 years of experience in the environmental consulting field with an extensive background in biological sciences, project management, and regulatory permitting and compliance. His qualifications include a diverse list of biological field surveys, data analyses, and report preparation related to special-status plant and wildlife species and jurisdictional wetland delineations throughout California. He is adept at managing the regulatory permitting aspect of projects and has valuable experience coordinating with representatives from the USACE, the USFWS, the RWQCB, the CDFW, and the Central Valley Flood Protection Board during the project approval process.

Ms. Amelingmeier has more than 5 years of experience in the environmental consulting field. Her background is in biological sciences, project management, and regulatory permitting and compliance. Her qualifications include a list of biological field surveys, data analyses, and report preparation related to special-status plant and wildlife species and jurisdictional wetland delineations throughout California, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. She has experience coordinating with representatives at both the federal and State level.

AGENCY COORDINATION AND PROFESSIONAL CONTACTS No consultation with the USFWS, the NMFS, or the CDFW has been initiated at this time.

The USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC) and the NMFS online database were utilized to generate lists of federally listed species, designated or proposed critical habitat, and Essential Fish Habitat that could occur on or in the vicinity of the BSA and may be affected by the project. LSA received updated official USFWS and NMFS species lists dated January 5, 2017 (Appendix A).

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  18 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

LIMITATIONS THAT MAY INFLUENCE RESULTS Plant species populations naturally fluctuate from year to year in response to environmental variation and other ecological factors. Special-status plant species may flower earlier than usual, may not flower at all, may exhibit annual life cycles, or may be relatively short-lived following periods of abnormal rainfall. California has currently been experiencing a prolonged drought and although drought may influence the observation of special-status plant species in areas of suitable habitat, the Hartnell Road Bridge BSA is largely devoid of habitat for such plants. This absence of habitat in the BSA is due to the intensity of agricultural operations in much of the BSA, the isolation of the BSA from natural areas that support rare plant populations, and the regularly disturbed nature of the site due to road and channel maintenance (i.e., roadside herbicide applications, vegetation clearing).

Wildlife species may be cryptic, generally difficult to detect, transient, or migratory species that may only occur within the BSA for short or fleeting time periods. Wildlife species may only be active during particular times of the year, such as the breeding season, or may only use the BSA temporarily as a movement corridor between other areas of more optimal habitat. For these reasons wildlife species may be present, but not observed. This limitation may influence the study results.

3 - Results: Environmental Setting

Description of the Existing Biological and Physical Conditions The BSA was created to encompass the proposed project footprint and typical habitats in the immediate project vicinity that may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project.

PHYSICAL CONDITIONS The BSA is dominated by agricultural and vacant lands. The area surrounding the BSA supports land uses that are primarily associated with agriculture. The following discusses the physical and biological conditions, vegetation and animals, and regional species and habitats of concern within the BSA.

The topography of the BSA is relatively flat, and the elevation ranges from approximately 64 feet (ft) to 66 ft below mean sea level. The soil in the BSA as mapped by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey includes Elder sandy loam (EaA), 0 to 2 percent slopes.

BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN THE STUDY AREA Vegetation within the BSA has been affected by the existing roadway infrastructure and the surrounding agricultural operations. Vegetation and land cover types within the 4.5-acre BSA are mapped on Figure 6 and site photographs are provided in Figure 7.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  19 Project Vicinity Ã156 Ã25 Ã1

¤£101 San Ã183 Project Benito Location County

Ã218 Monterey Ã68 County

LEGEND FIGURE 6 Biological Study Area Agriculture Arroyo Willow Thickets !# Photo_Locations Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Coyote Brush Scrub and Road Widening Project Iceplant Mats Federal Project Number BRLO-5944-103 0 37.5 75 Monterey County, California FEET Ruderal Vegetation, Land Use, and Photograph Key Location Map SOURCE: Bing (~2014); LSA (4/2016) I:\TRT1502\GIS\Hartnell_Rd_Vegetation.mxd (5/19/2016) Photo 1. View of Alisal Creek as seen facing northwest. Photo 2. View of Alisal Creek as seen facing south.

Photo 3. View of the northern portion of Hartnell Road BSA. Photo 4. View of ruderal area as seen facing northwest.

FIGURE 7

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Federal Project Number BRLO-5944(103) Monterey County, California Site Photographs

I:\TRT1502\G\Site Photos.cdr (5/20/2016) Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Alisal Creek is the prominent natural feature within the BSA. Alisal Creek is a jurisdictional water regulated by the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA, by the RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA, and by the CDFW under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code.

The dominant vegetation within the BSA outside of Alisal Creek is best described as ruderal. Dominant species include shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), slender wild oat (Avena barbata), and red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens).

The vegetation community found within Alisal Creek northwest of Hartnell Road is best described as disturbed Salix lasiolepis Shrubland Alliance (arroyo willow thickets [Sawyer et al. 2009]). The Arroyo willow thickets vegetation community is highly disturbed due to the surrounding agricultural operations. Dominant species include arroyo willow, coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), and red brome. A small patch of Baccharis pilularis Shrubland Alliance (Coyote brush scrub [Sawyer et al. 2009]) lies within the BSA adjacent to the arroyo willow thickets. The dominant species is coyote brush.

Vegetation within Alisal Creek southeast of Hartnell Road is best described as ruderal. The dominant species include ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), wild radish, and common horsetail (Equisetum arvense).

Carpobrotus edulis or Other Ice Plants Semi-Natural Herbaceous Stands (Ice plant Mats [Sawyer et al. 2009]) is located along the western edge of the BSA. The dominant species is baby sun-rose (Aptenia cordifolia).

Wildlife observed within the BSA included Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), Wilson’s snipe (Gallinago delicata), and common raven (Corvus corax). Appendix C provides a complete list of the plant and animal species observed.

HABITAT CONNECTIVITY The BSA is not within or adjacent to California Essential Habitat Connectivity (CEHC) mapped Natural Landscape Block or Essential Connectivity Areas (CDFW 2016). Alisal Creek and its associated non-native and disturbed vegetation do not provide an important corridor for terrestrial or aquatic animals. Because of the disturbed nature of Alisal Creek and its isolation from natural areas by the extensive agricultural fields and developed areas makes it unlikely that wildlife would access this area for local or long distance movements. The creek provides intermittent flow, primarily drainage from the fields and support only a limited band of low growing vegetation that is not likely to provide adequate cover for most medium and large-sized wildlife species. Therefore, Alisal Creek and its associated habitats within the BSA do not provide for local and regional wildlife movement.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  22 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

REGIONAL SPECIES AND HABITATS AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF CONCERN A nine-quadrangle search area results in a large and variable geographic and topographic search area containing habitat types not found in or around the BSA. Therefore, the focus of the database query and subsequent surveys was reduced to a 2-mile radius around the BSA which is more meaningful biologically as it incorporates the areas most similar to those in the BSA.

The only natural communities of concern (as identified by the CNDDB and the CNPS) within the BSA are channel wetlands in the creek bottom. Impacts to wetlands are discussed below. No critical habitat is present within or adjacent to the BSA (USFWS 2017).

Nineteen special-status species (7 plants, 12 animals) occur within the vicinity of the BSA. Those species are included in Table 3.

Ten of the 19 special-status plant and animal species potentially present in the BSA are federal or State listed as threatened or endangered. No suitable habitat was found to be present within the BSA for the 10 federal or State listed species.

Similarly, the remaining 9 non-listed special-status species that are known from the region were all determined to be absent from the BSA due to a lack of suitable habitat and negative survey results.

Migratory birds and raptors protected under the MBTA and the California Fish and Wildlife Game Code may nest in the trees and shrubs within the BSA.

4 - Results: Biological Resources, Discussion of Impacts, and Mitigation

No direct impacts to any sensitive habitat other than wetlands or to any federally or State-listed threatened or endangered species are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no impacts to critical habitat will occur as a result of this project

Indirect effects of the proposed project include both construction-related effects (e.g., dust, potential fuel spills from construction equipment, construction traffic, and activities of equipment or personnel outside designated construction areas) and postconstruction operations effects on adjacent habitats (e.g., runoff and litter).

The following discusses potential project effects on biological resources within the BSA.

Habitats and Natural Communities of Concern The only sensitive natural communities present within the BSA are wetlands. The information below is derived from the wetland delineation prepared for this project and included as Appendix D.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  23 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Table 3: Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Biological Study Area

Status Habitat English Scientific Name Federal/ General Habitat Description Present/ Rationale Name State/Other† Absent* CRITICAL HABITAT Federally Designated CH/--/-- Coastal Basin rivers and streams from the A There is no designated Critical Habitat within 2 South-Central Pajaro River south to, but not including, the miles of the BSA and no suitable habitat for California Coast Santa Maria River. steelhead. This Critical Habitat is included on the Steelhead Critical NMFS Fisheries species list for the proposed Habitat project (Appendix A). PLANTS Arenaria paludicola Marsh FE/SE/-- Freshwater wetlands, marshes, and swamps A No suitable habitat is present within the BSA. sandwort (5–250 meters). Blooming period is May– Portions of Alisal Creek within the BSA are August. regularly cleared of vegetation (either the County, or adjacent landowner, or both as part of regular maintenance activities) and, therefore, no suitable wetlands and/or marshes are present within the BSA. This species was not observed during appropriately timed plant surveys. Astragalus tener var. Alkali milk- --/--/1B.2 Alkali soils typically found in playas valley A No suitable habitat (alkali soils, playas, valley or tener vetch and foothill grassland (adobe clay) and vernal foothill grassland or vernal pools) is present pools (0 to 60 meters) within the BSA. This species was not observed during appropriately timed plant surveys. Centromadia parryi Congdon’s --/--/1B.1 Valley and foothill grasslands with alkaline HP Suitable growing conditions and habitat are ssp. congdonii tarplant soil (1–230 meters). Blooming period is May– present within the BSA. This species is known to November. occur within 2 miles of the BSA (CNDDB No. 8). However, this species, or other species of Centromadia, was not observed during appropriately timed plant surveys. This species is not expected to occur in the BSA. Delphinium Umbrella --/--/1B.3 Mesic sites in cismontane woodland at 400 to A No suitable habitat (mesic sites in cismontane umbraculorum larkspur 1,600 meters elevation. woodlands) is present within the BSA. This species was not observed during appropriately timed plant surveys.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI) 24 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Table 3: Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Biological Study Area

Status Habitat English Scientific Name Federal/ General Habitat Description Present/ Rationale Name State/Other† Absent* Eriogonum nortonii Pinnacles --/--/1B.3 Found on sandy soils, often on recent burns A No suitable habitat (chaparral and valley and buckwheat in chaparral and valley and foothill foothill grasslands) is present within the BSA. grasslands within the western Santa Lucia This species was not observed during Range (300-975 meters). Blooming period appropriately timed plant surveys. May-August. Fritillaria liliacea Fragrant --/--/1B.2 Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, A No suitable habitat (coastal scrub, valley and fritillary and coastal prairie. Often on serpentine and foothill grasslands, and coastal prairie) is present other ultramafic rocks. Usually found on clay within the BSA. This species was not observed soils in grasslands (3-410 meters). Blooming during appropriately timed plant surveys. period February-April. ANIMALS Crustaceans Branchinecta lynchi Vernal pool FT/--/-- Endemic to the grasslands of the Central A No suitable habitat (small clear water sandstone- fairy shrimp Valley and central and south coast mountains depression pools and grassed swale, earth in small clear water sandstone-depression slump, or basalt-flow depression rain-filled pools) pools and grassed swale, earth slump, or is present within the BSA. basalt-flow depression rain-filled pools. Fish Oncorhynchus mykiss South/Central FT/--/SSC Coastal rivers and streams with cold water A Habitat on site is not suitable for this species. irideus California and deep (3 feet or greater) pools and runs; Alisal creek is shallow and there are no pools or Coast for spawning requires clean, silt-free gravel runs. The water is not clean or silt free and there Steelhead (0.5-5 inches) beds, with clear flowing water is no clear flowing water and shaded stream DPS and shaded stream reaches. Spawning reaches. Based on this information the species adults occur during winter high water. Adults does not occur within the BSA. are wide ranging in offshore and inshore pelagic marine waters.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  25 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Table 3: Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Biological Study Area

Status Habitat English Scientific Name Federal/ General Habitat Description Present/ Rationale Name State/Other† Absent* Amphibians Ambystoma California tiger FT/ST/SSC Annual grasslands and valley-foothill oak A No suitable breeding or upland habitat is present californiense salamander savannah with vernal pools or other in or adjacent to the BSA. Upland habitat is temporary water bodies (e.g., stock ponds) unsuitable due to intensive disturbance from for breeding. Occupies the burrows of agriculture activities. There are no known California ground squirrels and Botta’s pocket records within 2 miles of the BSA. The maximum gophers during the nonbreeding season. reported movement distance from breeding ponds is approximately 1.36 miles (Orloff 2011). Additionally, recent research shows that 95 percent of dispersing adults and juveniles occur within 0.38 and 0.39 mile of breeding ponds, respectively (CDFG 2010). Based on this information, this species does not occur in the BSA. Ambystoma Santa Cruz FE/SE/CFP Breeds in temporary pools and ponds and A No suitable breeding or upland habitat is present macrodactylum long-toed occupies rodent burrows in oak woodland, in or adjacent to the BSA. The BSA is also croceum salamander chaparral, and grasslands during the dry isolated from areas of occurrence by heavily season. Also is found under surface litter traveled roadways and extensive agricultural (e.g., fallen logs). Migration to breeding landscapes (barriers to dispersal for ponds occurs during nights with heavy rain salamanders). from October to February. Breeding occurs in January and February.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  26 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Table 3: Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Biological Study Area

Status Habitat English Scientific Name Federal/ General Habitat Description Present/ Rationale Name State/Other† Absent* Rana draytonii California FT/--/SSC Creeks, ponds, and marshes. Prefers aquatic A No suitable habitat is present in the BSA. There red-legged habitat with deep (2-foot-deep or deeper) are no known historical records within 2 miles of frog areas with undercut banks, emergent aquatic the site. No deep pools are present within the vegetation, and bank cover. Does not occur BSA and vegetation along the bank side of Alisal in salt marshes or wetland with brackish Creek is regularly cleared. Additionally, as part of water. a Wildlife Hazard Assessment for the Salinas Airport, LSA performed 24 surveys between April 2013 and April 2014 along Hartnell Road approximately 400 feet south of the BSA. No California red-legged frogs were detected in the creek during the 24 site visits. Based on this information, it is unlikely this species occurs within the BSA. Reptiles Emys marmorata Western pond --/--/SSC Inhabits permanent or nearly permanent A Habitat on site is not suitable for this species. turtle water. Absent from desert regions, except in The creek is shallow, there are no pools present the Mojave Desert along the Mojave River and adjacent upland areas are cultivated and and its tributaries. Requires basking sites disturbed. Additionally, as part of a Wildlife such as partially submerged logs, rocks, or Hazard Assessment for the Salinas Airport, LSA open mud banks. performed 24 surveys between April 2013 and April 2014 along Hartnell Road approximately 400 feet south of the BSA. No western pond turtles were detected in the creek during the 24 site visits. Based on this information, it is unlikely this species occurs within the BSA.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  27 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Table 3: Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Biological Study Area

Status Habitat English Scientific Name Federal/ General Habitat Description Present/ Rationale Name State/Other† Absent* Birds Agelaius tricolor Tricolored /SCE/SSC Nests in extensive cattail or tule marsh, A No suitable nesting habitat (extensive cattail or blackbird blackberry, and wild rose thickets; forages in tule marsh, blackberry, and wild rose thickets) is open fields, cultivated lands, and farms with present within the BSA. This species generally abundant insect populations. nests in large colonies in extensive areas of cattail marsh or other suitable habitat. Intensively cultivated row crops, such as those that occupy portions of the BSA, do not provide suitable foraging or nesting habitat for this species (Shuford and Gardali 2008). This species may occasionally occur as a transient within or around the BSA. Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl --/--/SSC Open, dry annual grasslands; deserts and A No suitable habitat is present within the BSA. No scrublands with mammal burrows (e.g., mammal burrows or other underground suitable ground squirrels) for nest sites and retreats. nesting habitat was found to be present within the BSA. No burrowing owl sign observed in the BSA. Additionally, as part of a Wildlife Hazard Assessment for the Salinas Airport, LSA performed 24 surveys between April 2013 and April 2014 along Hartnell Road approximately 400 feet south of the BSA. No burrowing owl were detected in the creek during the 24 site visits. The closest burrowing owl CNDDB record to the BSA is at the Salinas Airport approximately 2 miles to the northwest. Based on this information, it is unlikely this species occurs within the BSA.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  28 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Table 3: Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Biological Study Area

Status Habitat English Scientific Name Federal/ General Habitat Description Present/ Rationale Name State/Other† Absent* Buteo swainsoni Swainson's --/ST Open desert, grassland, or cropland A No suitable nesting habitat (stands with few trees (nesting) hawk containing scattered, large trees or small in juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, and in oak groves. Breeds in stands with few trees in savannah in the Central Valley) is present within juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, and in oak the BSA. This species my forage in the adjacent savannah in the Central Valley. Forages in agricultural fields near the BSA. adjacent grasslands or suitable grain or alfalfa fields, or livestock pastures. Breeds and nests in western North America; winters in South America. Uncommon breeding resident and migrant in the Central Valley, Klamath Basin, Northeastern Plateau, Lassen County, and Mojave Desert. Very limited breeding reported from Lanfair Valley, Owens Valley, Fish Lake Valley, and Antelope Valley. In Southern California, now mostly limited to spring and fall transient. Formerly abundant in California with wider breeding range. Empidonax traillii Southwestern FE/SE/-- Riparian woodlands in Southern California. A No suitable habitat (extensive riparian areas of extimus willow dense willows) is present within the BSA. flycatcher

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  29 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Table 3: Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Biological Study Area

Status Habitat English Scientific Name Federal/ General Habitat Description Present/ Rationale Name State/Other† Absent* Gymnogyps California FE/SE/CFP Generally occurs in wild landscapes. A This species is historically known from the californianus condor Searches for carrion while soaring over County of Monterey, but disappeared during the mountains, sea coasts, and grasslands, and 20th Century. The California condor was nests on cliffs or in cavities in tall trees. reintroduced into the Santa Lucia Mountains and the inner Coast Range at Pinnacles National Park. The BSA is surrounded by agricultural fields which do not contain cliffs, caves, or trees suitable for nesting or areas of open range land that provide suitable foraging habitat for large carrion such as deer, pigs, or sea lions. Intensively managed agricultural fields surround the BSA for about 2 miles in all directions, and exclude the area as foraging habitat for condors. This species is not expected to occur in the BSA. Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell’s FE/SE/-- Nests in riparian habitats dominated by A No suitable habitat (riparian forests and willow vireo willow, forages in a variety of native riparian thickets) is present within the BSA. trees and shrubs and will sometime forage or nest in Eucalyptus adjacent to riparian areas. Neotropical migrant, present during spring and summer, migrants in the fall. US: Federal Classifications CFP California Fully Protected. Refers to animals California Rare Plant Ranks are assigned by a FE Listed as Endangered. protected from take under Fish and Game Code sections committee of government agency and FT Listed as Threatened. 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515. nongovernmental botanical experts and are not official 1A California Rare Plant Rank 1A = presumed extinct in State designations of rarity status. CA: State Classifications California. CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database SE State-listed as Endangered. SCE State Candidate-listed as Endangered 1B California Rare Plant Rank 1B = rare, threatened or NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service ST State-listed as Threatened. endangered in California and elsewhere. SSC Species of Special Concern. Refers to animals with vulnerable or seriously declining populations.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  30 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

DISCUSSION OF JURISDICTIONAL WATERS Survey Results The BSA includes 0.029 ac of potential USACE wetland waters of the United States and 0.811 ac of potential USACE nonwetland waters of the United States as verified in a preliminary jurisdictional determination of the BSA. The BSA also supports 0.732 ac of potential CDFW streambed. Appendix D Figure 3 shows the hydrologic features within the BSA.

Project Impacts Table 4 shows the impacts to potential jurisdictional waters of the United States and Streambed. The Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters Report is included in Appendix D.

Table 4: Impacts to Waters of the United States and Streambed

USACE Wetland Waters USACE Non-Wetland CDFW Streambed Feature Type (acres) Waters (acres) (acres) Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary Detention 0 0 0 0.014 0 0 Basin Drainage Ditch 0 0 0 0.003 0 0 Alisal Creek 0.013 0.002 0.571 0.029 0.579 0.029 Total 0.013 0.002 0.571 0.046 0.579 0.029

Avoidance and Minimization Efforts/Compensatory Mitigation AM-1. During construction, all necessary Best Management Practices (BMP) will be implemented to ensure that no soil or other materials are discharged into Alisal Creek. BMPs will include the use of wattles and silt fences along access roads and around staging and equipment storage areas. Construction mats, gravel, or other methods to reduce erosion will be incorporated into the design of the temporary road in the streambed work area.

AM-2. Work within the streambed will be restricted to the low-flow season between April 15 and October 15.

AM-3. During construction, heavy equipment will be restricted to the work area. The work area within Alisal Creek will be delineated by Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) fencing. A qualified biologist will assist construction personnel in fence placement.

AM-4. Native material, cleaned out of piles that have been driven to depth, will be removed from the BSA and deposited in an approved off-site location.

AM-5. Following construction, the creek channel will be returned to its original contour and condition to the greatest extent possible. All constructed ramps into the creek channel

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  31 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

for the temporary construction access road, construction mats, and other temporary material used for construction will be removed.

AM-6. Refueling, maintenance, and storage of construction equipment and materials will take place 60 feet from the top of bank.

DISCUSSION OF INVASIVE SPECIES Survey Results Seventeen exotic plants on the California Invasive Plant Council’s (Cal-IPC) Invasive Plant Inventory were identified as occurring in the BSA. Each plant in the inventory is given an overall rating of high, moderate, or limited. Plants with a rating of high have severe ecological impacts. Plants with a rating of moderate have a substantial and apparent, but not severe, ecological impact. Plants with a limited rating are invasive but their ecological impacts are minor on a Statewide level. The invasive species identified in the BSA with a high rating include red brome and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare). Moderate-rated invasive species include slender wild oat, ripgut brome, shortpod mustard, poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), hare barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), and Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus).

Project Impacts The project has the potential to spread invasive species to adjacent native habitats in the BSA by the entering and exiting of construction equipment contaminated by invasive species, the inclusion of invasive species in seed mixtures and mulch, and by the improper removal and disposal of invasive species so that seed is spread along the highway.

Avoidance and Minimization Efforts/Compensatory Mitigation In compliance with EO 13112, a weed abatement program will be developed to minimize the importation of nonnative plant material during and after construction. Eradication strategies would be employed should an invasion occur. At a minimum, this program will include the following measures:

AM-7. During construction, soil and vegetation disturbance will be minimized to the minimum area necessary to construct the project.

AM-8. During construction, soil/gravel/rock will be obtained from weed-free sources. AM-9. Only certified weed-free straw, mulch, and/or fiber rolls will be used for erosion control. AM-10. After construction, affected areas adjacent to native vegetation will be revegetated with plant species approved by the District Biologist that are native to the vicinity.

AM-11. After construction, all revegetated areas will avoid the use of species listed on Cal-IPC’s California Invasive Plant Inventory that have a high or moderate rating.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  32 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

AM-12. Erosion control and revegetation sites will be monitored for 2 to 3 years after construction to detect and control the introduction/invasion of nonnative species.

AM-13. Eradication procedures (e.g., spraying and/or hand weeding) will be outlined should an infestation occur; the use of herbicides will be prohibited within and adjacent to native vegetation, except as specifically authorized and monitored by the District Biologist.

AM-14. All woody invasive species will be removed from the project limits. In addition to invasive plants, the proposed project could facilitate the movement or spread of invasive fish and wildlife species (e.g., non-native bullfrogs, crayfish, non-native turtles [i.e., red- eared sliders], and centrarchid fishes). These species are undesirable in natural habitats and may compete with native species for resources including food, refuges, basking sites, and nest sites. In addition to being competitors with native species, non-native species are often predators of native species. Through competition and predation, non-native fish and wildlife may have a serious impact on native species and habitats.

In compliance with EO 13112, a program will be developed to remove and monitor invasive non- native fish and wildlife species during and after construction. Measures addressing invasive species abatement and eradication will be included in the proposed project design and contract specifications and will be implemented and enforced by the construction contractor. At a minimum, this program would include the following:

AM-15. Non-native fish and wildlife will not be returned to the creek or any other natural waterbody.

AM-16. During construction, a qualified biologist will permanently remove individuals of non- native, invasive wildlife species (e.g., bullfrogs, crayfish, non-native turtles, and centrarchid fishes) from the project area and dispatch them humanely.

Special-Status Plant Species The special-status plant species evaluated for this NES(MI) are listed and discussed in Table 3. With the exception of Congdon’s tarplant, none of the other special-status plant species evaluated for the proposed project are expected to occur in the BSA due to lack of suitable habitat. This assessment was supported by the results of appropriately timed surveys of the BSA during which no listed or other special-status plants were observed. Therefore, no impacts to special-status plants are expected as a result of this project.

Discussion of Congdon’s Tarplant Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) is an annual herb with a California Rare Plant Rank of 1B.1 (rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere). It grows on alkaline soils and is generally found in valley and foothill grasslands and disturbed areas. This

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  33 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts) species is found at elevations between 1 and 230 meters and blooms between May and November (CNPS 2017).

Survey Results Suitable growing conditions and habitat are present in portions of the ruderal habitat within the BSA. This species is known to occur approximately 2 mi south of the BSA and also northeast of the BSA (CNDDB 2017). However, neither this species, nor any other species of Centromadia, was observed during appropriately timed rare plant surveys. Additionally, the BSA is subject to consistent maintenance and disturbance activities (i.e., intensive agriculture operations, herbicide, and vegetation trimming) that likely preclude this species from occurring.

Project Impacts Although Congdon’s tarplant is not expected to occur in the BSA, construction activities as well as equipment, material, and vehicle staging will occur within suitable habitat for Congdon’s tarplant.

Avoidance and Minimization Efforts/Compensatory Mitigation AM-17. To avoid direct impacts to Congdon’s tarplant, a qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey of the BSA for this species during the blooming period (May- November) prior to ground disturbance and/or vegetation clearing. If individuals or a population is found, a maximum 5-ft buffer will be established using ESA fencing. If the population is within the impact area and would be removed, the County will consult with CDFW to salvage the plant or seeds prior to removal.

Special-Status Animal Species Occurrences As identified in Table 3, no suitable habitat for federally or State-listed animal species was found within the BSA. Therefore, no impacts to federally or State-listed animal species will occur as a result of the project.

DICUSSION OF CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER The California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) is federally and State-listed as a threatened species and a California Species of Special Concern (SSC) (CDFW 2017). California tiger salamanders spend most of their lives in burrows in upland areas, typically grasslands and oak woodlands, interspersed with vernal pools and/or ponds (e.g., stock ponds) that provide breeding habitat. Eggs are deposited and hatch in aquatic habitat, and the juveniles eventually leave the ponds (typically in the late spring/early summer when the ponds begin to dry) to seek refuge in burrows in the uplands surrounding the ponds. The maximum reported movement distance from upland burrows to breeding ponds is 1.36 mi (Orloff 2011). Additionally, recent research shows that 95 percent of dispersing adults and juveniles occur within 0.38 and 0.39 mi of breeding ponds, respectively (CDFG 2010).

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  34 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Survey Results The habitat on and within 1.36 mi of the BSA is not suitable for California tiger salamander and there are no current records of this species occurring within 2 mi of the BSA; therefore, no specific surveys for this species were conducted. Alisal Creek does not provide breeding habitat for California tiger salamander, as the larvae are not adapted to flowing streams or agricultural ditches where high winter and spring flows, agricultural runoff, and flooding would wash breeding adults, eggs, and developing larvae downstream. Additionally, agricultural runoff may introduce toxins to the water which could effect survivability. Other portions of the BSA consist of roads with hard packed shoulders, croplands, and agricultural facilities that do not provide California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) burrows or other suitable underground retreats for California tiger salamander.

A review of the historical and current occurrence records show that extant populations are greater than 1.36 mi from the BSA; these populations occur approximately 4 mi north of the BSA with the intervening landscape all in agricultural use making those lands unsuitable for this species. Due to the network of roads and the constant cycle of planting, harvesting, and disking, the areas surrounding the BSA would not provide underground retreats for California tiger salamander. A seasonal pond occurs approximately 0.5 mi northeast of the BSA, but the intensively cultivated intervening landscape does not provide a suitable movement corridor. Additionally, the ponds such as those scattered throughout the landscape surrounding the BSA do not provide suitable breeding habitat for California tiger salamander as the ponds are typically excavated on dry land and have no connection via suitable habitat to natural areas that could provide a source population of California tiger salamanders for the pond. Such ponds are usually managed in a way that draw-downs of water make it unsuitable as rearing habitat for larvae. Also, many of these types of ponds are often stocked with predators (bullfrogs and nonnative fish) of California tiger salamander larvae. The BSA is not within designated Critical Habitat for California tiger salamander (USFWS 2017).

Given that neither suitable upland nor breeding habitat occurs on or adjacent to the BSA, all recorded locations for California tiger salamanders are greater than the accepted movement distance from the BSA, and there is no connection between the BSA and other occupied habitat, California tiger salamanders are not expected to occur in the BSA.

Project Impacts The project would not adversely affect this species, as its presence in the BSA is not expected.

Avoidance and Minimization Efforts/Compensatory Mitigation No avoidance and minimization efforts or compensatory mitigation is proposed because this species is unlikely to occur in the BSA.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  35 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

DISCUSSION OF CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG The California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) is listed as a federally threatened species and an SSC (CDFW 2017). California red-legged frog occurs in aquatic habitats such as creeks, ponds, and marshes. During wet weather, California red-legged frog often occurs in upland habitats near aquatic sites and are capable of dispersing widely over upland habitats.

Survey Results The habitat on and within 1 mi of the BSA is not suitable for California red-legged frog; therefore, no specific surveys for this species were conducted. The reach of Alisal Creek within the BSA functions more like a drainage for agricultural runoff than a naturally flowing creek. There is no suitable breeding habitat (e.g., pools 2 ft or greater in depth) for California red- legged frog and vegetation along the banks of Alisal Creek is regularly cleared. Upland portions of the BSA consist of roads with hard packed shoulders, croplands, and agricultural facilities that do not provide California ground squirrel burrows or other suitable underground retreats for California red-legged frog.

A review of the historical and current occurrence records show that extant populations are greater than 1 mi from the BSA; with populations occurring approximately 4.5 mi north of the BSA. The intervening landscape between the BSA and the occupied habitat is all in agricultural use making the intervening lands unsuitable for this species. Due to the network of roads and the constant cycle of planting, harvesting, and disking, the areas surrounding the BSA would not provide underground retreats for California red-legged frogs.

A seasonal pond occurs approximately 0.5 mi northeast of the BSA, but the intervening landscape is intensively cultivated with row crops and is periodically disked. Additionally, the ponds such as those scattered throughout the landscape surrounding the BSA do not provide suitable breeding habitat for California red-legged frog as the ponds are typically excavated on dry land and have no connection via suitable habitat to natural areas that could provide a source population of California red-legged frogs for the pond. Such ponds are usually managed in a way that draw-downs of water make it unsuitable as rearing habitat for tadpoles. Also many of these types of ponds are managed to prevent vegetation growth along the edges which is important cover for California red-legged frog. Lastly, such ponds are often stocked with predators (bullfrogs and nonnative fish) of California red-legged frog. The BSA is not within designated Critical Habitat for California red-legged frog (USFWS 2017).

Additional field surveys that support the absence of this species from the BSA and vicinity was collected as part of a WHA for the Salinas Airport. LSA performed 24 surveys between April 2013 and April 2014 along Hartnell Road approximately 400 ft south of the BSA. No California red-legged frogs were detected in the creek during the 24 site visits.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  36 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Given that neither suitable upland nor breeding habitat occurs on or adjacent to the BSA, all recorded locations for California red-legged frogs are greater than 1 mile away, and there is no connection between the BSA and other occupied habitat, California red-legged frogs are not expected to occur in the BSA.

Project Impacts The project would not adversely affect this species, as its presence in the BSA is not expected.

Avoidance and Minimization Efforts/Compensatory Mitigation No avoidance and minimization efforts or compensatory mitigation is proposed because this species is unlikely to occur in the BSA.

DISCUSSION OF WESTERN BURROWING OWL The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is an SSC (CDFW 2017). Burrowing owl is considered a rare and local resident in Monterey County though it has been extirpated from many areas (Roberson 2002). Similar to other areas of central California, populations of burrowing owls in the Salinas Valley have been greatly reduced by land use changes (Roberson 2002). These small owls occur in dry open country, well-grazed grasslands, deserts, edges of agricultural fields, dirt roads, and canals, with mammal burrows for nest sites and retreats. In central California, the presence of California ground squirrels is an important element of suitable habitat for these owls.

Survey Results No burrowing owl or its sign (regurgitated pellets or white wash) were observed within or near the BSA. The edges of the agricultural roads and fields in the BSA appear to be regularly graded and have compacted soils. No California ground squirrels or their burrows or other suitable underground retreats for burrowing owl were observed in these areas.

Additional field surveys that support the absence of this species from the BSA and vicinity was collected as part of a WHA for the Salinas Airport. LSA performed 24 surveys between April 2013 and April 2014 along Hartnell Road approximately 400 ft south of the BSA. No burrowing owls were detected at or around that location during the 24 site visits. One individual burrowing owl was observed at the Salinas Airport which is approximately 2 mi northwest of the BSA.

Due to the lack of observation of burrowing owls during the field surveys, the intensive agricultural use of areas within and around the BSA, the absence of burrow donors (California ground squirrels or their burrows), the lack of suitable underground retreats, and the rarity of this species in Monterey County, it is unlikely that burrowing owl occurs in the BSA.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  37 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Project Impacts The project would not adversely affect this species, as its presence in the BSA is unlikely.

Avoidance and Minimization Efforts/Compensatory Mitigation No specific avoidance and minimization efforts or compensatory mitigation is proposed because this species is unlikely to occur in the BSA. The avoidance and minimization measures provided in the Nesting Birds section would apply to burrowing owl.

DICUSSION OF TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD The tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) is a State candidate for listing as endangered and an SSC (CDFW 2017). This species nests in large colonies, generally in extensive areas of cattail marsh, but nesting colonies also occur in moist fields with tall weedy growth (i.e., mustard or thistle), large blackberry patches, and other rank growth near water (Shuford and Gardali 2008). Tricolored blackbird colonies occur in marshes around a number of freshwater ponds in the lower Salinas Valley (Roberson 2002). Tricolored blackbirds winter in large mixed blackbird flocks that forage on insects and plant material in moist grasslands, irrigated pastures, cut grain and alfalfa fields, open marsh borders, and seasonal wetlands (Shuford and Gardali 2008).

Survey Results There is no suitable nesting habitat for tricolored blackbird within or adjacent to the BSA and vegetation along the banks of Alisal Creek is regularly cleared. Row crops, such as those that occupy portions of the BSA, do not provide suitable foraging or nesting habitat for tricolored blackbirds (Shuford and Gardali 2008).

A review of the historical and current occurrence records shows a potentially extant nesting colony approximately 2 mi northeast of the BSA. A seasonal pond that may provide suitable nesting habitat for tricolored blackbird occurs approximately 0.5 mi northeast of the BSA. This and other ponds scattered throughout the landscape surrounding the BSA are often managed allowing draw-downs of water and preventing vegetation growth along the edges which is essential for nesting. The intervening landscape between these ponds and the BSA is intensively cultivated with row crops and is periodically disked making it unsuitable for foraging or nesting habitat.

Additional field surveys that support the absence of this species from the BSA and vicinity was collected as part of a WHA for the Salinas Airport. LSA performed 24 surveys between April 2013 and April 2014 along Hartnell Road approximately 400 ft south of the BSA. No tricolored blackbirds were detected at or around that location during the 24 site visits.

Tricolored blackbirds may occasionally occur as transients within or around the BSA, but suitable foraging and/or nesting habitat is not present within the BSA.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  38 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Project Impacts The proposed project is not expected to affect nesting or wintering tricolored blackbirds because nesting colonies or large wintering flocks are not likely to occur within the BSA.

Avoidance and Minimization Efforts/Compensatory Mitigation No specific avoidance and minimization efforts or compensatory mitigation is proposed because this species is unlikely to occur in the BSA. The avoidance and minimization measures provided in the Nesting Birds section would apply to tricolored blackbirds.

DISCUSSION OF NESTING BIRDS (CLASS AVES) Native bird species and their nests and eggs are protected under the Migratory Bird MBTA and Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code.

Survey Results Fifteen bird species protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code were observed in the BSA during the field surveys (see Appendix C). A number of these species such as Brewer’s blackbird, black phoebe, common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), and house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) could nest in the BSA. The vegetation types along Alisal Creek provide nesting habitat for the greatest number of species, but some species such as killdeer, could nest in open areas along road shoulders and on the edges of crop fields in other parts of the BSA.

Project Impacts Vegetation removal and ground disturbance could directly destroy active nests or indirectly contribute to nest failure by exposing active nests to the elements and/or predators. Human activity close to an active nest could attract potential nest predators and/or disrupt the normal nesting activities of adult birds and contribute to nest failure.

Avoidance and Minimization Efforts/Compensatory Mitigation AM-18. If vegetation clearing or construction is scheduled during the breeding season (February 15 through August 31), a qualified biologist will conduct pre-activity surveys for active bird nests prior to ground disturbance, pruning, or clearing vegetation in order to definitively ascertain whether any raptors (e.g., burrowing owl) or other migratory birds (e.g., killdeer, black phoebe) are actively nesting in the BSA.

AM-19. A qualified biologist will conduct a survey no more than 14 days prior to any ground- disturbing activities. If no active nests are found during this first survey, a final survey will be conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance to confirm that nesting birds are still absent.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  39 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

AM-20. If ground-disturbing or vegetation removal activities are delayed or suspended for more than 14 days after the initial survey, the suitable habitat areas of the BSA will be resurveyed (including the final survey within 24 hours of disturbance). These surveys are consistent with take avoidance surveys for burrowing owls (CDFG 2012).

AM-21. During the pre-activity surveys the biologist will map the location of any active bird nests, and an appropriate buffer will be established and monitored. Although smaller buffers for common species have been accepted, typical buffers set by CDFW include 250 ft for passerines and 500 ft for raptors. The buffer will be delineated by fencing (e.g., construction fence) or flagging the boundaries of the buffer area. Buffer zones and will remain in place until either the nest is abandoned or the young have fledged. The limits of the buffer can be adjusted to a reduced radius if the observations of the qualified biologist indicate that such an adjustment will not result in an adverse effect on nesting birds.

5 - Conclusions and Regulatory Determination

Federal Endangered Species Act Consultation Summary The USFWS authorizes take of listed species and the destruction of critical habitat through Section 7(a)(2) of the FESA (16 USC 1531–1544). As stated above, no impacts to federally listed species or their critical habitat will occur as a result of this project; therefore, there will be no effect to any listed species as a result of this project and no consultation is required.

Federally listed species would not be affected by the project because their habitat is absent from the BSA and they are not expected to occur there.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Coordination Summary The proposed project is expected to require a federal CWA Section 404 Nationwide Permit 14 authorization from the USACE.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Consultation Summary. There is no designated EFH within the BSA (NMFS 2017), so no MSA consultation is required.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186 Coordination Summary Fifteen bird species protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code were observed in the BSA during the field surveys (see Appendix C). All parts of the BSA have the potential to support nesting birds. Disturbance of the active nests during the nesting season (February 15 to August 31) could result in “take”, which is prohibited under the MBTA. The

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  40 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

following measures will be implemented to avoid nesting birds and thereby avoid the need for a permit under the MBTA:

AM-22. If vegetation clearing or construction is scheduled during the breeding season (February 15 through August 31), a qualified biologist will conduct pre-activity surveys for active bird nests prior to ground disturbance, pruning, or clearing vegetation in order to definitively ascertain whether any raptors (e.g., burrowing owl) or other migratory birds (e.g., killdeer, black phoebe) are actively nesting in the BSA.

AM-23. A qualified biologist will conduct a survey no more than 14 days prior to any ground- disturbing activities. If no active nests are found during this first survey, a final survey will be conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance to confirm that nesting birds are still absent.

AM-24. If ground-disturbing or vegetation removal activities are delayed or suspended for more than 14 days after the initial survey, the suitable habitat areas of the BSA will be resurveyed (including the final survey within 24 hours of disturbance). These surveys are consistent with take avoidance surveys for burrowing owls (CDFG 2012).

AM-25. During the pre-activity surveys the biologist will map the location of any active bird nests, and an appropriate buffer will be established and monitored. Although smaller buffers for common species have been accepted, typical buffers set by CDFW include 250 ft for passerines and 500 ft for raptors. The buffer will be delineated by fencing (e.g., construction fence) or flagging the boundaries of the buffer area. Buffer zones and will remain in place until either the nest is abandoned or the young have fledged.

AM-26. The limits of the buffer can be adjusted to a reduced radius if the observations of the qualified biologist indicate that such an adjustment will not result in an adverse effect on nesting birds. Buffers can be up to 250 ft for passerines and 500 ft for raptors, depending on the sensitivity of the birds to disturbance.

Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management Coordination Summary The BSA is in a 100-year flood zone as depicted on a flood insurance rate map prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). By realigning the angle of Alisal Creek at the bridge and installing wingwalls at each end of the culvert, scour would be reduced and hydraulic capacity would be improved, likely resulting in reduced flooding in the BSA. Biological resources in the BSA are not likely to be adversely affected by occasional flooding.

Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands Coordination Summary The proposed project may impact channel wetlands located just north of the bridge. These effects will be under the permit limits for the Corps’ Nationwide Permit Program. Because the proposed project will comply with the Corps permit program and will include the avoidance and minimization measures provided in the waters of the U.S. and State Waters section (Chapter 4),

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  41 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts) the proposed project will comply with EO 11990. Most of the project effects will be temporary. Project effects to wetlands will be minimized.

Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species Coordination Summary In February 1999, Executive Order (EO) 13112 was signed, requiring federal agencies to work on preventing and controlling the introduction and spread of invasive species. Highway corridors provide opportunities for the movement of invasive species through the landscape. Invasive species can move on vehicles and in the loads they carry. Invasive plants can be moved from site to site during spraying and mowing operations. Weed seed can be inadvertently introduced into the corridor on equipment during construction and through the use of mulch, imported soil or gravel, and sod. Some invasive plant species might be deliberately planted in erosion control, landscape, or wildflower projects. Highway right-of-ways provide ample opportunity for weeds in adjacent land to spread along corridors that, on a national scale, span millions of miles of highway.

The project has the potential to spread invasive species to adjacent native habitats in the BSA. Therefore, in compliance with EO 13112, a weed abatement program will be developed to minimize the importation of nonnative plant material during and after construction. Additionally, a program will be developed to remove and monitor invasive non-native fish and wildlife species during and after construction.

California Endangered Species Act Consultation Summary State-listed species would not be affected by the project because their habitat is absent from the BSA and they are not expected to occur there.

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Consultation Summary Based on a jurisdictional delineation with concurrence from the USACE, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB is expected to be required for this project.

Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code Coordination Summary The project will require work in the bed and bank of the creek and, therefore, will require a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW.

Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code Coordination Summary The proposed project has the potential to impact migratory birds that may nest in the BSA. The project will implement measures listed under MBTA to avoid nesting birds and thereby avoid the need for a permit under the MBTA.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  42 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Native Plant Protection Act Coordination Summary No rare or listed plant species are expected to occur within the BSA or be impacted by the proposed project. However, the proposed project will implement avoidance measures if rare or listed plants are found during the preconstruction survey, and the County would consult with CDFW.

Senate Bill 857 (SB 857) Fish Passages Coordination Summary No anadromous fish are expected to occur within the BSA or be impacted by the proposed project.

6 - References

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. Check-list of North American Birds, Seventh Edition. Washington, D.C. American Ornithologists’ Union.

Andrews, K.M., J.W. Gibbons, and D.M. Jochimsen. 2008. Ecological Effects of Roads on Amphibians and Reptiles: a Literature Review. In J.C. Mitchell, R.E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew (eds.), Urban Herpetology. Herpetological Conservation Vol. 3, Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Salt Lake City, Utah. Pp. 121–143.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California. 34 pp.

CDFG. 2010. A Status Review of the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense). CDFG, Sacramento, California.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Sacramento, California.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2017. Rarefind 5 and BIOS Viewer. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Biogeographic Data Branch, CDFW. Version 5.2.7. Accessed January 5, 2017.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Division of Maintenance. Structure Maintenance and Investigations. Bridge Inspection Report. Generated by Bridge Inspection Records Information System (BIRIS), printed October 14.

CNPS. 2017. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). CNPS. Sacramento, California. Website: http://cnps.site.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi. Accessed January 5, 2017.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  43 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2009. California Invasive Plant Inventory. Website: www.cal-ipc.org. Accessed June 7, 2016.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Technical Report Y-97-1. In: United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. United States Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.

Environmental Laboratory. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). United States Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS.

Monterey County Public Works (County). 2015. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). Prepared by Noel Lacsina. Available at http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/government/departments-i- z/resource-management-agency/public-works/divisions/traffic-engineering

Natural Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey. Website: http://websoilsruvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed September 30, 2015.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2017. Official Species List. Website: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/maps_data/california_species_list_tools.html Accessed January 5, 2017.

Orloff, Susan. 2011. Movement Patterns and Migration Distances in an Upland Population of California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma Californiense). Herpetological Conservation and Biology 6(2):266–276.

Roberson, D. 2002. Monterey Birds: Status and Distribution of Birds in Monterey County, California (Second Edition). Monterey Peninsula Audubon Society, Carmel, California.

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

Shuford, W.D. and T. Gardali (eds.). 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A Ranked Assessment of Species, Subspecies, and Distinct Populations of Birds of Immediate Conservation Concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and CDFG, Sacramento.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)a. Information Planning and Conservation System (IPaC). Website: http://www.ecos.fws.gov/ipac. Accessed January 5, 2017.

USFWSb. Critical Habitat Mapper. Website: http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/, accessed January 5, 2017.

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  44 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Appendix A USFWS and NMFS Official Species Lists

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  A-1 United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office 2493 PORTOLA ROAD, SUITE B VENTURA, CA 93003 PHONE: (805)644-1766 FAX: (805)644-3958

Consultation Code: 08EVEN00-2016-SLI-0415 January 05, 2017 Event Code: 08EVEN00-2017-E-00257 Project Name: Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project

Subject: Updated list of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project

To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed list identifies species listed as threatened and endangered, species proposed for listing as threatened or endangered, designated and proposed critical habitat, and species that are candidates for listing that may occur within the boundary of the area you have indicated using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Information Planning and Conservation System (IPaC). The species list fulfills the requirements under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the species list should be verified after 90 days. We recommend that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists following the same process you used to receive the enclosed list. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any correspondence about the species list.

Due to staff shortages and excessive workload, we are unable to provide an official list more specific to your area. Numerous other sources of information are available for you to narrow the list to the habitats and conditions of the site in which you are interested. For example, we recommend conducting a biological site assessment or surveys for plants and animals that could help refine the list.

If a Federal agency is involved in the project, that agency has the responsibility to review its proposed activities and determine whether any listed species may be affected. If the project is a major construction project*, the Federal agency has the responsibility to prepare a biological assessment to make a determination of the effects of the action on the listed species or critical habitat. If the Federal agency determines that a listed species or critical habitat is likely to be adversely affected, it should request, in writing through our office, formal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. Informal consultation may be used to exchange information and resolve conflicts with respect to threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat prior to a written request for formal consultation. During this review process, the Federal agency may engage in planning efforts but may not make any irreversible commitment of resources. Such a commitment could constitute a violation of section 7(d) of the Act.

Federal agencies are required to confer with the Service, pursuant to section 7(a)(4) of the Act, when an agency action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat (50 CFR 402.10(a)). A request for formal conference must be in writing and should include the same information that would be provided for a request for formal consultation. Conferences can also include discussions between the Service and the Federal agency to identify and resolve potential conflicts between an action and proposed species or proposed critical habitat early in the decision-making process. The Service recommends ways to minimize or avoid adverse effects of the action. These recommendations are advisory because the jeopardy prohibition of section 7(a)(2) of the Act does not apply until the species is listed or the proposed critical habitat is designated. The conference process fulfills the need to inform Federal agencies of possible steps that an agency might take at an early stage to adjust its actions to avoid jeopardizing a proposed species.

When a proposed species or proposed critical habitat may be affected by an action, the lead Federal agency may elect to enter into formal conference with the Service even if the action is not likely to jeopardize or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If the proposed species is listed or the proposed critical habitat is designated after completion of the conference, the Federal agency may ask the Service, in writing, to confirm the conference as a formal consultation. If the Service reviews the proposed action and finds that no significant changes in the action as planned or in the information used during the conference have occurred, the Service will confirm the conference as a formal consultation on the project and no further section 7 consultation will be necessary. Use of the formal conference process in this manner can prevent delays in the event the proposed species is listed or the proposed critical habitat is designated during project development or implementation.

Candidate species are those species presently under review by the Service for consideration for Federal listing. Candidate species should be considered in the planning process because they may become listed or proposed for listing prior to project completion. Preparation of a biological assessment, as described in section 7(c) of the Act, is not required for candidate species. If early evaluation of your project indicates that it is likely to affect a candidate species, you may wish to request technical assistance from this office.

Only listed species receive protection under the Act. However, sensitive species should be considered in the planning process in the event they become listed or proposed for listing prior to project completion. We recommend that you review information in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's Natural Diversity Data Base. You can contact the California Department of Fish and Wildlife at (916) 324-3812 for information on other sensitive species that may occur in this area.

[*A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)

2 (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.]

Attachment

3 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project

Official Species List

Provided by: Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office 2493 PORTOLA ROAD, SUITE B VENTURA, CA 93003 (805) 644-1766

Consultation Code: 08EVEN00-2016-SLI-0415 Event Code: 08EVEN00-2017-E-00257

Project Type: BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION / MAINTENANCE

Project Name: Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project Project Description: The County of Monterey (County) Public Works Department proposes to replace the existing two lane bridge (Bridge No. 44C-0110) on Hartnell Road over the Alisal Creek in Monterey, County, California (proposed project) and construct in its place a wider two lane bridge that meets current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) requirements. The proposed project would also widen and improve the existing two lane roadway for approximately 370-470 feet (ft) on either side of the bridge (roadway approaches). After construction, both the bridge and roadway approaches would contain two 12 foot (ft) lanes and two 8 ft shoulders and would meet current AASHTO minimum speed standards. The bridge identification information is listed below: 05-MON-0-CR BRLO-5944(103) Latitude: 36° 38' 37" Longitude: 121° 34' 42"

Construction activities within the creek are planned to occur outside of the rainy season, when there is no surface water within Alisal Creek (April 15 – October 15). Construction would begin during the spring of 2019 with completion by fall of 2019, for a total construction duration of 5 months. Construction within the creek would take a total of approximately 3 months. The bridge would be closed to traffic during construction.

Please Note: The FWS office may have modified the Project Name and/or Project Description, so it may be different from what was submitted in your previous request. If the Consultation Code

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/05/2017 06:49 PM 1 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project matches, the FWS considers this to be the same project. Contact the office in the 'Provided by' section of your previous Official Species list if you have any questions or concerns.

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/05/2017 06:49 PM 2 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project

Project Location Map:

Project Coordinates: MULTIPOLYGON (((-121.57659530639648 36.645068243033535, - 121.57722830772398 36.64431071218549, -121.57670259475707 36.643966377518886, - 121.57739996910095 36.6430108407564, -121.57787203788756 36.643071100181686, - 121.57809734344482 36.64265789174721, -121.57824754714966 36.64140103580094, - 121.57945990562439 36.64148712247885, -121.57943844795226 36.6428128451699, - 121.57869815826416 36.64398359428876, -121.57723903656006 36.645748292789364, - 121.57659530639648 36.645068243033535)))

Project Counties: Monterey, CA

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/05/2017 06:49 PM 3 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project

Endangered Species Act Species List

There are a total of 8 threatened or endangered species on your species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Critical habitats listed under the Has Critical Habitat column may or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your project area section further below for critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

Amphibians Status Has Critical Habitat Condition(s)

California red-legged frog (Rana Threatened Final designated draytonii) Population: Wherever found

California tiger Salamander Threatened Final designated (Ambystoma californiense) Population: U.S.A. (Central CA DPS)

Santa Cruz Long-Toed salamander Endangered (Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum) Population: Wherever found

Birds

California condor (Gymnogyps Endangered Final designated californianus) Population: U.S.A. only, except where listed as an experimental population

Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii Endangered Final designated pusillus) Population: Wherever found

Southwestern Willow flycatcher Endangered Final designated (Empidonax traillii extimus)

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/05/2017 06:49 PM 4 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project

Population: Wherever found

Crustaceans

Vernal Pool fairy shrimp Threatened Final designated (Branchinecta lynchi) Population: Wherever found

Flowering Plants

Marsh Sandwort (Arenaria Endangered paludicola) Population: Wherever found

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/05/2017 06:49 PM 5 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project

Critical habitats that lie within your project area There are no critical habitats within your project area.

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 01/05/2017 06:49 PM 6 Matthew Willis

From: Matthew Willis Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017 11:04 AM To: '[email protected]' Cc: Michaela Koenig ([email protected]); Tim Lacy Subject: FHWA (Caltrans): Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project (Alisal Creek) Updated Official Species List Request

To Whom it May Concern;

On behalf of Caltrans District 5, I hereby request an updated Official Species List (using the current procedure) for the subject project. A previous list was requested by Caltrans on June 7, 2016. Please refer to the Google Earth Output below:

Quad Name Natividad Quad Number 36121-F5

ESA Anadromous Fish

SONCC Coho ESU (T) -

CCC Coho ESU (E) -

CC Chinook Salmon ESU (T) -

CVSR Chinook Salmon ESU (T) -

SRWR Chinook Salmon ESU (E) -

NC Steelhead DPS (T) -

CCC Steelhead DPS (T) -

SCCC Steelhead DPS (T) - X SC Steelhead DPS (E) -

CCV Steelhead DPS (T) -

Eulachon (T) - sDPS Green Sturgeon (T) -

ESA Anadromous Fish Critical Habitat

SONCC Coho Critical Habitat -

CCC Coho Critical Habitat -

CC Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -

CVSR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -

SRWR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -

NC Steelhead Critical Habitat -

CCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -

SCCC Steelhead Critical Habitat - X

1 SC Steelhead Critical Habitat -

CCV Steelhead Critical Habitat -

Eulachon Critical Habitat - sDPS Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat -

ESA Marine Invertebrates

Range Black Abalone (E) -

Range White Abalone (E) -

ESA Marine Invertebrates Critical Habitat

Black Abalone Critical Habitat -

ESA Sea Turtles

East Pacific Green Sea Turtle (T) -

Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (T/E) -

Leatherback Sea Turtle (E) -

North Pacific Loggerhead Sea Turtle (E) -

ESA Whales

Blue Whale (E) -

Fin Whale (E) -

Humpback Whale (E) -

Southern Resident Killer Whale (E) -

North Pacific Right Whale (E) -

Sei Whale (E) -

Sperm Whale (E) -

ESA Pinnipeds

Guadalupe Fur Seal (T) -

Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat -

Essential Fish Habitat

Coho EFH -

Chinook Salmon EFH -

Groundfish EFH -

Coastal Pelagics EFH -

Highly Migratory Species EFH -

2 MMPA Species (See list at left)

ESA and MMPA Cetaceans/Pinnipeds See list at left and consult the NMFS Long Beach office 562-980-4000

MMPA Cetaceans -

MMPA Pinnipeds -

This Caltrans contact for this request is Michaela Koenig (District 5 Biologist) at: California Department of Transportation Environmental Stewardship Branch 50 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 [email protected] Phone: 805.549.3422 Cell: 805.748.4216

Thank you,

Matt Willis | Senior Biologist LSA | 285 South Street, Suite P San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 – – – – – – – – – – – 805-782-0745 Tel 760-450-4071 Mobile Website

3 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Appendix B CNDDB and CNPS Lists

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  B-1 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database

Query Criteria: Quad IS (Chualar (3612155) OR Gonzales (3612154) OR Hollister (3612174) OR Mt. Harlan (3612164) OR Natividad (3612165) OR Prunedale (3612176) OR Salinas (3612166) OR San Juan Bautista (3612175) OR Spreckels (3612156))

Rare Plant Rank/CDFW Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP Accipiter cooperii ABNKC12040 None None G5 S4 WL Cooper's hawk Agelaius tricolor ABPBXB0020 None Candidate G2G3 S1S2 SSC Endangered tricolored blackbird Agrostis lacuna-vernalis PMPOA041N0 None None G1 S1 1B.1 vernal pool bent grass Allium hickmanii PMLIL02140 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Hickman's onion Ambystoma californiense AAAAA01180 Threatened Threatened G2G3 S2S3 WL California tiger salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum AAAAA01082 Endangered Endangered G5T1T2 S1S2 FP Santa Cruz long-toed salamander Anniella pulchra nigra ARACC01011 None None G3G4T2T3Q S2 SSC black legless lizard Antrozous pallidus AMACC10010 None None G5 S3 SSC pallid bat Aquila chrysaetos ABNKC22010 None None G5 S3 FP golden eagle Arctostaphylos gabilanensis PDERI042X0 None None G1 S1 1B.2 Gabilan Mountains manzanita Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. hookeri PDERI040J1 None None G3T2 S2 1B.2 Hooker's manzanita Arctostaphylos montereyensis PDERI040R0 None None G2G3 S2S3 1B.2 Toro manzanita Arctostaphylos pajaroensis PDERI04100 None None G1 S1 1B.1 Pajaro manzanita Arctostaphylos pumila PDERI04180 None None G1 S1 1B.2 sandmat manzanita Astragalus tener var. tener PDFAB0F8R1 None None G2T2 S2 1B.2 alkali milk-vetch Athene cunicularia ABNSB10010 None None G4 S3 SSC burrowing owl Bombus occidentalis IIHYM24250 None None G2G3 S1 western bumble bee Buteo swainsoni ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S3 Swainson's hawk California macrophylla PDGER01070 None None G3? S3? 1B.2 round-leaved filaree

Commercial Version -- Dated January, 1 2017 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 4 Report Printed on Thursday, January 05, 2017 Information Expires 7/1/2017 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database

Rare Plant Rank/CDFW Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP Castilleja ambigua var. insalutata PDSCR0D403 None None G4T2 S2 1B.1 pink Johnny-nip Central Maritime Chaparral CTT37C20CA None None G2 S2.2 Central Maritime Chaparral Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii PDAST4R0P1 None None G3T2 S2 1B.1 Congdon's tarplant Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens PDPGN040M2 Threatened None G2T2 S2 1B.2 Monterey spineflower Coastal Brackish Marsh CTT52200CA None None G2 S2.1 Coastal Brackish Marsh Cordylanthus rigidus ssp. littoralis PDSCR0J0P2 None Endangered G5T2 S2 1B.1 seaside bird's-beak Corynorhinus townsendii AMACC08010 None None G3G4 S2 SSC Townsend's big-eared bat Delphinium hutchinsoniae PDRAN0B0V0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Hutchinson's larkspur Delphinium umbraculorum PDRAN0B1W0 None None G3 S3 1B.3 umbrella larkspur Elanus leucurus ABNKC06010 None None G5 S3S4 FP white-tailed kite Emys marmorata ARAAD02030 None None G3G4 S3 SSC western pond turtle Eremophila alpestris actia ABPAT02011 None None G5T3Q S3 WL California horned lark Ericameria fasciculata PDAST3L080 None None G2 S2 1B.1 Eastwood's goldenbush Eriogonum nortonii PDPGN08470 None None G2 S2 1B.3 Pinnacles buckwheat Erysimum ammophilum PDBRA16010 None None G2 S2 1B.2 sand-loving wallflower Eumops perotis californicus AMACD02011 None None G5T4 S3S4 SSC western mastiff bat Extriplex joaquinana PDCHE041F3 None None G2 S2 1B.2 San Joaquin spearscale Falco columbarius ABNKD06030 None None G5 S3S4 WL merlin Falco mexicanus ABNKD06090 None None G5 S4 WL prairie falcon Fritillaria liliacea PMLIL0V0C0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 fragrant fritillary Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria PDPLM041P2 Endangered Threatened G3G4T2 S2 1B.2 Monterey gilia

Commercial Version -- Dated January, 1 2017 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 4 Report Printed on Thursday, January 05, 2017 Information Expires 7/1/2017 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database

Rare Plant Rank/CDFW Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP Helminthoglypta sequoicola consors IMGASC2421 None None G2T1 S1 redwood shoulderband Holocarpha macradenia PDAST4X020 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1 Santa Cruz tarplant Horkelia cuneata var. sericea PDROS0W043 None None G4T1? S1? 1B.1 Kellogg's horkelia Lasiurus blossevillii AMACC05060 None None G5 S3 SSC western red bat Lasiurus cinereus AMACC05030 None None G5 S4 hoary bat Lasthenia conjugens PDAST5L040 Endangered None G1 S1 1B.1 Contra Costa goldfields Legenere limosa PDCAM0C010 None None G2 S2 1B.1 legenere Linderiella occidentalis ICBRA06010 None None G2G3 S2S3 California linderiella Malacothamnus aboriginum PDMAL0Q020 None None G3 S3 1B.2 Indian Valley bush-mallow Malacothamnus palmeri var. involucratus PDMAL0Q0B1 None None G3T3Q S3 1B.2 Carmel Valley bush-mallow Masticophis flagellum ruddocki ARADB21021 None None G5T2T3 S2? SSC San Joaquin coachwhip Meconella oregana PDPAP0G030 None None G2G3 S2 1B.1 Oregon meconella Microseris paludosa PDAST6E0D0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 marsh microseris Northern Coastal Salt Marsh CTT52110CA None None G3 S3.2 Northern Coastal Salt Marsh Optioservus canus IICOL5E020 None None G1 S1 Pinnacles optioservus riffle beetle Piperia yadonii PMORC1X070 Endangered None G2 S2 1B.1 Yadon's rein orchid Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus PDBOR0V061 None None G3T2Q S2 1B.2 Choris' popcornflower Plagiobothrys diffusus PDBOR0V080 None Endangered G1Q S1 1B.1 San Francisco popcornflower Rallus longirostris obsoletus ABNME05016 Endangered Endangered G5T1 S1 FP California clapper rail Rana draytonii AAABH01022 Threatened None G2G3 S2S3 SSC California red-legged frog Reithrodontomys megalotis distichlis AMAFF02032 None None G5T1 S1 Salinas harvest mouse

Commercial Version -- Dated January, 1 2017 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 4 Report Printed on Thursday, January 05, 2017 Information Expires 7/1/2017 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database

Rare Plant Rank/CDFW Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP Riparia riparia ABPAU08010 None Threatened G5 S2 bank swallow Rosa pinetorum PDROS1J0W0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 pine rose Spea hammondii AAABF02020 None None G3 S3 SSC western spadefoot Stebbinsoseris decipiens PDAST6E050 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Santa Cruz microseris Taricha torosa AAAAF02032 None None G4 S4 SSC Coast Range newt Taxidea taxus AMAJF04010 None None G5 S3 SSC American badger Thamnophis hammondii ARADB36160 None None G4 S3S4 SSC two-striped gartersnake Trifolium buckwestiorum PDFAB402W0 None None G2 S2 1B.1 Santa Cruz clover Trifolium hydrophilum PDFAB400R5 None None G2 S2 1B.2 saline clover Tryonia imitator IMGASJ7040 None None G2 S2 mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail) Valley Needlegrass Grassland CTT42110CA None None G3 S3.1 Valley Needlegrass Grassland Vireo bellii pusillus ABPBW01114 Endangered Endangered G5T2 S2 least Bell's vireo Vulpes macrotis mutica AMAJA03041 Endangered Threatened G4T2 S2 San Joaquin kit fox Record Count: 74

Commercial Version -- Dated January, 1 2017 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 4 of 4 Report Printed on Thursday, January 05, 2017 Information Expires 7/1/2017 1/5/2017 CNPS Inventory Results

Plant List

53 matches found. Click on scientific name for details

Search Criteria

Found in 9 Quads around 36121F5

Rare Plant State Global Scientific Name Common Name Family Lifeform Rank Rank Rank Agrostis lacuna­vernalis vernal pool bent grass Poaceae annual herb 1B.1 S1 G1 perennial bulbiferous Allium hickmanii Hickman's onion Alliaceae 1B.2 S2 G2 herb Amsinckia douglasiana Douglas' fiddleneck Boraginaceae annual herb 4.2 S3 G3 Gabilan Mountains perennial evergreen Arctostaphylos gabilanensis Ericaceae 1B.2 S1 G1 manzanita shrub Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. perennial evergreen Hooker's manzanita Ericaceae 1B.2 S2 G3T2 hookeri shrub perennial evergreen Arctostaphylos montereyensis Toro manzanita Ericaceae 1B.2 S2S3 G2G3 shrub perennial evergreen Arctostaphylos pajaroensis Pajaro manzanita Ericaceae 1B.1 S1 G1 shrub perennial evergreen Arctostaphylos pumila sandmat manzanita Ericaceae 1B.2 S1 G1 shrub Astragalus tener var. tener alkali milk­vetch Fabaceae annual herb 1B.2 S2 G2T2 California macrophylla round­leaved filaree Geraniaceae annual herb 1B.2 S3? G3? Castilleja ambigua var. annual herb pink Johnny­nip Orobanchaceae 1B.1 S2 G4T2 insalutata (hemiparasitic) Monterey Coast perennial herb Castilleja latifolia Orobanchaceae 4.3 S4 G4 paintbrush (hemiparasitic) perennial evergreen Ceanothus rigidus Monterey ceanothus Rhamnaceae 4.2 S4 G4 shrub Centromadia parryi ssp. Congdon's tarplant Asteraceae annual herb 1B.1 S2 G3T2 congdonii Chorizanthe biloba var. Hernandez spineflower Polygonaceae annual herb 1B.2 S1 G3T1 immemora Chorizanthe douglasii Douglas' spineflower Polygonaceae annual herb 4.3 S4 G4 Chorizanthe pungens var. Monterey spineflower Polygonaceae annual herb 1B.2 S2 G2T2 pungens Clarkia lewisii Lewis' clarkia Onagraceae annual herb 4.3 S4 G4 Cordylanthus rigidus ssp. annual herb seaside bird's­beak Orobanchaceae 1B.1 S2 G5T2 littoralis (hemiparasitic) Delphinium hutchinsoniae Hutchinson's larkspur Ranunculaceae perennial herb 1B.2 S2 G2 Delphinium umbraculorum umbrella larkspur Ranunculaceae perennial herb 1B.3 S3 G3 Eriastrum virgatum virgate eriastrum Polemoniaceae annual herb 4.3 S4 G4 perennial evergreen Ericameria fasciculata Eastwood's goldenbush Asteraceae 1B.1 S2 G2 shrub httEp:r/i/owgwown.ruamre pnlaonrttso.cnnipi s.org/result.html?aPdivn=nt&aqculeads= b3u61c2k1wFh5:e9at Polygonaceae annual herb 1B.3 S2 G2 1/3 1/5/2017 CNPS Inventory Results Eriogonum nortonii Pinnacles buckwheat Polygonaceae annual herb 1B.3 S2 G2 Erysimum ammophilum sand­loving wallflower Brassicaceae perennial herb 1B.2 S2 G2 Extriplex joaquinana San Joaquin spearscale Chenopodiaceae annual herb 1B.2 S2 G2 perennial bulbiferous Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary Liliaceae 1B.2 S2 G2 herb Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria Monterey gilia Polemoniaceae annual herb 1B.2 S2 G3G4T2 Holocarpha macradenia Santa Cruz tarplant Asteraceae annual herb 1B.1 S1 G1 Horkelia cuneata var. sericea Kellogg's horkelia Rosaceae perennial herb 1B.1 S1? G4T1? perennial Iris longipetala coast iris Iridaceae 4.2 S3 G3 rhizomatous herb Lasthenia conjugens Contra Costa goldfields Asteraceae annual herb 1B.1 S1 G1 Legenere limosa legenere Campanulaceae annual herb 1B.1 S2 G2 Lessingia hololeuca woolly­headed lessingia Asteraceae annual herb 3 S3? G3? Lomatium parvifolium small­leaved lomatium Apiaceae perennial herb 4.2 S4 G4 Indian Valley bush­ perennial deciduous Malacothamnus aboriginum Malvaceae 1B.2 S3 G3 mallow shrub Malacothamnus palmeri var. Carmel Valley bush­ perennial deciduous Malvaceae 1B.2 S3 G3T3Q involucratus mallow shrub Malacothamnus palmeri var. perennial deciduous Santa Lucia bush­mallow Malvaceae 1B.2 S2 G3T2Q palmeri shrub Meconella oregana Oregon meconella Papaveraceae annual herb 1B.1 S2 G2G3 Microseris paludosa marsh microseris Asteraceae perennial herb 1B.2 S2 G2 Monardella antonina ssp. San Antonio Hills perennial Lamiaceae 3 S1S3 G4T1T3Q antonina monardella rhizomatous herb Monardella sinuata ssp. northern curly­leaved Lamiaceae annual herb 1B.2 S2 G3T2 nigrescens monardella Piperia michaelii Michael's rein orchid Orchidaceae perennial herb 4.2 S3 G3 Piperia yadonii Yadon's rein orchid Orchidaceae perennial herb 1B.1 S2 G2 Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. Choris' popcornflower Boraginaceae annual herb 1B.2 S2 G3T2Q chorisianus Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. Hickman's popcornflower Boraginaceae annual herb 4.2 S3 G3T3Q hickmanii San Francisco Plagiobothrys diffusus Boraginaceae annual herb 1B.1 S1 G1Q popcornflower Plagiobothrys glaber hairless popcornflower Boraginaceae annual herb 1A SH GH Ranunculus lobbii Lobb's aquatic buttercup Ranunculaceae annual herb 4.2 S3 G4 Rosa pinetorum pine rose Rosaceae perennial shrub 1B.2 S2 G2 Stebbinsoseris decipiens Santa Cruz microseris Asteraceae annual herb 1B.2 S2 G2 Trifolium buckwestiorum Santa Cruz clover Fabaceae annual herb 1B.1 S2 G2 Trifolium hydrophilum saline clover Fabaceae annual herb 1B.2 S2 G2

Suggested Citation

CNPS, Rare Plant Program. 2017. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8­02). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 05 January 2017].

Search the Inventory Information Contributors Simple Search About the Inventory The Calflora Database Advanced Search About the Rare Plant Program The California Lichen Society http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&quad=36121F5:9 2/3 1/5/2017 CNPS Inventory Results

Glossary CNPS Home Page About CNPS Join CNPS

© Copyright 2010­2014 California Native Plant Society. All rights reserved.

http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&quad=36121F5:9 3/3 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Appendix C Species Detected in the BSA

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  C-1 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Plant Species Detected in the BSA on April 15, May 29, and July 9, 2015

Cal IPC Rank/ Scientific Name Common Name Abundance PLANTAE PLANTS EQUISETOPHYTA HORSETAILS Equisetaceae Horsetail family Equisetum arvense Common horsetail MAGNOLIOPHYTA: LILIOPSIDA MONOCOT FLOWERING PLANTS Cyperaceae Sedge family Cyperus eragrostis Tall flatsedge Poaceae Grass family Avena barbata* Slender wild oat Moderate/Low Bromus catharticus* Rescue grass Bromus diandrus* Ripgut brome Moderate/Low Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens* Red brome High/Low Cynodon dactylon* Bermuda grass Moderate/Low Echinochloa crus-galli* Barnyard grass Elymus triticoides Beardless wildrye Festuca myuros* Rattail fescue Festuca perennis* Italian ryegrass Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum* Hare barley Moderate/Low Pennisetum clandestinum* Kikuyu grass Limited/Low Poa annua* Annual bluegrass Polypogon monspeliensis* Annual rabbitsfoot grass Limited/Low Sorghum halepense* Johnson grass Triticum aestivum* Wheat MAGNOLIOPHYTA: MAGNOLIOPSIDA DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS Aizoaceae Iceplant family Aptenia cordifolia* Baby sun-rose Amaranthaceae Amaranth family Amaranthus albus* Pigweed amarath Apiaceae Carrot family Conium maculatum* Poison hemlock Moderate/Low Foeniculum vulgare* Fennel High/Low Asteraceae Sunflower family Anthemis cotula* Mayweed Artemisia douglasiana Mugwort Artemisia dracunculus Tarragon Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush Carduus pycnocephalus* Italian thistle Moderate/Low Cotula australis* Australian brass-buttons Erigeron canadensis Canadian horseweed Helminthotheca echioides* Bristly ox-tongue Lactuca serriola* Prickly lettuce Matricaria discoidea Pineapple weed Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum* Jersey cudweed Senecio vulgaris* Common groundsel Sonchus asper* Prickly sow thistle Xanthium spinosum Spiny clotbur Boraginaceae Borage family Amsinckia menziesii Menzies’ fiddleneck

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  C-2 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Cal IPC Rank/ Scientific Name Common Name Abundance Brassicaceae Mustard family Capsella bursa-pastoris* Shepherd’s purse Hirschfeldia incana* Shortpod mustard Moderate/Low Lepidium coronopus* Greater swinecrest Nasturtium officinale Watercress Raphanus sativus* Wild radish Limited/Low Caryophyllaceae Pink family Spergularia media Media sandspurry Chenopodiaceae Saltbush family Chenopodium album* Lamb’s quarters Euphorbiaceae Spurge family Euphorbia maculata Spotted spurge Fabaceae Pea family Medicago polymorpha* Burclover Limited/Low Melilotus indicus* Annual yellow sweetclover Vicia sativa* Common vetch Geraniaceae Geranium family Erodium cicutarium* Redstem stork’s bill Limited/Low Geranium molle* Woodland geranium Lythraceae Loosestrife family Lythrum hyssopifolia* Hyssop loosestrife Limited/Low Malvaceae Mallow family Malva neglecta Common mallow Malva parviflora* Cheeseweed mallow Myrsinaceae Myrsine family Lysimachia arvensis* Scarlet pimpernel Onagraceae Evening primrose family Camissoniopsis micrantha Miniature suncup Epilobium brachycarpum Panicled willowherb Epilobium ciliatum Green willowherb Epilobium densiflorum Willowherb Plantaginaceae Plantain family Kickxia spuria* Round-leaved fluellin Plantago coronopus* Buckhorn plantain Plantago lanceolata* English plantain Limited/Low Veronica catenata Chain speedwell Polygonaceae Buckwheat family Persicaria punctata Dotted smartweed Polygonum aviculare ssp. depressum Prostrate knotweed Rumex crispus* Curly dock Limited/Low Portulacaeae Purslane family Portulaca oleracea* Common purslane Salicaceae Willow family Salix lasiandra Pacific willow Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow Solanaceae Nightshade family Datura wrightii Sacred thornapple Solanum americanum American black nightshade Urticaceae Nettle Family Urtica urens* Dwarf nettle *Nonnative species

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  C-3 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Wildlife Species Detected in the BSA on April 15, May 29, and July 9, 2015

Scientific Name Common Name REPTILIA REPTILES Crotaphytidae Collared and Leopard Lizards Sceloporus occidentalis bocourti Coast Range fence lizard AVES BIRDS Cathartidae American Vultures Cathartes aura Turkey vulture Accipitridae Kites, Hawks, and Eagles Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk Charadriidae Plovers and Lapwings Charadrius vociferus Killdeer Scolopacidae Sandpipers and Phalaropes Gallinago delicata Wilson’s snipe Columbidae Pigeons and Doves Zenaida macroura Mourning dove Streptopelia decaocto* Eurasian collared dove Trochilidae Hummingbirds Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycatchers Sayornis nigricans Black phoebe Corvidae Crows and Ravens Corvus corax Common raven Hirundinidae Swallows Hirundo rustica Barn swallow Sturnidae Starlings Sturnus vulgaris* European starling Parulidae Wood Warblers Geothlypis trichas Common yellowthroat Emberizidae Emberizines Melospiza melodia Song sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned sparrow Icteridae Blackbirds, Orioles and Allies Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s blackbird Fringillidae Finches Carpodacus mexicanus House finch Spinus psaltria Lesser goldfinch Passeridae Old World Sparrows Passer domesticus* House sparrow MAMMALIA MAMMALS RODENTIA RODENTS Leporidae Rabbits and Hares Lepus californicus Black-tailed jackrabbit Geomyidae Pocket Gophers Thomomys bottae Botta’s pocket gopher CARNIVORA CARNIVORES Procyonidae Raccoons, Ringtails and Coatis Procyon lotor Northern raccoon *Nonnative species

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  C-4 Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts)

Appendix D Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters Report

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project NES(MI)  D-1

August 30, 2016

Katerina Galacatos South Branch Chief U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1455 Market Street, 16th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103-1398

Subject: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Revision to the Wetland Delineation, Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project at Alisal Creek, Monterey County, California

Dear Ms. Galacatos:

On August 15, 2016 the Monterey County Public Works Department, TRC Solutions (TRC), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) conducted a preliminary jurisdictional determination (JD) for the above-referenced project. The proposed project involves the full replacement of the existing bridge where Hartnell Road crosses Alisal Creek. The existing two-lane box culvert- bridge was constructed in 1945 and is now functionally obsolete and structurally deficient.

This letter report presents the results of TRC’s review of available literature, aerial photographs, soil survey and fieldwork on the site. Field surveys were conducted according to the technical guidelines provided in the Corps’ 2008 Ordinary High Water Mark field guide, along with the Corps’ 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual and the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps’ Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) to identify and delineate on-site aquatic features that may be subject to regulatory jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA. The revised delineation map with modified jurisdictional boundaries per the preliminary JD field visit is attached.

Site Descriptions The ±4.50-acre project site is located southeast of Salinas and east of Highway 101 along both sides of Hartnell Road. The bridge is located near the center of the site and 0.15 mile south of Alisal Road (see Figure 1 and 2). In addition to Hartnell Road and Alisal Creek, the project site includes active cropland and other disturbed land associated with the roadway and adjacent agricultural operations. The site is situated in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute 2015 Natividad, California topographic quadrangle. Coordinates for the bridge are 36.643554°, -121.578412°.

Vegetation The creek banks and areas adjacent to Hartnell Road support the greatest vegetation densities on the site. The vegetation is comprised mostly of ruderal grasses and herbaceous species such as Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), field mustard (Brassica rapa), Mediterranean barley August 30, 2016 Katerina Galacatos Page 2

(Hordeum murinum), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), wild oats (Avena fatua), and wild radish (Raphanus sativa). Giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia) and dock-leaf smartweed (Persicaria lapathifolia) occur in wet areas near the bottom of the creek bed. Noteworthy woody vegetation is limited to a large cluster of arroyo willows (Salix lasiolepis) and a smaller patch of coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis) within the banks of the creek upstream of the bridge. Other project areas are either devoid of vegetation, sparsely vegetated with the ruderal species listed above, or actively farmed.

Soils The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has mapped one soil unit on the site, Elder sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 14 (Map Unit Symbol EaA)1. The soil unit is made up of 85 percent Elder and other similar soils, and 15 percent of minor components. It is well drained with a restrictive feature more than 80 inches below the surface. There are no hydric soils listed for this soil unit.

Hydrology Topography on the site is relatively flat with the exception of the slopes associated with Alisal Creek and a small detention basin west of Hartnell Road. Alisal Creek originates in the foothills northeast of the site and generally flows from north to south through the project site. The creek flows under Hartnell Road from west to east. During the April 21, 2015, March 28, 2016, and August 15, 2016 field visits, turbid water slowly flowed within the creek. Surface water runoff associated with Hartnell Road and the adjacent land appears to flow into the creek, however, there are no well-defined roadside ditches on the project site.

Methods Field Survey Methods This delineation utilized the Corps’ 2008 Ordinary High Water Mark field guide to determine the lateral extent of all non-wetland watercourses. Where appropriate, the Corps’ 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual three-parameter (vegetation, hydrology, and soils) process to delineate wetland features was used. The Arid West Supplement was also used in conjunction with the 1987 Corps Manual. Where differences in the two documents occur, the Arid West Supplement took precedence over the Corps Manual. These documents require the collection of data on soils, vegetation, and hydrology at several locations to establish wetland boundaries. Prior to beginning the field delineation, TRC examined aerial photographs of the project area and USGS 7.5-minute series quadrangle maps to determine the potential locations of jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including wetlands and historical blue-line features. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory2 and available NRCS soil mapping data for the site were also reviewed.

The fieldwork for the delineations was conducted on April 21, 2015 and March 28, 2016 by TRC biologists Michael Farmer and Amber Amelingmeier. The entire site was inspected and representative sample points were collected, as appropriate, to confirm the presence or absence of wetlands or determine the extent of wetland and watercourse boundaries. Aerial photographs of the site also were used during the field survey to assist in the delineation process. Photographs of the site were taken during the field survey using a digital camera.

1 Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed April 2015 2 National Wetlands Inventory web site. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/wetlands. Accessed April 2015

August 30, 2016 Katerina Galacatos Page 3

GPS Data Integration All boundaries for wetlands and other water features within the site were recorded onto a color aerial photograph and topography map using visible landmarks and/or mapped with a Trimble GeoXT Global Positioning System (GPS) hand-held unit. This mapping-grade GPS unit is capable of real-time differential correction and sub-meter accuracy. The GPS data were downloaded from the unit and differentially corrected utilizing Trimble Pathfinder Office software and appropriate base station data, and then converted to an ESRI shape file format. The data were exported to the Geographic Information System (GIS) software in the State Plane coordinate system (NAD 83) with units in survey feet. The field data recorded on aerial photographs and topographic maps were digitized and incorporated into the GIS file. Within GIS, data were edited as appropriate to represent field conditions. Linear features were built into polygons using recorded width information and acreages were calculated. All aquatic feature shape files were merged to create a single wetland file with acreages for each feature. Figure 2: Wetland Delineation Map depicts the results of the data integration.

Observations of Aquatic Features Due to the presence of the existing roadway and agricultural operations within and immediately adjacent to the project site, aquatic features on the site are limited to Alisal Creek, a man-made detention basin, and a man-made drainage ditch. Some of the low terraces along the channel are lined with hydrophytic vegetation, which, although they are within the OHWM of the Alisal Creek, are discussed separately as potential wetlands. Representative photographs of the site are attached.

Alisal Creek The creek contained flowing water during the April 21, 2015 field survey and supported wetland vegetation such as giant horsetail, smartweed, and arroyo willows within the creek bed. Alisal Creek is approximately 630 linear feet within the project site. This creek is designated as a watercourse along the southern portion of the bridge and the northern portion is designated wetland. The ordinary high water mark for this feature was delineated by using drift deposits (debris entangled in vegetation or other fixed objects) and the natural line on the banks indicating the upper limits of erosion. There was no evidence of wetlands beyond the ordinary high water mark of the creek. The wetland determination forms used to document the lack of natural wetlands adjacent to the creek are attached.

Alisal Creek is shown as a blue-line feature on the 2015 Natividad topographic quadrangle and in the National Wetlands Inventory. Alisal Creek connects with the Old Salinas River west of Castroville (roughly 20 stream miles northwest of the site) prior to flowing into the Pacific Ocean near Moss Landing. Based on the presence of an OHWM and hydrological connection with the Pacific Ocean, this feature is assumed a jurisdictional Water of the United States under CFR 328.3.

Wetlands - Streambed Wetlands During the March 28, 2016 field visit, many of the upstream Alisal Creek low terraces were lined with hydrophytic vegetation such as dock-leaf smartweed. However, during the preliminary JD field visit on August 15, 2016, the majority of the drainage was dominated with hydrophytic vegetation and therefore most of the areas are mapped as wetlands. The presence of arroyo willows within portions of the creek indicate the presence of a perennial water table near the

August 30, 2016 Katerina Galacatos Page 4

surface. These wetland areas are not shown on the 2015 Natividad topographic quadrangle or in the National Wetlands Inventory.

At the time of field delineations, the area consisted of little to no herbaceous vegetation cover, and sample Points 1 and 2 were taken within two of the five hydrophytic vegetated mounds throughout the channel. However, during the preliminary JD field visit, the channel was densely covered in vegetation. Ground cover was dominated with dock-leaf smartweed, therefore, meeting jurisdictional hydrophytic vegetation criteria. Soils at both Sample Point 1 and 2 had approximately 5 inches of alluvial material with the remaining soil profile consisting of hydric soils. Both sample points consisted of primary and secondary hydrology indicators. Therefore, based on the presence of the above three criteria within each sample point; these areas meet jurisdictional wetland criteria and are mapped as wetlands. The mapped wetlands have a total jurisdictional area of 0.30 acres.

Conclusions The features mapped within the project site boundaries include Alisal Creek and wetlands. The total Waters of the US and streambed acreages within the project site are provided in Table 1 and depicted on the attached Wetland Delineation Map.

Based on the presence of flowing water within Alisal Creek during the April 21, 2015, March 28, 2016, and August 15, 2016 field visits, it is assumed to support a relatively permanent flow of water (three consecutive months of surface water). Its hydrologic regime combined with its hydrological connection with the Pacific Ocean and the presence of hydrophytic wetland vegetation below the ordinary high water mark result in Alisal Creek being a jurisdictional feature.

Based on the hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology observed at the wetlands, it is assumed these features are jurisdictional.

Table 1: Total Waters of the U.S./Streambed within the Project Site

Wetland Waters Non-Wetland Waters (Linear Feature Type (Acres) Feet)

630 Alisal Creek 0.000

Wetland 0.30 0.000 Total 0.30 630

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require additional information.

Sincerely,

Amber Amelingmeier Permitting Specialist/Biologist

Attachments: Figure 1: Regional Location Map

August 30, 2016 Katerina Galacatos Page 5

Figure 2: Site Location Map Figure 3: Wetland Delineation Map Representative Site Photographs Wetland Determination Forms

Project Site

Project Site

FIGURE 1 E 0 750 1,500 3,000 Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project

FEET Monterey County, California

SOURCE: ESRI World Stree Map 2D Regional Location G:\JohnsonHartnell_MontereyBridges\MXD\Monterey5_ProjLocMap_HartnellRd.mxd (4/5/2016) Project Site

FIGURE 2 E 0 750 1,500 3,000 Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project

FEET Monterey County, California

SOURCE: ESRI USA Topo Map Site Location G:\JohnsonHartnell_MontereyBridges\MXD\Monterey5_TopoMap_HartnellRd.mxd (4/5/2016) SP-1 !

H ar tn el l R o ad

SP-4 SP-2 ! !

SP-3 ! Alisa l Creek

LEGEND DELINEATED WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES FIGURE 3 Delineation Study Area Wetland Ordinary High Water Mark Acreage: 0.30 ac. Bridge Avg. Width: 23 ft. Open Water Approx. Length: 1,250 ft. E Sample Point Acreage: 0.45 ac. 0 25 50 100 Length: 630 ft. Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project

FEET Monterey County, California

SOURCE: ESRI World Imagery Wetland Delineation Map G:\JohnsonHartnell_MontereyBridges\MXD\Monterey5_JDMap_HartnellRd.mxd (8/24/2016) Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project at Alisal Creek Representative Site Photographs

Drift deposits (debris entangled in shrubs) used to delineate OHWM of Alisal Creek. Date: Taken on 4/21/15

Upper limits of erosion used to delineate OHWM of Alisal Creek. Date: Taken on 4/21/15 1 of 5

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project at Alisal Creek Representative Site Photographs

View of Alisal Creek looking upstream from underneath the existing bridge. Date: Taken on 4/21/15

View of Alisal Creek looking upstream from the existing bridge. Date: Taken on 4/21/15 2 of 5

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project at Alisal Creek Representative Site Photographs

View of Alisal Creek looking downstream from the existing bridge. Date: Taken on 4/21/15

Two of the five potential wetlands within Alisal Creek OHWM, looking downstream. Date: Taken on 3/28/16 3 of 5

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project at Alisal Creek Representative Site Photographs

View of the detention basin looking south. Date: Taken on 4/21/15

View of the detention basin looking north. Date: Taken on 4/21/15 4 of 5

Hartnell Road Bridge Replacement Project at Alisal Creek Representative Site Photographs

View of the drainage ditch looking north. Date: Taken on 4/21/15

5 of 5

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region

Project/Site: Hartnell Brid g e Pro j ect at Alisal Creek City/County: Montere y Count y Sampling Date: 3 / 28 / 16 Applicant/Owner: Montere y Count y Public Works State: CA Sampling Point: 1 Investigator(s): Amber Amelin g meier Section, Township, Range: None Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Flood p lain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): C – Mediterranean California Lat: 36.644621° Long: -121.577652° Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: EaA - Elder sand y loam , 0 to 2 p ercent slo p es , MLRA 14 NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✔ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes ✔ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✔ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✔ No within a Wetland? Yes ✔ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✔ No Remarks: Sample point taken on a vegetated mound within the Alisal Creek low terraces (below OHWM). This sample point is representative of two potential wetlands located in the northern most edge of the project area. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 30' Number of Dominant Species 1. Salix lasiole p is 15 Yes FACW That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 15 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) UPL species x 5 = 1. Persicaria la p athifolia 15 Yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ✔ Dominance Test is >50% 1 6. Prevalence Index is ”3.0 1 7. Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 15 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 1. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 85 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Present? Yes ✔ No Remarks: The hydrophytic vegetation criterion was met. Due to the time of visit, majority of the herb stratum consisted of newly sprouted vegetation and therefore, bare ground was prevalent. In addition, portion of the wetland consisted of partial tree canopy from Salix lasiolepis.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 5-0 ------Alluvial material 0-8 10YR 4 / 1 98 10YR 4 / 22CMCL

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) ✔ Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✔ No Remarks:

The hydric soil criterion was met.

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) ✔ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) ✔ High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) ✔ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) ✔ Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ✔ Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ✔ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✔ Depth (inches): 0 Water Table Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): 3 Saturation Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): 3 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✔ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks: Hydrology criterion was met.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region

Project/Site: Hartnell Brid g e Pro j ect at Alisal Creek City/County: Montere y Count y Sampling Date: 3 / 28 / 16 Applicant/Owner: Montere y Count y Public Works State: CA Sampling Point: 2 Investigator(s): Amber Amelin g meier Section, Township, Range: None Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Flood p lain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): C – Mediterranean California Lat: 36.644021° Long: -121.578167° Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: EaA - Elder sand y loam , 0 to 2 p ercent slo p es , MLRA 14 NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✔ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes ✔ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✔ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✔ No within a Wetland? Yes ✔ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✔ No Remarks: Sample point taken on a vegetated mound within the Alisal Creek low terraces (below OHWM). This sample point is representative of three potential wetlands located in the north of the existing bridge. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15' ) 1. Salix lasiole p is 10 Yes FACW Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = 10 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' ) UPL species x 5 = 1. Persicaria la p athifolia 25 Yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Rumex cris p us 10 Yes FAC 3. Poa s p .5 No * Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ✔ Dominance Test is >50% 1 6. Prevalence Index is ”3.0 1 7. Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 40 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 1. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 25 % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Present? Yes ✔ No Remarks: Due to the time of visit, majority of the herb stratum consisted of newly sprouted vegetation and therefore, bare ground was present. In addition, one Salix lasiolepis was rooted within the potential wetland. * Unable to identify species due to absence of distinguishing characteristics. The indicator status of this species does not change the outcome of this data point since the species is not considered dominant.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 5-0 ------Alluvial material 0-12 10YR 3 / 1 98 10YR 4 / 32CMCL

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) ✔ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✔ No Remarks:

The hydric soil criterion was met.

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) ✔ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) ✔ High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) ✔ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) ✔ Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ✔ Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ✔ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✔ Depth (inches): 0 Water Table Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): 3 Saturation Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): 3 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✔ No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks: Hydrology criterion was met.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region

Project/Site: Hartnell Brid g e Pro j ect at Alisal Creek City/County: Montere y Count y Sampling Date: 4 / 21 / 15 Applicant/Owner: Montere y Count y Public Works State: CA Sampling Point: 3 Investigator(s): Michael Farmer Section, Township, Range: 7 , 15 south , 4 east Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): C – Mediterranean California Lat: 36.643554° Long: -121.578412° Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: EaA - Elder sand y loam , 0 to 2 p ercent slo p es , MLRA 14 NWI classification: none Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✔ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes ✔ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✔ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✔ within a Wetland? Yes No ✔ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✔ Remarks: Data point taken on level ground between Alisal Creek (above OHWM of Alisal Creek) and detention basin to document lack of wetlands adjacent to creek. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 = 1. Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Dominance Test is >50% 1 6. Prevalence Index is ”3.0 1 7. Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 1. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No ✔ Remarks: Barren ground due to apparent routine disking or other vegetation management within agricultural road.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✔ Remarks:

No soil pit dug due to lack of wetland vegetation and no evidence of wetland hydrology.

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✔ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✔ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✔ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✔ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks: Data point is on level ground beyond the bank and OHWM of Alisal Creek. Point is representative of land on west side of Hartnell Road.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region

Project/Site: Hartnell Brid g e Pro j ect at Alisal Creek City/County: Montere y Count y Sampling Date: 4 / 21 / 15 Applicant/Owner: Montere y Count y Public Works State: CA Sampling Point: 4 Investigator(s): Michael Farmer Section, Township, Range: 7 , 15 south , 4 east Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): C – Mediterranean California Lat: 36.643554° Long: -121.578412° Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: EaA - Elder sand y loam , 0 to 2 p ercent slo p es , MLRA 14 NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✔ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes ✔ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No ✔ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✔ within a Wetland? Yes No ✔ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✔ Remarks: Data point taken on level ground between Alisal Creek (above OHWM of Alisal Creek) and detention basin to document lack of wetlands adjacent to creek. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) UPL species x 5 = 1. Bromus diandrus 30 Yes UPL Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Avena fatua 20 Yes UPL 3. Ra p hanus sativa 15 Yes UPL Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Planta g o lanceolata 10 No FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Dominance Test is >50% 1 6. Prevalence Index is ”3.0 1 7. Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 75 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 1. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 25 % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No ✔ Remarks: Area is dominated by an upland plant community.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 4 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✔ Remarks:

No soil pit dug due to lack of wetland vegetation and no evidence of wetland hydrology.

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No ✔ Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✔ Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✔ Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✔ (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks: Area may convey surface water runoff during a rain event but shows no evidence of prolonged wetland hydrology.

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0