±520-Acre Creekview 404 Permit Area

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE

520-ACRE CREEKVIEW 404 PERMIT AREA

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for: GRANITE BAY DEVELOPMENT II, LLC 4210 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 300 Roseville, California 95661

Prepared by:

110 Maple Street, Suite 100, Auburn, California 95603 (530) 888-0500

February 2, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ...... 1 2.0 Species Considered ...... 1 3.0 Critical Habitat ...... 7 4.0 Consultation to Date ...... 7 5.0 Description of the Proposed Action ...... 10 5.1 Project Location ...... 10 5.2 Action Area ...... 10 5.3 Project Background and Proposed Action ...... 10 5.4 General Construction Measures and Best Management Practices ...... 13 5.5 Avoidance and Conservation Measures ...... 14 5.5.1 Avoidance and Open Space ...... 14 5.5.2 Compensatory Mitigation ...... 15 6.0 Baseline Environmental Setting ...... 20 6.1 Hydrology ...... 20 6.2 Upland Community Types ...... 20 6.2.1 Annual Grassland ...... 21 6.2.2 Cultivated Land ...... 21 6.2.3 Riparian Corridor ...... 21 6.2.4 Developed/Disturbed ...... 22 6.3 Waters of the United States ...... 22 6.3.1 Perennial Stream ...... 22 6.3.2 Intermittent Stream ...... 23 6.3.3 Ephemeral Stream ...... 23 6.3.4 Vernal Pools ...... 23 6.3.5 Seasonal Wetland ...... 23 6.3.6 Wetland Swale ...... 23 6.3.7 Seasonal Marsh ...... 24 6.4 Wildlife Associations ...... 24 7.0 Field Surveys ...... 25 7.1 Plants ...... 25 7.2 Wildlife ...... 25 7.3 Large Branchiopods ...... 25 7.3.1 Dry Season Sampling ...... 25 7.3.2 Wet Season Sampling ...... 26 8.0 Species Accounts ...... 26 8.1 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp ...... 26 8.1.1 Geographic Distribution ...... 26 8.1.2 Activity Cycle/Behavior ...... 27 8.1.3 Habitat Associations/Requirements...... 27 8.1.4 Occurrence in the Action Area ...... 27 8.2 Conservancy Fairy Shrimp ...... 28 8.2.1 Geographic Distribution ...... 28 Activity Cycle/Behavior ...... 30 8.2.2 Habitat Associations/Requirements...... 30 8.2.3 Occurrence in the Permit Area ...... 31

ii 8.3 Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp ...... 31 8.3.1 Status and Distribution ...... 31 8.3.2 Activity Cycle/Behavior ...... 32 8.3.3 Habitat Associations/Requirements...... 32 8.3.4 Occurrence in the Permit Area ...... 32 8.4 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle...... 33 8.4.1 Geographic Distribution ...... 33 8.4.2 Activity Cycle/Behavior ...... 33 8.4.3 Habitat Associations/Requirements...... 33 8.4.4 Occurrence in the Permit Area ...... 34 9.0 Effects of the Proposed Action ...... 34 9.1 Direct Effects ...... 35 9.1.1 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp ...... 35 9.1.2 Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp ...... 40 9.1.3 Conservancy Fairy Shrimp ...... 40 9.1.4 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle ...... 40 9.2 Indirect Effects ...... 41 9.2.1 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp ...... 41 9.2.2 Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp ...... 42 9.2.3 Conservancy Fairy Shrimp ...... 42 9.2.4 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle ...... 42 9.3 Critical Habitat and Vernal Pool Core Areas ...... 43 9.4 Interrelated and Interdependent Effects ...... 44 9.5 Cumulative Effects ...... 45 10.0 Conclusion and Determination ...... 47 11.0 References ...... 48 11.1 Literature Cited ...... 48 11.2 Personal Communications ...... 50

FIGURES

Figure 1: Site and Vicinity Map ...... 2 Figure 2: Permit and Action Area ...... 3 Figure 3: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Western Placer County Core Area ...... 8 Figure 4: Habitat Map and Open Space Preserves ...... 16 Figure 5: Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Occurrence ...... 29 Figure 6: Impact Areas and Open Space Preserves ...... 36 Figure 7: Creekview Sub-Watersheds Containing Branchinecta Cysts ...... 38

TABLES

Table 1: Mitigation Ratios and Acreages ...... 18 Table 2: Biological Communities Present in the Creekview Permit Area ...... 21 Table 3: Waters of the U.S. in the Creekview Permit Area ...... 22

iii

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Draft Biological Resources Assessment for the ±560-Acre Creekview Specific Plan. Appendix B Federally-Listed Large Branchiopods Sampling at the Creekview Project. Appendix C: Second Year of Federally-Listed large Branchiopod Wet-Season Sampling at the Creekview Project Appendix D: Wetland Delineation for the 470-Acre Creekview Project.

iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Biological Assessment (BA) is to review the Creekview Section 404 Permit Area (Permit Area) in sufficient detail to determine to what extent the Proposed Action (refer to Section 6) may affect federally-listed threatened or endangered species, or species proposed for federal listing. The Permit Area is located west of the City of Roseville, in the western-most portion of Placer County, California (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

This BA is prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1536(c)), and follows standards established by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and ESA guidance. The terms Permit Area and Action Area are defined in Section 6.0.

Preparation of this BA relied on the following sources of information regarding biological resources of the Permit Area and federally-listed threatened and endangered species:

 Draft Biological Resources Assessment for the +560-Acre Creekview Specific Plan. North Fork Associates (NFA), October 2010 (refer to Appendix A).  Federally-Listed Large Branchiopods Sampling at the Creekview Project. Helm Biological Consulting, June 2007 (refer to Appendix B).  Second Year of Federally-Listed large Branchiopod Wet-Season Sampling at the Creekview Project. Helm Biological Consulting, November 2008 (refer to Appendix C).  Wetland Delineation for the 470-Acre Creekview Project. North Fork Associates, 2006 (refer to the map in Appendix D).  An unverified delineation for the off-site portion of the Permit Area conducted by North Fork Associates in 2006 and 2007. Much of the technical information in this BA was obtained from documents provided by Helm Biological Consulting. Their assistance is greatly appreciated.

2.0 SPECIES CONSIDERED Lists of federally endangered (E), threatened (T), and candidate (C) species known to occur in the broader region surrounding the Permit Area were obtained from the website of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Sacramento Office. Separate lists were generated for the Pleasant Grove USGS 7 ½ minute quadrangle and Placer County. The following 14 species were included on the Placer County and Pleasant Grove lists.

 Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio) (E)  Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) (T)

1 Study Area ^

404 Permit Area

Figure 1 Base map: Pleasant Grove, CA, USGS ± 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle Sections: 14 & 15 SITE & VICINITY MAP 0 1,000 2,000 Township: 11N Creekview Range: 05E Scale in Feet Placer County, California Creekview Specific Plan On-Site Area

Off-Site Area PHILLIP RD PHILLIP

PHILLIP ROAD

Legend Creekview 404 Permit Area Action Area Proposed Bypass Channel Open Space Preserve

Figure 2 ± 404 Permit & Action Area 0 250 500 1,000 Creekview Scale in Feet Aerial Photo: 2009 (NAIP) Placer County, CA  Vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) (E)  Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) (T)  Delta smelt (Hypmesus transpacificus) (T)  Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus) (FT)  Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi) (FT)  Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhyncus mykiss) (T)  Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (T)  Winter-run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (E)  California tiger salamander, central population (Ambystoma californiense) (T)  California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) (T)  Giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) (T)  Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) (C) Records from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2010), the California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory (CNPS), field surveys, and other sources were used to determine whether endangered, threatened, or candidate species were present on the site or had suitable habitat that could be used by the species within the action area (as further defined below).

Of the 14 species on the USFWS lists, only four were determined to have reasonable potential to occur within the region surrounding the Permit Area. These are discussed in more detail in Section 9.0. The remaining species were determined not to be present or did not have habitat suitable for their survival. The following paragraphs discuss the reasons for dismissing these species. In addition, the Biological Resources Assessment for the +-560 Acre Creekview Specific Plan (NFA 2010) provides greater detail on many of the species eliminated from further consideration in this BA (see Appendix A).

Delta Smelt. The Creekview project does not occur within the range of the species. Delta smelt occur in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary as far upstream as the mouth of the American River at the Sacramento River. This species is presumed to be absent from the Action Area.

Sacramento Splittail. This species is known from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, including Suisun Bay, Suisun Marsh, Napa River, and Petaluma River. The Action Area occurs outside of the range of this species.

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. The Creekview project does not occur within the range of the species. Lahontan cutthroat trout has historically been found in all cold waters of the Lahontan Basin, including Independence Lake. The species is presumed to be absent from the Action Area.

4 Central Valley Steelhead, Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon, and Winter-Run Chinook Salmon. Based on maps and documents on the NOAA Fisheries web page at http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/cvcsd.htm Pleasant Grove Creek is not within Critical Habitat or Essential Fish Habitat for these species. In addition, this Biological Assessment is for species regulated by the USFWS.

California Red-Legged Frog (CRLF). The California red-legged frog occurs in a variety of habitats that contain the required elements of aquatic habitat and upland/dispersal habitat. Breeding habitat is found in pools of streams and creeks, ponds, marshes, springs, sag ponds, and artificial stock ponds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). Juvenile frogs seem to favor open, shallow aquatic habitats with dense, submergent vegetation (Jennings and Hayes 1994).

Historically, the California red-legged frog occurred in the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada foothills. Most of these populations were extirpated during the gold rush period, and few remain. Small populations have been found in Butte, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, and Calaveras counties, and there is an unconfirmed report near Folsom Lake in Sacramento County. There are no recent records of the species occurring on the Valley floor.

California Tiger Salamander. This species is restricted to California and its range does not overlap with any other species of tiger salamander. California tiger salamanders are restricted to vernal pools and seasonal ponds, including many constructed stock ponds, in grasslands and open oak woodlands from sea level to about 1,500 feet in central California (USFWS 2005b).

Although specific surveys were not conducted for California tiger salamander, the species was not detected during vernal pool and seasonal wetland surveys for listed Branchiopods in the Permit Area (Helm Biological Consulting 2007 and 2008). There are no recent occurrences of California tiger salamander from western Placer County and the CNDDB (CDFG 2010) reports no occurrences within the county. The closest documented occurrences of CTS relative to the Permit Area are from eastern Yolo County (CNDDB 2010). Due to the considerable distance from known occurrences of this species and the negative survey findings, the potential for occurrence of CTS within the Permit Area is therefore considered unlikely.

5 Giant Garter Snake. Described as among California’s most aquatic garter snakes, giant garter snakes are associated with low-gradient streams and valley floor wetlands and marshes, and have adapted successfully to rice agriculture (Hansen 2002). Giant garter snakes occur in sloughs, creeks, and other watercourses including agricultural ditches that support sufficient water, aquatic prey, and emergent vegetation for basking sites. They generally are found in more open habitats and do not typically occur along watercourses that support dense riparian cover.

Portions of Pleasant Grove Creek support at least marginally suitable habitat for giant garter snake with perennial flow, steep-sided banks, and emergent wetlands. However, Pleasant Grove Creek from the Panhandle (just west of the Permit Area) to just east of Brewer Road supports a dense canopy of riparian cover, reducing the potential as a migration corridor from the Natomas Basin populations to the Permit Area. Consequently, the giant garter snake is presumed to be absent from the Permit Area (NFA 2010).

Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo. The Yellow-billed Cuckoo is an obligate riparian species. Its primary habitat association is willow-cottonwood riparian forest, but other species such as alder and box elder may be an important habitat element in some areas. Nests are primarily in willow trees; however, other species are occasionally used. Canopy cover is typically dense (averaging 96.8% at the nest) and large patch sizes (generally greater than 20 ha) are typically required (Laymon 1998).

Pleasant Grove Creek extends east-west through the Permit Area along a narrow corridor (less than 100 feet from levee to levee) of sparse to relatively dense oak- dominated riparian forest. However, beginning at the western border of the Reason Farms property, the Pleasant Grove Creek basin widens to an average of approximately 300 feet and supports a much more diverse mixed riparian forest for approximately 1.2 miles before returning to a narrow, sparse to relatively dense oak-dominated riparian forest.

While the basin width and vegetation diversity continue throughout the 1.2-mile reach, the willow-dominated portion extends for approximately 0.8 miles west of the Reason Farms property, creating an approximately 30-acre patch of willow- oak-dominated riparian forest. In some areas the willow overstory is fairly dense; although it generally occurs in association with valley, live, and blue oak. The few cottonwood trees that occur periodically along the reach do not represent a dominant overstory component. Thus, while this 30-acre patch supports some elements of suitable habitat for yellow-billed cuckoo, it is considered marginal (NFA 2010).

6 is small (approximately 30 acres), and isolated from other potential habitat, and because the species has not been reported in the vicinity of the project area, this species is considered highly unlikely to occur along this reach of Pleasant Grove Creek.

3.0 CRITICAL HABITAT On February 2006 the USFWS published the final critical habitat designation for four vernal pool crustaceans and eleven vernal pool plants (FR 71:7117). Two critical habitat units were designated for vernal pool fairy shrimp in western Placer County. Unit 12A is located north of Lincoln and northeast of Highway 65. Unit 12B is located west of Lincoln and west of Highway 65. The Permit Area is not located within, or directly adjacent to, either of these identified critical habitat units.

In 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USWFS) published the Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems in California and Southern Oregon (Recovery Plan), which covers numerous vernal pool species including vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (USFWS 2005). The Recovery Plan identifies larger Vernal Pool Regions throughout California that are based on species occurrence, vernal pool habitat, watershed boundaries and topographic features. Core Areas were then identified within each Vernal Pool Region where recovery actions would be targeted.

The Permit Area is located within the “Southeastern Sacramento Valley Vernal Pool Region”, and a portion of the site occurs within the “Western Placer County core area”. The Western Placer County core area was given a “Zone 2” ranking in the Recovery Plan, which generally specifies protection of 85 percent of suitable habitat throughout the core area. Figure 3 shows the location of the Western Placer County core area (USFWS 2005) and approximate location of the Permit Area. The 520-acre Creekview Permit Area represents approximately 1.0 percent of the total 36,625-acre Western Placer County core area.

4.0 CONSULTATION TO DATE The Creekview team met with agency personnel regularly in 2007, 2008, and 2010. These meetings are described briefly in the following table with an emphasis on meeting discussions that addressed the treatment of the Creekview Project and its effects on threatened or endangered species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act.

7 Yuba Western Placer County - Annual Grassland Vernal Pool Density Creekview 404 Permit Area Western Placer Core Area Creekview Proposed Open Space Preserve >5% wetted acres 1-5% wetted acres 0-1% wetted acres

Sutter

Placer

Sacramento

Figure 3 USFWS ± Western Placer County

0 1 2 Core Area Miles Creekview Aerial Photo: 2008 (Placer County) Placer County, CA Date Discussion Items Agency Presence 03/14/07 Discussed early consultation procedure. NMFS raised USFWS Essential Fish Habitat issues and stated a preference for NMFS LID techniques. USFWS requested a regional map CDFG showing connectivity and corridors. Mitigation should EPA be consistent with the USFWS 2005 recovery plan goals Corps and objectives. 05/10/07 Discussed the USFWS April 13, 2007 memo on the USFWS Conservancy fairy shrimp and the implications for NMFS Creekview. Discussed the findings of Helm Biological CDFG Consulting wed and dry season surveys. NMFS EPA indicated that all mitigation should occur onsite. Corps 06/14/07 Mostly a discussion related to EIS/EA issues. Also USFWS discussed offsite mitigation areas. EPA Corps 07/12/07 Discussion of the creek bypass channel and its relation USFWS to LID techniques. NMFS CDFG EPA Corps 8/12/07 Letter from USFWS regarding site visit comments. USFWS 08/16/07 Discussion of the onsite preserve on the north side of USFWS Creekview and its relationship to Brookfield. Also Corps discussed the results of vernal pool crustacean surveys. 09/12/07 Discussion of the EIR/EIS process, and the work USFWS program and schedule for the BA. NMFS EPA Corps CDFG 11/08/07 Discussions of onsite mitigation. USFWS Corps 12/20/07 Discussion of the 404/NEPA process. Also discussed USFWS Conf. call the project purpose and screening criteria for mitigation. Corps 01/10/08 Discussion of the CEQA/NEPA/404 process. USFWS Conf. call NMFS Corps 02/14/08 Discussions about schedules. USFWS Corps 03/13/08 Process updates. USFWS Conf. call Corps 08/12/08 Process updates. NEPA/404 process. Discussion of Corps project impacts. EPA 5/11/2010 Agency Meeting Corps EPA USFWS

9 6/14/10 Site tour with James Robb Corps 11/4/10 Site tour with Will Ness, Leah Fisher and Mark Morse Corps EPA

5.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

5.1 Project Location The Permit Area is located west of the city of Roseville. It occurs north of Phillip Road, south of Sunset Boulevard, east of Pettigrew Road, and west of Fiddyment Road. The location corresponds to portions of Section 14 and 15 of Township 11 North and Range 05 East on the 7.5 minute Pleasant Grove United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle (Figure 1). The latitude and longitude of the approximate center of the site are 38.80216º north and 121.38806º west. The Assessors Parcel Numbers (APNs) for the Permit Area are 017-101-007, 017-001- 008 (portion), 017-101-009, 017-001-012, 017-001-013, and 017-001-014.

The Permit Area consists of 520 acres and includes the following components:

 448.7 acres of the 501.3-acre Creekview Specific Plan (CSP) area located north and west of the existing West Roseville Specific Plan;  12.7 acres of the 501.3-acre CSP for the northern section of Blue Oaks Boulevard and associated landscape improvements (referred to as, “Creekview Blue Oaks Boulevard Improvements”); and  58.6 acres of the eastern portion of the City of Roseville’s Reason Farms property (immediately west of the CSP Area), located adjacent to Pleasant Grove Creek (referred to as, the “Creekview Off-Site Improvement Area”).

5.2 Action Area The action area addressed in the BA includes all areas that would be affected, directly or indirectly, by the proposed actions, including interrelated and interdependent actions (the “Action Area”). Areas that would be directly affected by the Creekview Section 404 Permit and development are shown on Figure 2. To assess indirect impacts on federally-listed species, the action area includes a 250-foot area around the proposed Creekview development as shown on Figure 2. The 250-foot area extends only from the edge of limits of grading and project disturbance. As a result, this zone does not exceed the property boundaries on the north side, because much of that part of the project will be a preserve and will not be disturbed.

5.3 Project Background and Proposed Action The Creekview Specific Plan (CSP) is a comprehensive specific plan for a residential mixed-use community on an approximately 501.3-acre site in western Placer County. Of this 501.3-acre area, 461.4 acres of the property are owned or controlled by Granite Bay Development II, LLC (Granite Bay). The remaining

10 approximately 40 acres are comprised of non-participating property (Harris Property). Although the CSP Area and Area overlap, they are not coterminous.

In August 2010, Granite Bay applied to the Corps for a Section 404 permit for its development and construction of infrastructure to serve that development within the 520-acre Permit Area. Together, the CSP development and associated on-site and off-site infrastructure are referred to as, the “Proposed Action.” Most of the wetlands identified occur in the northern portion of the site, and cover approximately 33.83 acres. It is anticipated that approximately 58 percent of the wetlands would be preserved on-site and the project would include habitat and resource preservation at on-site and off-site locations.

The CSP is designed to implement the planning principles of the Regional Blueprint. The CSP development includes a total of 2,011 dwelling units in three density ranges, ranging from 4.0 units per acre to 30.0 units per acre. The average density over the residential portion of the project is approximately 8.5 units per acre. Proposed land uses include a total of 136 acres set aside in permanent open space, 15.7 acres for parks and recreation, 9.6 acres of public/quasi-public uses (elementary school, well site, lift station, recycling center and electrical substation), 43.4 acres of roadway rights-of-way, and 19.3 acres of mixed use commercial (commercial, business professional and mixed- use residential). Parks, trails and open space also have been incorporated into the Specific Plan.

The Permit Area includes on-site and off-site improvements needed for the CSP. The on-site improvements are those within the 461.4-acre portion of the 501.3- acre CSP and consist of the Specific Plan development and Creekview Blue Oaks Boulevard improvements. The off-site components are within the 58.6-acre Off- Site Improvement Area. Within the Off-Site Improvement Area, drainage and flood control improvements associated with Pleasant Grove Creek will be constructed (referred to as, the “Off-Site Bypass Channel Improvements” or “bypass channel”) as further discussed below.

The following roadways, drainage, sewer and water infrastructure are necessary to serve development of the CSP. The CSP infrastructure includes both on-site and off-site components. The off-site infrastructure improvements include road improvements (e.g., widening of lanes and the addition of intersection controls), the addition of utility lines and routes for sewer trunk and water lines, and recycled water storage facilities and transmission lines. Where possible, utility lines would be placed within the existing roadways or other disturbed areas, in order to minimize environmental impacts.

The main branch of Pleasant Grove Creek and tributary drainages are located within the Permit Area. The main branch of the creek transects the site diagonally through an Open Space corridor traversing the parcel and an unnamed tributary drainage (known as, “University Creek”) is located in the northern portion of the Permit Area. Two tributaries of Pleasant Grove Creek,

11 Coyote Creek and an unnamed northern tributary are located on the north and southeast sections of the site, respectively.

Immediately downstream of the CSP, on the City of Roseville’s Reason Farms property, the Pleasant Grove Creek channel narrows abruptly as a result of past farming practices from decades ago, creating a man-made constriction. This constriction creates a bottleneck in the conveyance of floodwaters resulting in an un-natural expanded 100-year floodplain which raises water surface elevations higher than pre-constriction conditions thereby influencing flooding conditions on the CSP property. The pre-constriction condition is referred to as the “historic floodplain.”

A bypass channel is necessary in order to reclaim the land associated with the historic floodplain of the Pleasant Grove Creek within the CSP area and remove developable lands from the 100-year floodplain consistent with the historic conditions. Within the CSP, the bypass channel will divert a portion of the high water flows from Pleasant Grove Creek upstream of the major channel constriction, and re-introduce the flows back into the existing channel downstream. The bypass channel will provide additional conveyance and storage capacity within the Pleasant Grove stream system. The design of the floodplain areas, low flow channel and attenuation features will create opportunities for riparian vegetation supported by nutrients and flows from the bypass channel.

The bypass channel would be to the south and parallel to the existing alignment of Pleasant Grove Creek. The bypass will be contained within the CSP open space corridor and will continue west and off-site onto and through the City of Roseville’s Reason Farms property (in the Off-Site Improvement Area). Within the CSP open space corridor, the bypass channel will begin at a point east of the Westbrook Boulevard crossing of Pleasant Grove Creek, and extend approximately 5,700 feet downstream to a location where it will rejoin the creek. The Creekview Bypass could entail the following types of construction activities:

 Excavation of approximately 232,000 cubic yards of soil on- and off-site for the creation of a bypass channel;

 Hauling of excavated soil on-site and off-site to the Reason Farms for placement and compaction;

 Short and long-term stockpiling of excavated soil within the Off-Site Improvement Area on the Reason Farms property, south of Pleasant Grove Creek;

 Placement and compaction of soil;

 Construction of an inlet and outlet weir structure to allow regulation of floodwaters conveyed within bypass channel.

12 5.4 General Construction Measures and Best Management Practices The Proposed Actions involve physical disturbance to the environment within the Permit Area. Therefore, the following conservation measures would be implemented by the applicant and its contractors to avoid and minimize potential construction-related impacts:

 Construction activities will be limited to the non-rainy season, typically May through October, especially in stream zones.

 Construction plans and specifications for all elements of the projects shall include provisions for erosion control in the event of non-seasonal or early seasonal rainfall during construction, and for disturbed areas that remain unvegetated during the rainy season. Specifically, the applicant shall prepare and implement a detailed erosion and dust control plan. The plan shall, at minimum, require revegetation of all disturbed areas, protection of channels and ditch bank slopes, and erosion control. Temporary adverse effects, such as construction runoff effects or water quality effects, shall be avoided by use of these best management practices during construction and by directing surface water runoff from construction areas.

 Rainy season erosion control measures shall be in place before October 15 of each year. Timing will be contingent on rainfall predictions.

 Construction activities shall comply with state National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirement.

 Prior to the initiation of construction activities for the proposed action, all avoided vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands within the action area would be designated as environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) on construction drawings.

 During construction, no activities including; stockpiling soil, driving or parking any equipment or vehicles, storing supplies or containers, and creation of borrow pits, would be permitted within the ESAs.

 All protected wetlands would be marked with bright orange fencing at least five feet tall, and would be inspected by the Service-approved biologist. Such fencing would be adequate to prevent encroachment of construction personnel and equipment into vernal pool and other seasonal wetland areas during project work activities. Fencing would buffer occupied habitats by 250 feet, if possible. Such fencing would be inspected and maintained daily until completion of the proposed action when it would be removed. Adequate signage would be placed on the fence to indicate areas to be avoided.

 During construction, stockpiled topsoil and other construction materials (for example, soil and debris) would not be placed in areas where the materials may erode into vernal pools or other seasonal wetlands through exposure to

13 wind and rain. Runoff from dust control practices, and oil or other chemicals used in other construction activities would be retained in the construction site and prevented from flowing into adjacent streams, vernal pools, or other seasonal wetland areas. The runoff would be retained in the construction site by creating small earthen berms, installing silt fences or hay-bale dikes, or implementing other measures on the construction site to prevent runoff from entering the vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands.

 During construction, the project proponent would ensure that construction equipment and vehicles operated in the action area are checked and maintained daily to prevent leaks of fuels, lubricants or other fluids. The contractor(s) would develop an approved Hazardous Materials Spill Prevention Plan before starting any construction activities.

 The project proponent would provide the Service with annual reports to describe the progress of implementation of all the commitments in this BA. The reports would include: (1) dates that construction occurred; (2) pertinent information concerning the applicant's success in meeting project compensation measures; (3) an explanation of failure to meet such measures, if any, and recommendations for remedial actions and request for approval from the Service, if necessary; (4) known project effects on federally listed species, if any; (5) occurrences of incidental take of federally listed species, if any; and (6) other pertinent information. The first report would be submitted by January 31, the first year after any ground disturbance, and annually on January 31 thereafter until all terms and conditions and/or performance criteria are met.

5.5 Avoidance and Conservation Measures

5.5.1 Avoidance and Open Space The Permit Area includes a wetlands preservation and habitat conservation strategy consisting of three key elements: 1) on-site avoidance and preservation, 2) off-site compensatory mitigation, and 3) low impact development strategies. The most significant concentration of resources within the Permit Area is located in the northern portion of the site. It is anticipated that approximately 58 percent of the wetlands would be avoided and preserved on-site (approximately 19.66 acres) and the project would include habitat and resource preservation at on-site and off-site locations.

The development contemplated in the Permit Area application and the CSP was designed to avoid and minimize impacts to key on-site aquatic resources based on previous investigations of existing wetlands within the Action Area. Proposed open-space design and habitat conservation is detailed in the Creekview Specific Plan Issue Paper No. 1: Avoidance Plan.

The Permit Area contains over 136 acres of designated permanent open space (Figure 4) and was designed based upon the goal of establishing interconnected open space areas within the Action Area. The “Northern Preserve” encompasses

14 approximately 87 acres in the northernmost portion of the Permit Area. This open space preserve includes the significant wetland/swale corridor identified in the northern portion of the Permit Area (refer to Figure 4). The corridor is central to the preserve design and connects to existing off-site wetlands and preserves to the east and future wetland preserves associated with proposed development to the north and northwest. The Northern Preserve contains the highest quality, and greatest concentration of wetlands on site, including vernal pools and seasonal wetlands. Continuity with existing wetland and vernal pool complexes located off-site, and existing and future preserves, further increases the value of the wetlands within the Northern Preserve.

Proposed development is designed to avoid this corridor, promote connectivity of waters and watersheds, avoid isolating wetlands and drainages, avoid naturally-occurring wetlands, and promote optimal wetland preservation based on the amount of wetlands avoided within the total open space area.

The “Creek Preserve” is 49 acres of open space located along Pleasant Grove Creek. The preserve offers protection of the Pleasant Grove Creek drainage and establishment of a buffer along both sides of the Creek. Roughly 95 percent of the riparian corridor will be preserved within the Permit Area as part of the project. Establishing the Creek Preserve will serve to protect biological resources, including any special-status species that occur in association with Pleasant Grove Creek.

Under the CSP land plan, the proposed project would avoid 19.66 acres of wetlands and waters of the United States through establishment of the identified on-site Preserve areas. Wetlands or waters of the United States that will be avoided through the on-site Preserves include wetland swales, ephemeral and intermittent streams, seasonal marsh, seasonal wetlands and vernal pools.

As part of the CSP, a third party conservator will be retained to manage both of the on-site conservation areas identified within the Action Area (Northern Preserve and Creek Preserve). A habitat management plan will also be developed along with a mitigation monitoring plan and monitoring report for on-site preserves and off-site compensatory lands. Additionally, financial assurance will be established.

5.5.2 Compensatory Mitigation The CSP incorporates a variety of compensatory wetland mitigation measures, including the acquisition and preservation of vernal pool-dominated grasslands, enhancement of existing wetlands, restoration of previously existing wetlands, and establishment of new wetlands.

15 P le as an t G ro v e C ree

k PHILLIP RD PHILLIP

Legend Creekview 404 Permit Area Open Space Preserve Waters of the U.S. (±34 acres) Annual Grassland (±420 acres) Valley Oak Riparian (±9 acres) Developed/Disturbed (±1 acres) Cultivated Land (±56 acres)

Figure 4 ± Habitat & 0 250 500 1,000 Open Space Preserves

Scale in Feet Creekview Aerial Photo: 2008 (Placer County) Placer County, CA Compensatory mitigation will be based on an eco-system approach involving a variety of aquatic habitats and their surrounding upland environment. In selecting and securing mitigation areas, the emphasis will be on securing large parcels encompassing intact watersheds. Securing larger parcels allows for a comprehensive ecosystem approach and minimizes indirect impacts and disturbances from activities on adjacent lands. These measures also will serve a dual function in mitigating impacts to rare, threatened and endangered species. Adequately-sized buffers will be established for off-site mitigation areas to maintain long-term viability of the mitigation areas.

Table 1 provides a summary of compensatory mitigation ratios and acreages, based on impacts to watersheds occupied by vernal pool fairy shrimp. Impacts to unoccupied wetlands will be mitigated at different ratios. Specifically, wetland mitigation will consist of creation at a 1:1 ratio for all direct impacts to all wetland/waters types as well as preservation at a 2:1 ratio for all basins impacted in Branchinecta-occupied watersheds.

Mitigation Ratios and Acreages

The applicant’s compensatory mitigation proposal associated with the Proposed Action will include a combination of on-site and off-site mitigation. The mitigation proposal consists of creation at a 1:1 ratio for all direct impacts to all wetland/waters types as well as preservation at a 2:1 ratio for all basins impacted in Branchinecta-occupied watersheds. In addition, the mitigation acreage proposed to offset the loss of open space with the development footprint (380 acres) will be acquired in Western Placer County. If the acquired property has resources that can or do support vernal pool fairy shrimp, or if vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat could be constructed, the acreage of those habitats will be used to provide a portion of the necessary compensation. The remaining acreage (that is 21.15 acres less the off-site acreage) will be provided through the purchase of mitigation bank credits. Ultimately, the ratios and total acreages of mitigation will not change, but the ratio of bank acreage to other off-site acreage may change.

Table 1 on the following page is summarized below:

 Wetland compensation for impacts to wetlands will include the creation of 1:1 for all wetlands directly affected, and 2:1 preservation for all wetland basins (vernal pools and seasonal wetlands) for any basin directly impacted in a subwatershed where Branchinecta cysts were found.

 Wetland compensation for impacts to waters of the U.S. is summarized by habitat type below: Vernal Pool Impact: 1.28-acres o Need: Compensation 1:1 creation, 2:1 preservation in occupied habitat

17 Table 1: Summary of Proposed Mitigation Plan

Impacts Need Mitigation Habitat Type Acreage Mitigation Bank in Mitigation Bank Mitigation Bank in Mitigation Bank Direct Onsite Offsite Core Area / outside Core Area / Core Area / outside Core Area / Existing Avoided Impact Creation Preservation* Creation Creation Creation Creation Preservation Preservation 1x 2x Ephemeral stream 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 0 Intermittent stream 1.77 1.77 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perennial stream 5.68 5.36 0.32 0.32 0 0 0 0 Seasonal marsh 2.7 0 2.7 2.7 0 3.04 0 3.04 Seasonal wetland 7.43 2.75 4.68 4.68 6.26 4.68 4.68 0 6.26 Vernal pool 1.75 0.47 1.28 1.28 0.62 1.28 0 1.28 0 0.62 Wetland swale 14.42 9.27 5.15 5.15 0 5.15 0 5.15 Totals 33.83 19.66 14.17 14.17 6.88 1.28 12.87 5.96 8.19 0.62 6.26

Total Creation 14.17 Total Preservation (basins only) 6.88 Combined Total Need 21.05

*The Preservation component applies only to vp and sw of occupied subwatersheds (0.31 ac vp and 3.13 ac sw) as shown on attached exhibit o Preservation will occur within the Core Recovery Area at a local mitigation bank, 0.62-acre Seasonal Wetland Impact: 4.68-acres o Need: Compensation 1:1 creation, 2:1 preservation in occupied habitat o Creation to occur at a mitigation bank outside of the Core Recovery Area, but within the service area of the selected mitigation banks from which credits are purchased. Wetland Swale Impact: 5.15-acres o Need: Compensation 1:1 creation o Creation to occur at a mitigation bank outside of the Core Recovery Area, but within the service area of the selected mitigation banks from which credits are purchased. Seasonal Marsh Impact: 2.70-acres o Need: Compensation 1:1 creation o Creation to occur at a mitigation bank outside of the Core Recovery Area, but within the service area of the selected mitigation banks from which credits are purchased. Perennial Stream Impact: 0.32-acre o Need: Compensation 1:1 creation o Creation to occur at a mitigation bank outside of the Core Recovery Area, but within the service area of the selected mitigation banks from which credits are purchased. Ephemeral Stream Impact: 0.04-acre o Need: Compensation 1:1 creation o Creation to occur at a mitigation bank outside of the Core Recovery Area, but within the service area of the selected mitigation banks from which credits are purchased. The project site contains basin and swale wetlands. Most (but not all) of the seasonal wetlands are basins and contain hydrology similar to that of vernal pools. Consequently, all basins in the permit area provide potential fairy shrimp habitat. After two years of protocol surveys, Branchinecta cysts were found in six basins. Those basins within the occupied subwatersheds are considered occupied and mitigation for those wetlands will occur at a 3:1 mitigation ratio. For mitigation purposes, vernal pools and seasonal wetlands would be mitigated at the same mitigation ratios.

As criteria for off-site mitigation, land acquisition will occur in western Placer County at an acreage that is equal to the acreage of impact associated with the development footprint. As discussed above, compensation for impacts to wetlands will include creation/restoration for all wetlands directly affected at a 1:1 mitigation ratio, and a 2:1 preservation ratio for all wetland basins (vernal pools and seasonal wetlands) for any basin directly impacted in a subwatershed

19 where Branchinecta cysts were found. The land acquired for off-site mitigation will meet the following criteria:

o Acquisition of vernal pool-dominated grasslands; o Existing eco-system and their surrounding upland environment; o Emphasis will be on securing large parcels encompassing intact watersheds. Securing larger parcels allows for a comprehensive ecosystem approach and minimizes indirect impacts and disturbances from activities on adjacent lands; and o Adequately-sized buffers will be established for off-site mitigation areas to maintain long-term viability of the mitigation areas.

6.0 BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This section discusses the results of field surveys conducted by North Fork Associates and other biologists within the Permit Area, between 2005 and 2008. For this BA, the proposed Action Area includes all areas that would be directly affected by the Creekview Section 404 Permit and development. To assess indirect impacts on federally-listed species, the action area includes a 250-foot area around the proposed limits of grading associated with the Permit Area as shown on Figure 2.

6.1 Hydrology The Permit Area is in the Lower Sacramento Watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code 18020109). Pleasant Grove Creek is the main hydrologic feature within the proposed action area. Pleasant Grove Creek, a regionally substantial stream, flows in a northwesterly direction through the project site. It drains the area between Auburn Ravine to the north and Dry Creek to the south as it flows west through Rocklin, Roseville, and unincorporated lands in western Placer County before entering the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal in Sutter County. Pleasant Grove Creek Canal joins with the Natomas Cross Canal and the Natomas East Canal in the American Basin, both of which discharge into the Sacramento River, a navigable water. A secondary feature, known locally as University Creek, is an intermittent tributary of Pleasant Grove Creek, and it drains the northern portion of the proposed Action Area.

6.2 Upland Community Types The primary biological communities that occur within the Action Area include annual grassland, cultivated land, riparian corridor, and developed or disturbed habitats. Wetlands and other waters are included within each biological community. Total wetland acreage (waters if the U.S.) is displayed separately in Table 2, which provides the acreage of each biological community type present within the Action Area. The vegetation and variations within these biological communities are described in the following paragraphs and shown in Figure 4.

20 Table 2 Biological Communities Present in the Permit Area

Biological Community Estimated Acreage Annual Grassland 420 Cultivated Land 56 Riparian Corridor 9 Developed/Disturbed <1 Waters of the U.S. 34 Total 520

6.2.1 Annual Grassland The Permit Area north of Pleasant Grove Creek consists of annual grassland. Dominant grasses include soft chess, ripgut brome, and wild oat. Other non- native species include yellow starthistle, flilaree, Fitch’s tarweed, and tarplant. Areas located north of Pleasant Grove Creek have been grazed, but have not, for the most part, been otherwise disturbed by land leveling, grading, or other intensive agricultural activities. Wetland features such as emergent marsh, wetland swales, vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, and streams are embedded in this habitat. The portion of the on-site areas south of the creek is considered annual grassland as well, but much of it has been disturbed by past agricultural activities, and it contains several large seasonal wetlands.

Annual grassland in the vicinity of University Creek includes small patches of valley oaks. These oak trees may represent remnants of once larger valley oak woodland, and they do provide some habitat for woodland species.

6.2.2 Cultivated Land Cultivated lands within the Permit Area occur in the off-site portion of the Permit Area. Vegetation in these cultivated lands is indicative of long-term disturbance and agricultural activity. The vast majority of species are non-native and often described as ruderal. Even some of the native species observed in the Permit Area prefer disturbance and may be considered weeds in some circumstances. Plant species include Italian ryegrass, waxy mannagrass, wheat, oats, and common vetch. Berms and raised building pads support an array of ruderal species adapted to continuous disturbance.

6.2.3 Riparian Corridor The riparian corridor located within the Permit Area along Pleasant Grove Creek is dominated by valley oak and an occasional cottonwood and blue oak. Himalayan blackberry is common and forms a shrubby understory. Willows are the primary understory tree along with an occasional white alder. In more open areas, the understory consists of nonnative annual grasses and forbs.

The portion of University Creek in the northwest corner of the Permit Area supports 20 to 30 mature valley oak trees along its upper bank. However, there are no other trees or shrubs or other associated streamside vegetation present along University Creek.

21 West of the central CSP area, the riparian corridor along Pleasant Grove Creek becomes wider and denser. Willows, cottonwoods, and valley oaks are the main species. The understory is Himalayan blackberry, but herbaceous species are common in some places.

6.2.4 Developed/Disturbed The developed/disturbed components of the habitat map are associated with the buildings, structures, and other active development within the Permit Area. These areas show a high level of disturbance including historical residences south of Pleasant Grove Creek. These areas are highly disturbed and support little to no native vegetation.

6.3 Waters of the United States North Fork Associates produced a Wetland Delineation for the +470-acre Creekview Project on November 14, 2006 (NFA 2006), which was verified by the Corps of Engineers on November 22, 2006. This corresponds to the proposed CSP area, excluding the off-site improvement area. The delineation mapped 33.83 acres of waters of the United States within the CSP area. North Fork Associates later conducted preliminary wetland delineation on the off-site improvement area portion of the Permit Area in 2007 and 2008. Although this delineation has not yet been verified by the Corps, the only waters of the United States mapped are associated with Pleasant Grove Creek.

The habitat map (Figure 4) shows all waters of the United States as a single unit. However, this designation includes perennial streams, intermittent streams, ephemeral streams, vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, wetland swales, and seasonal marsh. Total acreage of each category of waters of the United States within the Action Area is provided below and brief descriptions follow.

Table 3: Waters of the U.S. in the Permit Area

Type Acreage Vernal Pool 1.75 Seasonal Wetland 7.43 Wetland Swale 14.42 Seasonal Marsh 2.70 Ephemeral Stream 0.08 Intermittent Stream 1.77 Perennial Stream 5.68 Total 33.83

6.3.1 Perennial Stream Perennial streams, unlike ephemeral or intermittent streams, flow year-round. They typically exhibit bed-and-bank morphology. One perennial stream, Pleasant Grove Creek, is located within the Permit Area. Riparian habitat is associated with Pleasant Grove Creek and narrow bands of wetland vegetation

22 also occur on the low floodplains along most of its length. Pleasant Grove Creek is hydrologically connected to the Sacramento River by the Natomas Cross Canal and the Natomas East Canal in the American Basin.

6.3.2 Intermittent Stream Intermittent streams flow during and for some time after the winter rainy season. Intermittent streams usually have a groundwater component or another water source that provides water in the absence of precipitation. University Creek is one of two intermittent streams mapped during the wetland delineations. The second is a small tributary to Pleasant Grove Creek near the southeastern portion of the Permit Area. Much like Pleasant Grove Creek, the reach of University Creek running through the Permit Area is characterized by a deep, incised channel and relatively steep banks. University Creek joins with Pleasant Grove Creek just west of the Permit Area.

6.3.3 Ephemeral Stream Ephemeral streams have more-or-less continuous scour marks that locate the ordinary high water mark. Ephemeral streams are not common on the site, possibly because of the relatively flat topography. However, two small tributaries of Pleasant Grove Creek occur within the CSP Area.

6.3.4 Vernal Pools Vernal pools are relatively deep depressional wetlands that support a mostly native flora. These are characterized by Vasey’s coyote-thistle, stipitate popcornflower, dwarf wooly marbles, needle-leaved navarretia, and white- flowered navarretia, separating them from other depressional seasonal wetlands and wetland swales that are dominated by non-native facultative species. According to the soil survey of western Placer County (USDA 1980), all of the vernal pools onsite are underlain by relatively impermeable claypans or silica cemented hardpans at depths ranging from 16 to 40 inches below the ground surface. These shallow restrictive layers cause the vernal pools to develop wetland hydrology during the rainy season. Precipitation is likely the main source of water for most of the pools onsite, although some may receive appreciable amounts of runoff from surrounding uplands as well.

6.3.5 Seasonal Wetland Seasonal wetlands are similar to vernal pools and swales, except that they tend to be shallower and support a primarily non-native flora. Italian ryegrass and long- beaked hawkbit are usually the dominant species in the seasonal wetlands onsite. Seasonal wetlands in the western portion of the Permit Area are dominated by waxy mannagrass and Italian ryegrass.

6.3.6 Wetland Swale Wetland swales are water conveyance features that do not develop the bed-and- bank morphology typical of streams. Wetland swales are the most extensive

23 type of wetland within the CSP. Wetland swales in the Permit Area are located primarily on the older alluvial landforms located north of Pleasant Grove Creek. Most of the wetland swales onsite appear to be natural features, but several are manmade drainage ditches.

Most of the wetland swales onsite have plant species assemblages similar to those found in shallow seasonal wetlands. They tend to be dominated by non- native species such as Italian ryegrass, Mediterranean barley, and long-beaked hawkbit. Native species also occur in wetland swales, but they are less common than other species.

6.3.7 Seasonal Marsh One seasonal marsh occurs in the Permit Area. The center of the seasonal wetland supports a dense stand of bulrush and cattail. The shallower portions of the pond are dominated by creeping spikerush, and the edges have a mixture of vernal pool species. In 2006 this marsh had standing water into the summer, but it was dry during the August 2005 field surveys.

6.4 Wildlife Associations Wildlife habitats within the Permit Area are characteristic of this part of western Placer County. Most of the area is open grassland, but the southern portion has been intensively cultivated. The riparian corridor along Pleasant Grove Creek provides important habitat for nesting raptors and various migratory birds. The open areas support suitable foraging habitat for raptors and songbirds that prefer grasslands. A variety of wildlife was observed during field surveys over a period of years, and nesting Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsonii) have been observed within the Permit Area along both Pleasant Grove Creek and University Creek. Wetlands within the Permit Area provide habitat for federally-listed species that are discussed in other sections.

During the nesting raptor surveys in 2007, two active red-tailed hawk nests and one Swainson’s hawk nest were observed on site (Estep 2008a). Surveys in 2008 observed two active red-tailed hawk nests, two Swainson’s hawk nests, and two white-tailed kite nests onsite (Estep 2008b). In addition, white-tailed kite, great- horned owl, northern harrier, and American kestrel were observed foraging onsite and likely nest on or near the Permit Area. During winter, additional species, such as ferruginous hawk, rough-legged hawk, Cooper’s hawk, and sharp-shinned hawk also occupy these landscapes.

The grassland habitats are also important nesting habitat for many ground- nesting birds, such as western meadowlark and horned lark and are home to several common reptiles such as gopher snake, valley garter snake, and western fence lizard.

The riparian habitat along Pleasant Grove Creek and the valley oak trees along University Creek, as well as the rows of willows and cottonwood trees and the few isolated trees and patches of trees throughout the Permit Area provide

24 important nesting habitat for breeding raptors and many other birds common to the area, including American crow, western scrub jay, yellow-billed magpie, mourning dove, and a variety of songbirds.

7.0 FIELD SURVEYS A variety of focused biological field surveys have been conducted within the Permit Area. These include general biological surveys and special-status species surveys.

7.1 Plants Surveys for special-status plants were conducted in 2006 and 2008 by North Fork Associates biologists. No federally-listed plant species are known to occur within the nine-quad area CNDDB search. However, the state-listed Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop (Gratiola heterosepala) and the CNPS List 2 dwarf downingia (Downingia pusilla) were found in wetlands in the Permit Area.

7.2 Wildlife A variety of general and specific wildlife surveys were conducted within the Permit Area, mostly in connection with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) being prepared for the Creekview Specific Plan Area. These surveys included the following:

 General wildlife surveys in 2006 and 2007 by Estep Environmental Consulting  Nesting raptor surveys in 2007 and 2008 by Estep Environmental Consulting  Elderberry shrub surveys in 2006 and 2007 by Estep Environmental Consulting  Large Branchiopod surveys in 2006, 2007, and 2008 (see Section 8.3) by Helm Biological Consulting  Western spadefoot surveys in 2007 and 2008 by Helm Biological Consulting

7.3 Large Branchiopods Helm Biological Consulting conducted wet- and dry-season surveys between 2006 and 2008. All sampling was done according to USFWS survey guidelines (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). Protocol surveys were conducted during the 2006-2008 dry and wet seasons within the Permit Area, excluding the off-site area and the Harris Property. The results are summarized in the following sections and full reports are present in appendices A and B.

7.3.1 Dry Season Sampling Dry season sampling took place on October 13 and 14, 2006, and additional sampling was done on May 11, 2007. A total of 202 basins were identified as potential large branchiopod habitat and sampled throughout the dry season sampling events. Cysts belonging to the genus Branchinecta were observed in

25 soils collected from 11 basins. The cysts could not be identified to species, and were assumed to be B. lynchii (vernal pool fairy shrimp). Helm Biological Consulting concluded that given the location of the project site and the condition of habitats present, cysts found during dry season sampling would most likely belong to the federally-listed threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (refer to species discussions in Section 8). In addition to cysts of Branchinecta that were found during dry season sampling, California fairy shrimp (Linderiella occidentalis) cysts were also observed in soils collected from nine of the basins within the CSP Area. (Helm Biological Consulting 2007).

7.3.2 Wet Season Sampling In 2006-2007, wet season sampling took place on the following days: December 31, January 11 and 25, February 15, March 1, 15, and 28, and April 12 and 26. Follow-up wet season sampling was also conducted during 2007-2008 on December 12 and 23, January 10, 23, and 25, February 6 and 22, March 6 and 20, April 3 and 18. Wet season sampling included all basins within the on-site Permit Area that were identified as potential large branchiopod habitat.

A total of 139 basins within the Permit Area were sampled during 2006-2007. California fairy shrimp was observed in four basins, the lentil clam shrimp (Lynceus brachyurus) was observed in one basin, and the California clam shrimp (Cyzicus californicus) was observed in four basins within the Permit Area during 2006-2007. During 2007-2008 the California fairy shrimp was observed in five basins, the lentil clam shrimp was observed in one basin, and the California clam shrimp was observed in three basins (Helm Biological Consulting 2007 and 2008).

8.0 SPECIES ACCOUNTS

8.1 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp The vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) is listed as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act and is not listed under the California Endangered Species Act. The vernal pool fairy shrimp is a small (less than 1 inch) freshwater crustacean belonging to the order of Anostraca.

8.1.1 Geographic Distribution Vernal pool fairy shrimp have one of the broadest distributions of the California endemic fairy shrimp species. It occurs most of the length of the Central Valley, from the Millville Plains and Stillwater Plains in Shasta County south to Pixley in Tulare County (as yet, not recorded from King and Kern Counties) and the eastern margin of the central Coast Range from San Benito County south to Ventura County (Helm 1998, Eng et al 1990, and Sugnet & Associates 1991). Disjunct populations occur on the Santa Rosa plateau and near Rancho Santa California in Riverside County (Eriksen and Belk 1999). The species also occurs within the Medford area of southern Oregon (Helm and Fields 1998).

26 8.1.2 Activity Cycle/Behavior Fairy shrimp are ephemeral animals. Once the temporary water bodies that they inhabit dry up, the population remains in the dry basin as cysts (embryonic eggs). These cysts can withstand harsh conditions (i.e., freezing and desiccation) while they await the return of rain to fill their pools. After the appropriate environmental conditions (i.e., water temperature, pH, oxygen concentration, etc.) occur, the young hatch, quickly mature, and then mate to ensue the next generation.

This species has the shortest average maturation period (18 days), and the shortest average number of days to reproduction (39 days) of the California Central Valley endemics, which may explain its ability to survive in some of the most ephemeral of wetland habitats (Helm 1998). Field observations of this species reveal that they die at the onset of warm water (24 degrees Celsius), which may explain why the species is typically observed during cooler months (Helm 1998).

8.1.3 Habitat Associations/Requirements Vernal pool fairy shrimp have been most often observed in vernal pools (79% of observations), although they have also been observed in a variety of other natural and artificial habitats, including seasonal wetlands, alkali pools, ephemeral drainages, stock ponds, roadside ditches, vernal swales, and rock outcrop vernal pools (Helm 1998). The species occurs on many geologic formations and landforms. Regardless of the landform, this species is most often found in small (less than 200 meter square) and shallow (5 centimeters deep) habitats, although it also can occur in large and deep vernal pools (Helm 1998, Helm and Vollmar 2002).

Although the vernal pool fairy shrimp is found in different habitat types, it is not abundant at all of them. It often occurs with California fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and occasionally with Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio) in the Vina Plains Preserve, and it is never the numerically dominant species (Eng et al. 1990).

8.1.4 Occurrence in the Action Area The CNDDB documents numerous occurrences of vernal pool fairy shrimp in the project region (CNDDB 2010). Potential habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp occurs in association with vernal pools and seasonal wetlands throughout the Permit Area. Within the Action Area, habitat known to support fairy shrimp occurs to the south of Creekview and these areas would be impacted by the construction of Blue Oaks Boulevard. In addition, a very small amount of potential habitat occurs on the Harris property.

A total of 202 basins (vernal pools, wetland swales, seasonal wetlands, and seasonal marsh) were sampled during dry-season sampling, and 139 basins sampled during the wet-season sampling, by Helm Biological Consulting (2007

27 and 2008). No vernal pool fairy shrimp were found during wet-season sampling conducted within potential habitat in the Permit Area (Helm Biological Consulting 2007 and 2008). However, cysts of the Branchinecta genus were found in one road rut (HBC 46), six seasonal wetlands (SW29, SW47, SW53, SW73, SW77, and SW90), two vernal pools (VP03 and VP04), and two wetland swales (WS02 and WS18) in the Permit Area during dry-season sampling conducted by Helm Biological Consulting in 2007 (refer to appendices A and B). For the purposes of this BA, we assume that these cysts are those of vernal pool fairy shrimp. The only other species of Branchinecta with the potential to occur in the project region is Branchinecta conservatio (Conservancy fairy shrimp). As discussed in the following section, based on the negative results of the dry and wet-season sampling, and the rarity of this species within the project region, occurrence of Conservancy fairy shrimp within the Permit Area is considered unlikely.

Another species of Branchinecta is the Midvalley fairy shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis), which is not known to occur in the project region, and is not expected to occur in the Permit Area. The Midvalley fairy shrimp is endemic to a small portion of California’s Central Valley and is currently known to be limited to the Southeastern Sacramento, Southern Sierra Foothill, San Joaquin, and Solano-Colusa Vernal Pool Regions (USFWS 2005). There are currently no documented occurrences of Midvalley fairy shrimp within Placer County (CNDDB 2010).

Of the 202 basins sampled that were initially considered as having potential to support special-status Branchiopods, only 11 basins were found to be occupied by Branchinecta species during dry season sampling. Figure 5 shows the locations where Branchinecta sp., and presumed vernal pool fairy shrimp, was detected during the sampling events. A total of 3.23 acres within the Permit Area was determined to be occupied by vernal pool fairy shrimp, based on the 2006 through 2008 sampling results.

8.2 Conservancy Fairy Shrimp The Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio) is most similar to Lindahl's fairy shrimp (B. lindahli) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994) and is a freshwater crustacean belonging to the order of Anostraca.

The Conservancy fairy shrimp is the largest of the endemic Central Valley fairy shrimp and can reach lengths of slightly over one inch. The female of the species is easy to differentiate from other Central Valley endemic anostracans by its elongated spindle-shaped ovisac.

8.2.1 Geographic Distribution On April 13, 2007 the USFWS announced the detection of this species in the Mariner Conservation Bank along the western edge of the City of Lincoln, Placer County. Previously, Conservancy fairy shrimp had only been known from a few isolated populations located throughout the Central Valley and south coast

28 Creekview 404 Permit Area Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Occurrence

Wetlands PHILLIP RD PHILLIP

Figure 5 ± Vernal Pool Fairy

0 250 500 1,000 Shrimp Occurrence

Scale in Feet Creekview Aerial Photo: 2009 (NAIP) Placer County, CA areas of California. Currently, this species is known from isolated populations within portions of the following counties: Butte, Tehama, Glenn, Yolo, Solano, Stanislaus, Merced, and Ventura (USFWS 2007). The USFWS is currently determining if the 2007 detection in western Placer County represents a breeding population or habitat.

Activity Cycle/Behavior The Conservancy fairy shrimp's life history, like that of other vernal pool crustaceans, is linked to the phenology of its habitat. The Conservancy fairy shrimp cysts lie dormant over the dry season and hatch soon after the habitat is inundated and suitable environmental conditions (water temperature and oxygen concentration) occur in the wet season (Lanway 1974, Patton 1984). The Conservancy fairy shrimp has been observed in vernal pools from November to early April. This species has a relatively long maturation (36 days) and reproductive (46 days) period, and is typically found with other large branchiopod species with long maturation and reproductive periods such as vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) and California fairy shrimp (Helm 1998). This species often co-occurs with endemic vernal pool grasses such as Colusa grass (Neostafia colusana) and Orcutt grasses (Orcuttia spp.) (Helm 1998). The recorded overall longevity of the population within a pool is 114 days (as measured from the first hatching to the last death of an individual within the pool) (Helm 1998).

Its life history characteristics, with a mean time of 36.5 days to maturation and 46.2 days to reproduction (Helm 1998), are comparable to those of vernal pool tadpole shrimp and California fairy shrimp. These life history characteristics correlate with its association with large playa pools. This is the only species that appears to be directly correlated with particular substrate characteristics (i.e., clay soils). These soils generally cause the pools to be highly turbid due to the entrainment of clay particles in the water column. This may confer some level of protection to the species through reduced predation by birds (Helm pers. comm.).

8.2.2 Habitat Associations/Requirements Conservancy fairy shrimp is most often found in large (3,900 to 7,500 meter square) clay bottom vernal pools to very large (356,253 meter square) vernal lakes on Tuscan or Mehrten geologic foundations and on Basin Rim landforms in Tehama, Merced, and Solano Counties, respectively (Helm 1998).

Conservancy fairy shrimp inhabits highly turbid waters (USFWS 1994). Occupied pools are often large, such as the 89-acre (36-ha) Olcott Lake at Jepson Prairie. Pools that are occupied by the species typically have very low conductivity, total dissolved solids (TDS), and alkalinity (59 FR 48153, September 16, 1994). The Conservancy fairy shrimp occasionally occurs with the vernal pool fairy shrimp and California linderiella (Helm 1998, Eng et al. 1990).

30 8.2.3 Occurrence in the Permit Area The CNDDB does not document occurrence of Conservancy fairy shrimp within the Creekview Section 404 Action Area or the region surrounding the Permit Area (CDFG 2010). The nearest documented occurring of Conservancy fairy shrimp is roughly five miles northwest of the Permit Area at the Mariner Conservation Bank, Lincoln, Placer County, California (CNDDB 2010). There have been no additional documented occurrences of this species locally since the isolated 2007 observation in western Placer County. Outside of the isolated 2007 observation in western Placer County, the closest documented occurrences of Conservancy fairy shrimp relative the Permit Area, are from southwestern Yolo County and central Solano County (USFWS 2005).

Helm Biological Consulting conducted wet and dry season surveys between 2006 and 2008. All sampling was done according to USFWS survey guidelines (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). No fairy shrimp, including Conservancy fairy shrimp, were found during wet-season sampling conducted within potential habitat in the Permit Area (Helm Biological Consulting 2007 and 2008). Only cysts belonging to the genus Branchineta were found during the 2006 and 2007 dry-season sampling, and are presumed to be those of vernal pool fairy shrimp. Except for the California fairy shrimp, no other active fairy shrimp were observed in the Permit Area. Based on the results of the 2006, 2007, and 2008 sampling and the rarity of this species within the project region, occurrence of the Conservancy fairy shrimp within the Permit Area and the Action Area was determined to be unlikely.

8.3 Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp The vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) is listed as an endangered species under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The vernal pool tadpole shrimp is a small (<3 inches in length) aquatic crustacean within the order Notostraca. The common name “tadpole shrimp” presumably addresses the general shape of the creature when viewed from above. The animal is covered by a plate-like carapace, with only the posterior portion being exposed. It can be discerned from other tadpole shrimp within California (e.g., Triops sp.) by the presence, shape, and ridges of the anal plate.

8.3.1 Status and Distribution The vernal pool tadpole shrimp is one of the three most common large branchiopod species occurring in the Central Valley (Helm 1998). The vernal pool tadpole shrimp is found in scattered localities in the Central Valley from Stillwater Plains and Millville Plains in Shasta County, south to Flying M Ranch, and west to San Luis National Wildlife Refuge in Merced County (Helm 1998, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992), south to Tulare County (Balfour pers. comm.), and from one single vernal pool complex on the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge in the City of Fremont (Alameda County) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994, Helm Biological Consulting 2002).

31 8.3.2 Activity Cycle/Behavior The vernal pool tadpole shrimp's life history is linked to the phenology of its seasonally inundated habitat. When pools are dry, the species' resting cysts (embryonic eggs) lie dormant in the dry pool sediments. After winter rainwater fills the pools, populations of the species are reestablished from the resting cysts (Lanway 1974, Ahl 1991). Unlike the eggs of many of the fairy shrimp species, the eggs of vernal pool tadpole shrimp do not require a freezing or drying period to hatch (Ahl 1991). Adult tadpole shrimp are often present and reproductive in vernal pools until the pools dry up in late spring (Helm 1998). Vernal pool tadpole shrimp mature slowly and are long lived (Helm 1998, Ahl 1991).

8.3.3 Habitat Associations/Requirements The vernal pool tadpole shrimp occurs in very small (approximately two meters square) to very large (about 356,253 meters square) vernal pools with a variety of depths and volumes of water during the wet cycle (Helm 1998, Helm and Vollmar 2002). The species is associated with vernal pools on the following geomorphologic surfaces: alluvial fan, basin, basin rim, floodplain, marine terrace, high terrace, stream terrace, very high terrace, low terrace, and volcanic mudflow landforms (Helm 1998). This species takes an average of 38 days to mature, and typically reproduces in about 54 days (Helm 1998). The overall longevity of the population within a vernal pool is 143 days (as measured from the first hatching to the last death of an individual within a vernal pool) (Helm 1998).

The vernal pool tadpole shrimp has been observed in stock ponds, vernal pools, pools in old alluvial soil in grass bottom swales or mud-bottomed pools, and other seasonal wetlands. This species co-occurs with California fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and Conservancy fairy shrimp (Helm 1998).

8.3.4 Occurrence in the Permit Area The CNDDB documents only two occurrences of vernal pool tadpole shrimp in the project region (approximate five-mile radius of the Permit Area). The closest documented occurrence is from 1995 and is located approximately 3.7 miles southwest of the Permit Area, near the intersection of Country Club Drive and Pleasant Grove Boulevard in the Wood Creek Oaks mitigation site with created wetlands. The next closest occurrence is from 1996 and is roughly 4.5 mile north of the Permit Area near the intersection of Moore Road and Dowd Road.

Within the Permit Area, potential habitat for vernal pool tadpole shrimp occurs in association with deeper vernal pools and seasonal wetlands that could support the ponding duration (at least 54 days) required for the species to complete its life-cycle. However, no vernal pool tadpole shrimp or cysts of the species were found during dry- and wet-season sampling conducted within potential habitat in the Permit Area (Helm Biological Consulting 2007 and 2008). Only cysts belonging to the genus Branchineta were found during the 2006 and 2007 dry-season sampling, and are presumed to be those of vernal pool fairy

32 shrimp. Based on the negative results of the surveys and limited distribution of the species within the project region, the vernal pool tadpole shrimp is not expected to occur within the Permit Area.

The portions of the Action Area to the south (Blue Oaks Boulevard) and east (Harris property) do not have areas that are inundated long enough to provide habitat for the vernal pool tadpole shrimp.

8.4 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle The valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desomocerus californicus dimorphus) is listed as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act and is not listed under the California Endangered Species Act. The valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB) is a medium-sized, somewhat elongate, wood-boring insect with a cylindrical-shaped body and very long antennae. Males range in length (measured from front of head to end of abdomen) between 0.5 and 1 inch and have antennae that are about equal to the length of their body. Females are slightly larger in size than males but have somewhat shorter antennae.

8.4.1 Geographic Distribution At the time of listing the VELB was known from fewer than ten locations along the American River, Putah Creek, and the Merced River. After further study, it has been found to range from southern Shasta County southward to Fresno County. Adult beetles have been found up to 2,200 feet in elevation along the eastern portion of their range, in the Sierra Nevada foothills, and up to 500 feet in elevation along the eastern slope of the Coast Range. VELB is endemic to California’s Central Valley and watersheds that drain into the Central Valley (Barr 1991). Its presence is entirely dependent on the presence of its host plant, the elderberry shrub (Sambucus spp.).

8.4.2 Activity Cycle/Behavior Live elderberry shrubs (Sambucus nigra caerulea) are the exclusive host plant of VELB. Adult VELB emerge from pupation inside the wood of elderberry shrubs in the spring as their flowers begin to open (USFWS 1999). Exit holes made by the emerging adults are distinctive small oval openings (approx. ¼-inch width). Adults eat elderberry foliage until about June when they mate. Females lay eggs in crevices in the bark before dying a short time later. Upon hatching the larvae then begin to tunnel into the tree where they will spend one to two years eating the interior wood, which is their sole food source. After about two years, the larvae enter the pupal state and transform into adults.

8.4.3 Habitat Associations/Requirements The VELB is a specialized herbivore that feeds exclusively on elderberry shrubs. Adults feed on leaves and flowers, and the larvae on the stem pith. Habitat for VELB consists of elderberry shrubs with stems greater than 1 inch in basal diameter. Elderberry generally grows in upland riparian forests or savannas adjacent to riparian vegetation, but also occurs in oak woodlands and savannas

33 and in disturbed areas. It usually co-occurs with other woody riparian plants, including Fremont cottonwood, California sycamore, various willows, wild grape, blackberry, and poison-oak (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984; Collinge et al. 2001).

Blue elderberry generally occurs as a component of riparian habitats throughout the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada foothills regions. Isolated elderberry shrubs separated from other areas of contiguous riparian habitat are not as likely to support VELB as those that occur in association with other elderberry shrubs or as part of a riparian forest community (Collinge et al. 2001).

8.4.4 Occurrence in the Permit Area The Permit Area was surveyed during 2006 and 2007 for VELB. No elderberry shrubs were detected throughout the Permit Area at that time. Based on the absence of elderberry shrubs within the Permit Area and the limited riparian habitat on the property, it is considered very unlikely that the portion of the Harris Property within the Action Area (to the east) supports elderberry shrubs and suitable habitat for VELB. However, because surveys were not completed within the Harris Property due to access issues, the presence or absence of elderberries could not be conclusively determined for that portion of the Action Area outside the Permit Area boundaries. Although the potential for occurrence is remote, any occurrence of elderberry shrubs, and potential VELB habitat, would be limited to areas located directly adjacent to Pleasant Grove Creek, based on review of aerial photographs and known habitat conditions in the project region.

9.0 EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION This section describes the effects of the Proposed Action on federally-listed species within the Action Area. Construction activities associated with the development of the proposed Permit Area could directly or indirectly affect federally-listed species and their habitat. For purposes of determining project impacts, any waters of the United States, including wetlands that would be partially affected (either directly or indirectly) by the proposed Action were considered to be an effect on the entire wetland. In cases where a linear facility (for example, roads or sewer lines) is proposed across a channel, it is assumed that the channel will be maintained by a culvert and therefore, only that portion of the linear facility that occurs within the area of effect is included in the impact acreage.

As indicated in sections 1 and 7, literature review and biological surveys identified the presence of potential habitat for three federally-listed vernal pool branchiopods (Conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp) within the Permit Area. A habitat assessment and protocol-level surveys for vernal pool crustaceans were conducted within all potential habitats within the CSP area. Based on the results of these surveys,

34 only one of the three federally-listed branchiopods (vernal pool fairy shrimp) was determined to likely occur within the Permit Area.

Focused surveys for the federally-listed threatened VELB were conducted within the Permit Area during 2006 and 2007 and no elderberry shrubs (VELB host plant) were observed. Although suitable habitat for VELB was not found within the Permit Area, there remains some limited potential for suitable habitat to occur within a portion of the Action Area that occurs to the east within the Harris Property (refer to Section 8.4.4).

9.1 Direct Effects The Corps verified the wetland delineations for a total of 33.83 acres of waters of the United States within the Permit Area. Table 2 in Section 7.3 shows approximate acreage of each category of waters of the United States within the Permit Area. Development of the Permit Area would result in loss or disturbance of approximately 14.17 acres of waters of United States. Figure 6 shows the anticipated impact areas within the Permit Area and locations of proposed open space preserves.

Of the total 33.83 acres of Waters of the United States present within the Permit Area, 19.66 acres will be avoided or preserved in the identified Conservation Areas, including the Northern Preserve and Creek Preserve (see Section 5.5). Loss or disturbance of waters of the United States resulting from implementation of the proposed action may result in direct impacts to vernal pool species, specifically the federally-listed vernal pool fairy shrimp. Potential impacts to vernal pool fairy shrimp are discussed below. Section 5.5 describes the proposed conservation measures.

9.1.1 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp As defined under the federal ESA, direct effects are caused by the Proposed Action and occur at the time of the action. For purposes of this BA, impacts to wetland habitats are considered a direct effect to vernal pool fairy shrimp if the pools contained cysts of Branchinecta sp. and if they were located within areas where ground disturbance would occur. Figure 5 shows the areas of occupied vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat, as determined through the Helm 2006 through 2008 sampling events.

North Fork Associates biologists developed a watershed approach in order to determine impacts to occupied vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat (shown in Figure 4). Watersheds within the Action Area were identified on a topographic map with one-foot contours. Watersheds within the Permit Area containing Branchinecta cysts (see Section 9.1) were first identified, using information from the Helm 2006 and 2008 surveys, and then all wetlands within each occupied watershed were determined to be either potential breeding habitat or dispersal habitat. Using this method of determining watershed areas, North Fork Associates determined that approximately 5.96 acres of habitat in four watersheds within the Action Area would be considered occupied or potentially

35 Northern Preserve

Creek Preserve PHILLIP RD PHILLIP

Creekview 404 Permit Area Potential Habitat Impacts Open Space Preserve Waters of the U.S. (±34 acres) Annual Grassland (±420 acres) Valley Oak Riparian (±9 acres) Developed/Disturbed (±1 acres) Cultivated Land (±56 acres)

Figure 6 ± Impact Areas & 0 250 500 1,000 Open Space Preserves

Scale in Feet Creekview Aerial Photo: 2009 (NAIP) Placer County, CA occupied by vernal pool fairy shrimp and would therefore likely be directly affected by the Proposed Action. Other watersheds that were not occupied by Branchinecta cysts were not considered in the calculation of affected fairy shrimp habitat for the purposes of this Biological Assessment.

Direct effects to vernal pool fairy shrimp are expected to occur only if ground disturbance associated with the Proposed Action occurs within suitable occupied vernal pool and/or seasonal wetland habitat (refer to Figure 7). Direct effects associated with implementation of the Proposed Action may include direct mortality/harm to individual vernal pool fairy shrimp or their cysts associated with the use of heavy equipment within construction zones and disturbance or removal of habitat occupied by vernal pool fairy shrimp. In addition, use of heavy equipment throughout construction could result in an introduction of pollutants into occupied vernal pools or seasonal wetlands and subsequent harm or mortality of vernal pool fairy shrimp.

The Permit Area includes on-site and off-site improvements needed for the CSP. Construction and development of the Creekview Specific Plan would result in loss or disturbance of approximately 14.17 acres of wetlands, including vernal pools and seasonal wetlands. Of the 14.17 acres of impact, the Blue Oaks Boulevard Improvements will result in impacts to 1.08 acres of wetlands and construction and development of the bypass channel south of Pleasant Grove Creek will result in loss of 0.2-acres of wetlands. As previously indicated, approximately 5.96 acres of the total area of wetlands within the Action Area was determined to be occupied, or potentially be occupied, by vernal pool fairy shrimp. Construction and development of the CSP, implementation of the Blue Oaks Boulevard Improvements, and construction of the bypass channel, will therefore result in a direct loss or disturbance of 5.96 acres of occupied vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat throughout the Action Area.

Conservation Measures

The Proposed Action includes a combination of on and off-site conservation measures in order to off-set the permanent loss of presumed occupied vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat. Avoidance and Conservation Measures identified in Section 5.5 will be implemented to avoid and minimize effects of the Proposed Action on vernal pool fairy shrimp. On-site conservation measures include establishing a permanent open space preserve in the northern portion of the Permit Area. The “Northern Preserve” encompasses approximately 84.94 acres and includes the significant wetland/swale corridor identified in the northern portion of the Permit Area (refer to Figure 3). It is anticipated that approximately 58 percent of the wetlands would be avoided and preserved on-site (approximately 19.66 acres). Establishing the Northern Preserve is significant in that it would protect the highest quality and greatest concentration of vernal pools and wetlands located within the Permit Area. The value of the preserve is further increased by the connectivity with future and existing wetland preserves located to the north, northeast, and east.

37 PHILLIP RD PHILLIP

PHILLIP ROAD

Legend Creekview 404 Permit Area Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Cyst Occurrence Potential VPFS Impacts Wetlands Occupied Subwatersheds

Figure 7 ± Creekview Sub-Watersheds

0 250 500 1,000 Containing Branchinecta Cysts

Scale in Feet Creekview Aerial Photo: 2009 (NAIP) Placer County, CA In addition to establishing the Northern Preserve to protect the existing vernal pool/wetland complex in the northern portion of the Permit Area, the proposed project includes preserving approximately 48.97 acres of open space located along Pleasant Grove Creek. The “Creek Preserve” offers protection of the Pleasant Grove Creek drainage and establishment of a buffer along both sides of the Creek. Roughly 95 percent of the riparian corridor will be preserved within the Permit Area as part of the project. Establishing the Creek Preserve will serve to protect all biological resources, including any special-status species that occur in association with Pleasant Grove Creek.

Under the CSP land plan, the proposed project would avoid 19.66 acres of wetlands and waters of the United States through establishment of the on-site Preserve areas. Wetlands or waters of the United States that will be avoided through the on-site Preserves include wetland swales, ephemeral and intermittent streams, seasonal marsh, seasonal wetlands and vernal pools.

In addition to on-site avoidance and conservation measures listed in Section 5.5.1, a variety of other on-site avoidance measures and BMPs listed in Section 5.4 will be implemented as part of the Proposed Action to minimize adverse effects on aquatic resources and vernal pool fairy shrimp. These measures specifically include the following:

 Construction activities will be limited to the non-rainy season, typically May through October, especially in stream zones.

 Temporary adverse effects, such as construction runoff effects or water quality effects, shall be avoided by use of best management practices during construction and by directing surface water runoff from construction areas through erosion control structures.

 During construction, no activities including; stockpiling soil, driving or parking any equipment or vehicles, storing supplies or containers, and creation of borrow pits, would be permitted within the ESAs.

 All protected wetlands would be marked with bright orange fencing at least five feet tall, and would be inspected by the Service-approved biologist. Such fencing would be adequate to prevent encroachment of construction personnel and equipment into vernal pool and other seasonal wetland areas during project work activities. Fencing would buffer occupied habitats by 250 feet, if possible. Such fencing would be inspected and maintained daily until completion of the proposed action when it would be removed. Adequate signage would be placed on the fence to indicate areas to be avoided.

 During construction, stockpiled topsoil and other construction materials (for example, soil and debris) would not be placed in areas where the materials may erode into vernal pools or other seasonal wetlands through exposure to wind and rain. Runoff from dust control practices, and oil or

39 other chemicals used in other construction activities would be retained in the construction site and prevented from flowing into adjacent streams, vernal pools, or other seasonal wetland areas. The runoff would be retained in the construction site by creating small earthen berms, installing silt fences or hay-bale dikes, or implementing other measures on the construction site to prevent runoff from entering the vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands.

 In addition to establishing non-disturbance exclusion zones throughout construction, on-site monitoring by a USFWS-approved biologist throughout constructions.

The measures described above support the findings of no direct impact as a result of implementing the Proposed Action.

Unavoidable direct impacts will be compensated through a combination of land acquisition, off-site creation and restoration, and/or the purchase of bank credits. The final mitigation ratios and acreages will be those shown in Table 1 and described in Section 5.5.2, Compensatory Mitigation.

9.1.2 Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Occurrence of vernal pool tadpole shrimp within the Action Area is considered unlikely based on (1) negative results from dry- and wet-season sampling efforts, (2) limited distribution within the project region, and (3) the low quality of habitat onsite due to the presence of high amounts of organic matter. Because vernal pool tadpole shrimp are unlikely to occur, the Proposed Action will not affect the species.

9.1.3 Conservancy Fairy Shrimp Occurrence of Conservancy fairy shrimp within the Action Area is considered unlikely due to the negative dry- and wet-season sampling results, the low- quality of habitat available for the species, and the rarity of the species within the project region. Although Branchinecta sp. cysts were found during dry-season sampling, it is assumed that these cysts are the federally-threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp and not the federally-endangered Conservancy fairy shrimp, due to the rarity of the species within the project region and lack of suitable habitat (refer to Section 8.2.4). Based on the results of the 2006, 2007, and 2008 sampling and the rarity of this species within the project region, occurrence of the Conservancy fairy shrimp within the Permit Area was determined to be unlikely. Because Conservancy fairy shrimp are unlikely to occur, implementation of the Proposed Action will not affect the species.

9.1.4 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Based on field surveys conducted in 2006 and 2007, suitable habitat for VELB was determined to be absent from the Permit Area. Because no suitable habitat

40 for VELB occurs within the Permit Area, implementation of the Proposed Action will not result in any direct impacts to the species.

9.2 Indirect Effects

9.2.1 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp As defined under the ESA, indirect effects are caused by the Proposed Action and occur later in time and are reasonably certain to occur. Indirect effects may occur outside the area directly affected by the action (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service 1998.)

Ground disturbance in the vicinity of occupied vernal pool fairy shrimp habitats would cause varying degrees of erosion, sedimentation, and alteration of the hydrologic regimes; thereby affecting water quality within these habitats. Occupied wetland habitats that are located within 250 feet of proposed ground disturbance could be indirectly affected during construction activities associated with the Proposed Action.

Indirect impacts to vernal pool fairy shrimp associated with the Proposed Action are expected to be minimal for a variety of reasons. Increased dust, erosion, or runoff, associated with construction activities on site will be controlled through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified in Section 5.4. Specifically, BMPs such as limited, seasonal construction, directing surface water runoff from construction areas through erosion control structures, identifying protected wetlands with bright orange fencing, establishing non-disturbance exclusion zones throughout construction, and on-site monitoring by a USFWS- approved biologist throughout construction, will minimize indirect impacts to vernal pool fairy shrimp. Additionally, the above described BMPs will minimize the potential for invasive species.

While the indirect impacts are expected to be minimal, the primary indirect impact is the alteration of hydrology in neighboring vernal pools. These wetlands include basins located north of University Creek and the large, connecting wetland swale effectively block hydrological changes to pools and wetlands to the north, including those located off-site and north of the Permit Area. The Harris Property (to the east) and the area south of the Permit Area are located upslope from the CSP area and therefore, it is unlikely that activities conducted within the Permit Area will adversely affect hydrology on these neighboring properties. Water quality and hydrological function of wetlands located to the east and south will not likely change as a result of implementation of the proposed action and therefore any suitable habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp that occurs to the east should not be adversely affected. No suitable habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp occurs adjacent to and west of the Action Area. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action, including construction of the bypass channel, will not result in any indirect adverse impacts to the species. Vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat does exist to the south but all water moves from the south to the north and toward the Action Area. The Action Area

41 is downslope from habitats to the south and therefore there should be no indirect affects on these species.

Furthermore, portions of the Creekview Blue Oaks Boulevard Improvements will be constructed along the southern border of the CSP area, and this activity will directly affect wetlands and shrimp habitat in that location (see Figure 5). Although it is anticipated that the City of Roseville will permit and construct the Blue Oaks Boulevard Corridor, the CSP includes the Creekview Blue Oaks Boulevard Improvement portion of the Blue Oaks Boulevard Corridor in the event that the City of Roseville does not obtain the permits necessary to complete the improvements. Accordingly, the Action Area includes potential direct and indirect effects to hydrology in this area associated with the Creekview Blue Oaks Boulevard Improvements.

9.2.2 Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Implementation of the Proposed Action is not expected to indirectly affect vernal pool tadpole shrimp, due to the presumed absence of this species within the Action Area.

9.2.3 Conservancy Fairy Shrimp Implementation of the Proposed Action is not expected to indirectly affect Conservancy fairy shrimp, due to the presumed absence of this species within or near the Action Area.

9.2.4 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle The 2006 and 2007 surveys determined that suitable habitat for VELB does not occur within the Permit Area. However, the presence or absence of elderberry shrubs, and suitable habitat for VELB, could not be conclusively determined on the adjacent Harris Property and within the portion of the Action Area that extends onto the Harris Property. While the potential for occurrence is considered unlikely, any elderberry shrubs that occur on the Harris Property would be located within the riparian area of Pleasant Grove Creek. The Pleasant Grove Creek Corridor, including the portion within the Action Area, would be preserved as open space. Any elderberry shrubs that may occur within the portion of the Harris Property located within the Action Area would be protected within the existing Pleasant Grove Creek Preserve and not likely to be affected directly or indirectly by the Proposed Action.

Although the potential for occurrence of VELB within the portion of the Action Area within the Harris Property is considered unlikely, a variety of avoidance measures have been proposed, along with BMPs listed in Section 5.4, to minimize the potential for indirect disturbance of this species and its habitat. Prior to initiating the Proposed Action, focused surveys for VELB and its habitat would need to be conducted within the portion of the Harris Property within the Action Area to provide conclusive information on species presence/absence. In the event that elderberry shrubs and suitable habitat for VELB are found on site,

42 avoidance and mitigation measures specified in the United States Fish and Wildlife Services’ Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (USFWS 1999) would be implemented to avoid and minimize potential direct and indirect adverse effects to the VELB. These measures will at a minimum include:

 Establish 100-foot non-disturbance exclusion zones around all elderberry shrubs with stems at ground level 1 inch diameter or greater in temporarily impacted areas to avoid inadvertent disturbance of suitable VELB habitat.

 Implement dust control procedures, including regular watering of disturbed soils and soil piles, throughout construction period.

 Avoid use of insecticides, herbicides, fertilizer, or other chemicals that might harm VELB or its host plant within the 100-foot non-disturbance zone.

In addition to the previously identified conservation and avoidance measures, implementation of BMPs outlined in Section 5.4, including dust control and erosion control measures, will reduce the potential for any indirect impacts to VELB resulting from adjacent construction activities to the west.

9.3 Critical Habitat and Vernal Pool Core Areas As indicated in Section 3.0, the Permit Area is located within the “Southeastern Sacramento Valley Vernal Pool Region”, and a portion of the site occurs within the “Western Placer County core area”. The Western Placer County core was given a “Zone Ranking” of 2 within the Recovery Plan, which recommends protection of 85 percent of suitable habitat throughout the core area.

Figure 3 shows the location of the Western Placer County core area (USFWS 2005) and approximate location of the Permit Area within the core area. The approximate 520-acre Permit Area represents a very small portion (approximately 1.0 percent) of the total area of the Western Placer County core area. Development within the Action Area will result in a permanent loss of approximately 5.96 acres of occupied vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat. While this loss of habitat will contribute to the overall reduction of vernal pool habitat within the core area, implementation of identified on-site conservation measures and off-site mitigation will minimize the overall loss of habitat throughout the core area through land purchase and other forms of compensation. If possible, land acquisition will occur in the Core Area. The Northern Preserve contains the highest quality and greatest concentration of wetlands within the Permit Area and is connected to existing wetlands to the north, northeast and east, thus providing acreage connected to other preserve systems. Implementation of the Proposed Action should therefore not adversely affect the overall survival and recovery of the species by implementing the various compensation measures described in Section 5.5.2.

43 Vernal Pool Recovery Plan

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) approved the Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon (Recovery Plan) (Service 2005). Vernal Pool Recovery Plan (2005) which discusses recovery criteria for all vernal pool ecosystems in northern California. Although the Permit Area does not contain designated critical habitat, the project will address applicable criteria for the preservation and recovery of vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat. Preservation of the wetlands and vernal pool complexes in the Northern Preserve, as part of the Proposed Action, is consistent with Recovery Plan goals, including protecting of large blocks of unfragmented vernal pool habitat through on-site preservation. The recovery criteria outlined in the Vernal Pool Recovery Plan associated with vernal pool fairy shrimp are summarized below:

 Habitat Protection. The project will accomplish habitat protection that promotes vernal pool ecosystem function sufficient to contribute to population viability of vernal pool fairy shrimp. This protection includes protecting suitable vernal pool habitat as well as supporting hydrology within the core area, reintroducing and introducing the species in areas where needed.

Under the CSP land plan, the proposed project would avoid 19.66 acres of wetlands and waters of the United States through establishment of the identified on-site Preserve areas (Northern Preserve and Creek Preserve). Specifically, the project proposes to protect 0.31 acre of on-site occupied vernal pool habitat and 3.13 acres of occupied seasonal wetland habitat. Additional off-site mitigation will occur at Service approved mitigation sites. The remaining acreage will be provided through mitigation bank credits. Ideally, the focus of the conservation efforts will be within the Western Placer Core Area.

 Adaptive Habitat Management and Monitoring. Develop a habitat management plan for vernal pool fairy shrimp. A third party conservator will be retained to manage both of the on-site conservation areas identified within the Action Area (Northern Preserve and Creek Preserve).

 Status Surveys. Periodic surveys will be conducted on-site to ensure that vernal pool fairy shrimp populations are viable. Surveys will be conducted by the third party conservator.

9.4 Interrelated and Interdependent Effects Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. Interdependent actions are actions that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration. The Service considers the effects of the proposed action and the effects of other actions by applying a “but for” test. If another activity would not occur “but for” the

44 proposed action, then that activity is interrelated and interdependent and should be evaluated in conjunction with the effects of the proposed action. If another activity would occur irrespective of the proposed action, then the other activity is not interdependent or interrelated and it would not be analyzed with the proposed action. In this latter circumstance, some activities are considered cumulative actions and are addressed below in Section 9.5.

This Biological Assessment evaluates the effects of three components proposed within the Permit Area: the Creekview Specific Plan, the Creekview Blue Oaks Boulevard Improvements, and off-site improvements associated with the Creekview Bypass Channel. “But for” the Creekview Specific Plan, the Applicant would not propose the Creekview Blue Oaks Boulevard Improvements and the Creekview Bypass Channel. These roadway and flood control improvements provide necessary infrastructure for the Creekview Specific Plan. Although other developers and/or the City of Roseville may complete the Creekview Blue Oaks Boulevard Improvements as part of more extensive improvements to Blue Oaks Boulevard to serve other approved and planned development (see below), the Creekview Blue Oaks Boulevard Improvements are included in the Permit Area in the unlikely event the entire Blue Oaks Boulevard Improvements are not completed in a timely manner. Consequently, these activities are evaluated as interrelated and interdependent actions in this Biological Assessment.

By contrast, the City of Roseville and/or other developers are undertaking other local and regional off-site roadway improvements to serve future development in the vicinity of the Creekview Specific Plan, regardless of the approval of the Creekview Specific Plan. Specifically, Blue Oaks Boulevard will be extended from its existing terminus just east of the Permit Area through the southern portion of the Creekview property. Multiple parties are obligated to construct these improvements, as mitigation, to serve their development projects to the south of the Permit Area and in other locations in Roseville. Similarly, Placer Parkway is a regional roadway improvement project that is being undertaken to serve development throughout Western Placer County and Sutter County. Because these improvements are required to serve development other than the Creekview Specific Plan, they are not considered interrelated and interdependent, and are instead evaluated as cumulative projects.

9.5 Cumulative Effects The Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (USFWS and NMFS 1998) states that cumulative effects under ESA include all future, non-federal actions “reasonably certain to occur” in the project’s action area. As development in Placer County continues, including development within the Permit Area, habitat for plant and wildlife species native to the region will be lost through conversion to urban development. More mobile species may be able to survive the ongoing changes in the landscape, but less mobile species may be become stressed and extirpated. The Permit Area supports annual grassland and jurisdictional waters of the United States, including suitable habitat for the federally-listed vernal pool

45 fairy shrimp. As discussed in Section 10.1, construction associated with the proposed Action could result in loss and/or degradation of waters of the United States and loss or degradation of vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat. Development of the Permit Area would remove some vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat from the site but would not result in impacts to adjacent off-site areas or result in habitat fragmentation or population isolation in the region. Implementation of Conservation Measures identified in Section 5.5 will reduce the potential for contributing to cumulative impacts in the project region.

Cumulative development and planned infrastructure construction would contribute to the ongoing loss of natural undisturbed open space in the region, increase human intrusion and activity levels in proximity to habitat areas, and remove potential habitat for federally and state listed and other special-status species. Long-term cumulative effects could include changes in hydrology and water quality. The Creekview project similarly would result in the potential loss of seasonal wetland habitat, vernal pool habitat and impact vernal pool crustacean species. Implementation and construction of the Placer Parkway project will contribute to habitat loss and fragmentation impacts.

On-site measures to reduce cumulative impacts included positioning the northern project boundary line based on the following principles for avoidance and minimization of impacts to aquatic resources within the Action Area:

 Avoid the best and most productive aquatic resources to the extent feasible;  Capture a high degree of aquatic landscape diversity;  Create contiguous open space areas to establish viable preserves;  Buffer preserved resources with passive uses to minimize long term indirect effects; and  Align the preserve with adjacent off-site existing and future preserve areas to improve the long-term effectiveness of the preserve. In addition, a variety of on-site alternatives were investigated, and that information is available in the project’s Alternatives Analysis.

Development of the Creekview project would incrementally contribute to the projected loss of natural vegetation and sensitive natural communities within western Placer County. The combined effects of the conversion of native vegetation and farmland to suburban residential, commercial/industrial, and regional roadways associated with past, present, and future projects could exacerbate adverse impacts associated with the project through habitat fragmentation and cumulative loss of habitats used by special-status species and sensitive natural communities. This is further discussed in the Technical Memorandum: Creekview Specific Plan Cumulative Impact Analysis dated August 23, 2010. Indirect effects may also increase as a result of decreased quality of the remaining habitats through fragmentation, as well as the adverse effects of increased proximity to urban land uses, such as stormwater runoff, noise, and

46 disturbance. The Project’s contribution to the loss of natural vegetation and sensitive natural communities associated with urban development of 501.3 acres is not expected to cause or contribute to cumulative indirect impacts with the incorporation of buffers and other design features intended to discourage the introduction of invasive species and human disturbance into sensitive habitat areas.

All federally listed species in the Creekview Biological Assessment may be adversely affected by future State, local, or private actions such as urbanization, highway/roadway and utility projects, water development, and flood control that would result in the loss of habitat. Due to the presence of wetlands in the western Placer County region, many projects in the area likely would require a Section 404 Permit and would not be considered cumulative under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Nonetheless, future development in unincorporated western Placer County would be subject to the Placer County General Plan biological resources policies and the PCCP avoidance, minimization, mitigation and conservation measures. Further, future development in the City of Roseville will comply with the early consultation requirements of the MOU between Roseville and the wildlife agencies and will incorporate strategies to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to wetlands and sensitive habitats.

10.0 CONCLUSION AND DETERMINATION Based on the Effects of the Proposed Action identified in Section 10.0, along with the Implementation of Avoidance and Conservation Measures identified in sections 6.4 and 6.5, this Biological Assessment concludes that the expected outcome of the proposed Action includes the following:

 Implementation of the Proposed Action will not affect Conservancy fairy shrimp due to the negative dry- and wet-season sampling results and rarity of the species within the project region, and presumed absence of the species within the Action Area (refer to Section 9.2).  Implementation of the Proposed Action will not affect vernal pool tadpole shrimp due to the negative dry- and wet-season sampling results and the presumed absence of the species within the Action Area (refer to Section 9.3).  Implementation of the Proposed Action is likely to adversely affect vernal pool fairy shrimp within the Permit Area. Approximately 3.23 acres of vernal pool habitat within the Permit Area was determined to be potentially occupied by vernal pool fairy shrimp, based on the 2006-2008 branchiopod dry- and wet- season survey results (Helm Biological Consulting, 2007 and 2008). Using a watershed approach described in Section 10.1, approximately 5.96 acres of habitat in four watersheds were determined to be occupied, or potentially occupied, by vernal pool fairy shrimp and would therefore likely be directly affected by the Proposed Action. It is expected that implementation of Conservation Measures described in Section 5.5, including a combination of onsite habitat preservation and off-site mitigation, will reduce the level of impact to

47 this species and off-set potential impacts associated with the Proposed Action. Implementation of BMPs identified in Section 5.4 will reduce the potential for any indirect impacts to remaining occupied vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat within the Permit Area.  Implementation of the Proposed Action will not affect VELB within the Permit Area, due to the absence of elderberry shrubs, its host plant. Therefore no direct impacts to VELB will occur as a result of the Proposed Action. Occurrence of VELB on the portion of the Harris Property within the Action Area is considered unlikely, but any elderberry shrubs that may occur on site would likely be located within the Pleasant Grove Creek corridor, which will not be disturbed as part of the Proposed Action. Provided that all conservation measures identified in sections 5.4 and 5.5 and the USFWS’ Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (USFWS 1999) are implemented, no indirect adverse impacts to VELB within the eastern-most portion of the Action Area would be expected to occur.

11.0 REFERENCES

11.1 Literature Cited Ahl, J. S. B. 1991. Factors affecting contributions of the tadpole shrimp, Lepidurus packardi to its over-summering egg reserves. Hydrobiologia 212: 137-143. Barclay, W. R. & A. W. Knight, 1984. Physicochemical processes affecting production in a turbid vernal pond. In S. Jain & P. Moyle (eds), Vernal Pools and Intermittent Streams. U. C. Davis Institute of Ecology Publication 28: 126–142. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch (CDFG). 2010. Natural Diversity Data Base Report (CNDDB). Sacramento, California. Collinge, Sharon K., M. Holyoak, C. Barr, and J. Marty. 2001. Riparian habitat Fragmentation and Population Persistence of the Threatened Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle in Central California. In Biological Conservation 100 (2001) pp 103-113

EIP Associates. 2001. Merced University Community Planning Area. Special-status plant survey report. Sacramento, CA. Eng, L. L., D. Belk, and C. H. Eriksen. 1990. California Anostraca: distribution, habitat and status. Journal of Crustacean Biology 10(2): 247-277. Eriksen, C. H., and D. Belk. 1999. Fairy shrimps of California’s puddles, pools, and playas. Mad River Press, Arcata, CA. 196 pp. Estep Environmental Consulting (Estep). 2008a. Wildlife Resource Assessment for the Creekview Specific Plan. Prepared for: North Fork Associates. January 2008. Estep Environmental Consulting (Estep). 2008b. 2008 Creekview Raptor Surveys letter report. Prepared for: North Fork Associates. May 19, 2008.

48 Federal Register. February 10, 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Designation of Critical Habitat for Four Vernal Pool Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal Pool Plants; Final Rule. 50 CFR Part 17. Pages 7118 - 7316

Gibson & Skordal, LLC. 2006. Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods Wet-Season Survey, Triangular Property. Prepared for the City of Lincoln. Placer County, California. May. Hansen, E.C. 2002. Year 2002 investigation of the giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) at the Cosumnes River Preserve. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy. Helm Biological Consulting. 2005. Dry-Season Sampling for Federally-Listed Large Branchiopods at the Lincoln Industrial Plaza Property. Lincoln, CA. December 2005. Helm Biological Consulting. 2007. Federally-Listed Large Branchiopods Sampling at the Creekview Project. June 2007. Helm Biological Consulting. 2008. Dry- and Wet-Season Sampling for Federally- Listed Large Branchiopods at the Lincoln Regional Airport. Lincoln, CA. in progress. Helm, B. P. 1998. Biogeography of eight large branchiopods endemic to California. Pages 124-139 in Witham, C. W., E. T. Bauder, D. Belk, W.R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff. (eds.). Ecology, conservation, and management of vernal pool ecosystems –proceeding from a 1996 conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 285 pp. Helm, B. P., and J. E. Vollmar. 2002. Vernal pool large brachiopods. Pages 151-190 in John E. Vollmar (ed.). Wildlife and rare plant ecology of eastern Merced County’s vernal pool grasslands. Sentinel Printers, Inc. CA. 446 pp. Helm, B. P., and W.C. Fields. 1998. Aquatic macro-invertebrate assemblages on the Agate Desert and nearby sites in Jackson, Oregon. Prepared for the Oregon Natural Heritage Program, 812 SE 14th Avenue, Portland, OR 97214. Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Lanway, C.S. 1974. Environmental factors affecting Crustacean hatching in five temporary ponds. Master’s Thesis. California State University, Chico, CA. Laymon, S. A. 1998. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccycus americanus). In The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan:a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian-associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v-2.html Laymon, S. A, 1998. Yellow-billed Cuckoo survey and monitoring protocol for California. Patton, S. E. 1984. The life history patterns and the distribution of two Anostraca, Linderiella occidentalis and Branchinecta sp. Master's thesis. California State University, Chico, CA. 27pp.

49 Sugnet & Associates. 1991. Technical assessment of USFWS proposed listing of four species of fairy shrimp. Roseville, CA. USDA, NCRS. 1980. Soil Survey of Placer County, California; Western Part. Sacramento, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; notice of public hearings reopening of public comment period on the proposed endangered status for four fairy shrimp and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp in California. August 13, 1992. Federal Register 57: 19856 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Crustacea and amphibian sampling report San Luis NWR complex 1994. Produced by Mike Peters. San Luis National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Los Banos, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees for Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Conservation Guidelines for Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. Sacramento, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Portland, OR. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a. Species account: California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005b. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems in California and Southern Oregon. Portland, Oregon. U.S. Wildlife Service. 2007. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Species Account: Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio). Sacramento, California. Found online at http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/animal_spp_acct U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Species Account: California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytoni). Sacramento, California. Found online at http://www.fws.gov/sac/es/animal_spp_acct U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Endangered Species Act consultation handbook. Procedures for conducting Section 7 consultation and conferences. Final. March.

11.2 Personal Communications Unless otherwise indicated, personal communications were between the persons listed and staff biologists from Helm Biological Consulting.

50 Balfour, Peter. Biologist. ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2260 Douglas Blvd. Suite 160. Roseville, CA 95661. Telephone conversation on June 22, 2007 about Branchinecta conservatio occurrence at Mapes Ranch.

Christopherson, Kristen. Chief of Conservation and Analysis. Beale Air Force Base. 6601 B Street, Beale Air Force Base, CA 95903. Meeting on July 16, 2007.

Collinson, Chris. Biologists for the California Department of Transportation. 1120 N Street, Sacramento, CA, 94273. Telephone conversation on July 23, 2007 about Branchinecta conservatio occurrences at the Caltrans State Highway 99 Project.

Finnerty, Jami. GIS Manager. Westerfelt Ecological Services, Inc. 600 North Market Blvd. Suite 3. Sacramento, CA 95834. E-mail on June 20, 2007 regarding acreage calculations for Burke Ranch wetlands.

Helm, Brent. Biologist. Helm Biological Consulting. 2273 Nolen Drive, Lincoln, CA 95648.

Hill, Richard. Biologist. Caltrans. 1120 N Street, Sacramento, CA, 94273. Telephone conversation on June 22, 2007 about Branchinecta conservatio occurrence at Mapes Ranch.

King, Jamie. Habitat Program Manager. NOAA. Chesapeake Bay Office, 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 107 Annapolis, MD 21403. E-mail on July 16, 2007 about Branchinecta conservatio occurrence at Mapes Ranch.

Monk, Geoff. Owner. Monk and Associates, Inc. 1136 Saranap Ave. Suite Q. Walnut Creek, CA 94595. Telephone conversation on June 20, 2007 about Branchinecta conservatio occurrence at Mapes Ranch.

Peters, Mike. Biologist. Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge. Biologist. 752 County Road, Highway 99 West, Willows, CA 95988. Telephone conversation on June 22, 2007 about Branchinecta conservatio occurrence at Mapes Ranch and San Luis Refuge Complex.

Silveira, Joe. Biologist. Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 752 County Road, Highway 99 West, Willows, CA 95988. Telephone conversation on June 20, 2007 about Branchinecta conservatio occurrence at the Sacramento Wildlife Refuge Complex.

Simivich, Marie. Biology Department. University of San Diego. Alcala Park, San Diego, CA 92110. Telephone conversation on June 20, 2007 about Branchinecta conservatio occurrence at Mapes Ranch.

Wollington, Dennis. Biologist. San Luis National Wildlife Refuge Complex. P.O. Box 2176 Los Banos, CA, 93635. Telephone conversation on June 20, 2007 about Branchinecta conservatio occurrence at Mapes Ranch and San Luis Refuge Complex.

51 APPENDIX A

Draft Biological Resources Assessment for the ±560-Acre Creekview Specific Plan.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE

560-ACRE CREEKVIEW SPECIFIC PLAN

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for: GRANITE BAY DEVELOPMENT II, LLC 4210 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 300 Roseville, California 95747

Prepared by:

110 Maple Street, Auburn, California 95603 (530) 887-8500

NOVEMBER 30, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Study Area Components ...... 1 Creekview On-site Area...... 1 The Harris Property...... 1 Creekview Off-site Area...... 1 Figure 1 ...... 2 Figure 2 ...... 3 Project Location...... 4 Setting...... 4 Project Description ...... 4 Objectives of Biological Resource Assessment...... 5

METHODS ...... 5

Available Literature and Other Information ...... 5 Surveys Conducted in the Study Area ...... 6 Creekview On-site (461.4 acres)...... 6 The Harris Property (39.9acres) ...... 6 Creekview Off-site Area...... 6 Special-Status Species ...... 7 Field Surveys...... 7

SURVEY AND LITERATURE SEARCH RESULTS ...... 8

Climate ...... 8 Geology and Soils...... 8 Hydrology ...... 9 Biological Communities...... 10 Annual Grassland ...... 10 Valley Oak Riparian ...... 10 Developed/Disturbed...... 14 Cultivated Land ...... 14 Waters of the United States...... 14 Oak Woodland and Tree Resources...... 16 Wildlife Occurrence and Use ...... 17 Special-Status Species ...... 18 Plants...... 25 Wildlife ...... 28

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION...... 42

Annual Grassland...... 42 Valley Oak Riparian...... 44 Cultivated Land...... 44 Developed/Disturbed ...... 44

Waters of the United States...... 44 Vernal Pools...... 45 Seasonal Wetlands ...... 45 Seasonal Marsh...... 45 Wetland Swales ...... 46 Streams ...... 46 Special-Status Species ...... 46 Special-Status Plants...... 46 Oak Tree Resources ...... 47 Special-Status Wildlife ...... 48 The Harris Property ...... 57

REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES...... 58

FIGURES Figure 1. Site and Vicinity...... 2 Figure 2. Study Area...... 3 Figure 3. Habitat Map...... 11 Figure 4. Site Photos ...... 12 Figure 5. Site Photos ...... 13 Figure 6. Special-Status Species Map ...... 19 Figure 7. Habitat Impacts...... 43

TABLES Table 1. Biological Communities Present Within the Creekview Study Area ...... 10 Table 2. Waters of the United States in the Study Area...... 15 Table 3. Special-Status Species That Could Occur Within the Creekview Study Area...... 20 Table 4: Potential Habitat Impacts (in Acres) from the Creekview Project ...... 42

APPENDICES Appendix A. Plant Species Observed Within the Creekview Study Area Appendix B. Wildlife Species Observed Within the Creekview Study Area Appendix C. Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Region of the Creekview Study Area Appendix D. Special-Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Region of the Creekview Study Area BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE CREEKVIEW SPECIFIC PLAN

INTRODUCTION

North Fork Associates (NFA) conducted a Biological Resource Assessment for the 559.9- acre Creekview Specific Plan Area (hereinafter, the Study Area) west of the City of Roseville in Placer County, California. (The Study Area acreage has been rounded to 560 acres for convenience.) Figure 1 is a site and vicinity map showing the location of the Study Area.

Study Area Components The Study Area has the following components (Figure 2):

 Creekview Specific Plan Area On-site – often referred to in the text as the main onsite portion of the Study Area

 The Harris Property

 Creekview Off-site Area

Figure 2 shows the Study Area and the three components. The Creekview on-site area and the Harris property encompass 501.3 acres.

Creekview On-site Area This area covers 461.4 acres of the Creekview Specific Plan on-site area. It was studied as described in the methods section, including surveys for vernal pool crustaceans and special-status plant species. It does not include the 39.9-acre Harris property.

The Harris Property The Harris property consists of 39.9 acres of the Creekview Specific Plan. However, it is a non-participating portion of the Specific Plan Area and biological surveys were not completed on this parcel. Consequently, it is analyzed in this document at a programmatic level.

Creekview Off-site Area The Creekview off-site area occurs to the west of the Creekview Specific Plan Area and encompasses 58.6 acres. This portion of the Study Area has a preliminary wetland delineation and partial biological surveys, but more focused surveys have not been completed, primarily because it has been cultivated and the lack of wetlands likely precludes the presence of special-status species. The off-site area is located on property owned by the City of Roseville known as Reason Farms.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 1 November 30, 2010 Study Area ^

Study Area

Creekview Specific Plan On-Site Area

Off-Site Area PHILLIP RD PHILLIP

PHILLIP ROAD Harris Property (Part of the Specific Plan Area)

Figure 2 ± STUDY AREA 0 250 500 1,000 Creekview Scale in Feet Aerial Photo: 2009 (NAIP) Placer County, CA Project Location The 560-acre Study Area is located north of Phillip Road, south of Sunset Boulevard West, east of Pettigrew Road, and west of Fiddyment Road. The location corresponds to Section 14, 15, and 23 of Township 11 North and Range 05 East on the 7.5 minute Pleasant Grove United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle (see Figure 1). The latitude and longitude of the approximate center of the site are 38.80216º North and 121.38806º West. The Assessor’s parcel numbers (APNs) are 017-101-007, 017-001-008 (portion), 017-101-009, 017-001-012, 017-001-013, and 017-001-014.

Setting The Study Area consists of level to gently rolling annual grassland and valley oak riparian woodland located near the northern limits of the city of Roseville. Pleasant Grove Creek enters in the Study Area in the southeastern corner of the Study Area, flows in a northwesterly direction, and exits the Study Area at the western Study Area boundary. Land north of the creek has been used for cattle grazing and other agricultural enterprises. Most of the land located south of the creek has been idle since 1989. Elevation ranges from approximately 75 to 95 feet above sea level. Most of the land surrounding the Study Area appears to be idle or is used for grazing cattle.

At one time several structures or farmsteads occurred in the Study Area, and several have been removed. One cluster of structures located south of the creek in the central portion of the Study Area was burned in a 2007 fire. The Harris property has a house and associated structures. No other developed features exist on the landscape with the exception of a 12 kV power line that extends just south of and generally paralleling Pleasant Grove Creek, dirt ranch roads, fences, and farming and ranching implements.

Surrounding lands to the north, west, and southwest are similar to the Study Area. Land use consists primarily of grazed annual grasslands and vernal pool grasslands. The landscape becomes more cultivated further west, consisting mostly of rice or abandoned rice fields. Encroaching development occurs immediately southeast of the Study Area as part of the West Roseville Specific Plan. The City of Roseville’s Energy Park property borders the southeast corner of the Study Area, which is adjacent to recent residential development to the south and east.

Project Description The proposed project is the Creekview Specific Plan (CSP), a comprehensive plan for annexation to the City of Roseville and development of a 501.3-acrea area with urban uses, including residential (2,011 units), commercial, commercial/business professional, public/quasi-public, park, and open space uses. The project includes construction of roadways and infrastructure to support the CSP, including construction of Pleasant Grove Creek bypass channel improvements on and off-site. The bypass channel improvements include creation of in-stream riparian areas for habitat enhancement. The limits of the project are contained in the 560-acre Study Area.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 4 November 30, 2010 Objectives of Biological Resource Assessment  Identify and describe the biological communities present in the Study Area.  Record plant and animal species observed in the Study Area.  Evaluate and identify sensitive resources and special-status plant and animal species that could be affected by project activities.  Provide conclusions and recommendations.

METHODS

Available Literature and Other Information A variety of resources were used in this assessment. Aerial photographs were obtained from GeoImagery and other sources. Soil information was obtained from the Soil Survey of Placer County, California; Western Part (USDA, NRCS 1980), and geological information was taken from the Geologic Map of the Sacramento Quadrangle (California Department of Conservation 1987).

Prior to conducting the field survey, available information regarding biological resources on or near the Study Area was gathered and reviewed. Sources included: California Department of Fish and Game Swainson’s Hawk surveys from 2002 and 2003, City of Roseville General Plan, Placer County General Plan, Pleasant Grove Creek and Curry Creek Ecosystem Restoration Plan, Placer Legacy Open Space and Agricultural Conservation Program, and West Roseville Specific Plan.

Plant names in this document are according to The Jepson Manual (Hickman 1993), except for changes obtained from the Jepson Online Interchange, an Internet database maintained by the University and Jepson Herbaria of the University of California. In general, common names are used in this report, with scientific names presented in the appendices.

The project applicant, Granite Bay Development II, LLC, has undertaken several environmental studies and surveys used for this document. The studies cover different portions of the Study Area, as outlined below (also see Figure 2). The following studies are used and referenced throughout this Biological Resources Assessment.

 Wildlife Resource Assessment for the Creekview Specific Plan, dated January 2008 (Estep 2008a).  Nesting Raptor Survey Results, May 19, 2008 (Estep 2008b).  Federally-Listed Large Branchiopods Sampling at the Creekview Project, dated June 2007 (Helm Biological Consulting 2007).  Second Year of Federally-Listed Large Branchiopod Wet-Season Sampling at the Creekview Project, dated November 2008 (Helm Biological Consulting 2008b).  Western Spadefoot Toad (Spea hammondii) Surveys at the Creekview Project, dated August 2008 (Helm Biological Consulting 2008a).

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 5 November 30, 2010  Wetland Delineation for the ±470-acre Creekview Project, dated November 14, 2006 (North Fork Associates 2006) – This delineation covers the on-site area and did not include the Harris `property or the off-site area. The October 26, 2006 delineation map was verified by the Corps on November 22, 2006.  Initial and Supplemental Arborist Report and Tree Inventory Summary, dated January 19, 2007, February 14, 2007, June 12, 2007, November 17, 2008 (Sierra Nevada Arborists 2007, 2008) and Consolidated Inventory Summary (Sierra Nevada Arborists 2008).  Special-status Plant Surveys conducted by North Fork Associates in 2006 and 2008.  Wetland Delineation of the off-site portion of the Study Area has been completed by North Fork Associates (field work done in 2007 and 2008), but it is unverified at this time. Surveys Conducted in the Study Area Surveys conducted in each of these areas are identified in the following subsections.

Creekview On-site (461.4 acres)  General wildlife surveys (Estep 2008a).

 Nesting raptor surveys (Estep 2008b).

 Vernal pool crustaceans (Helm Biological Consulting 2007, 2008b).

 Western spadefoot surveys (Helm Biological Consulting 2008a).

 Wetland delineation (North Fork Associates 2006).

 Arborist surveys (Sierra Nevada Arborists 2007 and 2008).

 Special-status plant species surveys (surveys conducted in 2006 and 2008).

The Harris Property (39.9acres)  Aerial interpretation for a wetland assessment; not completed and not part of the verified Creekview wetland delineation map.

Creekview Off-site Area (98.6 acres)  Wildlife Resource Assessment for the Creekview Specific Plan, dated 2006, 2007, and January 2008 (Estep 2008a).  Nesting Raptor Survey Results, May 19, 2008 (Estep 2008b).  Wetland delineation; fieldwork completed in 2007 and 2008 by North Fork Associates, but not verified by the Corps.  General botanical surveys in 2005, 2006, and 2008 by North Fork Associates biologists. No focused rare plant surveys because they were felt to be unnecessary because the area has been cultivated and rare plants are unlikely in cultivated areas.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 6 November 30, 2010 Special-Status Species North Fork Associates queried the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFG 2010) for location records for special-status species known to occur in the region surrounding the Study Area. Quadrangles included in the query were Pleasant Grove, Citrus Heights, Rio Linda, Verona, Nicolaus, Taylor Monument, Roseville, Lincoln, and Sheridan. North Fork Associates biologists also reviewed the special-status species lists for the Pleasant Grove USGS quadrangle and Placer County created by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory was checked for special-status plants occurring in the area.

For the purposes of this report, special-status species are those that fall into one or more of the following categories, including those:  listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (including candidates and species proposed for listing),  listed as endangered or threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (including candidates and species proposed for listing),  designated as rare, protected, or fully protected pursuant to California Fish and Game Code,  designated a Species of Concern by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG),  defined as rare or endangered under Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or  occurring on List 1 or 2 maintained by the California Native Plant Society.

Field Surveys North Fork Associates has been conducting botanical and wetland surveys in the Study Area since 2005. Field surveys took place in 2005, 2006, and 2008. The 2006 and 2008 surveys were conducted on March 1 and 24, April 28, May 6 and 16, 2006 and May 6, 2008 specifically for special-status plants. Botanists taking part in the surveys include Jeff Glazner, Barry Anderson, Erin Gottschalk Fisher, and Pat Britton. All botanical surveys were floristic, according to guidelines issued by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG 2000). Each individual plant observed was identified to the extent necessary for determining its rarity status. Species unknown to the surveyors were collected and identified in the office using a stereo zoom microscope and standard plant identification manuals. A list of plants observed during field surveys is located in Appendix A.

Wildlife surveys were conducted on November 9, 20, and 22, December 9, 20, and 22, 2006, July 11, 2007, and May 15, 2008 (Estep 2008a; Estep 2008b). The surveys were conducted to assess habitat conditions and determine the potential for occurrence of special status plant and wildlife species, and consisted of walking the Study Area, recording notes of species observed or their respective sign (nests, burrows, tracks, scat),

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 7 November 30, 2010 and assessing habitat conditions. Appendix B is list of wildlife observed in the Study Area.

Specialized surveys were conducted by several subconsultants, including Helm Biological Consulting, and Sierra Nevada Arborists.

SURVEY AND LITERATURE SEARCH RESULTS

Climate The closest National Weather Service (NWS) cooperative weather station is located in the city of Rocklin (Western Regional Climate Center 2008). Data from this station is presented here as a reasonable approximation of climate conditions at the Study Area.

The average annual maximum temperature at the NWS station in Rocklin is 74.6 degrees Fahrenheit and average annual minimum temperature is 44.8 degrees Fahrenheit. Mean annual precipitation (28-year period of record) is 22.7 inches, with most falling as rain between the months of November and March.

Geology and Soils The geology map for the region (California Department of Conservation 1987) shows Turlock Lake formation present in north of Pleasant Grove Creek and riverbank formation present south of Pleasant Grove Creek. Basin deposits comprising of poorly sorted stream and basin deposits from clay to boulder size is present in the northeastern portion of the Study Area. Both formations including basin deposits do not include ultramafic rocks that create soils known to support special-status plant species.

Eight soil units are mapped in the Study Area (USDA, NRCS 1980):

 Alamo-Fiddyment complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes  Cometa-Fiddyment complex, 1 to 5 percent slopes  Cometa-Romona sandy loams, 1 to 5 percent slopes  Fiddyment loam, 1 to 8 percent slopes  Fiddyment-Kaseberg loams, 2 to 9 percent slopes  Xerofluvent, occasionally flooded  Xerofluvent, frequently flodded  Xerofluvent, hardpan substratum Alamo soils are Typic Duraquolls that are poorly drained and have very slow permeability. They generally form in basins and swales, and have an indurated hardpan at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. In addition, the water table in Alamo soils during the winter is usually very near the surface. Most Alamo soils are considered hydric.

Cometa soils are Alfisols formed from granitic rocks. The clay layer in Cometa soils is below 17 inches. A horizon chromas are between 2 and 4. The soils are well drained.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 8 November 30, 2010 These soils have very slow permeability, and depressions may be inundated or saturated for portions of the winter.

Fiddyment soils are Typic Durixeralfs that are moderately deep, well drained soils formed in material from consolidated sediments. Fiddyment soils are on undulating to rolling hills and terraces. Slopes are 1 to 15 percent.

Kaseberg soils are Typic Durixerepts that consist of shallow, well drained soils formed in material weathered from consolidated sediments of mixed rock sources. Kaseberg soils are on nearly level to sloping low lying terraces and hill slopes of dissected terraces, slopes are 0 to 30 percent.

Ramona soils are fine-loamy, mixed Typic Haploxeralfs formed in alluvium from predominately granitic sources. They are undulating, very deep, well drained soils on low terraces. Permeability is moderately slow.

Xerofluvents soils consist of young poorly developed alluvial soils that typically occur on floodplains and terraces. These undeveloped soils are not sufficiently characterized to the extent necessary to be classified at a lower taxonomic level.

Hydrology Hydrology on the site is driven by two forces: precipitation and stream flow. Most of the precipitation falling on the property is captured in upland and wetland swales and in ephemeral streams. These eventually flow into an intermittent stream (known locally as University Creek) or the perennial stream, Pleasant Grove Creek.

Pleasant Grove Creek, a regionally substantial stream, flows in a northwesterly direction through the Study Area and supports oak woodland riparian vegetation throughout most of its length. It drains the area between Auburn Ravine to the north and Dry Creek to the south as it flows west through Rocklin, Roseville, and unincorporated lands in western Placer County before entering the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal in Sutter County. Pleasant Grove Creek Canal joins with the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal in the American Basin, which discharges into the Sacramento River, a navigable water.

The reach of Pleasant Grove Creek located within the boundaries of the Study Area flows year-round. Most of the Study Area drains to Pleasant Grove Creek by overland flow or through the few wetland swales and ephemeral drainages occurring onsite. Roughly the northern third of the site drains towards University Creek, which joins Pleasant Grove Creek approximately one mile west of the Study Area.

Other significant natural features include vernal pools found primarily north of Pleasant Grove Creek, wetland swales and seasonal wetlands found throughout most of the uncultivated portions of the Study Area, and a seasonal marsh located immediately north of Pleasant Grove Creek in the northwestern corner of the Study Area.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 9 November 30, 2010 Biological Communities Five general biological communities were observed within the Study Area and include annual grassland, cultivated land, valley oak riparian corridor, and waters of the United States. Table 1 provides the acreage of the habitat types, and Figure 3 is a habitat map. The vegetation and variations within these biological communities are described below. Appendix A lists the plant species that were observed during field surveys. Study Area photographs are included in Figures 4 and 5.

Table 1. Biological Communities Present Within the Creekview Study Area Biological Community Acreage Annual Grassland 455.50 Valley Oak Riparian 11.00 Developed/Disturbed 3.41 Cultivated Land 56.26 Waters of the United States 33.83 Total 560

Annual Grassland The majority of the 501.3-acre on-site portion of the Study Area (including Harris) north of Pleasant Grove Creek consists of 454 acres of annual grassland. Dominant grasses include soft chess, ripgut brome, and wild oat. Other non-native herbaceous species include yellow star thistle, filaree, Fitch’s tarweed, and tarplant. In late 2006, the area was being lightly grazed with 50-100 cattle present, and the vegetation was between one and two feet high. Wetland features such as emergent marsh, wetland swales, vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, and streams are embedded in this habitat. The portion of the on-site area south of the creek is considered annual grassland as well, but much of it has been disturbed by past agricultural activities, and it has several large seasonal wetlands. The annual grassland includes small patches of valley oaks around University Creek. These may represent remnants of a once larger valley oak woodland, and they do provide some habitat for woodland species. However, the patches are now too small to map individually as woodland.

Valley Oak Riparian The 11-acre riparian corridor located along Pleasant Grove Creek, in both on-site and off-site portions, is dominated by valley oak but supports cottonwood, blue oak, and Goodding's black willow. Himalayan blackberry is common and forms a shrubby understory. Willows are the primary understory tree along with an occasional white alder. In more open areas, the understory consists of nonnative annual grasses and forbs. The portion of University Creek in the northwest corner of the Study Area supports 20 to 30 mature valley oak trees along its upper bank. There are no other trees or shrubs or other associated streamside vegetation. Thus, University Creek is not considered a riparian corridor. On the western end of the off-site portion of the Study Area, the riparian corridor along Pleasant Grove Creek becomes wider and denser. Willows, cottonwoods, and valley

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 10 November 30, 2010 P le as an t G ro v e C re e

k PHILLIP RD PHILLIP

Legend Study Area (±560 acres) Waters of the U.S. (33.83 acres) Annual Grassland (455.50 acres) Valley Oak Riparian (11.00 acres) Developed/Disturbed (3.41 acres) Cultivated Land (56.26 acres)

Figure 3 ± HABITAT MAP 0 250 500 1,000 Creekview Scale in Feet Aerial Photo: 2009 (NAIP) Placer County, CA a. Valley oak riparian with willows and cottonwood habitat along Pleasant Grove Creek in offsite area.

8/9/2005

b. Cultivated land on Reason Farms in offsite area just west of Creekview.

c. Looking east and upstream from bridge at Pleasant Grove Creek and riparian corridor.

d. Vernal pool in grassland.

Figure 4 SITE PHOTOS Creekview

Photo Dates: August 9, 2005, March 1 & 24, 2006, & July 25, 2008 Placer County, California a. Dwarf downingia in wetland swale north of Pleasant Grove Creek.

b. Vernal pool #04 with Gratiola heterosepala.

c. Gratiola heterosepala in vernal pool #04.

d. Man-made ditch with dwarf downingia in south central area of site.

Figure 5 SITE PHOTOS Creekview

Photo Dates: May 16, 2005 & May 25, 2006 Placer County, California oaks are the main species. The understory is Himalayan blackberry, but herbaceous species are common in some places.

The open water portion of Pleasant Grove Creek is not included in the acreage for the riparian corridor. Instead, it is included in the perennial stream component of waters of the United States (see below).

Developed/Disturbed The developed/disturbed habitat components are associated with the buildings, associated structures, and other habitat in the on-site portion of the Study Area. These areas show a high level of disturbance and include an occupied ranch residence on the Harris property. These areas are highly disturbed and support sparse and ruderal vegetation. The developed and disturbed portions of the Study Area cover three acres.

Cultivated Land Cultivated lands within the Study Area occur on the 58.6 off-site portion of the Study Area and cover 56 acres. These areas undergo rotational agricultural activities; they are cultivated every three years and currently support cattle. Vegetation in these cultivated lands is indicative of long-term disturbance and agricultural activity. Most of the species are non-native and often described as ruderal. Even some of the native species observed in this portion of the Study Area are well adapted to disturbance and may be considered weeds. Plant species include Italian ryegrass, wheat, oats, and common vetch. Berms and raised building pads support primarily ruderal species.

Waters of the United States North Fork Associates produced a Wetland Delineation for the ±470-acre Creekview Project on November 14, 2006 (NFA 2006), which was verified by the Corps of Engineers on November 22, 2006. This corresponds to the on-site portion of the Study Area, excluding the Harris property. The delineation mapped 33.83 acres of waters of the United States. North Fork Associates also conducted a preliminary wetland delineation on the off-site portion of the Study Area in 2007 and 2008. Although this delineation has not been verified by the Corps, the only waters of the United States mapped are associated with Pleasant Grove Creek. The Harris property was part of the initial wetland delineation, but it is not included on the verified map.

The habitat map in Figure 3 shows all waters of the United States as a single unit. However, this designation includes perennial streams, intermittent streams, ephemeral streams, vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, wetland swales, and seasonal marsh. These designations are also used in the Impact section of this resources assessment. The acreage of waters of the United States in the full Study Area (37 acres) is derived from the 2006 verified delineation, the preliminary off-site delineation, and the estimated acreage on the Harris property.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 14 November 30, 2010 Table 2. Waters of the United States in the Study Area Type Acreage Wetlands: Vernal Pool 1.75 Seasonal Wetland 7.43 Wetland Swale 14.42 Seasonal Marsh 2.7 Other Waters Ephemeral Stream 0.08 Intermittent Stream 1.77 Perennial Stream 5.68 Estimated Wetlands on Harris 3.20 Total Waters of the US 37.03

Perennial Stream Perennial streams, unlike ephemeral or intermittent streams, flow year-round. They typically exhibit bed-and-bank morphology. One perennial stream, Pleasant Grove Creek, is located within the Study Area. It occurs on both on-site and off-site portions. Valley Oak riparian habitat is associated with Pleasant Grove Creek and narrow bands of wetland vegetation also occur on the low floodplains and toeslopes along most of its length. Pleasant Grove Creek is hydrologically connected to the Sacramento River through the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal.

Intermittent Stream Intermittent streams flow during and some time after the winter rainy season. Intermittent streams usually have a groundwater component or another water source that provides water in the absence of precipitation. University Creek is one of two intermittent streams mapped during the wetland delineations. The second is a small tributary to Pleasant Grove Creek near the southeastern portion of the Study Area. Much like Pleasant Grove Creek, the reach of University Creek that runs through the Study Area is characterized by a deep, incised channel and relatively steep banks. University Creek joins with Pleasant Grove Creek just west of the Study Area. Intermittent streams occur only on the on-site portion of the Study Area.

Ephemeral Stream Ephemeral streams have more-or-less continuous scour marks that locate the ordinary high water mark. Ephemeral streams are not common on the site, possibly because of the relatively flat topography. However, two small ephemeral tributaries of Pleasant Grove Creek occur within the on-site portion of the Study Area.

Vernal Pools Vernal pools are relatively deep depressional wetlands that support a mostly native flora. These are characterized by Vasey’s coyote-thistle, stipitate popcornflower, dwarf wooly marbles, needle-leaved navarretia, and white-flowered navarretia, separating them from other depressional seasonal wetlands and wetland swales that are dominated by non-native facultative species. According to the soil survey of western Placer County

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 15 November 30, 2010 (USDA 1980), all of the vernal pools onsite are underlain by relatively impermeable claypans or silica cemented hardpans at depths ranging from 16 to 40 inches below the ground surface. It is these shallow restrictive layers that cause the vernal pools to develop wetland hydrology during the wet season. Precipitation is likely the main source of water for most of the pools onsite, although some may receive appreciable amounts of runoff from surrounding uplands as well. Vernal pools occur only in the onsite portion of the Study Area.

Seasonal Wetland Seasonal wetlands are similar to vernal pools and swales, except that they tend to be shallower and have a non-native flora. Italian ryegrass and long-beaked hawkbit are usually the dominant species in the seasonal wetlands onsite. Seasonal wetlands in the western portion of the Study Area are dominated by waxy mannagrass and Italian ryegrass. Seasonal wetlands occur only in the on-site portion of the Study Area.

Wetland Swale Wetland swales are water conveyance features that usually do not develop the bed-and- bank morphology typical of streams. Wetland swales are the most extensive type of wetland within the on-site portion of the Study Area. Wetlands swales mapped are located primarily on the older alluvial landforms located north of Pleasant Grove Creek. Most of the wetland swales onsite appear to be natural features, but several are manmade drainage ditches.

Most of the wetland swales onsite have plant species assemblages similar to those found in shallow seasonal wetlands. They tend to be dominated by non-native species such as Italian ryegrass, Mediterranean barley, and long-beaked hawkbit. Native species also occur in wetland swales, but they are less common than other species.

Seasonal Marsh One seasonal marsh occurs in the on-site portion of the Study Area. The center of the seasonal marsh supports a dense stand of bulrush and cattail. The shallower portions of the pond are dominated by creeping spikerush, and the edges have a mixture of vernal pool species. In 2006 this marsh had standing water into the summer, but it was dry during the August 2005 field surveys.

Oak Woodland and Tree Resources The majority of the site is treeless and no oak woodland habitat occurs within the Study Area except for a narrow band of Valley Oak Riparian associated with Pleasant Grove Creek. Blue oaks and interior live oaks also occur in this zone. Valley oak trees and ornamental trees occur along the south side of Pleasant Grove Creek, near the southeastern portion of the Study Area, and the Harris property. A few scattered oaks are located near University Creek in the northern portion of the Study Area. Several isolated valley oak trees, including a tall, mature valley oak, grow on the north side of Phillip Road along the southern edge of the Study Area. Fires in 2007, 2008, and 2010 affected some of these trees.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 16 November 30, 2010 The Initial Arborist Report and Tree Inventory Summary (Sierra Nevada Arborists 2007) and supplemental reports (Sierra Nevada Arborists 2008) inventoried 528 blue oak, interior live oak, and valley oak trees within the Creekview Specific Plan Area except for the Harris property.

Wildlife Occurrence and Use The following section describes the general wildlife use of the Study Area. Appendix B lists the wildlife species that were observed during field surveys.

The Study Area is characteristic of western Placer County, west of Roseville, consisting of wide open flat to gently rolling grasslands dotted with vernal pools and swales, narrow perennial streams, and a network of small ephemeral drainages. Patches of emergent marsh and oak, cottonwood, and willow-dominated riparian woodland occur along the drainages and scattered trees and shrubs occur throughout the grassland. The area is becoming increasingly urbanized, however, with residential development continuing to extend westward from Roseville. As a result, wildlife populations are becoming increasingly constrained in the region as open grazing and agricultural lands are removed and fragmented from the gradual transformation into urban communities, and as urban-related disturbances increase.

Land management practices in the Study Area and throughout western Placer County have also constrained wildlife populations. For example, cultivation of vernal pool grasslands has affected watershed function and the spread of invasive nonnative species, such as yellow star-thistle, has altered vegetation patterns. Also, rodent control practices have limited opportunities for subterranean species such as burrowing owls, reptiles and amphibians. These species often require underground refuges provided by squirrel and rodent burrows.

Still, the Study Area and surrounding open landscape continue to provide essential habitat for many wildlife species. During the winter and spring months when vernal pools and swales and other seasonal wetlands are inundated, these habitats support a variety of aquatic invertebrates, including several special-status species, and are key habitats for wintering waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and several amphibian species such as Pacific tree frog and western spadefoot.

The open grassland habitats are also essential to several breeding and wintering raptors, particularly as foraging habitat. Several important prey species were detected during surveys, including pocket gopher, meadow vole, and black-tailed jackrabbit. During the spring and summer seasons, locally breeding raptors such as Swainson’s hawk, red- tailed hawk, white-tailed kite, northern harrier, and American kestrel are dependant on grassland and agricultural foraging habitats.

During the nesting raptor surveys in 2007, two active red-tailed hawk nests and one Swainson’s hawk nest were observed within the Study Area (Estep 2008a). Surveys in 2008 observed two active red-tailed hawk nests, two Swainson’s hawk nests, and two white-tailed kite nests onsite (Estep 2008b). In addition, white-tailed kite, great-horned owl, northern harrier, and American kestrel were observed foraging onsite and likely

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 17 November 30, 2010 nest on or near the Study Area. During winter, additional species, such as ferruginous hawk, rough-legged hawk, Cooper’s hawk, and sharp-shinned hawk also occupy these landscapes.

The grassland habitats are also important nesting habitat for many ground-nesting birds, such as western meadowlark and horned lark and are home to several common reptiles such as gopher snake, valley garter snake, and western fence lizard.

Other habitat types such as emergent marsh, perennial and ephemeral streams, riparian woodlands, and isolated trees or groups of trees further enhance the value of this landscape by providing nesting, roosting, and cover habitat for species that also use the open grassland and vernal pool grassland community. The seasonal marsh north of Pleasant Grove Creek provides important nesting opportunities for red-winged blackbirds and other species that also forage in grassland habitats. The stream channels and associated vegetation provide cover for many species and denning opportunities for coyote and other mammals. The flowing and pooled water provide an important source of drinking water for many birds and mammals.

The riparian habitat along Pleasant Grove Creek, the valley oak trees along University Creek, and the few isolated ornamental trees and patches of trees throughout the Study Area, provide important nesting habitat for breeding raptors and many other birds common to the area, including American crow, western scrub jay, yellow-billed magpie, mourning dove, and a variety of songbirds. Trees associated with farm and ranch residences provide similar nesting and roosting habitat value.

Streams occurring within the Study Area, including Pleasant Grove Creek and University Creek, are not known to support anadromous salmonids such as Chinook salmon or steelhead (NMFS 2008; DWR 2005). The portion of Pleasant Grove Creek (and other streams, such as University Creek) located within the Study Area are therefore expected to support only resident cold- and warm-water fish species. Pleasant Grove Creek drains into the northern part of the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC), which flows into the Sacramento River. Although there is a connection to the Sacramento River, the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal is an “impaired” waterway and has significant water quality issues. The NEMDC, however, provides a migratory route to Dry Creek, which supports marginal salmonid habitat (NMFS 2007).

Special-Status Species Appendix C is a list of potentially occurring special-status plants, and Appendix D is a similar list of special-status wildlife compiled from our queries as described in the Methods section above. Figure 6 shows the locations of special-status species known to occur in the Study Area. Species requiring habitats not occurring in or around the Study Area and species occurring far outside the Study Area are not considered in Appendices C or D. Field surveys and the best professional judgment of North Fork Associates biologists were used to further refine the tables in Appendices C and D. Additionally, plants species found on the CNPS List 3 and 4 are not considered further in the document.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 18 November 30, 2010 Study Area Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Occurrence

Red-tailed Hawk#0 2007 #0 Swainson's Hawk 2008

#0 White-tailed Kite 2008

Dwarf downingia Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop #0 Red-tailed Hawk 2008

Dwarf downingia

#0 Red-tailed Hawk 2008 #0 Red-tailed Hawk 2007

PHILLIP RD PHILLIP #0 White-tailed Kite 2008 Dwarf downingia

Phillip Road #0 Swainson's Hawk 2007 & 2008 Swainson's Hawk 2007 nesting area- nest not confirmed

Figure 6 ± Special-Status Species Locations 0 250 500 1,000 Creekview Scale in Feet Aerial Photo: 2009 (NAIP) Placer County, CA This refined list of special-status species in the region surrounding the Study Area includes 12 plants and 34 animals (Appendix C and Appendix D, respectively). Of the 12 plant species in Appendix C and 34 animal species in Appendix D, 10 plants and 11 animals either occur onsite or they are rated likely or possible to occur because the site has some areas of suitable habitat or they are known from nearby locations. Some species rated unlikely to occur are discussed if they have high status or when further clarification is needed. Table 3 is a summary of those species, and they are discussed in more detail in the paragraphs following the table. Colonial nesting egrets and herons are listed in Appendix D and Table 3 because their rookeries are tracked and of interest to California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); however, they are technically not considered special status birds.

Helm Biological Consulting conducted federally-listed large branchiopod surveys during the dry-season in 2006 and 2007 and wet-season in 2006- 2007 and 2007-2008, and western spadefoot surveys in 2007 and 2008 (Helm Biological Consulting 2007, 2008a, 2008b). Estep Environmental Consulting conducted raptor surveys in 2007 and 2008 (Estep 2008a, 2008b). NFA conducted special-status plant surveys primarily in 2006 (with a one day follow up in 2008). These surveys are referenced in the following discussion.

Table 3. Special-Status Species That Could Occur Within the Creekview Study Area

Potential for Status* Species Habitat Occurrence** Federal State CNPS and Findings

Plants Possible. Marginal Cismontane woodland; Big-scale balsam-root habitat is present in List valley and foothill Balsamorhiza macrolepis - - the Study Area. 1B.2 grassland; [sometimes macrolepis Not observed serpentinite] onsite. Occurs. Observed Valley and foothill in a basin vernal Dwarf downingia grassland (mesic); vernal pool, wetland - - List 2.2 Downingia pusilla pools, seasonal wetlands, swale, and a man- and wetland swales. made ditch onsite in 2006. Occurs. Observed Bogg's Lake hedge- Marshes and swamps (lake List in one deep basin hyssop - CE margins); vernal pools. 1B.2 vernal pool onsite Gratiola heterosepala Below 1200 m in 2006 and 2008. Possible. Suitable habitat is present in Ahart's dwarf rush List - - Vernal pools the Study Area. Juncus leiospermus ahartii 1B.2 Not observed onsite.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 20 November 30, 2010 Unlikely. Nearest documented Chaparral; cismontane occurrence is Red Bluff dwarf rush List woodland; valley and considered to be a Juncus leiospermus - - 1B.1 foothill grassland; vernal misidentification leiospermus pools; [vernally mesic] (CNDDB 2008). Not observed onsite. Possible. Suitable habitat is present in Legenere List - - Vernal pools the Study Area. Legenere limosa 1B.1 Not observed onsite. Possible. Suitable habitat is present in Pincushion navarretia List - - Vernal pools the Study Area. Navarretia myersii myersii 1B.1 Not observed onsite. Unlikely. Marginal habitat onsite and no known Slender Orcutt grass List FT CE Vernal pools occurrences within Orcuttia tenuis 1B.1 Placer County. Not observed onsite. Unlikely. Marginal habitat onsite and Sacramento Valley no known List Orcutt grass FE CE Vernal pools occurrences within 1B.1 Orcuttia viscida Placer County. Not observed onsite. Possible. Marginal Marshes and swamps habitat is present in Sanford's arrowhead List - - (assorted shallow the Study Area. Sagittaria sanfordii 1B.2 freshwater) Not observed onsite.

Status* Potential for Species Habitat Federal State Other Occurrence**

Invertebrates Occurs. Branchinecta spp. cysts present onsite, Vernal pool fairy Vernal pools, swales, assumed to be B. shrimp FT - - seasonal wetlands lynchi. No adult B. Branchinecta lynchi lynchi observed onsite (Helm 2007 and 2008b).

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 21 November 30, 2010 Unlikely. Marginal habitat in Study Conservancy fairy Area. Not observed Vernal pools, swales, shrimp FE - - during surveys seasonal wetlands Brachinecta conservatio (Helm 2007). Very rare in region.

Unlikely. Marginal habitat in Study Vernal pool tadpole Area. Not observed Vernal pools, swales, shrimp FE - - during surveys seasonal wetlands Lepidurus packardi (Helm 2007). Not observed onsite. None/Unlikely. No elderberry shrubs are present in the Valley elderberry Elderberry shrubs with Study Area (Estep longhorn beetle stems greater than 1 inch FT - - 2008a). Harris Desmocerus californicus diameter are considered property not dimorphus potential habitat. surveyed. Not observed onsite. Reptiles Possible. Suitable Ponds, marshes, river, habitat occurs in the Western pond turtle streams and ditches with - CSC - Study Area. Actinemys marmorata basking sites and Not observed vegetation onsite. Unlikely. Marginally suitable Streams, irrigation habitat occurs in the Giant garter snake FT CT - channels, seasonal Study Area (see the Thamnophis gigas wetlands discussion below). Not observed onsite. Amphibians Unlikely. None detected during the California tiger Branchiopod and Vernal pools, vernal pool salamander FT CT - western spadefoot grasslands, and ponds Ambystoma californiense surveys (Helm 2007, 2008). Very rare in project region. Unlikely. Marginal habitat occurs in the California red-legged Deeper pools and streams Study Area. None frog FT CSC - with emergent or detected during on Rana draytonii overhanging vegetation site surveys Pleasant Grove Creek (Estep 2008a).

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 22 November 30, 2010 Possible. Not detected during surveys in the Study Area (Helm Western spadefoot Seasonally inundated Biological - CSC - Spea hammondii basins Consulting 2008a). Surveys did not include the Harris property portion of the Study Area. Birds Unlikely. Marginal rookery habitat Great egret (rookery) occurs in the Study Ardea alba - * - Colonial nester in tall trees. Area.

Not observed onsite. Unlikely. Marginal rookery habitat Great blue heron(rookery) occurs in the Study Ardea Herodias - * - Colonial nester in tall trees. Area.

Not observed onsite. Unlikely. Marginal rookery habitat Snowy egret (rookery) Colonial nester in dense occurs in the Study Egretta thula - * - tules. Area.

Not observed onsite. Unlikely. Marginal Black-crowned night- rookery habitat heron (rookery) Colonial nester in trees and occurs in the Study - * - Nycticorax nycticorax sometimes tule patches. Area. Not observed onsite. Possible for foraging, unlikely to Open water areas with tall nest. Tricolored blackbird emergent vegetation or in - CSC - Colony observed Agelaius tricolor willow and blackberry ±4,000 feet thickets downstream but not observed onsite. Breeds in grasslands and Unlikely. Marginal Grasshopper sparrow savannahs in rolling hills habitat occurs in the Ammodramus savannarum - CSC - and lower mountain Study Area. hillsides up to 5000 feet Not observed elevation. onsite.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 23 November 30, 2010 Possible. Suitable habitat occurs in the Burrowing owl Grasslands, agricultural - CSC - Study Area. Athene cunicularia lands Not observed onsite. Occurs. Observed nests in 2007 and Swainson's hawk Grasslands, agricultural 2008 and species - CT - Buteo swainsoni lands foraging in the Study Area (Estep 2008a, 2008b). Occurs. Observed foraging during Grasslands, seasonal Northern harrier surveys (Estep - CSC - wetlands, agricultural Circus cyaneus 2008a, 2008b). lands Not observed nesting onsite. Occurs. Observed Open grassland, meadows, two nests in 2008 White-tailed kite and farmlands. Nests in - CFP - and species Elanus leucurus tall trees near foraging foraging in the areas Study Area. Unlikely. Only very marginal habitat is California black rail Shallow, perennial, - T - present, and the Laterallus jamaicensis freshwater marshes. existing marsh is seasonal. Unlikely. Marginally suitable Seasonal wetlands, Greater sandhill crane habitat occurs in the - CT CFP irrigated pastures, alfalfa Grus canadensis tabida Study Area. and corn fields Not observed onsite. None for breeding habitat. Winter Winters in pastures, Long-billed curlew “watch foraging habitat is - - seasonal wetlands, and Numenisu americanus list” present, but the some cultivated lands. species does not breed in this area. Unlikely. Marginal Riparian forests along the habitat in western broad, lower floodplains of portion of Pleasant Western yellow-billed larger rivers. Nests in Grove Creek. cuckoo FC CE - thickets of willows and Generally not Coccyzus americanus cottonwoods with an considered a occidentalis understory of blackberry, nesting bird in nettle, or wild grape. Placer County. Not observed onsite.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 24 November 30, 2010 Occurs. Observed foraging in the Loggerhead shrike Grasslands, pastures, Study Area (Estep - CSC - Lanius ludovicianus agricultural lands 2008a, 2008b). Not observed nesting onsite. Breeds in riparian woodland, oak woodland, Unlikely. Marginal open coniferous forests. habitat occurs in the Purple martin - CSC - Secondary cavity nester. Study Area. Progne subis Requires nest sites close to Not observed open foraging areas of onsite. water or land. Mammals Possible. May Shrublands, grasslands, forage on site but Pallid bat woodlands, forests; rocky - CSC - unlikely to roost. Antrozous pallidus areas, caves, mines, hollow Not observed trees for roosting onsite. Possible. May Townsend's big-eared Most low to mid-elevation forage on site but bat - CSC - habitats; caves, mines, and unlikely to roost. Corynorhinus townsendii buildings for roosting Not observed townsendii onsite. *Status Codes: **Definitions for the Potential to Occur: Federal None. Habitat does not occur. FE Federal Endangered Unlikely. Some habitat may occur, but disturbance or other FT Federal Threatened activities may restrict or eliminate the possibility of the FP Federal Proposed Species species occurring. Habitat may be very marginal, or the Study State Area may be outside the range of the species. Possible. Marginal to suitable habitat occurs, and the Study Area CE California Endangered occurs within the range of the species. CT California Threatened Likely. Good habitat occurs, but the species was not observed CR California Rare (plants only) during surveys. CSC California Species of Concern Occurs: Species was observed during surveys. CFP California Fully Protected CNPS List 1B Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California List 2 R, T, or E in California, more common elsewhere 1- Seriously threatened in California 2- Fairly threatened in California 3- Not very threatened in California

Plants NFA conducted floristic special-status plant surveys for portions of the Study Area (see the Methods section) on March 1 and 24, April 28, and May 6 and 16, 2006, with a follow-up survey on May 6, 2008. Figure 6 shows the location of special-status plants in the Study Area (surveys did not include the Harris property or the off-site portion of the Study Area).

Big-scale balsam-root (Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis) is an herbaceous perennial member of the sunflower family (Asteraceae). It has no state or federal status, but it is on the CNPS List 1B.2. This species has large yellow flowering heads and leaves that arise from the ground. It differs, in part, from other balsam-roots by having coarsely

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 25 November 30, 2010 serrate leaves. Big-scale balsam-root grows in open woodlands and grasslands at widely scattered locations in northern California, and will tolerate serpentine soil. It blooms from March to June.

Marginal habitat for big-scale balsam-root occurs within the grasslands in Study Area although no serpentine soils are found onsite. No Balsamorhiza species were observed during the floristic surveys and are unlikely to occur onsite.

Dwarf downingia (Downingia pusilla) is a small annual member of the bellflower family (Campanulaceae). It has no state or federal status. The CNPS places the dwarf downingia on their List 2.2, meaning that, although it is rare in California, it is more widespread elsewhere. Dwarf downingia also occurs in Chile where the type specimen was collected. Dwarf downingia is distinguished from other members of the genus by having very small flowers that are not upside down at blooming time. The species is an obligate wetland plant that occurs primarily in vernal pools. It blooms from March to May, depending on the amount and distribution of winter rains.

During the floristic special-status plant surveys in 2006, three populations of dwarf downingia were observed and mapped (Figure 6). Dwarf downingia was found in one basin vernal pool, wetland swale (several thousand plants), and a man-made ditch. Associated species include vernal pool buttercup, stipitate popcornflower, and Vasey's coyote-thistle. Surrounding landscape consists of undulating grassland with vernal pools, swales, and Pleasant Grove Creek.

Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop (Gratiola heterosepala) is a small annual member of the figwort family (Scrophulariaceae). It is given endangered status by the state Endangered Species Act, although it has no federal status. The CNPS places it on its List 1B.2. It differs from the common G. ebracteata by having blunt tips on the leaves and sepals, which are smaller and of different lengths. It occurs in vernal pools and the moist margins of marshes in northern California. It blooms from April to June, usually as the pools begin to dry.

One population of Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop was observed during the special-status plant floristic surveys in 2006 and May 6, 2008 (see Figure 6). Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop occurs in a unique, relatively deep vernal pool (VP #04) in the northwestern corner of the main on-site portion of the Study Area (north of Pleasant Grove Creek). The vernal pool is located in a depression on top of a slightly higher portion of the landscape. It was the only vernal pool in area that had standing water at time of the May 25, 2006 survey (1-2" standing water). Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop is located throughout the pool with the highest density of individuals located in the center of pool. The center of pool supports approximately 50% bare ground and 50% vegetative cover where associated species include Vasey's coyote-thistle, double-horned downingia, least spikerush, smooth goldfields, and fringed water-plantain. Around the outer edges if the pool, associated species include white-flowered navarretia, double-horned downingia, dwarf woolly-heads, stipitate popcornflower, dodder, Vasey's coyote-thistle, smooth goldfields, and bractless hedge-hyssop. Approximately 1,000 to 1,500 Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop plants occur in the vernal pool.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 26 November 30, 2010 Ahart’s dwarf rush (Juncus leiospermus var. ahartii) and Red Bluff dwarf rush (Juncus leiospermus var. leiospermus) are very small annual members of the rush family (Juncaceae). They have no state status, Ahart’s dwarf rush is on CNPS List 1B.2 and Red Bluff dwarf rush is on CNPS List 1B.1. They differ from the more common toad rush by having terminal flowers and from the introduced capped rush by having inconspicuous bracts. Ahart’s dwarf rush grows in vernal pools along the east side of the Central Valley from Butte County to Calaveras County. Red Bluff dwarf rush grows in a variety of habitats that are seasonally wet. They both bloom from March to May. Suitable habitat is present within the Study Area for both species; however, it is unlikely that Red Bluff dwarf rush would occur within the Study Area because the typical reported range of the species is within Butte, Shasta, and Tehama counties and the nearest reported occurrence is thought to be a misidentification (CDFG 2008).

Ahart’s dwarf rush and Red Bluff dwarf rush were not found during floristic surveys, although two widespread and common annual members of the genus Juncus were observed.

Legenere (Legenere limosa) is small annual member of the bellflower family (Campanulaceae). It has no state or federal status, but it is a CNPS List 1B.1 species. The genus name is an anagram of E.L. Greene, one of California’s early botanists. It is the only species in the genus and has small, inconspicuous flowers that have pedicels rather than being sessile. Legenere prefers the drying mud of late season vernal pools and swales and it blooms from April to June. It has also been found in vernal pools in the Pleasant Grove Creek watershed to the east of the Study Area and could occur in the vernal pools within the Study Area.

Legenere was not observed during the floristic surveys.

Pincushion navarretia (Navarretia myersii subsp. myersii) is an annual member of the phlox family (Polemoniaceae). It is on the CNPS List 1B.1, but has no state or federal status. Pincushion navarretia differs, in part, from the more common N. leucocepahala by its larger flowers. It is confined to vernal pools at a relatively few locations in the eastern Central Valley. It generally blooms in May. It is possible for this species to occur within the vernal pools in the Study Area.

Pincushion navarretia was not found during the floristic field surveys. Navarretia intertexta and N. leucocephala, both wetland species, were observed in the Study Area.

Slender Orcutt grass (Orcuttia tenuis) is an annual member of the grass family (Poaceae). It is a federal threatened species and a California endangered species. It is also on the CNPS List 1B.1. Slender Orcutt grass differs from other members of the genus by a number of technical characteristics. This species is better known from more northern California, but it also occurs in Sacramento County, where it prefers large, deep vernal pools. It blooms late in the season, usually between May and July. Marginal habitat occurs in the vernal pools within the Study Area; slender Orcutt grass prefers larger, deeper vernal pools than those that occur within the Study Area. It is highly unlikely that this species would occur within the Study Area since no occurrences have been found in Placer County and the pools in the Study Area are too shallow.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 27 November 30, 2010 Slender Orcutt grass was not observed during the floristic surveys.

Sacramento Valley Orcutt grass (Orcuttia viscida) is annual member of the grass family (Poaceae). It is a federal endangered species and a California endangered species. It is also on the CNPS List 1B.1. Technical characteristics, such as longer lemma awns, separate this species from other members of the genus. It prefers large, deep vernal pools, and is know to occur only in Sacramento County. Sacramento Valley Orcutt grass blooms late, typically from May to June. Very marginal habitat (this species prefers larger, deeper pools) occurs within the Study Area. It is highly unlikely that this species would occur within the Study Area.

Sacramento Valley Orcutt grass was not observed during the floristic surveys.

Sanford's arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii) is an herbaceous perennial member of the water-plantain family (Alismataceae). It is on the CNPS List 1B.2. Sanford’s arrowhead lacks the arrow shaped (sagittate) leaves of other members of the genus. It has sharply triangular petioles (leaf stems) that distinguish it in the vegetative state from Alisma, in which the back of the petioles are rounded. Its preferred habitat is marshes associated with slow-moving water in sloughs and ditches. It is known to occur in concrete lined channels with only a few inches of soil. It has a long blooming period, starting as early as May and sometimes lasting until August. It is possible for this species to occur within the marsh and drainages in the Study Area.

Sanford’s arrowhead was not observed during the floristic surveys.

Wildlife Aquatic Invertebrates Several special-status invertebrates have the potential to occur in vernal pools and seasonal wetland habitats in the broader project region, including vernal pool tadpole shrimp and conservancy fairy shrimp, both federally listed endangered species, and vernal pool fairy shrimp, a federally listed threatened species. Each of these species occurs in vernal pools and other seasonal wetland habitats throughout the Central Valley and each is known to occur in western Placer County. The conservancy fairy shrimp was recently detected in western Placer County (USFWS 2007), which has resulted in a range expansion for this species that includes the Study Area. As a result of the substantial loss of vernal pool habitats in the Central Valley from urbanization and agricultural conversion, populations of these species have declined throughout their range (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994).

Collectively, these species occur within a range of specific environmental conditions that include soil type, vegetation characteristics, water depth, water temperature, inundation duration, and water quality (Ericksen and Belk 1999). Emergence of adult animals is also dependent on these and other environmental factors (Eng et al 1990). Detection of these species can be difficult and inconclusive in the absence of multi-seasonal survey effort. Therefore, in general, vernal pool and seasonal wetland habitats that meet the definition of habitat suitability are considered potentially occupied by these species. To

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 28 November 30, 2010 confirm absence of these species requires adherence to standard U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service two-year survey protocol (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995).

Protocol surveys were conducted by Helm Biological Consulting during the 2006-2008 dry and wet seasons within the Study Area, excluding the Reason Farms portion and the Harris property. Dry season sampling was conducted in October 2006 and May 2007, and wet season sampling was conducted between December 2006 and April 2007, and December 2007 and April 2008. Results of the surveys are presented in Federally-Listed Large Branchiopods Sampling at the Creekview Project (Helm Biological Consulting 2007 and 2008b). A total of 202 basins (21 vernal pools, 35 wetland swales, 90 seasonal wetlands, and one seasonal marsh identified by NFA (2007) and 55 additional basins identified by Helm Biological Consulting (2007) were sampled during dry sampling surveys, and 139 of these were sufficiently inundated to conduct wet-season sampling (Helm Biological Consulting 2007 and 2008b).

Of the 202 basins sampled that were initially considered as having potential to support special-status Branchiopods only 11 were found to be occupied by Branchinecta species during dry season sampling (Figure 6). Based on the detection of cysts in the basins, these sites were presumed to be occupied by one of several potentially occurring special- status Branchinecta species. Species of the cysts that are detected during dry season surveys cannot be confirmed without hatching the cysts and grow1ing them to maturity. Therefore, cysts that were observed during the dry season surveys associated with this study were therefore not identified to the species-level, but were presumed to most likely be those of vernal pool fairy shrimp (B. lynchi). The conservancy fairy shrimp was determined to have minimal potential for occurrence due to the rarity of the species within the project region and the absence of additional documented occurrences locally since the 2007 observation in western Placer County.

No special-status Branchiopods were detected during wet-season surveys; however, it is not uncommon to not detect these species following detection during dry-season sampling (Helm Biological Consulting 2007).

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB) (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) is a federally-listed threatened species. VELB is a medium-sized woodboring beetle, about 0.8 inches long.

VELB is endemic to California’s Central Valley and watersheds that drain into the Central Valley (Barr 1991). Its presence is entirely dependent on the presence of its host plant, the elderberry shrub (Sambucus spp.).

VELB is a specialized herbivore that feeds exclusively on elderberry shrubs, the adults feeding on leaves and flowers, and the larvae on the stem pith. Habitat for VELB consists of elderberry shrubs with stems greater than 1 inch in basal diameter. Elderberry grows in upland riparian forests or savannas adjacent to riparian vegetation, but also occurs in oak woodlands and savannas and in disturbed areas. It usually co- occurs with other woody riparian plants, including Fremont cottonwood, California sycamore, various willows, wild grape, blackberry, and poison-oak (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984; Collinge et al. 2001).

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 29 November 30, 2010 The Harris property was not surveyed for elderberry shrubs due to limited access at the time of the field surveys. However, no elderberry shrubs were detected in remaining portions of the Study Area.

Western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) is designated as a state species of special concern. The western pond turtle is a moderate sized turtle with drab brown coloring. The carapace lacks any prominent markings (Holland 1991). There are two recognized subspecies, the northwestern pond turtle and the southwestern pond turtle. Placer County lies within a diffuse intergrade of both subspecies. In California, the western pond turtle is distributed throughout the state from sea level to mid-elevation Sierra Nevada (Jennings and Hayes 1994).

Western pond turtles are closely associated with permanent water bodies, such as lakes, ponds, slow moving streams, and irrigation canals that include basking sites as down logs or rocks, and that support sufficient aquatic prey. Western pond turtles also require upland habitat that is suitable for building nests, to aestivate, and to overwinter. Suitable upland habitat must have the proper thermal and hydric conditions in which to build nests (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Nests are constructed in sandy banks immediately adjacent to aquatic habitat or if necessary, females will climb hillsides and sometimes move considerable distances to find suitable nest sites. Females deposit their eggs in the nest from March to August depending on local conditions.

Western pond turtles are omnivorous and opportunistic feeders. Their diet includes slow-moving aquatic invertebrates and carrion. Aquatic vegetation may also be consumed, especially by females who have recently laid eggs. Hatchlings and juveniles feed primarily on zooplankton (Jennings and Hayes 1994).

No pond turtles were observed during the field survey; however, Pleasant Grove Creek and adjacent upland habitat is considered suitable habitat for this species. The perennial flows and pools in Pleasant Grove Creek could support this species.

Giant garter snake (GGS) (Thamnophis gigas) is a state and federally listed threatened species. Giant garter snake is an aquatic species endemic to the Central Valley. Loss or degradation of aquatic habitat resulting from agricultural and urban development has caused dramatic population declines and has resulted in the recognition of only 13 extant populations between Butte County and Fresno County (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). The Natomas Basin population, approximately 5 miles west of the Plan Area, is the nearest of these to the Plan Area.

Described as among California’s most aquatic garter snakes, giant garter snakes are associated with low-gradient streams and valley floor wetlands and marshes, and have adapted successfully to rice agriculture (Hansen 2002). Giant garter snakes occur in sloughs, creeks, and other watercourses including agricultural ditches that support sufficient water, aquatic prey, and emergent vegetation for basking sites. They generally are found in more open habitats and do not typically occur along watercourses that support dense riparian cover. Aquatic habitats are characterized by sufficient water during the snake’s active season to supply cover and food such as small fish and amphibians; emergent herbaceous wetland vegetation such as cattails and bulrushes for

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 30 November 30, 2010 basking, foraging, and escape cover; upland habitat (for example, bankside burrows, holes, and crevices for short-term refugia; and high ground upland habitat for cover and refugia during the dormant winter period (Hansen and Brode 1980).

Portions of Pleasant Grove Creek support at least marginally suitable habitat for giant garter snake with perennial flow, steep-sided banks, and emergent wetlands. However, the potential for occurrence is considered unlikely due in part to the lack of records of the species east of the NEMDC. Eric Hansen, a GGS expert, was consulted regarding the suitability of the area immediately east of the NEMDC for GGS and the potential for the species to occur in this area. Mr. Hansen noted that the area appeared to be generally suitable for GGS and did not appear to be significantly different from habitat conditions found in the Natomas Basin other than slightly shifting soil and hydrologic profiles. Mr. Hansen has attempted to trap GGS east of the NBMDC and has to date been unsuccessful. Thus, to date despite the apparent suitable conditions, GGS has not been detected east of the NBMDC (Hansen pers. comm.). Pleasant Grove Creek from the Panhandle (just west of Creekview proper) to just east of Brewer Road supports a dense canopy of riparian cover, greatly reducing the potential as a migration corridor from the Natomas Basin populations to the Study Area. For these reasons, the giant garter snake is presumed to be absent from the Creekview Study Area and it is highly unlikely to occur onsite. California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) is a federally threatened species and was recently listed as a state threatened species in May 2010. It is a large, stocky, terrestrial salamander with a broad, rounded snout. Adults are from 7 to 8 inches in length with white or pale yellow spots or bars on a black background on the back and sides. The belly varies from almost uniform white or pale yellow to a variegated pattern of white or pale yellow and black (USFWS 2005b).

This species is restricted to California and does not overlap with any other species of tiger salamander. California tiger salamanders are restricted to deep vernal pools and seasonal ponds, including many constructed stockponds, in grassland and oak savannah plant communities from sea level to about 1,500 feet in central California (USFWS 2005b).

No specific surveys were conducted for California tiger salamander, but the species was not detected during vernal pool and seasonal wetland surveys for listed Branchiopods on the Study Area (surveys did not include the Harris property or the Panhandle SOI). There are no recent occurrences of California tiger salamander from western Placer County and CNDDB (CDFG 2008) reports no occurrences for county. Thus, it is unlikely that the species occurs in the Study Area.

California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) is a federally-listed threatened species and is designated as a state species of special concern. The California red-legged frog is one of two subspecies of red-legged frogs endemic to California and is the largest native frog in California. Its dorsal coloration is brown to reddish brown with small black flecks and larger dark blotches. The posterior abdomen and hind legs of adults are largely red or salmon pink colored (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002).

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 31 November 30, 2010 The California red-legged frog was once common in the Coast Ranges of California from Redding south to Baja California and in the northern Sierra Nevada. Its current range is much reduced with most of the remaining populations occurring in the Coast Ranges from Marin County south to Ventura County (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Historically, the California red-legged frog occurred in the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada foothills. Most of these populations were extirpated during the gold rush period, and few remain. Small populations have been found in Butte, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, and Calaveras counties, and there is an unconfirmed report near Folsom Lake in Sacramento County. Existing literature indicates that CRLF may have been extirpated from the floor of the Central Valley prior to the 1960s (USFWS 2002). The California red-legged frog occurs in a variety of habitats that contain the required elements of aquatic habitat and upland/dispersal habitat. Breeding habitat can be found in pools of streams and creeks, ponds, marshes, springs, sag ponds, and artificial stock ponds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). Juvenile frogs seem to favor open, shallow aquatic habitats with dense submergent vegetation (Jennings and Hayes 1994). During periods when aquatic habitat is not available, red-legged frogs will disperse from their breeding habitat and seek upland refugia under boulders or rocks, under fallen leaves and branches, and small mammal burrows (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). Introduced bullfrogs, crayfish, and fishes (especially bass, sunfish, and mosquito fish) prey on various stages of red-legged frogs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002).

Although Pleasant Grove Creek supports the basic habitat elements required for California red-legged frog presence, it is considered only marginally suitable habitat for this species. Urbanization in the vicinity (upstream) of the Study Area, historic and current disturbances to the creek from farming and ranching practices (prior to agricultural and urban development, Pleasant Grove Creek probably did not contain perennial flows), and the presence of bullfrogs substantially reduces habitat integrity. Pleasant Grove Creek also has no connectivity with other drainages known to have or with the potential to support this species. California red-legged frog also has not been detected during several recent biological surveys along Pleasant Grove Creek within the Creekview Study Area. Due to the absence of known occurrences in the project region, the lack of observations during the field surveys, and marginal quality of habitat available, California red-legged frog is not expected to occur within the Study Area. Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) is designated a state species of special concern. The western spadefoot is a near endemic to California and occurs throughout the Central Valley and adjacent foothills from near Redding, Shasta County south to northwestern Baja California, Mexico. Elevation occurrences extend from sea level up to 4,500 feet (Jennings and Hayes 1994).

Western spadefoot requires temporary rainpools (such as vernal pools) in which to breed, and in order to metamorphose successfully, rainpools must remain inundated for more than three weeks (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Most known occurrences in the Central Valley are in grassland habitats, but they have also been found in valley-foothill hardwood woodlands.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 32 November 30, 2010 Most of the western spadefoot’s life is spent in underground burrows. They will use burrows created by small mammals or excavate their own using the distinctive, tear- shaped spade on each hindfoot. Western spadefoot is almost completely terrestrial and only enters the water to breed. Breeding and egg laying occurs in late winter and early spring. Recently metamorphosed juveniles will hide in drying mud cracks, under boards, and even decomposing cow dung that are located in the vicinity of breeding ponds. Tadpoles consume planktonic organisms, algae, and dead amphibian larvae. Adults prey on insects, worms, and other invertebrates. Predators include various fishes, bullfrogs, crayfish, California tiger salamanders, garter snakes, herons, and raccoons (Jennings and Hayes 1994).

The CNDDB (2010) reports two occurrences within one mile of the Study Area and additional three occurrences within 5 miles of the Study Area. All of these detections were made during development-related resource assessments and all are either extirpated or threatened due to past and ongoing urbanization in the Roseville area. The Study Area and much of the surrounding landscape support suitable grassland, vernal pool, and other aquatic habitat for spadefoot. Surveys for spadefoot have been conducted in the Study Area excluding the Harris property and Reason Farms and no evidence of the western spadefoot was detected. Additionally, no adult vocalization calls were heard during the surveys (Helm Biological Consulting 2008a).

Heron/Egret Rookeries. Rookeries are colonial nesting sites for several heron and egret species, including great blue heron (Ardea herodias), great egret (Ardea alba), snowy egret (Egretta thula), and black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax). While these species are not considered special-status species, heron and egret rookeries are included on the CDFG special animals list because these breeding colonies can support the reproductive potential of a large segment of a local population. They are thus considered unique and important biological sites.

There are currently no rookeries for any of these species in the Study Area, although some portions of Pleasant Grove Creek have mature valley oak/cottonwood riparian woodland that could support a rookery. Also, the small valley oak woodland along University Creek in the northwest corner of the Study Area could support a small rookery. However, these habitats are considered to have only marginal potential to support these species due to the relatively small number of mature trees with sufficient height and structure to support nests. In addition, these species typically nest in association with marshes, seasonal wetlands, irrigated pastureland, or irrigated cropland that provide a greater source of food than do the non-irrigated pasturelands on and around the Study Area. Thus, while it is possible that these species may nest onsite, it is considered unlikely.

Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) is a state species of special concern. Tricolored blackbirds are small blackbirds, very similar in appearance to the closely related red- winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). They differ from species by the slightly thinner bill, darker red shoulder patches, and broad white (not yellow) median coverts (Sibley 2000).

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 33 November 30, 2010 Tricolored blackbirds are nearly endemic to California, and more than 99 percent of the global population occurs in the state. In any given year, more than 75 percent of the breeding population can be found in the Central Valley. Small breeding populations also exist at scattered sites in Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and western coastal Baja California (Beedy and Hamilton 1999). This species has suffered dramatic population declines throughout its range due to the loss of protected wetland nesting habitats.

Tricolored blackbirds breed in colonies from several dozen to several thousand breeding pairs. They have three basic requirements for selecting their breeding colony sites: open accessible water; a protected nesting substrate, including either flooded, thorny, or spiny vegetation, and; a suitable foraging space providing adequate insect prey within a few miles of the nesting colony (Beedy and Hamilton 1999).

Nesting colonies have been reported in freshwater marshes dominated by cattails and bulrushes, or in willows, blackberry bramble, thistles, or nettles. While freshwater marsh was once considered the primary breeding habitat type for tricolored blackbirds, an increasing percentage of tricolored blackbird colonies in the 1980s and 1990s were reported in Himalayan blackberries, and some of the largest recent colonies have been in silage and grain fields (Beedy and Hamilton 1999).

Foraging habitats in all seasons include annual grasslands; wet and dry vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands; agricultural fields (for example, large tracts of alfalfa with continuous mowing schedules and recently tilled fields); cattle feedlots; and dairies. Tricolored blackbirds also forage occasionally in riparian scrub habitats and along marsh borders (Beedy and Hamilton 1999).

Tricolored blackbird was not observed during the field surveys. CNDDB (2007) reports an active colony as recently as 2000 within 2-3 miles northeast of the Study Area. This site was threatened by urbanization (CNDDB 2007) and may no longer be extant. Humple and Churchwell (2002) report no breeding activity in Placer County during the 2001 statewide survey; however, they report relatively large groups of non-breeding birds at two sites in the county. Beedy et al. (1991) report only three historic colonies from Placer County, all near Lincoln. All are considered extirpated. During a June 3, 2008 biological survey downstream of the Creekview Study Area, North Fork Associates biologists observed a tricolored blackbird colony approximately 4,000 feet west of the Study Area. The colony was located in a large, open cattail and tule marsh within Pleasant Grove Creek (similar Pleasant Grove Creek habitat is not found within the Study Area).

Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) is a California species of special concern associated with grassland habitats where it nests and forages. They are generally found in dry, well-drained native and non-native grasslands, especially areas with a variety of grasses and tall forbs for foraging and nesting and scattered shrubs for singing perches. Open bunch grasslands are preferred because they retain openings or gaps that allow movement and access. Dense, grazed, non-native grasslands preclude effective foraging and restricts nesting opportunities and are thus considered marginal habitats.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 34 November 30, 2010 No grasshopper sparrows were observed in the Study Area during surveys and few have been reported recently from western Placer County. Most reported occurrences are migrating birds. CNDDB reports only one possible breeding record for Placer County. Thus, while it is possible that this species could nest in the Study Area, it is considered unlikely.

Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) is designated as a state species of special concern. The burrowing owl is a small ground-dwelling owl with a round head, yellow eyes, and long legs (Haug et al. 1993).

The burrowing owl occurs throughout most of western United States and northern Mexico. They also occur in southern Florida and on some Caribbean islands (Haug et al. 1993). In California, burrowing owls occur in open habitats throughout most of the state with the exception of the northwestern corner. Burrowing owls are found in open, dry grasslands, agricultural and range lands, and desert habitats. In the Central Valley, they are associated with remaining grassland habitats, pasturelands, and edges of agricultural fields. They also occur in vacant lots within urbanizing areas, such as south Sacramento and south Stockton. Historically nesting in colonies, due to limited nesting habitat availability, many of the more recent occurrences are individual nesting pairs or several loosely associated nesting pairs.

The burrowing owl is a subterranean-nesting species, typically occupying the burrows created by California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi). They also occupy artificial habitats, such as those created by rock piles and occasionally in open pipes and small culverts. They forage for small rodents and insects in grassland and agricultural habitats with low vegetative.

No burrowing owls or active burrows of the species were detected within the Study Area during the field survey. CNDDB (2007) reports an active burrowing owl site just south of the southeastern portion of the Study Area. This site was reported as active in 1998, but no activity and no owls were observed at this location in 2003 (CNDDB 2007). The site may have been subsequently eliminated as a result of the development of the West Roseville Specific Plan Area and the Roseville Energy Park.

An evaluation of burrowing owl habitat in the Study Area during the field survey indicated that there is relatively little ground squirrel activity on site and thus few potential nesting opportunities for burrowing owl. This may be due to past and/or ongoing ground squirrel control measures, common in cattle grazing areas or to hardpan soil conditions that are less conducive to ground squirrel activity. The entire Study Area is otherwise considered suitable for burrowing owls and is likely occasionally used for foraging; however, burrowing owls have not been observed onsite during any of the biological surveys associated with this study.

Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is a state-listed threatened species. It is a medium- sized hawk with long (3.5 to 4 feet) narrow wings, dark breast and head, and with several distinctive plumage variations on the underwing coverts and belly (England et al. 1997).

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 35 November 30, 2010 Swainson’s hawk is an open country species found throughout the plains and deserts of the western United States. Associated primarily with open grassland habitats, throughout much of its range, it is currently known to also occur in agricultural habitats, which has displaced much of the grassland habitat throughout North America. Formerly occurring throughout the lowland areas of California, as a result of habitat loss and conversion to agriculture, populations are now restricted to the Central Valley and Great Basin portions of the state.

In the Central Valley, Swainson’s hawks nest in riparian forests, remnant oak woodlands, isolated trees, and roadside trees. They forage primarily in agricultural habitats, particularly those that optimize availability of prey (for example, alfalfa and other hay crops, some row and grain crops), but also use irrigated pastures and annual grasslands. The principal prey item of Swainson’s hawks in the Central Valley is the California vole, but other small mammals, birds, reptiles, and insects are also taken (Estep 1989, England et al. 1997).

The Study Area is near the eastern edge of the Swainson’s hawk range in the Central Valley. The open grasslands provide suitable foraging habitat for this species. Potential nesting trees, including valley oak, cottonwood, and willow, occur along Pleasant Grove Creek, University Creek, and in several isolated trees in the Study Area. Nesting Swainson’s hawks could also occur in similar habitat on adjacent properties and throughout the general area.

CNDDB (2007) reports seven nest locations within five miles of the Study Area, six of which were documented as active as recently as 2001, including a site along Pleasant Grove Creek within one mile of the eastern border of the Study Area. Another active site was located in 2006 within two miles south of the Study Area in the Sierra Vista Specific Plan Area (NFA 2007). Numerous additional nest sites are known to occur in the cultivated landscape west of the Study Area (CNDDB 2007; Jones & Stokes 2007).

Nesting raptor surveys were conducted in the Study Area, excluding the Harris property and the off-site area, during 2007 and 2008. Figure 6 shows the mapped locations of the Swainson’s hawk nests found during nesting raptor surveys. During the July 11, 2007 surveys, one Swainson’s hawk nest was found. It is located in an isolated mature valley oak tree on the north side of Phillip Road along the southern boundary of the Study Area. This nest appeared to have failed, but both adults were present at the nest tree during the survey. Adult Swainson’s hawks were also observed along Pleasant Grove Creek just east of the occupied residence near the southeastern portion of the Study Area. A nest was not confirmed at this location but, based on the behavior of the birds and the suitability of nesting habitat, the potential for a nest along this portion of Pleasant Grove Creek is high.

In 2008, two active Swainson’s hawk nests were observed within the Study Area. One nest occurs in a willow tree along Pleasant Grove Creek on the western end of the Study Area. Another was observed in a valley oak tree along the south side of Pleasant Grove Creek in the central portion of the Study Area. Most of he Study Area and surrounding open grasslands are considered suitable foraging habitat for the Swainson’s hawk.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 36 November 30, 2010 Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) is designated as a state species of special concern. It is a medium-sized hawk with a slight build and relatively long tail and wings (3.5 foot wingspan). Adult males are pale gray, while juveniles and females are brown. All plumages show a distinctive white rump patch in flight (Sibley 2003).

In California, this species is a permanent resident of the northeastern plateau, coastal areas, and the Central Valley. It is also a widespread winter visitor and migrant in suitable habitat. While declines in the California population have been noted for many years (Grinnell and Miller 1944, Remsen 1978), the species can be locally abundant where suitable habitat remains free of disturbance, especially from intensive agriculture. Breeding populations have declined from destruction of wetland habitats, native grasslands, and moist meadows, and in agricultural areas from burning and plowing of nest sites during early stages of the breeding cycle (Remsen 1978, MacWhirter and Bildstein 1996).

Throughout its range, northern harriers occur primarily in open wetland, grassland, and agricultural habitats. The northern harrier is a ground-nesting raptor, constructing rudimentary nest sites on the ground in marsh, grassland, and some agricultural habitats, particularly grain fields. They forage in seasonal wetland, grassland, and agricultural habitats for voles and other small mammals, birds, frogs, and small reptiles, crustaceans, and insects. They also roost on the ground, using tall grasses and forbs in wetlands, or along wetland/field borders for cover (MacWhirter and Bildstein 1996).

Several adult northern harriers were observed foraging in the Study Area during the survey. The seasonal marsh and seasonal wetland habitats provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. However, while northern harrier nests are sometimes difficult to detect because they are often concealed in dense vegetation, no defensive or nest- attentiveness behavior was noted that would suggest a possible active breeding site.

White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus) is designated as a state fully protected species. The white-tailed kite is a highly specialized and distinctively marked bird of prey; smaller than most hawks with a wingspan of just over three feet, white underneath and light gray above, black shoulder patches, and white tail (Dunk 1995). The species name is derived from its distinctive hunting behavior, kiting, hovering in the air while hunting for prey.

The white-tailed kite is known primarily from the Central Valley and coastal areas of California; however, breeding has also been documented in parts of Oregon and Washington, southern Texas, Florida, and south from northern Mexico to South America.

In the Central Valley, white-tailed kites nest in riparian forests and woodlands, woodlots, and occasionally in isolated trees. They forage in grasslands, seasonal wetlands, and agricultural fields. Like most raptors, its distribution is determined more by prey abundance and vegetation structure than by specific plant associations. They appear to be more sensitive to intensive farming practices and while they are found in agricultural areas, populations have likely declined as a result of conversion from native grassland and seasonal wetland habitats to agriculture. White-tailed kites prey mainly

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 37 November 30, 2010 on small rodents, especially California vole, but also take small birds, reptiles, and insects (Dunk 1995, Erichsen 1995).

A white-tailed kite was observed foraging in the grassland habitat in the Study Area during the July 11, 2007 survey and two white-tailed kite nests were found in 2008 in the Study Area (see Figure 6). Virtually the entire Study Area is considered suitable foraging and nesting habitat for white-tailed kite.

Black rail ((Laterallus jamaicensis coturnculus) is a scarce and secretive resident bird that occurs in saline, brackish, and freshwater wetlands (Zeiner et al. 1990). In northern California, this resident subspecies is mainly known from the San Francisco Bay area and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and is usually found in the immediate vicinity of tidal sloughs. California black rail primarily occurs in tidal emergent wetlands dominated by pickleweed or in brackish marshes with tall, emergent vegetation. Recently, California black rail has also been documented in isolated locations within the northern Sierra Nevada foothills. Populations in the foothills region have mostly been found in association with dense cattail or bulrush dominated marshes with very shallow (approximately 1 inch or less), but perennial surface water. This subspecies is carnivorous and feeds mostly on isopods, insects and arthropods from the surface of mud and vegetation. The nest of the California black rail consists of a deep, loose cup of grasses with a woven, domed canopy constructed in dense vegetation. The nest is typically located just above the water or ground. Nesting generally takes place from mid-March through mid-July. California black rail lays from 6 to 10 eggs and young leave the nest within 24 hours after hatching.

There have been no documented occurrences of California black rail in the region surrounding the study area. However, the CNDDB documents two occurrences of this subspecies within Placer County and numerous occurrences to the north in Yuba and Nevada counties, primarily in association with Camp Far West Reservoir (CNDDB 2010). Within Placer County, California black rail was detected in a large, cattail- dominated wetland associated with Clover Valley Creek (2006), approximately 9 miles east of the study area in the Loomis region. In 2005, this subspecies was also detected along Coon Creek, approximately 14 miles northeast of the study area. Limited areas of freshwater marsh habitat occur within the study area along Pleasant Grove Creek. The amount of vegetative cover present within and around wetland areas of the study area is not expected to be suitable for this secretive bird, which requires dense areas of emergent vegetation. Based on the rare occurrence of this species within the region, and the limited amount of suitable habitat available, the potential for occurrence of this species within the study area is considered to be unlikely.

Greater Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis tabida) is a state-listed threatened species and California fully protected species. The greater sandhill crane is the largest of six recognized subspecies of sandhill crane (Littlefield and Ivey 2000), standing nearly four feet tall and with a nearly seven-foot wingspan (Sibley 2000). The Central Valley population of greater sandhill crane breeds from northern California to British Columbia and winters in the Central Valley. Portions of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the Cosumnes River basin are the principal wintering grounds of this population (Pogson

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 38 November 30, 2010 and Lindstedt 1988; Littlefield and Ivey 2000). Thus, while the species does not breed in the Central Valley, maintaining suitable roosting and foraging habitat within its wintering range is critical to sustaining this population.

Both roosting and foraging habitat are essential to the Central Valley population during winter. Greater sandhill cranes congregate in communal roosts at night and fly off each morning to forage in suitable fields, pastures, or other shallow wetland habitats. Most traditional foraging areas are near (within two or three miles) communal roost sites. Communal roost sites are typically large fields (100+ acres), flooded with several inches of standing or slowly moving water, and with relatively low relief shorelines (Pogsdon and Lindstedt 1988). Most roost sites in the Central Valley are on private duck clubs; however, in recent years the California Department of Fish and Game and conservation organizations such as The Nature Conservancy have acquired and protected important roost areas within the wintering range.

Foraging habitat includes harvested fields, irrigated pastures, alfalfa fields, and seasonally flooded habitats. The primary source of carbohydrates in the Delta and Cosumnes regions is waste corn. Cranes also forage on wheat sprouts in newly planted winter wheat fields and on sprouts, shoots, tubers, invertebrates, and seeds in fallow fields and in uncultivated habitats (field borders, levees, canal and irrigation ditch banks) (Pogsdon and Lindstedt 1988).

The Study Area is not within the designated essential winter range of greater sandhill crane (Littlefield and Ivey 2000). Although it is within an area that may receive incidental use by roosting or migrating cranes, the potential for occurrence is considered low and the value of the Study Area to this species in the context of its regional wintering range is considered low.

Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) is an uncommon to locally very common winter visitor from July to early April along the California coast and the Central Valley. This species has no formal status but is designated as a CDFG “watch list” species. Preferred winter habitats include large coastal estuaries, open grassland, and croplands. In valley areas, this species feeds on insects, worms, spiders, berries, crayfish, snails and small crustaceans. Within California, breeding is primarily limited to wet meadows and shortgrass prairies located on the Northeastern Plateau. Breeding takes place from mid- April to September. The nest consists of a sparsely-lined depression, often located far from water. Usually 4 eggs are laid and incubated from 27 to 28 days.

The CNDDB does not list any known occurrences of long-billed curlew within the project region or in Placer County. This “watch list” species is not expected to breed within the study area or surrounding region, since breeding is primarily limited to the northeastern-most corner of California. However, there is some potential for individuals of this species to visit and forage in open grassland and agricultural land of the study area throughout the winter months or during migration.

Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) is a state-listed endangered species. This riparian obligate species primarily occurs in association with willow-cottonwood riparian forest. Nests are primarily in willow trees; however, other

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 39 November 30, 2010 species are occasionally used, including alder and box elder. Canopy cover is typically dense (averaging 96.8 percent at the nest) and large patch sizes (generally greater than 20 hectares) are typically required (Laymon 1998b).

Although yellow-billed cuckoos nest primarily in willow (Salix spp.) trees, cottonwood trees are important as foraging habitat, particularly as a source of insect prey. The principal food item is green caterpillar (primarily sphinx moth larvae), with lesser amounts of katydids, tree frogs, and grasshoppers. The diet also includes cicadas, dragonflies, butterflies, moths, beetles, and spiders (Laymon et al. 1997).

All studies indicate a highly significant association with relatively expansive stands of mature cottonwood-willow forests; however, yellow-billed cuckoos will occasionally occupy a variety of marginal habitats, particularly at the edges of their range (Laymon 1998b).

Pleasant Grove Creek extends east-west through the Study Area along a narrow corridor (less than 100 feet from levee to levee) of sparse to relatively dense oak-dominated riparian forest. However, beginning at the western border of the off-site portion, the Pleasant Grove Creek basin widens to an average of approximately 300 feet and supports a much more diverse mixed riparian forest for a little over one mile before returning to a narrow, sparse to relatively dense oak-dominated riparian forest.

The creek meanders through this approximately 1.2 mile distance with lateral channels, relatively large patches of emergent wetland, and areas that become inundated during rain events. This has promoted the establishment of a willow-dominated riparian forest with valley oak as a co-dominant species and live oak and blue oak as associated overstory species. There are also several mature cottonwood trees occurring periodically along this reach; however, not in sufficient abundance in association with willow to be regarded as cottonwood-willow riparian forest.

While the basin width and vegetation diversity continue throughout the 1.2 mile reach, the willow-dominated portion extends for approximately 0.8 miles west of the off-stite area, creating an approximately 30-acre patch of willow-oak-dominated riparian forest. In some areas the willow overstory is fairly dense; although it generally occurs in association with valley, live, or blue oak. The few cottonwood trees occur periodically along the reach and do not represent a dominant overstory component. Thus, while this 30-acre patch supports some elements of suitable habitat for yellow-billed cuckoo, it is considered quite marginal.

There are no reported occurrences of nesting yellow-billed cuckoos from Pleasant Grove Creek or from western Placer County. Local bird lists generally regard the species as a rare migrant, but not a nesting bird in western Placer County. The nearest confirmed nesting sites are from the Feather River area. Therefore, because habitat conditions are considered marginal, the habitat patch is small (approximately 30 acres), and isolated from other potential habitat, and because the species has not been reported in the vicinity of the project area, this species is considered highly unlikely to occur along the reach of Pleasant Grove Creek west of off-site area.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 40 November 30, 2010 Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) is designated as a state species of special concern. Loggerhead shrike is a permanent resident and winter visitor in foothills and lowlands throughout California, where it is considered a fairly common resident (Small 1994). It is a medium-sized (9 inches), stout, short-winged passerine that is often seen perched on barbed wire fences. The underparts and back are grey, with black tail, wings and facemask (Sibley 2000).

Shrikes prefer open habitats with scattered trees, shrubs, posts, fences, utility lines, or other perches. It nests in small trees and shrubs and forages for small rodents and insects in pastures and agricultural lands.

Two loggerhead shrikes were observed during the site visit; however, no nests were located. Potential nesting habitat exists along Pleasant Grove Creek, ornamental trees and shrubs around rural residences, and in the small trees along Phillip Road. The entire Study Area is suitable foraging habitat for shrikes.

Purple martin (Progne subis) is a species of species concern with a range in California largely restricted to the Modoc Plateau, northern Sierra Nevada, the mountains of southern California, and in some urban areas in the Sacramento area.

Purple Martins develop colonial nests in cavities of large trees in oak or riparian woodlands and low-elevation coniferous forests. Nests are in old woodpecker cavities in dead snags and are often in residual snags in burned or logged forests. With the extensive loss of mature riparian trees throughout much of their range in California, Purple Martins have begun using man-made structures such as buildings, bridges, and highway overpasses for nesting. CNDDB reports a recent nest site in a Highway 65 freeway overpass in the City of Rocklin.

This species was not observed during surveys nor has it been reported from the Study Area. Portions of the riparian habitat along Pleasant Grove Creek and the small oak grove along University Creek support marginal, but potential habitat for this species. But the general lack of snags, hollowed trees, large cavities, or other essential habitat elements in the Study Area make the potential for occurrence of this species unlikely.

Special-status Bats Two special status bats potentially occur in the Study Area, including pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) both a state species of special concern. Pallid bat occurs primarily in shrublands, woodlands, and forested habitats, but also can occur in grasslands. Townsends’s big- eared bat occurs in a variety of woodland and open habitats. Both species roost in mines, caves, rocky crevices, large hollow trees, and occasionally in large open buildings that area usually abandoned or infrequently inhabited.

Although the Study Area may support suitable foraging habitat these and other common bat species, there is little habitat onsite to support roosting or maternity sites. There are no structures in the Study Area suitable for roosts. There are also no rocky areas, mines, caves, or other features that would support roosts. Several of the larger

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 41 November 30, 2010 trees along Pleasant Grove Creek and University Creek, and the few large isolated trees could support roosting bats, but most are not sufficiently decadent to create large hollow spaces that would support significant roost sites.

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

The following provides a preliminary assessment of impacts to various habitats, waters of the United States, nesting raptors, and special-status species. Mitigation alternatives are also discussed. Impacts are based on the area impacted by the project (see Figure 7). Table 4 is an assessment of habitat impacts from the Creekview project. Figure 7 shows these impacts graphically.

Table 4: Potential Habitat Impacts (in Acres) from the Creekview Project Existing On-Site Harris Off-Site Total Habitat Acres* Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Upland Habitats Annual Grassland 455.50 313.26 0 0 313.26 Valley Oak Riparian 11.00 0.37 0 0.13 0.50 Cultivated Land 56.26 0 0 54.70 54.70 Developed/Disturbed 3.41 0.82 0 0 0.82 Subtotal 526.17 314.45 0 54.83 369.28 Wetland Habitats Vernal Pools 1.75 1.28 0 0 1.28 Seasonal Wetlands 7.43 4.68 0 0 4.68 Seasonal Marsh 2.70 2.70 0 0 2.70 Swales 14.42 5.15 0 0 5.15 Streams 7.53 0.14 0 0.22 0.36 Subtotal 33.83 13.84 0 0.22 14.17 Total 560.00 328.29 0 55.05 383.45 *Existing acreage does not include Harris.

Annual Grassland The removal of 313.26 acres of annual grasslands will constitute a substantial reduction of habitat for many wildlife species that are dependent on these habitats. This reduction represents approximately 56 percent of the grasslands in the 560-acre Study Area. Thus, this could be considered significant. Combined with similar losses from other projects (for example, Sierra Vista), this represents a contribution to a significant cumulative loss of grassland habitat in western Placer County.

Several mitigation options are available to address this impact, including:

 Retain some portion of the affected landscape as an onsite preserve. This is typically addressed through project design to reduce the footprint of the project or preserve open spaces and important habitat features. Thus potentially reducing the impact to a less than significant level.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 42 November 30, 2010 Northern Preserve

Creek Preserve

Offsite

Legend Study Area Harris Open Space Preserve Onsite Potential Impacts Waters of the U.S. Annual Grassland Valley Oak Riparian Developed/Disturbed Cultivated Land

Figure 7 ± HABITAT IMPACTS 0 250 500 1,000 Creekview Scale in Feet Aerial Photo: 2009 (NAIP) Placer County, CA  Required mitigation for other impacts, such as loss of Swainson’s hawk habitat (see below), may accommodate this impact through acquisition and preservation of offsite lands.  Coordinate the project with Placer County PCCP planning efforts to develop mitigation plans that complement those efforts and to ensure that Creekview mitigation is part of an overall conservation strategy. The impacts to annual grasslands do not include impacts to waters of the United States. These impacts are discussed below.

Valley Oak Riparian Riparian woodlands support one of the most diverse assemblages of wildlife species of any habitat type in the state. Riparian woodland habitat provides essential nesting, roosting, and cover habitat for many species and enhances the species richness and value of the adjacent grassland habitat. Because of the extensive loss of riparian habitats in California, any loss is usually considered significant.

The Study Area includes 11 acres of riparian habitat and 0.5 acre will be impacted. Roughly 95 percent of the riparian corridor will be preserved.

Mitigation for loss of riparian habitat should be consistent with the no-net-loss policies of CDFG, the City, and the County. Mitigation could take the form of preservation and enhancement of onsite or offsite lands, or purchase of enhancement/creation credits through an established and approved mitigation bank. Avoidance is also an option and can be achieved largely through protection of Pleasant Grove Creek and associated riparian area.

Cultivated Land The off-site portion of the Study Area encompasses 56 acres of cultivated lands, of which 54.7 acres will be impacted. Approximately 13 acres of cultivated land will be used to construct the Pleasant Grove Creek bypass channel and southern berm. Because the bypass channel will provide diverse aquatic habitat currently lacking in the same location, the impact to cultivated land is not considered significant. Excavated soil will be spread over the area south of the channel and the topography will not be altered significantly. Eventually, this area will be returned to agriculture.

Developed/Disturbed Existing structures and outbuildings will be removed on developed and disturbed lands. The loss of 0.82 acres of developed and disturbed lands is not considered significant.

Waters of the United States The Study Area has approximately 37 acres of resources within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. Activities affecting waters of the United States would require a permit from the Corps.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 44 November 30, 2010 Table 4 summarizes impacts to waters of the United States in the Study Area. As shown on Table 4, a total of 14.17 acres of waters of the United States would be impacted in the Study Area, not including the Harris property. A total of 19.66 acres would be preserved in the project open spaces.

Impacts to waters of the United States would require that the applicant obtain a water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Specific wetland types and other water resources are discussed below.

Vernal Pools Of the 1.75 acres of vernal pools in the Study Area, the project will impact a total of 1.28. Loss of 1.28 acres of vernal pools is considered a significant impact due to the increasing rarity of these habitats, their value to plants and wildlife, their hydrologic function, and their association with many special-status species.

Mitigation for losses of vernal pools and other jurisdictional wetlands will likely be addressed through the Section 404 process and Section 7 consultation and negotiation with the Corps and the USFWS. Mitigation could take the form of onsite preservation and/or enhancement, offsite acquisition and enhancement, or purchase of credits through an established and approved wetland mitigation bank.

Seasonal Wetlands Of the 7.43 acres of seasonal wetlands, the project will impact a total of 4.68 acres. Loss of 4.68 acres of seasonal wetlands is considered a significant impact due to the continuing decline of wetland habitats in California and their importance to hydrologic function and plant and wildlife species. Protection and/or mitigation are also encouraged through city and county policy and through CDFG’s policy of no-net-loss of function and value.

Mitigation for losses of seasonal wetlands may also be addressed through the Section 404 process. Mitigation could take the form of onsite enhancement, offsite acquisition and enhancement, or purchase of credits through an established and approved wetland mitigation bank.

Seasonal Marsh Of the 2.70 acres of seasonal marsh, the project will impact a total of 2.70 acres. This habitat type occurs along the western edge of the on-site area north of Pleasant Grove Creek. It is a bermed area that abuts a small levee adjacent to Reasons Farms. Marsh vegetation also occurs along the edges of Pleasant Grove Creek and other natural drainages, although most of this is included in creek or swale habitat types. This is a biologically important habitat feature in the Study Area supporting a variety of wetland- associated species. Loss of this habitat is considered a significant impact for similar reasons as described above. Protection and/or mitigation are also encouraged through city and county policy and through CDFG’s policy of no-net-loss of function and value.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 45 November 30, 2010 As with other wetland types in the Study Area, mitigation for losses of seasonal marsh habitat may also be addressed through Section 404. Mitigation could take the form of onsite preservation and/or enhancement, offsite acquisition and enhancement, or purchase of credits through an established and approved wetland mitigation bank.

Wetland Swales Of the 5.15 acres of wetland swales, the project will impact 5.15 acres. Loss of 5.15 acres of wetland swales is considered a significant impact due to the increasing rarity of these important habitats, their value to plants and wildlife, their hydrologic function, and their association with many special-status species.

Streams Approximately 0.36 acres of streams will be impacted from construction of the Creekview project, including a small amount of ephemeral stream in the on-site portion of the Study Area will be impacted. The bypass channel outfall will affect an additional 0.22 acre of Pleasant Grove Creek in the off-site portion. The road crossing the creek will span the ordinary high water mark and will not directly impact Pleasant Grove Creek.

Ordinarily, impacts to streams would be considered significant. However, features in the bypass channel will more than offset the small impacts of 0.36 acre. The Corps 404 permit may require mitigation for impacts to water of the United States. Credits may be available in local mitigation banks that can help offset this impact.

Special-Status Species Special-status species were described in the Methods section. The following sections discuss potential impacts to special-status species and provide a range of potential mitigation measures.

Special-Status Plants Surveys for special-status plants were conducted by NFA for the main on-site portion of the Study Area in 2006 and 2008. No surveys were conducted on the Harris property. General botanical surveys were conducted for the off-site portion of the Study Area. Because of long-term agricultural activities and the lack of vernal pool habitats, the presence of special-status plants in the off-site portion is highly unlikely.

All botanical surveys were floristic and were done at the appropriate time of the year according to the guidelines issued by CDFG (1983) and USFWS (1996). Two special- status plant species were found: dwarf downingia and Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop. No other special-status species were found during surveys.

Dwarf downingia is not state or federally listed, but is on the CNPS List 2.2. Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop is a California threatened species and on CNPS List 1B. Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop is located in the central portion of the Study Area and dwarf downingia occurs throughout the Study Area in three different areas. Development will result in direct impacts to both Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop and dwarf downingia populations.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 46 November 30, 2010 The project proponent should retain a qualified botanist to develop and implement a mitigation and management plan, subject to the approval of CDFG. If impacts to the species are determined to be unavoidable, possible measures may include onsite or offsite restoration and/or other salvage methods.

Oak Tree Resources The Initial Arborist Report and Tree Inventory Summary and supplemental reports (Sierra Nevada Arborists 2007 and 2008) inventoried 528 blue oak, interior live oak and valley oak trees (greater than six inches DBH) within the Study Area, except for the Harris property. The surveys covered protected trees as defined by the both the Placer County Tree Preservation Ordinance and City of Roseville Tree Preservation Ordinance. The County Tree Ordinance protections (1) native tree species, except foothill pine, that measure equal to or greater than 6 inches DBH and multi-trunked trees measuring equal to or greater than 10 inches aggregate DBH; (2) all size riparian zone tees and (3) landmark trees as specified by the County Board of Supervisors. The City Tree Ordinance protects native oak trees equal to or greater than 6 inches DBH measured as a total of a single trunk or multiple trunks.

The Study Area (excluding the Harris property) includes 528 blue oak, interior live oak and valley oak trees. Most trees within the Study Area are located within the riparian corridor along Pleasant Grove Creek and there are some scattered trees in the northern portion of the Study. Most trees will be preserved within the open space preserves along Pleasant Grove Creek and University Creek in the northern portion of the Study Area.

Construction of the backbone infrastructure related to the project will result in impact to trees. Backbone infrastructure includes grading and construction of the bypass channel improvements (in the on-site and off-site areas), creek crossings, arterial roadways (Blue Oaks Boulevard and Westbrook Boulevard) and backbone sewer, water, drainage, recycled water improvements. Construction of backbone infrastructure will result in removal of 67 oak trees totaling approximately 1,300 inches. The primary locations of tree removal would be south of Pleasant Grove Creek where construction of the bypass channel would occur and along the alignments of Westbrook Boulevard (at the Pleasant Grove Creek crossing) and Blue Oaks Boulevard.

The project will comply with the City’s Tree Preservation chapter of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance which requires replacement of native oak trees with a DBH of 6 inches or greater that are lost as a result of development activities on an inch for inch basis. Tree replacement can be accomplished through planting of new trees on an inch for inch basis using the required number of fifteen (15) gallon sized native oak trees, or by paying an in-lieu mitigation fee that is based on the required number of fifteen gallon sized trees, in either the Native Oak Tree Propagation Fund, or the Nonnative Tree Fund as described in Section 19.66.070 – Oak Tree Planting and Replacement Program. At this time, the Applicant proposes to plant oak trees in locations within the open space preserves along Pleasant Grove Creek and the northern portion of the site.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 47 November 30, 2010 Special-Status Wildlife

Aquatic Invertebrates Protocol level Branchiopod surveys were conducted in the on-site portion of the Study Area; however, the Harris property and the off-site area have not been surveyed. The Harris property may support Branchiopod habitat. The preliminary wetland delineation map for the off-site area does not indicate vernal pools or other wetlands that could be Branchiopod habitat.

Branchinecta species was found in the Study Area during dry season surveys in 2006 and 2007 (Figure 6). In the absence of species confirmation, these are assumed to be the federally-listed vernal pool fairy shrimp (B. lynchi), which is known to occur in the area.

Loss of occupied vernal pools is considered significant. Mitigation to address impacts on federally listed Branchiopods will be determined on the basis of occupied habitat according to standard USFWS guidelines. Since the Corps will likely assume jurisdiction over vernal pools in the Study Area, mitigation will ultimately be determined through consultation between the Corps and the USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act and issuance of a Biological Opinion.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB) Although the Study Area is within the range of the VELB, no elderberry shrubs were detected in the in the main on-site or the off-site portion of the Study Area during surveys. If the Harris property does not area also does not support elderberry shrubs, there is no potential for VELB to occur in the Study Area and no consultation, mitigation, or further work is required. If, however, elderberry shrubs are detected along that portion of Pleasant Grove Creek that runs through the Harris property, the following two options are available:

 Avoid impacts to VELB through protection of Pleasant Grove Creek and adjacent buffer, or

 Consult with the USFWS and follow compensation and conservation guidelines identified in the USFWS’ Conservation Guidelines for Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (USFWS 1999a).

If the project impacts elderberry shrubs, credits can usually be purchased at one of the VELB mitigation banks in the area.

Fisheries Anadromous fish species (salmonids), including Chinook salmon and steelhead, are not expected to occur within the portion of Pleasant Grove Creek located in the Study Area. The sections of Pleasant Grove Creek and University Creek within the Study Area, are expected to support only resident cold- and warm-water fish species. However, Pleasant Grove Creek ultimately connects downstream to the Sacramento River. In order to ensure water quality for downstream fish habitat, standard Best Management Practices for work within and adjacent to Pleasant Grove Creek, University Creek, and

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 48 November 30, 2010 tributaries would greatly reduce the potential for adverse affects to fish habitat downstream. Another option would be to implement strategies in the Pleasant Grove Creek and Curry Creek Ecosystem Restoration Plan (Foothill Associates 2006b), which proposes various water quality and habitat improvements for Curry Creek, Pleasant Grove Creek, and the East Main Drain. It is not fully clear whether this would have any real impact on salmonids, but implementation of the Curry Creek Restoration Plan would be one way to ensure and improve water quality both in Pleasant Grove Creek and downstream.

Western Pond Turtle Because pond turtles can be elusive and difficult to detect, particularly in stream habitats with associated riparian vegetation (as opposed to open pond habitat), absence of this species cannot be ruled out on the basis of reconnaissance surveys conducted for this species. Because Pleasant Grove Creek has suitable habitat for this species, western pond turtle should be regarded as potentially occurring unless definitive presence/absence surveys are conducted.

If Pleasant Grove Creek is found or presumed to be occupied, disturbances to the creek that could affect pond turtles could be considered significant based on both Appendix G of the State CEQA guidelines and Section 15065 (Mandatory Findings of Significance). The following options are available to avoid or offset potential impacts.

 Avoid impacts to western pond turtle by incorporating Pleasant Grove Creek and associated riparian and upland buffer along each side of the creek into an open space preserve, and maintain the functions and values of the creek.

 Consult with California Department of Fish and Game to determine appropriate preconstruction survey requirements and avoidance measures in the event that disturbance of Pleasant Grove Creek and western pond turtle habitat may occur.

Most of the potential pond turtle habitat will be avoided by project activities. However, impacts to individual turtles could occur if a turtle wanders into construction areas. Measures to prevent this usually include fencing off work areas and surveying the work area for turtles before starting work. In addition, some project elements can be designed to deter pond turtles. For example, low barriers can be erected to prevent turtles from crossing roads and other hazards.

Giant Garter Snake Portions of Pleasant Grove Creek in the Study Area support marginally suitable habitat for giant garter snake, including perennial flow, steep-sided banks, and emergent wetlands. However, the potential for occurrence is considered unlikely due to the lack of records of the species east of the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal and the lack of a suitable migration corridor. Pleasant Grove Creek from the Reason Farms (off-site area) west to near Brewer Road supports a dense canopy of riparian cover, reducing the potential as a migration corridor from the Natomas Basin populations to the Study Area. Consequently, the giant garter snake is presumed to be absent from the Creekview Study Area and highly unlikely to occur.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 49 November 30, 2010 Although there are no recent occurrences of the giant garter snake in Placer County, this species is a covered species under the proposed Placer County HCP/NCCP. The rationale for including it is based on the proximity of the currently occupied range (Natomas Basin) and the suitable habitat conditions in portions of western Placer County, including the Study Area.

As part of the 404 permit process, the Corps may consult with the USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act. At that time, the USFWS may determine that additional surveys are required to show absence. Should surveys show that the Study Area is occupied, avoidance and mitigation measures would be part of the USFWS Biological Opinion.

California Tiger Salamander (CTS) Although there are no recent occurrences of the California tiger salamander in Placer County, including the Study Area, this species is a covered species under the proposed Placer County HCP/NCCP. The rationale for including it is based on the proximity of the current range and the suitable habitat conditions in portions of western Placer County, including the Study Area. The vernal pool grassland/swale habitat in the Study Area may be marginal habitat for California tiger salamander. Most, if not all, of the wetland features in the Study Area are not inundated long enough to allow CTS larvae to mature, further reducing the potential for the species.

The USFWS supported the rationale for including CTS in the proposed Placer County HCP/NCCP (also known as the PCCP). Thus, in the absence of surveys using standard USFWS protocols, assuming absence may be inconsistent with the USFWS determination that may result from consultation between the USFWS and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during the Section 404 review.

Nevertheless, the Corps may initiate a Section 7 consultation with the USFWS as part of the 404 process. At that time, the USFWS would determine whether additional surveys are needed. Should surveys be required, and CTS shown to be present, avoidance and mitigation measures would be part of the USFWS Biological Opinion.

California Red-Legged Frog (CRLF) Although Pleasant Grove Creek contains the basic habitat elements required for California red-legged frog presence, it is considered only marginally suitable habitat for this species for several reasons: (1) the extent of urbanization in the vicinity of the Study Area; historic and current disturbances to the creek from farming and ranching practices (prior to agricultural and urban development, Pleasant Grove Creek probably did not contain perennial flows); and (2) the presence of bullfrogs. Pleasant Grove Creek also has no connectivity with other drainages that are known or have potential to support California red-legged frog. Thus, presence of this species in the Study Area is considered highly unlikely.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 50 November 30, 2010 mitigation measures would be part of the USFWS Biological Opinion. However, it is unlikely that the USFWS would allow direct take of this species.

Western Spadefoot Although no western spadefoot were found during surveys in the Study area, it has been reported in the vicinity of the Study Area in conditions and habitats similar to those in the Study Area. Vernal pools and pool habitats in streams in the Study Area are considered high quality habitat for spadefoot and the species is considered likely to occur. Surveys for spadefoot were conducted in the on-site portion of the Study Area (excluding the Harris property) and no evidence of the western spadefoot was detected. Additionally, no adult vocalization calls were heard during the surveys (Helm Biological Consulting 2008a). The Harris property and the off-site area have not been surveyed for western spadefoot.

Because of continuing loss of vernal pool grasslands in western Placer County, impacts to over 346 acres of grassland habitat would be regarded as a potentially significant cumulative impact on western spadefoot. If impacts are considered significant, mitigation options include the following:

 Mitigate impacts by retaining an appropriately sized and configured area on or off- site as habitat for western spadefoot. This area would require connectivity with other offsite protected lands in order to ensure movement potential and protection of sufficiently large landscapes to ensure long-term viability.

 Purchase credits in a mitigation bank that has potential western spadefoot habitat (banks don’t directly sell credits for this unlisted species and purchasing credits for vernal pool impacts will likely cover impacts to the western spadefoot).

 Coordinate the project with Placer County PCCP planning efforts to develop mitigation plans that complement those efforts and to ensure that Creekview mitigation is part of an overall conservation strategy.

Heron/egret rookeries There are currently no rookeries for great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret, or black- crowned night heron in the Study Area. However, portions of the riparian habitat along Pleasant Grove Creek and the small oak grove along University Creek are considered marginally suitable and could support a small rookery for these species. Because rookeries can support a substantial portion of a local breeding population of one or more of these species, disturbance to active rookeries could be regarded as significant.

To avoid disturbance to active rookeries, preconstruction surveys should be conducted and buffers between the rookery and project disturbance should be established during the breeding season.

Tricolored Blackbird The nearest known tricolored blackbird occurrence is a June 3, 2008 undocumented observance of a colony approximately 4,000 feet west of the off-site portion of the Study

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 51 November 30, 2010 Area. The colony was located in a large, open cattail and tule marsh in Pleasant Grove Creek. The nearest known recently active tricolored blackbird nesting colony is on the BKS preserve, a property owned and managed by the Natomas Basin Conservancy, in the Natomas Basin approximately 6-7 miles west of the Study Area.

Tricolored blackbird was not observed nesting onsite. Within the Creekview Study Area, Pleasant Grove Creek does not support similar large, open marshes where the tricolored blackbird colony was found downstream. However, the Study Area probably receives some foraging use by tricolored blackbird. Because the species was not observed nesting in the Study Area, impacts to tricolored blackbird are regarded as less than significant and no mitigation would be required. The seasonal marsh just north of Pleasant Grove Creek may represent suitable habitat for tricolored blackbird nesting. If this site were to be occupied by this species prior to development, this could represent a significant impact. Under this potential scenario, the following mitigation options are suggested:

 Create an onsite preserve that incorporates the seasonal marsh, Pleasant Grove Creek, and a substantial open space buffer on both sides of the creek and surrounding the seasonal marsh. Tricolored blackbirds are highly sensitive to human disturbances and changes in the landscape, so this possible mitigation may be controversial in that it may not be possible to ensure long-term occupancy regardless of the size of the buffer area if the surrounding landscape is altered.

 Implementation of either of the above measures would be based on the presence of tri-colored blackbirds. An initial preconstruction survey would also likely be required in order to determine the presence or absence of nesting tri-colored blackbirds in the seasonal marsh. If absent, then the above measures would not be applicable with regard to impacts on this species.

Grasshopper Sparrow There are no breeding records of grasshopper sparrow from the Study Area and few recent occurrences from western Placer County. It is likely that the conversion to nonnative grasslands, human encroachment, and incompatible land use practices have reduced populations of this species locally and regionally. Although this species is considered unlikely to occur in the Study Area, the open grassland habitats provide marginal habitat. Due to the rarity of the species in western Placer County, disturbance to active nests could be regarded as significant.

To avoid disturbance to active nests, conduct preconstruction surveys and provide protection buffers around active nests until the young have fledged.

Burrowing Owl

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 52 November 30, 2010 There are currently no active breeding or wintering burrowing owl burrows in the Study Area. However, it remains possible that breeding or wintering owls could occupy the Study Area prior to development and potentially result in losses of breeding or wintering burrows and associated foraging habitat. This would be considered a significant impact.

In the event that burrowing owls occupy the Study Area in the future but prior to development, implementation of the standard recommendations by CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game 1995) would be the most likely mitigation scenario. These include:

 Conduct surveys and identify occupied burrows.

 Do not disturb active breeding burrows during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31).

 During the non-breeding season, use passive relocation techniques (e.g., one-way doors) to exclude owls from active winter burrows and potential burrows.

 Compensate for loss of active burrows and associated foraging habitat at a minimum of 6.5 acres per pair or unpaired resident bird. This can be accomplished through an approved mitigation bank.

 Install artificial burrows at a ratio of 2:1 at compensation site or other approved location.

In addition, the species likely uses the Study Area at least occasionally for foraging. Development of the Study Area would effectively eliminate over 368 acres of foraging habitat (annual grassland and cultivated land) for burrowing owl. While standard CDFG guidelines do not address impacts to foraging habitat where active breeding or wintering burrows do not occur, 368 acres lost for the project, especially cumulatively, could represent a significant impact to burrowing owls. Mitigation measures include the following:

 Required mitigation for other impacts, such as loss of Swainson’s hawk habitat (See above), may accommodate this impact through acquisition and preservation of offsite lands. No additional compensation would be required.

 Mitigate onsite by retaining an appropriately sized and configured portion of the Study Area as habitat for burrowing owl and other grassland-associated species.

Nesting Raptors In addition to special-status raptors (see below) several other common raptors are known to or have potential to nest in the Study Area. In 2008, two active red-tailed

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 53 November 30, 2010 hawk nest sites were located during surveys, and great-horned owl and American kestrel were observed in the Study Area during surveys. Although these species are relatively common throughout their range, disturbances and habitat loss could cause permanent nest abandonment and along with impacts from other neighboring projects, affect a substantial portion of the local population. This could potentially be considered significant pursuant to both Appendix G of the State CEQA guidelines and Section 15065 (Mandatory Findings of Significance). Disturbance to nesting raptors and/or removal of active nests also violates Fish and Game Code 3503.5.

If construction occurs during the typical breeding season (approximately March 1 through August 31), potential disturbance of nesting activities could occur. To avoid take of active raptor nests, pre-construction surveys should be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to initiation of proposed development activities. Survey results should then be submitted to CDFG. If active raptor nests are found on or immediately adjacent to the site, consultation should be initiated with CDFG to determine appropriate avoidance measures. If no nests are found, tree removal could proceed without further surveys.

The loss of habitat could be sufficiently addressed through mitigation for grassland habitat (see the discussion in the grassland section) or Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat (see below). The direct loss of eggs or young from construction-related disturbances is generally avoided through seasonal restrictions on construction activity within pre- established no-disturbance buffers.

Swainson’s Hawk Swainson’s hawk is known to nest in the Study Area and there are other known nesting locations in the vicinity. Two nest sites were identified in the Study area in 2007 and 2008. Development of the Study Area would likely cause the permanent abandonment of the onsite nest sites and effectively eliminate over 368 acres of foraging habitat (grassland and cultivated land) for this species. This would constitute a significant impact. Mitigation options include the following:

 Develop a Management Agreement through consultation with CDFG pursuant to Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code, and mitigate according to standard CDFG guidelines (California Department of Fish and Game 1995).

 Calculate mitigation requirement according to standard CDFG guidelines (California Department of Fish and Game 1995) and compensate through an established and approved mitigation bank.

 Mitigate onsite by retaining an appropriately sized and configured portion of the Study Area as habitat for Swainson’s hawk and other grassland-associated species.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 54 November 30, 2010 Northern Harrier The entire Study Area is considered suitable foraging habitat for northern harrier and many of the seasonal wetland and seasonal marsh habitats are suitable for nesting. Development of the Study Area would effectively result in the loss of over 368 acres of annual grassland and cultivated land foraging habitat and nearly 25 acres of potential seasonal wetland nesting habitat.

Because 368 acres would be affected by the project, and, in the context of continuing cumulative loss of grassland and wetland habitats in western Placer County, this loss could be considered a significant impact. Mitigation could be combined with other open space/grassland mitigation requirements. Options for mitigation could include the following.

 Required mitigation for other impacts, such as loss of Swainson’s hawk habitat, may accommodate this impact through acquisition and preservation of offsite lands.

 Mitigate onsite by retaining an appropriately sized and configured portion of the Study Area as habitat for northern harrier and other grassland-associated species.

 Preconstruction surveys and protection of active nest sites will likely also be required pursuant to CDFG Code 3503.5.

White-tailed Kite The White-tailed Kite occurs in the Study Area. Two active white-tailed kite nests were located along Pleasant Grove Creek in the main on-site portion of the Study Area. Because of the large number of acres that would be affected and in the context of a continuing cumulative loss of grassland habitat in western Placer County, this could be considered a significant impact. Mitigation could be combined with other open space/grassland mitigation requirements. Options could include the following.

 Required mitigation for other impacts, such as loss of Swainson’s hawk habitat (see below), may accommodate this impact through acquisition and preservation of offsite lands. No additional compensation would be required.

 Mitigate onsite by retaining an appropriately sized and configured portion of the Study Area as habitat for white-tailed kite and other grassland-associated species.

 Preconstruction surveys and protection of active nest sites will likely also be required pursuant to CDFG Code 3503.5.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 55 November 30, 2010 In addition, unlike listed species for which take authorization can be provided under the state or federal endangered species acts, there are no provisions for take of state fully protected species in the Fish and Game Code. This in effect prohibits removal or disturbance actively nesting birds, which can result in limitations to project implementation during the nesting season.

Greater Sandhill Crane The potential for occurrence is considered to be low. Thus, this is likely to be considered a less than significant impact that would not require mitigation.

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo There are no breeding records of yellow-billed cuckoo from the Study Area and no recent occurrences from western Placer County. Most reported occurrences are of migrants, and the species is generally not considered a nesting bird in Placer County. The approximately 30-acre patch of willow/oak-dominated forest with occasional cottonwood trees located in the Study Area is considered highly marginal due the small patch size and its isolation from other suitable habitat areas. However, although considered highly unlikely to occur in the Study Area, this small patch provides a remote potential for occurrence of yellow-billed cuckoo. Due to the extreme rarity of the species, disturbance to active nests could be regarded as significant.

To avoid disturbance to active nests, preconstruction surveys should be conducted within the bypass channel portion of the project area and if nests are located, no disturbance buffers should be established during the breeding season. Surveys should be conducted according to standard protocols found in Wiggins (2005) and prepared by Laymon (1998a).

Loggerhead Shrike Two loggerhead shrikes were observed during raptor surveys in 2008; however, no nests were located. Potential nesting habitat exists along Pleasant Grove Creek, ornamental trees and shrubs around the rural residence, and in the small trees along Phillip Road. The entire Study Area is suitable foraging habitat for shrikes. Development of the Study Area would remove over 368 acres of foraging habitat (annual grassland and cultivated land) and possibly potential breeding habitat for this species.

The loggerhead shrike is fairly widespread and thus habitat losses from development- related projects are typically considered less than significant. However, from a cumulative perspective, and because 368 acres would be lost, this could be regarded as significant. Additional cumulative analysis would be required to make this determination. In the event that it was considered significant, the following mitigation options are recommended:

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 56 November 30, 2010  Mitigate onsite by retaining an appropriately sized and configured portion of the Study Area as habitat for loggerhead shrike and other grassland-associated species.

 Preconstruction surveys and protection of active nest sites may also be required pursuant to CDFG Code 3503.

Purple Martin There are no breeding records of purple martin from the Study Area and few recent occurrences from western Placer County. The lack of mature riparian or oak woodland habitat that supports essential habitat elements such as snags, hollow trees, or cavities has likely contributed to the reduction of populations of this species locally and regionally. Although this species is considered unlikely to occur in the Study Area, the riparian habitat along Pleasant Grove Creek and the small oak woodland along University Creek provide at least marginal potential. Due to the rarity of the species in western Placer County, disturbance to active nests could be regarded as significant based on both Appendix G of the State CEQA guidelines and Section 15065 (Mandatory Findings of Significance).

To avoid disturbance to active nests, preconstruction surveys should be conducted and no disturbance buffers should be established during the breeding season.

Special-Status Bats Although the Study Area may support suitable foraging habitat for common bat species, there is little habitat onsite to support roosting or maternity sites. There are no structures in the Study Area suitable for roosts. There are also no rocky areas, mines, caves, or other features that would support roosts. Several of the larger trees along Pleasant Grove Creek and University Creek, and the few large isolated trees could potentially support roosting bats, but most are not sufficiently decadent to create large hollow spaces that would support significant roost sites.

Grassland foraging habitat that is potentially used by special-status bats would be removed and reduce available foraging habitat for these species in the region. It is unlikely, however, that in the absence of potential roosting habitat within or in the immediate vicinity of the Study Area (other than several large trees), that this could be demonstrated to have a significant impact on these bat populations. In the event that a significant cumulative loss of grassland foraging habitat for bats could be determined, mitigation that would be required for other grassland species would likely be considered sufficient to reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level.

The Harris Property The Harris Property was studied at a programmatic level, and the surveys conducted on the rest of the Study Area were not conducted on the Harris Property. Nevertheless,

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 57 November 30, 2010 aerial photographs show that the Harris property is mostly grassland with a few scattered wetlands. It also has a segment of Pleasant Grove Creek.

Many of the species discussed in the previous sections could occur or could use the Harris property. Therefore, impacts to those species would be considered significant to be consistent with impacts elsewhere in the Study Areas. Mitigation measures for impacts to species and habitats on the Harris property would be the same as those on the rest of the Study Area.

REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES

Barbour, M.G. and J. Major (eds). 1998. Terrestrial Vegetation of California, Expanded Edition. California Native Plant Society Special Publication Number 9. Sacramento, California.

Barr, C. B. 1991. The distribution, habitat, and status of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Fisher (Insecta: coleoptera: cerambycidae). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento, CA.

Bechard, M.J. and J.K. Schmutz. 1995. Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis). In The Birds of North America, No. 172 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Beedy, E.C., S.D. Sanders, and D.A. Bloom. 1991. Breeding status, distribution, and habitat associations of the tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), 1850-1989. June 21, 1991. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. (JSA 88-187). Sacramento, CA. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA

Beedy, E. C., and W. J. Hamilton III. 1999. Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). In The Birds of North America, No. 423 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 1987. Geologic Map of the Sacramento Quadrangle (1:250,000). Sacramento, California.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Staff report regarding mitigation for impacts to Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1995. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1983 (revised 2000). Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities (Revised 2000). The Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 58 November 30, 2010 California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch (CDFG). 2010. Natural Diversity Data Base Report (CNDDB). Sacramento, California.

California Native Plant Society. 2010. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. An online database maintained by the Native Plant Society.

California Natural Diversity Data Base. 2010. Records search of the Roseville and Pleasant Grove quads. Collinge, S. K., M. Holyoak, C. B. Barr, and J. T. Marty. 2001. Riparian habitat fragmentation and population persistence of the threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle in Central California. Biological Conservation. 100: 103-113.

Department of Water Resources. 2005. Bulletin 250: Fish Passage Improvement. An Element of CalFed’s Ecosystem Restoration Program.

Dunk, J.R. 1995. White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus). In The Birds of North America, No. 178 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

England, A.S., M.J. Bechard, and C.S. Houston. 1997. Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). In A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.), The Birds of North America No. 265.

Erichsen, A. L. 1995. The White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus): nesting success and seasonal habitat selection in an agricultural landscape. Thesis. University of California at Davis, Davis, California.

Erikson, C.H. and D. Belk. 1999. Fairy shrimps of California’s puddles, pools, and playas. Mad River Press, Inc. Eureka, CA. 196 pp.

Estep, J.A. 1989. Biology, movements, and habitat relationships of the Swainson’s Hawk in the Central Valley of California, 1986-1987. Sacramento, CA; California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section.

Estep Environmental Consulting (Estep). 2008a. Wildlife Resource Assessment for the Creekview Specific Plan. Prepared for: North Fork Associates. January 2008.

Estep Environmental Consulting (Estep). 2008b. Creekview Raptor Surveys letter report. Prepared for: North Fork Associates. May 19, 2008.

Estep Environmental Consulting (Estep). 2008c. Pleasant Grove Creek Assessment. Prepared for: North Fork Associates. December 10, 2008.

Foothill Associates. 2006. The Pleasant Grove and Curry Creek ecosystem restoration plan. Prepared for Placer County Planning Department, Auburn, CA.

Grinnell, J., and A. H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pac. Coast Avifauna No. 27. 608pp.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 59 November 30, 2010 Hansen, Eric. Independent Consultant, herpetologist, giant garter snake expert. Telephone conversation with Jim Estep on October 5, 2007.

Haug, E.A., B.A. Millsap, and M.S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia). In The Birds of North America, No. 61 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Hayes M.P. and M.R. Jennings. 1988. Habitat correlates of distribution of the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii): Implications for management. Pages 144-158 In: R.C.Szaro, K.E. Severson, and D.R. Patton (technical coordinators), Proceedings of the symposium on the management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report (RM-166):1-458.

Helm Biological Consulting. 2007. Federally-Listed Large Branchiopods Sampling at the Creekview Project. June 2007.

Helm Biological Consulting. 2008a. Western Spadefoot (Spea Hammondii) Surveys at the Creekview Project. August 2008.

Helm Biological Consulting. 2008b. Second Year of Federally-Listed Large Branchiopod Wet-Season Sampling at the Creekview Project. November 2008.

Hansen E.C. 2002. Year 2002 investigation of the giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) at the Cosumnes River Preserve. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy.

Hansen, G.E., and J.M. Brode. 1980. Status of the giant garter snake (Thamnophis couchii gigas). Inland Fisheries Endangered Species Special Publication 80(5):1-14. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Hickman, J. (ed). 1993. The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.

Holland, D.C. 1991. A synopsis of the ecology and status of the western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) in 1991. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center, San Simeon Field Station.

Holland, V.L., and D. J. Keil. 1995. California Vegetation. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Dubuque, Iowa.

Humple, D. and R. Churchwell. 2002. Tricolored Blackbird survey report, 2001. Point Reyes Bird Observatory. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 60 November 30, 2010 Jones & Stokes. 2007. Biological effectiveness monitoring for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area – 2006 Annual Survey Results. (J&S 04002.04.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for the Natomas Basin Conservancy. Laymon, S.A., P.L. Williams, and M.D. Halterman. 1997. Breeding status of the Yellow- billed Cuckoo in the South Fork Kern River Valley, Kern County, California: Summary report 1985 - 1996. Administrative Rep. U.S.D.A Forest Service, Sequoia National Forest, Cannell Meadow Ranger District, Challenge Cost-Share Grant #92-5-13. Laymon, S.A. 1998a. Draft yellow-billed cuckoo survey and monitoring protocol for California. Alpaugh, CA. Laymon, S. A. 1998b. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccycus americanus). In The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian-associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. Available http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v-2.html. Littlefield, C.D. and G. Ivey. 2000. Conservation assessment for Greater Sandhill Cranes wintering on the Cosumnes River Floodplain and Delta regions of California. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy, Sacramento, CA. MacWhirter, R.B. and K.L. Bildstein. 1996. Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus). In: The Birds of North America, No. 210 (A. Poole and F. Gill [eds.]). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southwest Regional Office. 2008. Central Valley Chinook – Current Stream Habitat Distribution Table/Essential Habitat Map. Available online at: http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/dist2.htm

North Fork Associates (NFA). 2006. Wetland Delineation for the ±470-acre Creekview Project. November 14, 2006

North Fork Associates. 2007 (NFA). Biological Resources Assessment for Sierra Vista Specific Plan Project. Prepared for URS Corporation.

North Fork Associates (NFA). 2008. Wetland Delineation of the Reason Farms Long Bypass Channel September 23, 2008

Pogson, T.H. and S.M. Lindstedt. 1988. Abundance, distribution, and habitat of Central Valley population Greater Sandhill Cranes during winter. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Remsen, J.V., Jr. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 61 November 30, 2010 Sibley, D.A. 2000. National Audubon Society: The Sibley guide to birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Sierra Nevada Arborists. 2007. Initial Arborist Report and Tree Inventory Summary. January 19, 2007.

Sierra Nevada Arborists. 2008. Consolidated Inventory Summary. November 17, 2008.

Small, A. 1994. California Birds: Their status and distribution. Ibis Publishing Company. Vista, CA. 342 pp.

Storer, T. 1925. A synopsis of the amphibian of California. University of California Publications in Zoology 27:1-342.

USDA, NCRS. 1980. Soil Survey of Placer County, California; Western Part. Sacramento, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Recovery plan for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Portland, OR.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Final Rule: determination of endangered status for the conservancy fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp; and threatened status for the vernal pool fairy shrimp. Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 180, September 19, 1994

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Interim survey guidelines to permittees for scientific take permit under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the endangered species act for the endangered conservancy fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, Riverside fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and the threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp. Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants. United States Department of the Interior, USFWS. Sacramento, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999a. Conservation guidelines for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, July 9, 1999. Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999b. Draft Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Portland, OR.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 62 November 30, 2010 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a. Revised Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for California Red-legged Frog. Sacramento, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005b. Species account: California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office, CA.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Species Account: California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Sacramento, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Memo 1-1-07-TA-0821 regarding conservancy fairy shrimp in western Placer County. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.

The University and Jepson Herbaria. 2007. The Jepson Interchange. An online database that updates The Jepson Manual.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2008. Rocklin, California. 05 September 2008. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?carock+nca

Wiggins, D. 2005. Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccycus americanus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/yellowbilledcuckoo.pdf.

Creekview Specific Plan North Fork Associates Biological Resources Assessment 63 November 30, 2010

Appendix A. Plant Species Observed Within the Creekview Study Area

Appendix A Plant Species Observed Within the Creekview Study Area

Ferns and Allies Marsileaceae Marsilea vestita subsp. vestita Water shamrock

Angiosperms - Dicots Amaranthaceae *Amaranthus albus Tumble pigweed Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron diversilobum Western poison-oak Apiaceae (Umbelliferae) *Anthriscus caucalis Bur-chervil Eryngium vaseyi Vasey's coyote-thistle *Scandix pecten-veneris Venus' needle *Torilis arvensis Field hedge-parsley Apocynaceae Asclepias fascicularis Narrow-leaf milkweed Asteraceae (Compositae) Achillea millefolium Common yarrow Achyrachaena mollis Blow-wives Ambrosia psilostachya Western ragweed *Anthemis cotula Mayweed Artemisia douglasiana California mugwort Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush Blennosperma nanum var. nanum Yellowcarpet *Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle *Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle Centromadia fitchii Fitch's spikeweed *Cichorium intybus Chicory *Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle Conyza canadensis Horseweed Grindelia hirsutula Gumplant *Helminthotheca echioides Bristly ox-tongue Holocarpha virgata subsp. virgata Virgate tarweed *Hypochaeris glabra Smooth cat's-ear *Hypochaeris radicata Rough cat's-ear *Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce Lasthenia fremontii Fremont's goldfield Lasthenia glaberrima Smooth goldfields Layia fremontii Fremont's tidytips *Leontodon saxatilis Long-beaked hawkbit *Logfia gallica Narrowleaf cottonrose Madia elegans subsp. vernalis Common madia

* Indicates a non-native species Page 1 of 6 Micropus californicus subsp. californicus Cottontop Psilocarphus brevissimus var. brevissimus Dwarf woolly-heads Psilocarphus oregonus Oregon woolly-heads Psilocarphus tenellus var. globiferus Round woolly-marbles *Senecio vulgaris Common groundsel *Silybum marianum Milk thistle *Sonchus asper Prickly sow-thistle *Sonchus oleraceus Common sow-thistle Wyethia angustifolia Narrowleaf mules ears Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur Betulaceae Alnus rhombifolia White alder Boraginaceae Amsinckia menziesii Common fiddlneck Nemophila menziesii Baby blue-eyes Plagiobothrys bracteatus Bracted popcornflower Plagiobothrys fulvus Fulvous popcornflower Plagiobothrys greenei Greene's popcornflower Plagiobothrys stipitatus var. micranthus Stipitate popcornflower Plagiobothrys stipitatus var. stipitatus Stipitate popcornflower Brassicaceae (Cruciferae) *Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd's purse Cardamine oligosperma Few-seed bitter cress *Hirschfeldia incana Short-podded mustard Lepidium nitidum var. nitidum Shining peppergrass *Raphanus raphanistrum Jointed charlock *Raphanus sativus Wild radish *Sisymbrium officinale Hedge mustard Campanulaceae Downingia bicornuta var. bicornuta Double-horned downingia Downingia ornatissima var. ornatissima Solano downingia Downingia pusilla Dwarf downingia Caryophyllaceae *Cerastium glomeratum Mouse-ear chickweed *Silene gallica Windmill-pink *Spergula arvensis subsp. arvensis Stickwort *Spergularia bocconi Boccone's sand-spurrey *Stellaria media Common chickweed Convolvulaceae *Convolvulus arvensis Bindweed Cuscuta sp. Dodder Crassulaceae Crassula aquatica Water pygmy-weed *Crassula tillaea Mossy pygmy-weed Cucurbitaceae Marah fabaceus California man-root Marah watsonii Watson's man-root

* Indicates a non-native species Page 2 of 6 Euphorbiaceae Croton setigerus Turkey mullein Fabaceae (Leguminosae) *Lathyrus cicera Wild-pea Lotus purshianus var. purshianus Spanish-clover Lotus wrangelianus Common trefoil Lupinus bicolor Miniature lupine *Medicago polymorpha California burclover *Robinia pseudoacacia Black locust *Trifolium campestre Hop clover Trifolium depauperatum Dwarf sack clover *Trifolium dubium Little hop clover *Trifolium glomeratum Clover *Trifolium hirtum Rose clover Trifolium microcephalum Small-headed clover *Trifolium subterraneum Subterranean clover Trifolium variegatum White-tip clover Trifolium willdenovii Tomcat clover *Vicia benghalensis Purple vetch *Vicia sativa Common vetch *Vicia villosa Winter vetch Fagaceae Quercus douglasii Blue oak Quercus lobata Valley oak Quercus wislizeni var. wislizeni Interior live oak Gentianaceae Cicendia quadragnularis Timwort Zeltnera muehlenbergii June centaury Geraniaceae *Erodium botrys Broad-leaf filaree *Erodium moschatum White-stem filaree *Geranium dissectum Cut-leaf geranium Hypericaceae *Hypericum perforatum Klamathweed Juglandaceae Juglans hindsii Northern California black walnut Lamiaceae (Labiatae) *Lamium amplexicaule Deadnettle *Marrubium vulgare Horehound *Mentha pulegium Pennyroyal Pogogyne zizphoroides Sacramento mesamint Trichostema lanceolatum Vinegar weed Limnanthaceae Limnanthes alba subsp. alba White meadowfoam Lythraceae *Lythrum hyssopifolia Hyssop loosestrife

* Indicates a non-native species Page 3 of 6 Malvaceae Sidalcea calycosa subsp. calycosa Annual checker mallow Moraceae *Ficus carica Fig Myrsinaceae *Anagalis arvensis Scarlet pimpernel Anagalis minimus Chaffweed Oleaceae *Olea europaea Olive Onagraceae Clarkia purpurea subsp. quadrivulnera Four spot Clarkia unguiculata Canyon clarkia Epilobium brachycarpum Summer cottonweed Epilobium ciliatum Hairy willow-herb Epilobium densiflorum Dense-flower spike-primrose Epilobium torreyi Brook spike-primrose Oenothera sp. Evening primrose Orobanchaceae Castilleja attenuata Valley tassels Castilleja camprestis subsp. campestris Owl's-clover *Parentucellia viscosa Yellow glandweed Triphysaria eriantha Butter-and-eggs Triphysaria versicolor subsp. faucibarbata Triphysaria Papaveraceae Eschscholzia californica California poppy Phrymaceae Mimulus bicolor Monkeyflower Mimulus guttatus Common monkeyflower Plantaginaceae Callitriche heterophylla var. heterophylla Larger water-starwort Callitriche marginata Winged water-starwort Collinsia sparsiflora var. sparsiflora Few-flowered collinsia Gratiola ebracteata Bractless hedge-hyssop Gratiola heterosepala Bogg's Lake hedge-hyssop *Plantago coronopus Cut-leaf plantain Plantago elongata Elongate plantain *Plantago lanceolata English plantain Veronica peregrina subsp. xalapensis Purslane speedwell Polemoniaceae Navarretia intertexta subsp. intertexta Needle-leaved navarretia Navarretia leucocephala White-flowered navarretia Navarretia leucocephala subsp. leucocephala White-flowered navarretia Navarretia pubescens Downy navarretia Polygonaceae Persicaria sp. Smartweed *Polygonum aviculare Common knotweed

* Indicates a non-native species Page 4 of 6 *Rumex acetosella Sheep sorrel *Rumex crispus Curly dock *Rumex pulcher Fiddle dock Portulacaceae Calandrinia ciliata Red maids Claytonia parviflora Miner's lettuce Claytonia perfoliata Miner's lettuce Montia fontana Blinks Ranunculaceae Delphinium variegatum subsp. variegatum Royal larkspur Ranunculus aquatilus Aquatic buttercup Ranunculus bonariensis var. trisepalus Vernal pool buttercup *Ranunculus muricatus Spiny-fruit buttercup Rosaceae *Rubus discolor Himalayan blackberry Rubiaceae *Galium aparine Goose grass *Galium parisiense Wall bedstraw Salicaceae Populus fremontii subsp. fremontii Fremont cottonwood Salix exigua Narrow-leaved willow Salix gooddingii Goodding's black willow Salix laevigata Red willow Simaroubaceae *Ailanthus altissima Tree of heaven Urticaceae *Urtica urens Dwarf nettle Verbenaceae *Verbena litoralis Brazilian vervain

Angiosperms -Monocots Agavaceae Chlorogalum pomeridianum var. pomeridianum Soap plant Alismataceae Damasonium californicum Fringed water-plantain Alliaceae Allium amplectens Clasping onion Cyperaceae Carex barbarae Santa Barbara sedge Carex praegracilis Clustered field-sedge Cyperus eragrostis Tall flatsedge Eleocharis acicularis Least spikerush Eleocharis macrostachya Creeping spikerush *Eleocharis pachycarpa Black sand spikerush Schoenoplectus acutus var. occidentalis Hard-stem tule

* Indicates a non-native species Page 5 of 6 Juncaceae Juncus bufonius Toad rush *Juncus capitatus Capped rush Juncus occidentalis Slender rush Juncus uncialis Inch-high rush Juncus xiphioides Iris-leaf rush Juncaginaceae Lilaea scilloides Flowering quillwort Liliaceae Calochortus albus White globe lily Poaceae (Gramineae) *Aegilops triuncialis Barbed goatgrass *Aira caryophyllea Silver European hairgrass Alopecurus saccatus Pacific foxtail Aristida oligantha Oldfield three-awn *Avena fatua Wild oat *Avena sp. Oat *Briza minor Small quaking grass *Bromus diandrus Ripgut grass *Bromus hordeaceus Soft chess *Crypsis schoenoides Swamp pricklegrass *Dactylis glomerata Orchard grass Deschampsia danthonioides Annual hairgrass Elymus glaucus Blue wildrye *Gastridium phleoides Nit grass Glyceria x occidentalis Western mannagrass *Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum Mediterranean barley *Hordeum murinum Foxtail barley *Lolium multiflorum Italian ryegrass Phalaris lemmonii Lemmon's canary grass *Phalaris paradoxa Paradox canary-grass *Poa annua Annual bluegrass *Poa bulbosa subsp. vivipara Bulbous bluegrass *Polypogon monspeliensis Annual beard grass *Taeniatherum caput-medusae Medusahead *Vulpia bromoides Brome fescue Vulpia microstachys Small fescue *Vulpia myuros Rattail fescue Potamogetonaceae Potamogeton sp. Pondweed Themidaceae Brodiaea coronaria subsp. coronaria Harvest brodiaea Brodiaea elegans subsp. elegans Harvest brodiaea Dichelostemma multiflorum Wild hyacinth Triteleia hyacinthina White brodiaea Triteleia laxa Ithuriel's spear Typhaceae Typha domingensis Southern cattail

* Indicates a non-native species Page 6 of 6 Appendix B. Wildlife Species Observed Within the Creekview Study Area

Appendix B Wildlife Species Observed Within the Creekview Study Area

Amphibians

Sierran treefrog Pseudacris regilla Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana Reptiles

Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis Gopher snake Pituophis melanoleucus Valley garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis fitchi Birds

Great blue heron Ardea herodias Great egret Ardea alba Snowy egret Egretta thula Green heron Butorides virescens Turkey vulture Cathartes aura Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis American kestrel Falco sparverius Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Great horned owl Bubo virginianus Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna Nuttall's woodpecker Picoides nuttallii Northern flicker Colaptes auratus Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Western scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica Yellow-billed magpie Pica nuttalli American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris American robin Turdus migratorius Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos European starling Sturnus vulgaris Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus Page 1 of 2 Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Song sparrow Melospiza melodia Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Brewer's blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater Bullock's oriole Icterus bullockii House finch Carpodacus mexicanus Mammals

Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus California ground squirrel Spermophilus beecheyi Botta's pocket gopher Thomomys bottae California vole Microtus californicus Coyote Canis latrans Raccoon Procyon lotor

Page 2 of 2 Appendix C. Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Region of the Creekview Study Area

Appendix C Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Region of the Creekview Study Area

Family Taxon Common Name Status* Flowering Period Habitat Probability on Project Site

Alismataceae Sagittaria sanfordii Fed: - May-October Marshes and swamps (assorted Possible. Suitable habitat is present in the study area. shallow freshwater). Not observed onsite. Sanford's arrowhead State: - CNPS: List 1B.2

Asteraceae (Compositae) Balsamorhiza macrolepis macrolepis Fed: - March-June Cismontane woodland; valley and Possible. Marginal habitat is present in the study area. foothill grassland; [sometimes Not observed onsite. Big-scale balsam-root State: - serpentinite]. CNPS: List 1B.2

Campanulaceae Downingia pusilla Fed: - March-May Valley and foothill grassland Occurs. Observed in a basin vernal pool, wetland swale, (mesic); vernal pools. and a man-made ditch onsite in 2006. Dwarf downingia State: - CNPS: List 2.2

Legenere limosa Fed: - April-June Vernal pools. Possible. Suitable habitat is present in the study area. Not observed onsite. Legenere State: - CNPS: List 1B.1

Juncaceae Juncus leiospermus ahartii Fed: - March-May Vernal pools. Possible. Suitable habitat is present in the study area. Not observed onsite. Ahart's dwarf rush State: - CNPS: List 1B.2

Juncus leiospermus leiospermus Fed: - March-May Chaparral; cismontane woodland; Unlikely. The nearest documented occurrence is valley and foothill grassland; considered to be erroneous and a possible Red Bluff dwarf rush State: - vernal pools; [vernally mesic]. misidentification (CNDDB 2008). Not observed onsite. CNPS: List 1B.1

Page 1 of 3 Appendix C Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Region of the Creekview Study Area

Family Taxon Common Name Status* Flowering Period Habitat Probability on Project Site

Liliaceae Fritillaria agrestis Fed: - March-April Chaparral; cismontane woodland; Possible. Marginal habitat is present in the study area. valley and foothill grassland; [clay, Not observed onsite. Stinkbells State: - sometimes serpentinite]. CNPS: List 4.2

Orobanchaceae Cordylanthus mollis hispidus Fed: - June-September Meadows; playas; [alkaline]. 1- None. Suitable habitat (alkaline) does not occur in the 155m. study area. Not observed onsite. Hispid bird's-beak State: - CNPS: List 1B.1

Plantaginaceae Gratiola heterosepala Fed: - April-June Marshes and swamps (lake Occurs. Observed in one deep basin vernal pool onsite in margins); vernal pools. Below 2006 and 2008. Bogg's Lake hedge-hyssop State: CE 1200 m. CNPS: List 1B.2

Poaceae (Gramineae) Orcuttia tenuis Fed: FT May-September Vernal pools. Unlikely. Marginal habitat onsite and no known occurrences within Placer County. Not observed onsite. Slender Orcutt grass State: CE CNPS: List 1B.1

Orcuttia viscida Fed: FE May-June Vernal pools. Unlikely. Marginal habitat onsite and no known occurrences within Placer County. Not observed onsite. Sacramento Valley Orcutt grass State: CE CNPS: List 1B.1

Polemoniaceae Navarretia myersii myersii Fed: - May-May Vernal pools. Possible. Suitable habitat is present in the study area. Not observed onsite. Pincushion navarretia State: - CNPS: List 1B.1

Page 2 of 3 Appendix C Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Region of the Creekview Study Area

Family Taxon Common Name Status* Flowering Period Habitat Probability on Project Site

*Status

Federal: State: CNPS (California Native Plant Society - List.RED Code): FE - Federal Endangered CE - California Endangered List 1A - Extinct FT - Federal Threatened CT - California Threatened List 1B - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere FPE - Federal Proposed Endangered CR - California Rare List 2 - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, more common elsewhere FPT - Federal Proposed Threatened CSC - California Species of Special Concern List 3 - Plants about which more information is needed, a review list FC - Federal Candidate List 4 - Plants of limited distribution, a watch list RED Code 1 - Seriously endangered (>80% of occurrences threatened) 2 - Fairly endangered (20 to 80% of occurrences threatened) 3 - Not very endangered (<20% of occurrences threatened)

Page 3 of 3 Appendix D. Special-Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Region of the Creekview Study Area

Appendix D Special-Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Region Surrounding the Creekview Study Area

Status* Habitat Probability on Project Site

Invertebrates

Vernal pool fairy shrimp Fed: FT Vernal pools and other temporary bodies of water in southern and Occurs. Branchinecta spp. cysts present onsite, assumed to be B. Branchinecta lynchi State: - Central Valley of California. Most common in smaller grass or lynchi (Helm 2007). mud bottomed swales or basalt flow depression pools in unplowed Other: - grasslands.

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp Fed: FE Found in vernal pools in the Central Valley of California and in Unlikely. Marginal habitat in study area. Not observed during Lepidurus packardi State: - the San Francisco Bay area. Inhabits vernal pools with clear to surveys (Helm 2007). highly turbid water. Other: -

Conservancy fairy shrimp Fed: FE Endemic to the Central Valley and southern coastal regions of Unlikely. Marginal habitat in study area. Not observed during Brachinecta conservatio State: - California. Prefers larger, turbid, cool-water vernal pools located surveys (Helm 2007). in alluvial swales. Other: -

Insects

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Fed: FT Requires host plant, elderberry (Sambucus spp.) for most of its life None. No elderberry shrubs are present in the study area (Estep Desmocerus californicus dimorphus State: - cycle. Shrubs must have stem diameters at ground level of 1.0 inch 2008a). Harris property not surveyed. or greater and shrubs must be found less than 3,000 feet in Other: * elevation.Typically riparian and upland associated.

Fish

Lahontan cutthroat trout Fed: FT Historically found in all cold waters of the Lahontan Basin, None. No suitable habitat occurs in the study area. Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi State: - including Independence Lake. Other: -

Central Valley steelhead Fed: FT Found in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their None. No suitable habitat occurs in the study area. Oncorhynchus mykiss State: - tributaries. Migrates through the estuary to spawning grounds. Eggs are laid in small and medium gravel and need a good water Other: - flow to survive.

Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon Fed: FT ESU covers spring-run salmon in Sacramento River and primarily None. No suitable habitat occurs in the study area. Oncorhynchus tshawytscha State: CT found in the following tributaries: Butte, Big Chico, Deer, and Mill creeks and the Feather River. Other: -

Page 1 of 5 Appendix D Special-Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Region Surrounding the Creekview Study Area

Status* Habitat Probability on Project Site

Delta smelt Fed: FT Endemic to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in coastal and None. No suitable habitat occurs in the study area. Hypomesus transpacificus State: CT brackish waters. Occurs seasonally in Suisun and San Pablo bays. Spawning usually occurs in dead-end sloughs and shallow Other: - channels.

Sacramento splittail Fed: FT Found in: (1) the Delta, (2) Suisun Bay, (3) Suisun Marsh, (4) None. No suitable habitat occurs in the study area. Pogonichthys macrolepidotus State: CSC Napa River, (5) Petaluma River, and (6) other parts of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Requires flooded vegetation for Other: spawning and rearing.

Amphibians

California tiger salamander Fed: FT Occurs in annual grassland habitat (<1500 feet) and occasionally Unlikely. None were detected during the Branchiopod and western Ambystoma californiense State: CT in grassy understory of valley-foothill hardwood habitats where spadefoot surveys (Helm 2007, 2008). lowland aquatic sites are available for breeding. Breeds primarily Other: - in vernal pools.

Western spadefoot Fed: - Found primarily in grassland habitats, but may occur in valley and Unlikely. Not detected during surveys in the CSP (Helm Biological Spea hammondii State: CSC foothill woodlands. Requires vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, or Consulting 2008). Surveys did not include the Harris property stock ponds for breeding and egg laying. Prefers more turbid pools portion of the CSP. Other: - for predator avoidance.

California red-legged frog Fed: FT Occurs in lowlands and foothills in deeper pools and slow-moving Unlikely. Suitable habitat occurs in the study area. However, none Rana aurora draytonii State: CSC streams, usually with emergent wetland vegetation. Requires 11-20 were detected during surveys along Pleasant Grove Creek (Estep weeks of permanent water for larval development. 2008a). Other: -

Reptiles

Western pond turtle Fed: - Inhabits ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches Possible. Suitable habitat occurs in the study area. Actinemys marmorata State: CSC with aquatic vegetation. Needs suitable basking sites and upland habitat for egg laying. Other: -

Giant garter snake Fed: FT Primarily associated with marshes and sloughs, less with slow- Unlikely. Marginally suitable habitat is present in the study area. Thamnophis gigas State: CT moving creeks, and absent from larger rivers. Nocturnal retreats include mammal burrows and crevices. During the day, basks on Other: - emergent vegetation such as cattails and tules.

Page 2 of 5 Appendix D Special-Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Region Surrounding the Creekview Study Area

Status* Habitat Probability on Project Site

Birds

Great blue heron Fed: - Colonial nester in tall trees near foraging areas, such as marshes, Unlikely. Marginal rookery habitat occurs in the study area. Ardea herodias State: - lake margins, tidal-flats, rivers, and streams. Also forages in open fields and cropland. Other: *

Great egret Fed: - Colonial nester in tall trees. Rookeries usually located near Unlikely. Marginal rookery habitat occurs in the study area. Ardea alba State: - marshes, tidal-flats, irrigated pastures, and the margins of rivers and lakes. Other: *

Snowy egret Fed: - Colonial nester in dense tules. Rookeries are situated close to Unlikely. Marginal rookery habitat occurs in the study area. Egretta thula State: - foraging areas, which include marshes, tidal flats, streams, meadows, and lake margins. Other: *

Black-crowned night-heron Fed: - Colonial nester in trees and sometimes tule patches along large Unlikely. Marginal rookery habitat occurs in the study area. Nycticorax nycticorax State: - rivers and salt and freshwater marshes. Rookeries are located adjacent to foraging areas. Other: *

White-tailed kite Fed: - Found in lower foothills and valley margins with scattered oaks Occurs. Observed two nests in 2008 and species foraging in the Elanus leucurus State: CFP and along river bottomlands or marshes adjacent to oak study area. woodlands. Nests in trees with dense tops. Other: *

Northern harrier Fed: - Frequents meadows, grasslands, open rangelands, freshwater Occurs. Observed foraging during surveys (Estep 2008a, 2008b). Circus cyaneus State: CSC emergent wetlands; seldom found in wooded areas. Found in or near freshwater and salt marshes. Nests on the ground in shrubby Other: - vegetation near marsh edge.

Swainson's hawk Fed: - Breeds in open areas with scattered trees; prefers riparian and Occurs. Observed nests in 2007 and 2008 and species foraging in Buteo swainsoni State: CT sparse oak woodland habitats. Requires nearby grasslands, grain the study area (Estep 2008a, 2008b). fields, or alfalfa for foraging. Rare breeding species in Central Other: * Valley.

California black rail Fed: - Inhabits salt, fresh, and brackish water marshes with little daily Unlikely. Only very marginal habitat is present, and the existing Laterallus jamaicensis coturnculus State: CT and/or annual water fluctuations. In freshwater habitats, preference marsh is seasonal. is for dense bulrush and cattails. Several scattered populations Other: * documented from Butte Co. to southern Nevada Co.

Page 3 of 5 Appendix D Special-Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Region Surrounding the Creekview Study Area

Status* Habitat Probability on Project Site

Greater sandhill crane Fed: - Nesting habitat in NE California includes wet meadows that are Unlikely. Marginally suitable habitat occurs in the study area. Grus canadensis tabida State: CT often interspersed with emergent vegetation. Winters in the Central Valley using irrigated pastures as habitat. Other: CFP

Long-billed curlew Fed: - Breeds in short grass prairies and wet meadows in northeastern None for breeding habitat. Winter foraging habitat is present, but the Numenius americanus State: CSC California. Sometimes a visitor to coastal areas. Non-breeders may species does not breed in this area be found in the Central Valley during the summer. Other:

Western yellow-billed cuckoo Fed: FC Inhabits riparian forersts along the broad, lower floodplains of Unlikely. Highly unlikely - marginally suitable habitat and generally Coccyzus americanus occidentalis State: CE larger rivers. Nests in thickes of willows and cottonwoods with an not considered a nesting bird in Placer County. understory of blackberry, nettle, or wild grape. Other: -

Burrowing owl Fed: - Found in annual and perennial grasslands. Nests in burrows dug Possible. Suitable habitat occurs in the study area. Athene cunicularia State: CSC by small mammals, primarily ground squirrels. Other: *

Loggerhead shrike Fed: - Found in broken woodlands, shrubland, and other habitats. Prefers Occurs. Observed foraging in the study area (Estep 2008a, 2008b). Lanius ludovicianus State: CSC open country with scattered perches for hunting and fairly dense brush for nesting. Other: *

Purple martin Fed: - Breeds in riparian woodland, oak woodland, open coniferous Unlikely. Marginal habitat occurs in the study area. Progne subis State: CSC forests. Secondary cavity nester. Requires nest sites close to open foraging areas of water or land. Other: *

Bank swallow Fed: - Colonial nester near riparian and oher lowland habitats. Requires None. No suitable habitat occurs in the study area. Riparia riparia State: CT vertical banks or cliffs with fine-textured, sandy soils near streams, rivers, and lakes. Other: *

Grasshopper sparrow Fed: - Breeds in grasslands and savannahs in rolling hills and lower Unlikely. Marginal habitat occurs in the study area. Ammodramus savannarum State: CSC mountain hillsides up to 5000 feet elevation. Other: -

Page 4 of 5 Appendix D Special-Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Region Surrounding the Creekview Study Area

Status* Habitat Probability on Project Site

Tricolored blackbird Fed: - Colonial nester in dense cattails, tules, brambles or other dense Possible for foraging, unlikely to nest. Agelaius tricolor State: CSC vegetation. Requires open water, dense vegetation, and open grassy areas for foraging. Other: *

Mammals

Yuma myotis Fed: - Inhabits forests and woodlands. Requires water over which it Likely to forage, unlikely to roost. Myotis yumanensis State: - feeds. Roosts colonially in a variety of natural and human-made sites, including caves, mines, buildings, bridges, and trees. Other: -

Townsend's big-eared bat Fed: - Found in a variety of habitats. Most common in mesic sites with Likely to forage, unlikely to roost. Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii State: CSC forest or woodland component. Roosting and maternity sites in caves, mines, lava tubes, tunnels, and buildings. Gleans insects Other: * from brush or trees and feeds along habitat edges.

Pallid bat Fed: - Occurs in grasslands, woodlands, deserts & urban habitats; open Likely to forage, unlikely to roost. Antrozous pallidus State: CSC habitat required for foraging. Common in dry habitats with rocky outcrops, cliffs, and crevices for roosting. Roosts include caves, Other: * mines, bridges & occasionally hollow trees, buildings.

*Status Federal: State: Other: FE - Federal Endangered CE - California Endangered Some species have protection under the other designations, such as the California FT - Federal Threatened CT - California Threatened Department of Forestry Sensitive Species, Bureau of Land Management Sensitive FPE - Federal Proposed Endangered CR - California Rare Species, U.S.D.A. Forest Service Sensitive Species, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. FPT - Federal Proposed Threatened CC - California Candidate Raptors and their nests are protected by provisions of the California Fish and Game FC - Federal Candidate CFP - California Fully Protected Code. Certain areas, such as wintering areas of the monarch butterfly, may be protected FPD - Federal Proposed for Delisting CSC - California Species of Special Concern by policies of the California Department of Fish and Game.

Page 5 of 5 APPENDIX B

Federally-Listed Large Branchiopods Sampling at the Creekview Project.

Helm Biological Consulting, June 2007

FEDERALLY-LISTED LARGE BRANCHIOPODS SAMPLING AT THE CREEKVIEW PROJECT

Prepared for: BLUE OAKS PROPERTY OWNERS P.O. Box 1328 Roseville, CA 95678 Contact: Bill Turpie (916) 759-6898

Prepared by: HELM BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 2273 Nolen Drive Lincoln, CA 95648 Contact: Brent Helm (916) 543-7397

June 2007

FEDERALLY-LISTED LARGE BRANCHIOPODS SAMPLING AT THE CREEKVIEW PROJECT

INTRODUCTION

Helm Biological Consulting was contracted by Blue Oaks Property Owners to conduct dry and wet-season sampling for large branchiopods (fairy shrimp, tadpole shrimp, and clam shrimp) that are listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (e.g., vernal pool fairy shrimp [Branchinecta lynchi] and vernal pool tadpole shrimp [Lepidurus packardi]) at the Creekview Project.

The Creekview Project consists of approximately 500 acres and is located west of Fiddyment Road and immediately north and south of Phillip Road in the Roseville area of Placer County, California. Additionally, the Creekview Project is located in the central portion of Section 14 and the north central portion of Section 23, Township 11 North, and Range 5 East of the Pleasant Grove 7.5 minute U.S. Geological Survey topographic quadrangle map (Latitude 038o 48’ North; Longitude 121o 23’ West; UTM Northing 4295842; and UTM Easting 100640296) (Figure 1). North Fork Associates conducted a wetland delineation on site (Exhibit A). For the breakdown of habitat acreage by type refer to Exhibit A. The Creekview Project is proposed for residential development.

This report discusses the methods and results of the dry and wet-season sampling efforts for the presence of federally-listed large branchiopods at the Creekview Project.

Large Branchiopod Sampling Ph: (916) 543-7397 Creekview Project Fax: (916) 543-7398 1

METHODS

Large branchiopod surveys consisted of both dry-season and wet-season sampling. Survey methods generally followed USFWS’s Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees for Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods (1996) and are described below.

Dry-Season Sampling

Dr. Brent Helm conducted dry-season sampling on October 13 and 14, 2006 and May 11, 2007 as authorized by USFWS (Appendix A). Dr. Helm was assisted by Mrs. Becky Rozumowicz. Sampling was conducted under permit TE-795930-4 of Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq., and its implementing regulations.

All areas that potentially could support federally-listed large branchiopods were sampled. Potential habitat for federally-listed large branchiopods is defined as any seasonal inundated depression that on average ponds water two inches or greater in depth for 14 or more consecutive days for fairy shrimp or 30 or more consecutive days for tadpole shrimp. Potential habitat characteristics of large branchiopods are based on the life history of Central Valley endemics (Eriksen and Belk 1999; Helm 1998, 1999; Helm and Vollmar 2002). The presence of water marks, algae mats, driftlines, hydrophytic vegetation (“water-loving plants”), slope, contributing watershed, maximum potential ponding depth and aquatic arthropods (i.e., crustaceans and insects) exoskeletons were helpful indicators for evidence of ponding depth and duration. Habitats that swiftly flow water (e.g., creeks, streams, ephemeral drainages) or semi-to-permanently inundated areas that support population of predators (e.g. bullfrogs, fish, and crayfish) were not generally considered suitable habitat for federally-listed large branchiopods.

Dry-season sampling involved the collection of a minimum of ten-soil sub-samples mainly from the lowest topographic areas within each basin considered potential habitat onsite. Soil samples were placed in liter-size plastic freezer bags and marked with the project name, basin number, and date. The soil was then transported to Helm Biological Consulting’s laboratory for processing and analysis.

Large Branchiopod Sampling Ph: (916) 543-7397 Creekview Project Fax: (916) 543-7398 3

In the laboratory, a brine solution was prepared by mixing table salt (NaCl) with lukewarm tap water in a large container. The collected soil material was placed in the brine solution. The soil material was then gently worked by hand to breakdown any persistent soil structure. The organic material rising to the top of the brine solution was skimmed off and placed in a 600-micron diameter pore-size sieve stacked atop a 75- micron diameter pore-size sieve. The soil material was processed through the top sieve by flushing it with lukewarm tap water while gently rubbing it with a soft-bristle brush. The soil retained from the 75-micron diameter pore size sieve was then removed and thinly (≈1.0 mm) spread into plastic petri dishes.

The contents of each petri dish were examined under a 10 to 252-power zoom binocular microscope. A minimum of 0.5-hour was spent searching the contents of each petri dish for large branchiopod cysts (embryonic eggs). Dr. Helm’s large branchiopod cyst reference collection and scanning electron micrographs of cysts (Hill and Shepard 1998, Mura 1991, and Gilchrist 1978) were used to identify and compare any cysts observed within the soil samples.

Wet-Season Sampling

Dr. Brent Helm conducted wet-season sampling as authorized by USFWS (Appendix A). Sampling was conducted under permit TE-795930-4 of Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq., and its implementing regulations.

Wet-season sampling entailed dip netting all potential habitats on site for active large branchiopods. Wet-season sampling was initiated when each basin ponded a minimum of one inch of water and continued at two-week intervals until the basins were dry or 120 continuous ponding days had occurred. Wet-season sampling visits were conducted on December 31, 2006; January 11 and 25, 2007; February 15, 2007; March 01, 15, and 28, 2007; and April 12 and 26, 2007. Data forms were only filled out on the dates that basins were ponded.

Information regarding invertebrate composition and relative abundance was derived from a semi-quantitative sample taken with a dip net. A dip net was lowered vertically into the deepest portion of the inundated basin (usually the center) and rested on the bottom. The 80-μm mesh size dip net was then moved forward in the direction of the longest axis of the basin for approximately one-meter. In instances where half of the basin length was

Large Branchiopod Sampling Ph: (916) 543-7397 Creekview Project Fax: (916) 543-7398 4

less then one meter in length, the dip net was repositioned in the deepest portion of the basin and moved in the opposite direction for the remainder of the one-meter sample. Given the aperture of the dip net of 0.025 m2 and distance the dip net was moved, roughly 0.025 m3 or 25 liters of the water column was sampled horizontally each time. In those cases when the water column was shallower than the dip net aperture height, the volume of water per sweep was calculated by the horizontal distance the net was moved multiplied by the width of the dip net (25-cm) multiplied by the depth of water. After the completion of each sample sweep, the contents of the net were examined for aquatic macroscopic invertebrates. All animals captured in the dip net were identified to the lowest justifiable taxon in the field, which consisted of 30 taxonomic groups, and recorded on standardized data sheets.

The relative numbers of individuals observed within each taxonomic group was recorded in one of five categories: rare (≤2 individuals), not common (3-10 individuals), common (11-50 individual), very common (51 -100 individuals), and abundant (>100 individuals). This method allows for the relative abundances and richness of aquatic invertebrates to be compared between and among wetlands through time. Additionally, this method allows for concentration estimates of invertebrates to be calculated as number of individuals per liter of water (= number of individuals/net aperture area x length of sweep).

If large branchiopods were not detected during the semi-quantified sampling method, additional strategically placed sweeps were made with the dip net. Additional taxonomic groups of aquatic invertebrates detected using this alternative method were noted as present by on an “X” on the standardized field data sheet. After the taxonomic identification and enumeration were completed, the contents of the dip net were placed back into the basin from which they were collected.

In addition, the maximum and average ponding depth of each basin sampled was collected during each field visit.

RESULTS

Three basins identified by North Fork Associates were not considered federally-listed large branchiopod habitat. These included WS11 and WS13, which are clay flats and do not pond sufficient water for large branchiopods to complete their life cycle and SM02 is

Large Branchiopod Sampling Ph: (916) 543-7397 Creekview Project Fax: (916) 543-7398 5

a semi-permanent–permanent pond that receives summer water from the adjacent residence.

Dry-Season Sampling

A total of 202 basins were sampled using dry-season sampling techniques, this included 147 basins mapped by North Fork Associates and 55 basins (HBC1 – HBC55) identified by Helm Biological Consulting during the 2006 dry-season and 2007 wet-season as potential federally-listed large branchiopod habitat (Exhibit A). Cysts belonging to the genus Branchinecta were observed in soils collected from 11 basins (HBC 18, SW29, SW47, SW53, SW73, SW77, SW90, VP04, VP03, WS02, and WS18) on site (Table 1). In addition, cysts belonging to the California fairy shrimp (Linderiella occidentalis) were observed in soils collected from nine basins (HBC46, HBC48, SW12, SW13, SW34, VP01, VP04, WS02, and VP03) on site (Table 1).

Wet-Season Sampling

A total of 139 basins were sampled using wet-season sampling techniques. The California fairy shrimp (Linderiella occidentalis) was observed in four basins (VP04, SW12, SW13, and WS02), the lentil clam shrimp (Lynceus brachyurus) was observed in one basin (SM01), and the California clam shrimp (Cyzicus californicus) was observed in four basins (WS07, WS16, SW12, and VP21) on site (Exhibit A). Appendix B contains the field data sheets from the wet-season sampling visits.

Representative photographs of the basins on site are found in Appendix C.

DISCUSSION

The California fairy shrimp is a fairly common species in the Central Valley of California and does not have any special-status (e.g., federally- or state-listed as “threatened” or “endangered”). The lentil clam shrimp and the California clam shrimp are less frequently encountered in the Central Valley, in comparison to the California fairy shrimp. Yet, like the California fairy shrimp, these two clam shrimp species have no special-status. However, several species within the genus Branchinecta are listed as threatened or

Large Branchiopod Sampling Ph: (916) 543-7397 Creekview Project Fax: (916) 543-7398 6

endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. Given the location of the project site and the types of habitats occupied by Branchinecta cysts, the Branchinecta cysts would most likely belong to the federally-listed as threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (B. lynchi). However, positive identification of the Branchinecta cysts to species would entail hatching the cysts and rearing the hatchlings to maturity or the collection of mature large branchiopod specimens from the occupied habitat during the wet-season.

Although the 2006-2007 wet-season had a below average rain fall, six of the 11 basins that contained Branchinecta sp. cysts had sufficient ponding for the vernal pool fairy shrimp to complete its life cycle. It is common not to detect active large branchiopods during the wet-season in basins that have had large branchiopod cyst observed during the dry-season. In general, dry-season sampling techniques tend to over estimate the number of wetlands that support large branchiopods because the presence of cysts within a wetland does not necessarily indicate that the habitat is suitable for their hatching and subsequent growth to maturation and reproduction (i.e., presence during the wet-season). Wetland features may contain many large branchiopods cysts that are not viable. Although large branchiopods cysts may still be identifiable after a long residence time within the soil, they may also be viable for many years. Except for hatching the cysts, which is a complicated, expensive, and time consuming process; there currently is not a simple or reliable way to test the viability of the cysts.

Large Branchiopod Sampling Ph: (916) 543-7397 Creekview Project Fax: (916) 543-7398 7

Table 1. Results of Soil Examinations Micro- Ostracods Large Branchiopod Cysts Insect Exo- Turbularian Cladocera Live/Cysts/ Branchinecta Linderiella Hydracarina Sampling Year Basin No. Skeletons Cysts Ephippia Carapaces sp. occidentalis Live/Eggs Nematoda Collembola 2006 2007 ES002 X X X HBC001 X X X X X X HBC002 X X X X HBC003 X X XX HBC004 X HBC005 X HBC006 X X HBC007 X XX HBC008 X XX HBC009 X X HBC010 X XX HBC011 X X X X X HBC012 X X HBC013 X X XX HBC014 X X HBC015 X X X HBC016 X X X HBC017 X X XX HBC018 X XX HBC019 X X X X HBC020 X X X X HBC021 X X HBC022 X XX HBC023 X XX HBC024 X X XX X HBC025 X X X X X HBC026 X X XX X HBC027 X X XX X HBC028 X XX HBC029 X X HBC030 X XX HBC031 X XX HBC032 X X X X X HBC033 X X X HBC034 X X HBC035 X X HBC036 X X HBC037 X HBC038 X XX HBC039 X XX X HBC040 X X X X X HBC041 X X X HBC042 X XX HBC043 X HBC044 X X HBC045 X X X X X X X HBC046 X 10 5 X X HBC047 X X X HBC048 X X 3 X HBC049 X X HBC050 X XX HBC051 X X HBC052 X X X X X HBC053 X X X X X X HBC054 X X X X HBC055 X X X SM01 X SW01 X X X X X X SW02 X XX X X X SW02 X X X SW03 X X X SW04 X X X X SW05 X X SW06 X X X X SW07 X X X SW08 X X X X SW09 X X X X SW10 X XX X X X Table 1. Results of Soil Examinations Micro- Ostracods Large Branchiopod Cysts Insect Exo- Turbularian Cladocera Live/Cysts/ Branchinecta Linderiella Hydracarina Sampling Year Basin No. Skeletons Cysts Ephippia Carapaces sp. occidentalis Live/Eggs Nematoda Collembola 2006 2007 SW11 X X X X X SW12 X X X 25 X X X SW13 X X X X 15 X X SW14 X X X X X SW15 X X X X SW16 X X X X SW17 X X SW18 X X X X X SW19 X X X X SW20 X X X X X X SW21 X SW27 X X X X X X SW28 X X X X X SW29 X X X 2 X X SW30 X X X X X X SW31 X X SW32 X X X SW33 X X X SW34 X X X 2 XXX SW35 X X X X X X SW36 X XX X X X SW38, WS12 X XX X SW39 X X X X SW41 X XX X X SW42 X X X X SW43 X X X SW44 X X X SW45 X X X X SW45 X X X X X SW46 X XX X X SW47 X X X 5 X X SW48 X X X X X X X SW49 X X XX SW50 X XX X SW51 X XX SW52 X X X SW53 X X X X 5 X X X SW54 X XX X SW55 X XX X X X SW56 X X X SW57 X X X X SW58 X X XX SW59 X X X X SW60 X X X SW61 X X X X X SW62 X X X SW63 X XX SW64 X X X SW65 X X X X X X X SW66 X XX SW67 X X XX SW68 X X X X X X SW69 X X X X X X SW70 X XX SW71 X X XXX SW73 X XX 5 X SW74 X XX X X SW75 X X X X X XX SW76 X XX X X SW76 X SW77 X X 1 X X X SW78 X X X X X X X SW79 X X X X X X SW80 X X X X X SW81 X XX SW82 X XX SW83 XX X SW84 X XX X Table 1. Results of Soil Examinations Micro- Ostracods Large Branchiopod Cysts Insect Exo- Turbularian Cladocera Live/Cysts/ Branchinecta Linderiella Hydracarina Sampling Year Basin No. Skeletons Cysts Ephippia Carapaces sp. occidentalis Live/Eggs Nematoda Collembola 2006 2007 SW85 X X SW86 X X SW87 X XX SW88 X X X SW89 X X X X X X SW90 X X X X > 50 X SW91 X X X X VP01 X X X 3 X VP02 X X X X X X X VP04 X X X X 10 5 X X VP05 X X X X X X VP06 X X X X X VP07 X X X X X X VP08 X X X X X X VP13 X X X X X X VP14 X X X X X VP15 X X X VP16 X X X X X X VP17 X X X X X X X VP18 X X X X X X X VP19 X X X X VP21 X X X X X XXX WS01 X XX X WS02,VP03 X XX 2 10 X X WS03 X X WS04 X XX X X WS05 X X X X X X X WS06 X X X X WS07 X X X X WS08 X X X WS09 X XX X X WS14 X WS16, WS16a, WS16b, WS20, XXXX X X SW92 WS17 X X X X WS18 X XX 8 X X WS21 X X WS22 X XX WS26 X XX X WS27, SW72 X XX WS28 XX X WS29 X X X X WS30 X X WS32 X X X X X X WS33, WS31 X X X X X X WS34 X X X X X WS35 X X X X X

LITERATURE CITED

Eriksen, C. H., and D. Belk. 1999. Fairy shrimps of California’s puddles, pools, and playas. Mad River Press, Inc. Eureka, CA. 196 pp.

Gilchrist, B. M. 1978. Scanning electron microscope studies of the egg shell in some Anostraca (Crustacea: Branchiopoda). Cell Tiss. Res. 193: 337-351.

Helm, B. P. 1998. Biogeography of eight large branchiopods endemic to California. Pages 124-139 in Witham, C. W., E. T. Bauder, D. Belk, W.R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff. (eds.). Ecology, conservation, and management of vernal pool ecosystems – proceeding from a 1996 conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 285 pp.

Helm, B. P. 1999. Feeding ecology of Linderiella occidentalis (Dodds) (Crustacea: Anostraca). Doctoral thesis. University of California, Davis. 158 pp.

Helm, B. P., and J. E. Vollmar. 2002. Vernal pool large brachiopods. Pages 151-190 in John E. Vollmar (ed.). Wildlife and rare plant ecology of eastern Merced County’s vernal pool grasslands. Sentinel Printers, Inc. CA. 446 pp.

Hill, R. E., and W. D. Shepard. 1998. Observation on the identification of California anostracan cysts. Hydrobiologia 359: 113-123.

Mura, G. 1991. SEM morphology of resting eggs in the species of the genus Branchinecta from North America. J. Crust. Biol. 11: 432-436.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees for Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods. 11 pp.

Large Branchiopod Sampling Ph: (916) 543-7397 Creekview Project Fax: (916) 543-7398 11

APPENDIX A. USFWS AUTHORIZATION LETTER

Large Branchiopod Sampling Ph: (916) 543-7397 Creekview Project Fax: (916) 543-7398 12

APPENDIX B. FIELD DATA SHEETS

Large Branchiopod Sampling Ph: (916) 543-7397 Creekview Project Fax: (916) 543-7398 13

Project: Creekview Abundance: Surveyor(s): Helm Date:01/11/2007 R = Rare (<2 individual Weather Cond: Sunny/Clear/Cold NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals) Time: Not Recorded N/P = not ponding C = Common (11-50 individuals) S = saturated to surface VC = Very Common (50-100 individuals) I/P = Intermittent Ponding A = Abundant (>100 individuals) D = dry X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample Crustacea Insecta Mollusca Turbellaria Acari Collembola Other Herps Pool Depth (Inches) Copepods Large Branchiopods Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Micro- Other Pseud- Comments No. Max Ave. Ostracods Calanoida Cyclopoda Cladocera LIOC BRLY BRME LEPA LYBR CYCA Dytiscidae Hydrophilidae Haliplidae Notonectidae Corixidae Ephemeroptera Zygoptera Anisoptera Culicidae Chironomidae Trichoptera Lymnaeidae Physidae Planorbidae turbularian Hydracarini Invertebrate acris Other HBC47 2 1 HBC49 3 1 HBC50 3 1

Project: Creekview Abundance: Surveyor(s): Helm Date:02/15/2007 R = Rare (<2 individual Weather Cond: Warm 65° F, Wind From SW 2.5mph 10% Cloud cover NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals) Time: 1200 N/P = not ponding C = Common (11-50 individuals) S = saturated to surface VC = Very Common (50-100 individuals) I/P = Intermittent Ponding A = Abundant (>100 individuals) D = dry X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample Crustacea Insecta Mollusca Turbellaria Acari Collembola Other Herps PoolDepth (Inches) Copepods Large Branchiopods Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Micro- Other Pseud- Comments No. Max Ave.Ostracods Calanoida Cyclopoda Cladocera LIOC BRLY BRME LEPA LYBR CYCA Dytiscidae Hydrophilidae Haliplidae Notonectidae CorixidaeEphemeroptera Zygoptera Anisoptera Culicidae Chironomidae Trichoptera Lymnaeidae Physidae Planorbidae turbularian Hydracarini Invertebrate acris Other SW90 3 2 R SW83 S HBC 6 3 1 HBC48 3 2 R WS32 >12 5 R WS31 1 1 WS29 9 8 Two ponded areas in basin the rest S SW7 3 2 R WS33 9 3 HBC51 3 2 R SW82 3 2 SW85 2 2 SW86 S SW69 3 2 SW68 4 2 SW89 3 2 R SW59 1 1 HBC16 2 1 SW62 2 1 SW65 3 2 HBC12 1 1 SW35 2 1 WS16 >24 SW30 2 2 VP14 2 2 WS09 2 2 VP08 3 2 SW28 2 2 VP07 9 5 R 9" In hoof prints VP09 8 6 NC VP13 4 3 SW35 3 2 SW48 2 1 HBC26 3 2 SW47 3 2 SW49 2 1 WS16 16 SW60 2 1 SW52 3 2 VP17 5 4 SW57 3 2 SW54 2 2 HBC25 2 2 SW55 2 2 VP05 7 5 VP06 3 2 VP21 4 3 SW14 3 2 I/P Through out basin VP04 6 5 R R VP16 4 2 SM01 16 8 NC A X NC NC eggs Basin was filled by farmers for cattle WS01 2 1 SW01 3 2 SW12 8 4 SW13 2 1 WS35 5 4 X HBC47 5 1 HBC46 2 1 SW79 3 2 R HBC50 4 2 HBC49 3 2 SW33 8 5 HBC45 4 3 NC HBC43 3 2 Project: Creekview Abundance: Surveyor(s): Helm Date: 03/01/2007 R = Rare (<2 individuals) Weather Cond: 15% cloud coverage, eastern wind 3mph, 60°F NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals) Time: 1000 N/P = not ponding C = Common (11-50 individuals) S = saturated to surface VC = Very Common (50-100 individuals) I/P = Intermittent Ponding A = Abundant (>100 individuals) D = dry X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample Depth Crustacea Insecta Mollusca Turbellaria Acari Collembola Other Herps Pool (Inches) Copepods Large Branchiopods Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Comments No. Max Ave. Ostracods Calanoida Cyclopoda Cladocera LIOC BRLY BRME LEPA LYBR CYCA Dytiscidae Hydrophilidae Haliplidae Notonectidae Corixidae Ephemeroptera Zygoptera Anisoptera Culicidae Chironomidae Trichoptera Lymnaeidae Physidae Planorbidae Micro-turbularian Hydracarini Other Invertebrate Pseud-acris Other SM01 >16 10 C C NC R X NC X VP16 3 1 VP04 3 2 X SW18 5 3 SW17 4 2 R SW16 3 1 R SW15 3 1 R SW14 6 4 C X NC SW13 5 3 X SW12 >16 10 X X SW07 4 1 SW08 3 1 SW09 2 1 WS01 4 2 X X Mostly dry, ponding in pockets SW04 3 1 X SW03 4 1 X SW02 3 1 X VP01 3 2 HBC1 2 1 SW01 5 3 X SW05 4 2 X X SW06 5 3 X HBC5 3 2 XX HBC4 3 2 XX SW91 3 2 XX X WS05 2 1 C VP06 6 3 X NC X WS06 3 1 X VP05 8 6 C WS07 6 4 X WS17 3 2 R X HBC29 4 2 R R RR SW36 14 9 R SW39 3 2 R R SW42 3 2 R R SW43 2 1 SW44 3 2 R R HBC52 2 1 WS07 6 4 R R VP21 8 4 C X WS08 3 2 VP19 2 1 SW68 6 3 NC X X HBC37 3 2 HBC36 2 1 R HBC35 2 1 R HBC34 2 1 SW89 3 3 NC C X XR HBC31 3 2 R SW59 3 2 R R HBC23 2 1 R R HBC21 3 2 R R HBC22 2 1 SW61 6 4 R R NC HBC16 3 2 X SW63 2 1 R SW64,HBC14, 53 X HBC13 SW62 5 3 R SW65 3 2 R HBC11 4 2 R R R SW67 3 2 X SW66 6 3 R HBC10 3 2 X HBC9 3 2 R VP15 3 2 VP07 7 4 R X XR VP08 4 3 NC R R RNC WS09 4 3 R R X RX NC SW30 3 2 VP09 18 9 X R RX NC VP10 15 7 SW27 4 3 R NC SW28 3 2 NC SW30 3 2 NC R NC R VP14 3 2 RR R WS16 3 2 X VP17 7 5 R R SW57 3 2 R R SW55 4 2 R R HBC25 2 1 NC VP13 4 3 NC NC NC R SW54 4 2 R R R SW56 2 1 NC R R SW52 4 2 R NC R NC R NC SW60 4 2 WS16 16 9 R R SW50 3 2 R SW49 2 1 SW47 4 2 R NC NC SW45 4 2 SW46 6 4 R NC NC R HBC26 4 2 R SW35 3 2 SW34 7 5 HBC27 3 2 SW72 2 1 SW70 S SW71 S SW69 3 2 C R C HBC51 4 2 SW82 5 3 SW86 4 2 C C HBC34 5 3 R HBC45 4 2 R R HBC43 5 4 R Project: Creekview Abundance: Surveyor(s): Helm Date: 03/01/2007 R = Rare (<2 individuals) Weather Cond: 15% cloud coverage, eastern wind 3mph, 60°F NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals) Time: 1000 N/P = not ponding C = Common (11-50 individuals) S = saturated to surface VC = Very Common (50-100 individuals) I/P = Intermittent Ponding A = Abundant (>100 individuals) D = dry X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample Depth Crustacea Insecta Mollusca Turbellaria Acari Collembola Other Herps Pool (Inches) Copepods Large Branchiopods Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Comments No. Max Ave. Ostracods Calanoida Cyclopoda Cladocera LIOC BRLY BRME LEPA LYBR CYCA Dytiscidae Hydrophilidae Haliplidae Notonectidae Corixidae Ephemeroptera Zygoptera Anisoptera Culicidae Chironomidae Trichoptera Lymnaeidae Physidae Planorbidae Micro-turbularian Hydracarini Other Invertebrate Pseud-acris Other ES02 >24 R SW75 8 WS29 >24 Two pockets within a swale SW90 8 5 R RR SW83 4 2 R R HBC6 3 2 HBC7 3 2 R HBC46 6 4 R R R HBC48 4 2 WS32 7 5 C R NC WS04 8 4 SW20 4 3 WS03 4 3 SW19 4 3 WS02 4 3 VP03 3 1 SW10 1 0 VP02 12 6 HBC3 1 1 HBC2 1 1 SW80 3 2 HBC50 4 3 HBC49 4 3 SW79,WS33 10 4 X XC SW78,WS31 12 4 X X SW77 4 3 SW76 4 3 R WS34 5 3 X X WS35 5 4 X Project: Creekview Abundance: Surveyor(s): Helm Date: 03/15/2007 R = Rare (<2 individuals) Weather Cond: Sunny, Warm, 68°F, Cloud Cover 20% NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals) Time: 1030 N/P = not ponding C = Common (11-50 individuals) S = saturated to surface VC = Very Common (50-100 individuals) I/P = Intermittent Ponding A = Abundant (>100 individuals) D = dry X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample Depth Crustacea Insecta Mollusca Turbellaria Acari Collembola Other Herps Pool (Inches) Copepods Large Branchiopods Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Comments No. Max Ave. Ostracods Calanoida Cyclopoda Cladocera LIOC BRLY BRME LEPA LYBR CYCA Dytiscidae Hydrophilidae Haliplidae Notonectidae Corixidae Ephemeroptera Zygoptera Anisoptera Culicidae Chironomidae Trichoptera Lymnaeidae Physidae Planorbidae Micro-turbularian Hydracarini Other Invertebrate Pseud-acris Other VP07 5 3 R R C RR RX RR VP09 8 5 NC NC R CX X WS16 6 4 NC NC XR NC R Pocket within large swale VP17 5 4 C R C R X NC X WS16 14 9 NC NC R Pocket within large swale WS16 7 5 NC NC C C NC Pocket within large swale WS15 3 2 R R NC R XX X SW90 4 2 VC R NC X XXXX WS32 12 9 C NC R RR R RRX WS28 >16 ? NC C X X SW78 3 2 NC R NC X R R SW79 3 2 R NC X XX X SM01 >18 14 VC VC NC NC X RR X VP16 5 3 C X C X VP04 8 4 C VC XR X X X WS01 1 1 C SW12 >18 5 NC C X X X SW13 >18 10 RX X X SW14 1 1 X R NC VP21 6 4 X R NC X X VP05 2 1 X X X VP06 4 3 X X C NC R WS04 2 1 WS02 2 1 X XX X X SW19 2 1 X

Project: Creekview Abundance: Surveyor(s): Helm Date: 03/28/2007 R = Rare (<2 individuals) Weather Cond: Windy, Cool, Wind from NW, Cloud coverage 15% NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals) Time: 1200 N/P = not ponding C = Common (11-50 individuals) S = saturated to surface VC = Very Common (50-100 individuals) I/P = Intermittent Ponding A = Abundant (>100 individuals) D = dry X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample Depth Crustacea Insecta Mollusca Turbellaria Acari Collembola Other Herps Pool(Inches) Copepods Large Branchiopods Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Comments No. Max Ave.Ostracods Calanoida Cyclopoda Cladocera LIOC BRLY BRME LEPA LYBR CYCA Dytiscidae Hydrophilidae Haliplidae Notonectidae CorixidaeEphemeroptera Zygoptera Anisoptera Culicidae Chironomidae Trichoptera Lymnaeidae Physidae Planorbidae Micro-turbularian Hydracarini Other Invertebrate Pseud-acris Other SM01 >18 9 NC C R NC NC NC Semi-Permanent Pond SW12 >18 RR X X X Oxbow of stream SW13 >18 NC XXX X Oxbow of stream VP07 NC NC NC NC NC NC R X X WS16 10 6 C NC C NC NC NC IP VP17 4 1 IP SW13 >12 10 NC C NC X X WS32 >12 10 C C NC X RXIP

Project: Creekview Abundance: Surveyor(s): Helm Date: 04/12/2007 R = Rare (<2 individuals) Weather Cond: Light Wind NW, 63° F, 25% Cloud Coverage NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals) Time: 1000 N/P = not ponding C = Common (11-50 individuals) S = saturated to surface VC = Very Common (50-100 individuals) I/P = Intermittent Ponding A = Abundant (>100 individuals) D = dry X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample Depth Crustacea Insecta Mollusca Turbellaria Acari Collembola Other Herps Pool (Inches) Copepods Large Branchiopods Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Comments No. Max Ave. Ostracods Calanoida Cyclopoda Cladocera LIOC BRLY BRME LEPA LYBR CYCA Dytiscidae Hydrophilidae Haliplidae Notonectidae Corixidae Ephemeroptera Zygoptera Anisoptera Culicidae Chironomidae Trichoptera Lymnaeidae Physidae Planorbidae Micro-turbularian Hydracarini Other Invertebrate Pseud-acris Other SM01 6 3 C XNCC NC Semi-Permanent Pond SW12 5 4 XR NC NC Oxbow of stream SW13 7 4 C XNCNC X Oxbow of stream WS16 10 6 C NC C NC NC NC IP SW13 7 3 C NC CNC X NC WS32 8 4 C C X NC NC XXIP

APPENDIX C. REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS

Large Branchiopod Sampling Ph: (916) 543-7397 Creekview Project Fax: (916) 543-7398 14

Creekview Project – SW12

Creekview Project – SW07

Creekview Project – VP21

Creekview Project – SW68

Creekview Project – SW71

Creekview Project – WS25

Creekview Project – WS69

Creekview Project – HBC25

Creekview Project – SW90

Creekview Project – SW69

Creekview Project – VP14

Creekview Project – SM01

Creekview Project – SM02 semi-permanent pond

Creekview Project – SW33

Creekview Project – Displaying fishnet algae from SW33

APPENDIX C

Second Year of Federally-Listed large Branchiopod Wet-Season Sampling at the Creekview Project

Helm Biological Consulting, LLC, November 2008

SECOND YEAR OF FEDERALLY-LISTED LARGE BRANCHIOPOD WET-SEASON SAMPLING AT THE CREEKVIEW PROJECT

Prepared for: BLUE OAKS PROPERTY OWNERS PO Box 1328 Roseville, CA 95678 Contact: Bill Turpie (916) 759-6898

Prepared by: HELM BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING, LLC 2273 Nolen Drive Lincoln, CA 95648 Contact: Brent Helm (916) 543-7397

November 2008

SECOND YEAR OF FEDERALLY-LISTED LARGE BRANCHIOPOD WET-SEASON SAMPLING AT THE CREEKVIEW PROJECT

INTRODUCTION

Helm Biological Consulting, LLC was contracted by Blue Oaks Property Owners to conduct a second year of wet-season sampling for large branchiopods (fairy shrimp, tadpole shrimp, and clam shrimp) that are listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (e.g., vernal pool fairy shrimp [Branchinecta lynchi] and vernal pool tadpole shrimp [Lepidurus packardi]) at the Creekview Project.

The Creekview Project consists of approximately 500 acres and is located west of Fiddyment Road and immediately north and south of Phillip Road in the Roseville area of Placer County, California. Additionally, the Creekview Project is located in the central portion of Section 14 and the north central portion of Section 23 of Township 11 North and Range 5 East of the Pleasant Grove 7.5 minute U.S. Geological Survey topographic quadrangle map (Latitude 038o 48’ North; Longitude 121o 23’ West; UTM Northing 4295842; and UTM Easting 100640296) (Figure 1). North Fork Associates conducted a wetland delineation onsite (Exhibit A). The Creekview Project is proposed for residential development.

This report discusses the methods and results of the second year of wet-season sampling for the presence of federally-listed large branchiopods at the Creekview Project.

Wet-Season Sampling: Second Year Ph: (916) 543-7397 Creekview Project Fax: (916) 543-7398 1

“We certify that the information in this survey report and attached exhibits fully and accurately represent our work.”

Brent P. Helm Signature ______Date 11-30-08

Todd F. Wood Signature ______Date 11-30-08

Wet-Season Sampling: Second Year Ph: (916) 543-7397 Creekview Project Fax: (916) 543-7398 2

METHODS

Dr. Brent Helm conducted wet-season sampling as authorized by U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Appendix A). Dr. Helm was assisted by Mr. Todd Wood on February 20 and 22, 2008. Sampling was conducted under permit TE-795930-5 of Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the federal Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq., and its implementing regulations. Methods generally followed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees for Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods (1996) and are described below.

Site visits were conducted on December 12 and 23, 2007; January 10, 23, and 25, 2008; February 6 and 22, 2008; March 6 and 20, 2008; and April 3 and 18, 2008. Wet-season sampling was initiated when any of the basins on site ponded a minimum of 1.0 inch of water and continued at two-week intervals until the basins were dry or 120 continuous ponding days had occurred.

All basins determined as potential large branchiopod habitat were viewed prior to entering the water for active large branchiopods. Potential habitat for federally-listed large branchiopods is defined as any seasonal inundated depression that on average ponds water, or gently conveys water, 2.0 inches or greater in depth for 14 or more consecutive days for fairy shrimp and 30 or more consecutive days for tadpole shrimp. Potential habitat characteristics of large branchiopods are based on the life history of Central Valley endemics (Eriksen and Belk 1999; Helm 1998, 1999; Helm and Vollmar 2002). Habitats that swiftly flow water (e.g., creeks, streams, ephemeral drainages) or semi-to- permanently inundated areas, especially those that support predators (e.g., fish, crayfish, and bullfrogs) were not considered suitable habitat for federally-listed large branchiopods.

Any large branchiopods observed were quickly netted, viewed with the aid of an 18x hand lens to determine species, and released unharmed back into the environment from which they were obtained. If no large branchiopods were observed, then a semi- quantitative sample was taken to determine the relative abundance of macroscopic invertebrates as follows.

A dip net was lowered vertically into the deepest portion of the inundated basin (usually the center) and rested on the bottom. The 153-μm (plankton net) to 500-μm mesh size dip

Wet-Season Sampling: Second Year Ph: (916) 543-7397 Creekview Project Fax: (916) 543-7398 4

net was then moved in the direction of the longest axis of the basin for approximately one-meter. Smaller mesh size nets were used during the first few sampling events to maximize the detection of young (instars) large branchiopods. In instances where half of the basin length is less than one meter in length, the net was repositioned in the deepest portion of the basin and moved in the opposite direction for the remainder of the one- meter sample. Given the aperture of the net of 0.025 m2 and distance the net was moved, roughly 0.025 m3 or 25 liters of the water column was sampled horizontally each time. In those cases when the water column was shallower than the net aperture height, the volume of water per sweep was calculated by the horizontal distance the net is moved multiplied by the width of the net (25-cm) multiplied by the depth of water. After the completion of each sample sweep, the contents of the net were examined for aquatic macroscopic invertebrates. All animals captured in the net were identified to the lowest justifiable taxon in the field (consisting of 28 taxonomic groups), and recorded on standardized data sheets.

The relative numbers of individuals observed within each taxonomic group were recorded in one of five categories: rare (≤2 individuals), not common (3-10 individuals), common (11-50 individual), very common (51 -100 individuals), and abundant (>100 individuals). This method allows for the relative abundances and richness of aquatic invertebrates to be compared between and among wetlands through time. Additionally, this method allows for concentration estimates of invertebrates to be calculated as number of individuals per liter of water (= number of individuals/net aperture area x length of sweep).

If large branchiopods were not detected during the semi-quantified sampling method, additional strategically placed sweeps were made with the net. Additional taxonomic groups of aquatic invertebrates detected using this alternative method is noted as present by an “X” on the standardized field data sheet. After the taxonomic identification and enumeration were completed, the contents of the net were placed back into the basin from which they were collected.

If no federally-listed large branchiopods were captured during the semi-quantitative sampling effort then the entire basin was sampled as follows. Starting at one end of the basin, the net was moved from one side of the basin to the other in a zigzag fashion, until the opposite end of the basin was reached. During this procedure, the net was often bounced along the basin bottom (to encourage large branchiopods to move up into the water column from hiding places for easier capture) and viewed often for evidence of large branchiopods. If still no federally-listed large branchiopods were captured, then

Wet-Season Sampling: Second Year Ph: (916) 543-7397 Creekview Project Fax: (916) 543-7398 5

additional dip netting took place in specific locations within the basin that may have not been sampled during prior efforts.

The maximum ponding depth, average ponding depth, ponding surface area, and water temperature of each habitat sampling was collected during each field visit. In addition, the following was collected for each basin sampled: potential maximum ponding depth, potential average ponding depth, potential ponding surface area, and the habitat condition.

RESULTS

The California fairy shrimp (Linderiella occidentalis) was observed in five basins (VP01, VP04, SW12, SW33, and SW36), the lentil clam shrimp (Lynceus brachyurus) was observed in one basin (SM01), and the California clam shrimp (Cyzicus californicus) was observed in three basins (VP01, WS16b, and SW12) on site (Exhibit A). Appendix B contains the field data sheets from the wet-season sampling visits. Representative photographs of the basins on site are found in Appendix C.

DISCUSSION

The California fairy shrimp is a fairly common species in the Central Valley of California and does not have any special-status (e.g., federally- or state-listed as “threatened” or “endangered”). The lentil clam shrimp and the California clam shrimp are less frequently encountered, in comparison to the California fairy shrimp. Yet, like the California fairy shrimp, these two clam shrimp have no special-status.

LITERATURE CITED

Eriksen, C. H., and D. Belk. 1999. Fairy shrimps of California’s puddles, pools, and playas. Mad River Press, Inc. Eureka, CA. 196 pp.

Wet-Season Sampling: Second Year Ph: (916) 543-7397 Creekview Project Fax: (916) 543-7398 6

proceeding from a 1996 conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 285 pp.

Helm, B. P. 1999. Feeding ecology of Linderiella occidentalis (Dodds) (Crustacea: Anostraca). Doctoral thesis. University of California, Davis. 158 pp.

Wet-Season Sampling: Second Year Ph: (916) 543-7397 Creekview Project Fax: (916) 543-7398 7

APPENDIX A. USFWS AUTHORIZATION LETTER

Wet-Season Sampling: Second Year Ph: (916) 543-7397 Creekview Project Fax: (916) 543-7398 8

APPENDIX B. FIELD DATA SHEETS

Wet-Season Sampling: Second Year Ph: (916) 543-7397 Creekview Project Fax: (916) 543-7398 9

Project: Creekview Surveyor(s): Helm Quad: Pleasant Grove County: Placer Date: 12/12/2007 Weather Cond: Cool, overcast, 80% cloud cover Township: 11 North Lat.: 38o 48' North Time: 11:19 am Air Temperature(°F): 56 Range: 5 East Long.: 121o 23' West

Abundance: R = Rare (£2 individuals), NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals), C = Common (11-50 individuals), VC = Very Common (51-100 individuals), A = Abundant (>100 individuals) Habitat Condition: Hydrology: D = dry, N/P = not ponding, M=moist, S = saturated to surface, I/P = intermittent ponding, X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample UD = undisturbed, D = disturbed - tt = tire tracks, t = trash, p =plowing LB Redroductive Status: i = immature, m = mature, g = gravid (with eggs) UG = ungrazed, G = grazed - C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, l = light grazing, m = moderate grazing, h = heavy grazing Turbell Collem Present Depth Potential Surface Area Crustacea Insecta Mollusca aria Acari bola Other Herps (inches) Depth (Inches) (ft2) Copepods Large Branchiopods (LB) Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Other Water Other Max Max Ave. Ave. LIOC Physidae LEPA BRLY LYBR CYCA BRME Cladocera Ostracods Present Pseudacris Hydracarini Trichoptera Planorbidae Invertebrate Culicidae Lymnaeidae

Temp Corixidae Pot. Max* Haliplidae

Calanoida Habitat Zygoptera Dytiscidae Cyclopoda Anisoptera Hydrophilidae

o Ephemeroptera Notonectidae Micro-turbularian Pool No. ( F) Chironomidae Condition Comments HBC47 45 427518300 D-tt, UG HBC49 46 426424100 D-tt, UG HBC50 46 42645080 D-tt, UG WS16b 45 >12 9 >20 >12 100 200 G-C,m Pockets in swale WS29 45 5 3 >12 >12 9 36 UD,UG Plunge pool in swale * derived from wetland delineation calculations

Project: Creekview Surveyor(s): Helm Quad: Pleasant Grove County: Placer Date: 12/23/2007 Weather Cond: Clear, cool, 5% cloud cover Township: 11 North Lat.: 38o 48' North

Time: 11:49 am Air Temperature(°F): 62 Range: 5 East Long.: 121o 23' West

Abundance: R = Rare (£2 individuals), NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals), C = Common (11-50 individuals), VC = Very Common (51-100 individuals), A = Abundant (>100 individuals) Habitat Condition:

Hydrology: D = dry, N/P = not ponding, M=moist, S = saturated to surface, I/P = intermittent ponding, X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample UD = undisturbed, D = disturbed - tt = tire tracks, t = trash, p =plowing

LB Redroductive Status: i = immature, m = mature, g = gravid (with eggs) UG = ungrazed, G = grazed - C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, l = light grazing, m = moderate grazing, h = heavy grazing

Turbell Collem Crustacea Insecta Mollusca aria Acari bola Other Herps

Present Depth Potential Surface Area (inches) Depth (Inches) (ft2) Copepods Large Branchiopods (LB) Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera a d

Water Other Physidae Ostracods Cladocera Pseudacris Hydracarini Trichoptera Planorbidae Lymnaeidae Max Max Temp Ave. Ave.

LIOC Habitat LEPA BRLY LYBR CYCA BRME Ephemeroptera Present o Micro-turbularian Culicidae Corixidae Pot. Max* Other Invertebrate Haliplidae Calanoida Zygoptera Chironomi Dytiscidae Hydrophilidae Cyclopoda Anisoptera Pool No. ( F) Notonectid Condition Comments HBC47 54 427518300 D-tt, UG HBC49 54 426424100 D-tt, UG HBC50 55 42645080 D-tt, UG SW35 <1 3 2 2000 UD,G-M WS09 54 3295604400 R R UD,G-M WS16b 44 >12 9 >20 6 175 200 G-C,m Plunge pool in swale WS29 54 5 3 >12 >12 9 36 UD,UG Plunge pool in swale Project: Creekview Surveyor(s): Helm Quad: Pleasant Grove County: Placer Date: 01/10/2008 Weather Cond: Cool, drizzly, 100% cloud cover Township: 11 North Lat.: 38o 48' North Time: 11:27 am Air Temperature(°F): 60 Range: 5 East Long.: 121o 23' West

Abundance: R = Rare (£2 individuals), NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals), C = Common (11-50 individuals), VC = Very Common (51-100 individuals), A = Abundant (>100 individuals) Habitat Condition: Hydrology: D = dry, N/P = not ponding, M=moist, S = saturated to surface, I/P = intermittent ponding, X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample UD = undisturbed, D = disturbed - tt = tire tracks, t = trash, p =plowing LB Redroductive Status: i = immature, m = mature, g = gravid (with eggs) UG = ungrazed, G = grazed - C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, l = light grazing, m = moderate grazing, h = heavy grazing Turbell Collem Present Depth Potential Crustacea Insecta Mollusca aria Acari bola Other Herps (inches) Depth (Inches) Surface Area (ft2) Copepods Large Branchiopods (LB) Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Other Water Other Max Max Ave. Ave. LIOC Physidae LEPA BRLY LYBR CYCA Cladocera BRME Ostracods Present Pseudacris Hydracarini Trichoptera Planorbidae Invertebrate Lymnaeidae Culicidae Temp Corixidae Haliplidae Pot. Max* Pot. Calanoida Zygoptera Dytiscidae Cyclopoda Anisoptera Hydrophilidae Ephemeroptera

o Notonectidae Micro-turbularian Pool No. ( F) Chironomidae Habitat Condition Comments HBC01 53 3232600600 UD,G-C,m IP HBC02 54 1111300300 UD,G-C,m HBC03 54 11114950 UD,G-C,m HBC04 53 4141400400 D-tt,G-C,m HBC05 54 42428485 D-tt,G-C,m HBC07 50 5353480700 D-tt,UG overflow to cluvert HBC08 53 32326464 D-tt,G-C,m HBC09 54 3232100100 D-tt,G-C,m HBC10 54 32326060 UD,G-C,m HBC11 53 42427070 UD,G-C,m HBC12 54 1121150300 D-tt,G-C,m HBC13 54 11223060 D-tt,G-C,m HBC14 54 11223070 D-tt,G-C,m HBC15 54 3232200300 D-tt,G-C,m Connected to SW63 HBC16 53 32326060 D-tt,G-C,m HBC17 54 21213030 D-tt,G-C,m HBC18 54 21212020 D-tt,G-C,m HBC19 54 112160120 D-tt,G-C,m HBC20 54 11224080 D-tt,G-C,m HBC21 53 32328080 D-tt,G-C,m HBC22 54 21217070 D-tt,G-C,m HBC24 54 2121400400 UD,G-C,m HBC26 54 2121128130 UD,G-C,m HBC27 54 2121180180 UD,G-C,m HBC28 112250100 UD,G-C,m HBC29 53 4242100100 UD,G-C,m HBC30 54 21218080 UD,G-C,m HBC31 52 3264200350 D-tt,G-C,m HBC32 53 3232225225 D-tt,G-C,m HBC33 53 212196100 D-tt,G-C,m HBC34 IP 212164200 D-tt,G-C,m HBC35 53 2121120130 UD,G-C,m HBC36 54 313196100 D-tt,G-C,m HBC37 53 3142600700 UD,G-C,m HBC38 1121400900 UD,G-C,m HBC39 1131100300 UD,G-C,m HBC40 54 43434850 UD,G-C,m HBC43 53 5454320450 D-tt,G-C,m HBC44 52 6474240300 D-tt,G-C,m Connected to HBC 43 HBC45 54 5454160160 D-tt,G-C,m HBC46 50 5263100250 D-tt,G-C,m HBC47 50 6375240300 D-tt,G-C,m HBC48 50 62742400 3000 D-tt,G-C,m HBC49 51 536475100 D-tt,UG HBC50 51 53646080 D-tt,UG HBC51 54 435480120 D-tt,G-C,m HBC53 11111616 D-tt,G-C,m SM01 50 >18 18 >30 >18 109k 118k UD,G-C,m SW01 53 32425251,256 UD,G-C,m SW02 54 3242240375 UD,G-C,m SW03 54 32424000 5000 UD,G-C,m SW04 53 4242700 1000 UD,G-C,m SW05 53 3342525 1700 UD,G-C,m Not Burned SW06 54 5353450 2000 UD,G-C,m Not Burned SW07, SW08, SW09 53 3131105k 105k UD,G-C,m SW10 53 5454700 4000 UD,G-C,m SW11 53 3264280 3200 UD,G-C,m SW12 50 >24 >12 >24 >12 23k 23600 UD,G-C,m Project: Creekview Surveyor(s): Helm Quad: Pleasant Grove County: Placer Date: 01/10/2008 Weather Cond: Cool, drizzly, 100% cloud cover Township: 11 North Lat.: 38o 48' North Time: 11:27 am Air Temperature(°F): 60 Range: 5 East Long.: 121o 23' West

Abundance: R = Rare (£2 individuals), NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals), C = Common (11-50 individuals), VC = Very Common (51-100 individuals), A = Abundant (>100 individuals) Habitat Condition: Hydrology: D = dry, N/P = not ponding, M=moist, S = saturated to surface, I/P = intermittent ponding, X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample UD = undisturbed, D = disturbed - tt = tire tracks, t = trash, p =plowing LB Redroductive Status: i = immature, m = mature, g = gravid (with eggs) UG = ungrazed, G = grazed - C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, l = light grazing, m = moderate grazing, h = heavy grazing Turbell Collem Present Depth Potential Crustacea Insecta Mollusca aria Acari bola Other Herps (inches) Depth (Inches) Surface Area (ft2) Copepods Large Branchiopods (LB) Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Other Water Other Max Max Ave. Ave. LIOC Physidae LEPA BRLY LYBR CYCA Cladocera BRME Ostracods Present Pseudacris Hydracarini Trichoptera Planorbidae Invertebrate Lymnaeidae Culicidae Temp Corixidae Haliplidae Pot. Max* Pot. Calanoida Zygoptera Dytiscidae Cyclopoda Anisoptera Hydrophilidae Ephemeroptera

o Notonectidae Micro-turbularian Pool No. ( F) Chironomidae Habitat Condition Comments SW13 54 54541200 3000 UD,G-C,m SW14, SW15, SW16, SW17 54526318k19400 UD,G-C,m SW18 53 3242490 2300 UD,G-C,m SW19 54 53532800 3000 UD,G-C,m SW20 53 32325k 5900 UD,G-C,m SW27 53 32322600 3300 UD,G-C,m SW28 54 31322700 3200 UD,G-C,m SW29 S 6 4 800 UD,G-C,m SW30 53 53538k 8200 UD,G-C,m SW32 54 21211600 1900 UD,G-C,m SW33 S >20 >12 350 UD,G-C,m SW34 53 4286400 2300 UD,G-C,m SW35 53 3232250 2000 UD,G-C,m SW36 52 8 3 >12 6 1500 4700 UD,G-C,m SW39 53 4364500 4000 UD,G-C,m SW41 53 3253400 1100 UD,G-C,m SW42 54 31421500 2300 UD,G-C,m SW43 54 21421000 2300 UD,G-C,m SW44 53 3252800 3300 UD,G-C,m SW45 53 3254100700 UD,G-C,m SW46 52 7485700 2500 UD,G-C,m SW47 53 32521500 3800 UD,G-C,m SW48 53 53535k 5800 UD,G-C,m SW49 51 32321200 1400 UD,G-C,m SW50 54 2222600900 UD,G-C,m SW51 54 2132250250 UD,G-C,m SW52 54 42423200 3500 UD,G-C,m SW53 54 2222400400 UD,G-C,m SW54, SW55, SW56 534242100k 10500 UD,G-C,m SW57 54 21211400 1500 UD,G-C,m SW58 54 2121100150 UD,G-C,m SW60 53 42421800 2200 UD,G-C,m SW61 54 3232300600 UD,G-C,m SW62 54 3232100400 UD,G-C,m SW63 54 3232100400 UD,G-C,m SW65 54 3232200800 UD,G-C,m SW66 53 5353400 1300 UD,G-C,m SW67 54 213250600 UD,G-C,m SW68 54 53531400 1500 D-tt,G-C,m Connected to HBC 40 SW69 54 53531500 5300 UD,G-C,m SW73 S 9700 UD,UG SW75 52 7 3 12 3 4200 11700 UD,UG SW76 50 53538k 9000 UD,UG SW77 51 10 8 13 9 40k 46k UD,UG SW78 50 53531300 1600 UD,UG SW79 50 64648k 8400 UD,UG SW80 51 4264750 3700 UD,UG SW81 54 2121640 1300 UD,G-C,m SW82 54 5464700960 UD,G-C,m SW83 50 8 6 12 8 750 1500 UD,UG SW84 S 3500 UD,G-C,m SW85 54 54541500 2500 UD,G-C,m SW86 54 4353600600 UD,G-C,m SW88 54 3243300500 UD,G-C,m SW89 51 64641500 2200 UD,G-C,m SW90 50 8 6 20 12 2400 6000 UD,UG SW91 53 3232250 1000 Project: Creekview Surveyor(s): Helm Quad: Pleasant Grove County: Placer Date: 01/10/2008 Weather Cond: Cool, drizzly, 100% cloud cover Township: 11 North Lat.: 38o 48' North Time: 11:27 am Air Temperature(°F): 60 Range: 5 East Long.: 121o 23' West

Abundance: R = Rare (£2 individuals), NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals), C = Common (11-50 individuals), VC = Very Common (51-100 individuals), A = Abundant (>100 individuals) Habitat Condition: Hydrology: D = dry, N/P = not ponding, M=moist, S = saturated to surface, I/P = intermittent ponding, X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample UD = undisturbed, D = disturbed - tt = tire tracks, t = trash, p =plowing LB Redroductive Status: i = immature, m = mature, g = gravid (with eggs) UG = ungrazed, G = grazed - C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, l = light grazing, m = moderate grazing, h = heavy grazing Turbell Collem Present Depth Potential Crustacea Insecta Mollusca aria Acari bola Other Herps (inches) Depth (Inches) Surface Area (ft2) Copepods Large Branchiopods (LB) Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Other Water Other Max Max Ave. Ave. LIOC Physidae LEPA BRLY LYBR CYCA Cladocera BRME Ostracods Present Pseudacris Hydracarini Trichoptera Planorbidae Invertebrate Lymnaeidae Culicidae Temp Corixidae Haliplidae Pot. Max* Pot. Calanoida Zygoptera Dytiscidae Cyclopoda Anisoptera Hydrophilidae Ephemeroptera

o Notonectidae Micro-turbularian Pool No. ( F) Chironomidae Habitat Condition Comments VP01 50 16 12 18 14 2000 3900 UD,G-C,m VP02 53 8686300 1200 UD,G-C,m VP03 53 4242800 3000 UD,G-C,m VP04 54 3 2 13 9 250 13.5k NC R C UD,G-C,m VP07 50 10 7 10 7 10k 11.5k R UD,G-C,m VP08 53 3263900 2300 UD,G-C,m VP13 53 53534k 4300 UD,G-C,m VP14 53 53531500 1800 UD,G-C,m VP15 53 3232100 1000 UD,G-C,m VP16 51 75851250 3500 UD,G-C,m Not Burned VP17 51 75753k 4700 UD,G-C,m VP19 54 4242200450 D-tt,G-C,m WS01 53 515120k39k UD,G-C,m Not Burned , IP WS02 52 61723k53k UD,G-C,m WS04 53 64641200 15k UD,G-C,m WS07, WS08, VP18, VP05, WS06, WS05, VP06 53 739420k48kNC R UD,G-C,m IP WS09 534295100 4400 R R R UD,G-C,m WS16b 52 >20 7 >20 >12 40k 111k UD,G-C,m WS17 54 3132400 7.8k UD,G-C,m WS18 50 12 9 12 9 700 800 UD,G-C,m WS21 54 2121600 1200 D-tt,G-C,m WS27, SW71, HBC41, HBC42, HBC55, SW70, SW72, HBC54 54 3232200 6900 UD,G-C,m WS28 5165653200 3200 UD,UG WS29 >12 >12 >12 >12 30 36 UD,UG plunge pool WS30 S 700 UD,UG WS31 51 6596111k 115k UD,UG WS32 50 >20 6 >20 8 13k 14k UD,UG WS33 50 53755600 6k UD,UG WS33 52 93935600 6k UD,UG WS34 51 5364800 3400 UD,UG WS35 54 <1 1 3 2 100 1600 UD,UG * derived from wetland delineation calculations Project: Creekview Surveyor(s): Helm Quad: Pleasant Grove County: Placer Date: 01/23/2008 Weather Cond: Cloudy, drizzly Township: 11 North Lat.: 38o 48' North Time: 2:00 pm Air Temperature(°F): 51 Range: 5 East Long.: 121o 23' West

Abundance: R = Rare (1-2 individuals), NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals), C = Common (11-50 individuals), VC = Very Common (51-100 individuals), A = Abundant (>100 individuals) Habitat Condition: Hydrology: D = dry, N/P = not ponding, M=moist, S = saturated to surface, I/P = intermittent ponding, X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample UD = undisturbed, D = disturbed - tt = tire tracks, t = trash, p =plowing LB Redroductive Status: i = immature, m = mature, g = gravid (with eggs) UG = ungrazed, G = grazed - C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, l = light grazing, m = moderate grazing, h = heavy grazing Turbell Collem Present Depth Potential Crustacea Insecta Mollusca aria Acari bola Other Herps (inches) Depth (Inches) Surface Area (ft2) Copepods Large Branchiopods (LB) Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Other Water Other Max Max Ave. Ave. LIOC Physidae LEPA BRLY LYBR CYCA Cladocera BRME Ostracods Present Pseudacris Hydracarini Trichoptera Planorbidae Invertebrate Lymnaeidae Culicidae Temp Corixidae Haliplidae Pot. Max* Pot. Calanoida Zygoptera Dytiscidae Cyclopoda Anisoptera Hydrophilidae Ephemeroptera

o Notonectidae Micro-turbularian Pool No. ( F) Chironomidae Habitat Condition Comments HBC06 48 2132600800 D-tt,UG HBC07 47 5253560700 D-tt,UG HBC46 47 5363160250 D-tt,G-C,m HBC47 46 6475200300 D-tt,G-C,m HBC48 46 74743000 3000 R R D-tt,G-C,m HBC49 47 6364100100 D-tt,UG HBC50 47 53646080 D-tt,UG SW75 45 12 3 12 3 9k 9400 R Ud, UG SW76 47 53538k8900 Ud, UG SW77 45 13 7 13 9 45k 46k C Ud, UG SW79, SW84, WS33 46 74941300 18k C Ud, UG SW80 47 52643000 3600 Ud, UG SW83 46 7 4 12 8 280 1500 NC NC R Ud, UG SW87 48 21321002600 Ud, UG SW90 45 13 8 20 12 3000 6000 NC Ud, UG WS28, SW74 46 636511.5k 12.5k R R NC R Ud, UG WS31 45 9496110k 115k NC NC R Ud, UG WS32 45 >20 6 >20 8 12k 14k NC R NC Ud, UG WS33 47 62755k6k Ud, UG * derived from wetland delineation calculations Project: Creekview Surveyor(s): Helm Quad: Pleasant Grove County: Placer Date: 01/25/2008 Weather Cond: Rainy Township: 11 North Lat.: 38o 48' North Time: 8:15 am Air Temperature(°F): 50 Range: 5 East Long.: 121o 23' West

Abundance: R = Rare (£2 individuals), NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals), C = Common (11-50 individuals), VC = Very Common (51-100 individuals), A = Abundant (>100 individuals) Habitat Condition: Hydrology: D = dry, N/P = not ponding, M=moist, S = saturated to surface, I/P = intermittent ponding, X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample UD = undisturbed, D = disturbed - tt = tire tracks, t = trash, p =plowing LB Redroductive Status: i = immature, m = mature, g = gravid (with eggs) UG = ungrazed, G = grazed - C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, l = light grazing, m = moderate grazing, h = heavy grazing Turbell Collem Present Depth Potential Crustacea Insecta Mollusca aria Acari bola Other Herps (inches) Depth (Inches) Surface Area (ft2) Copepods Large Branchiopods (LB) Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Other Water Other Max Max Ave. Ave. LIOC Physidae LEPA BRLY LYBR CYCA Cladocera BRME Ostracods Present Pseudacris Hydracarini Trichoptera Planorbidae Invertebrate Lymnaeidae Culicidae Temp Corixidae Haliplidae Pot. Max* Pot. Calanoida Zygoptera Dytiscidae Cyclopoda Anisoptera Hydrophilidae Ephemeroptera

o Notonectidae Micro-turbularian Pool No. ( F) Chironomidae Habitat Condition Comments HBC01 47 2132300600 UD,G-C,m HBC02 1111300300 UD,G-C,m HBC03 11115050 UD,G-C,m HBC04 46 4141400400 D-tt,G-C,m HBC05 46 42428585 D-tt,G-C,m HBC08 46 32326464 D-tt,G-C,m HBC10 46 32326060 UD,G-C,m HBC11 45 42427070 UD,G-C,m HBC12 45 2121300300 D-tt,G-C,m HBC13 46 22226060 D-tt,G-C,m HBC14 45 22227070 D-tt,G-C,m HBC15 46 3232250300 D-tt,G-C,m HBC16 46 32325060 D-tt,G-C,m HBC17 46 21213030 D-tt,G-C,m HBC18 46 21212020 D-tt,G-C,m HBC19 46 2121100120 D-tt,G-C,m HBC20 46 21226080 D-tt,G-C,m HBC21 46 32328080 D-tt,G-C,m HBC22 45 21217070 D-tt,G-C,m HBC24 45 2121400400 UD,G-C,m HBC26 46 2121108130 UD,G-C,m HBC27 1121175180 UD,G-C,m HBC28 112250100 UD,G-C,m HBC29 46 214250100 UD,G-C,m HBC30 46 21217080 UD,G-C,m HBC39 1131100300 UD,G-C,m HBC40 46 43435050 UD,G-C,m HBC41 46 21217575 UD,G-C,m HBC42 46 21213030 UD,G-C,m HBC43 46 5454450450 D-tt,G-C,m HBC44 46 7474300300 D-tt,G-C,m HBC45 46 4354128160 D-tt,G-C,m HBC46 45 5263100250 D-tt,G-C,m HBC51 46 5454112120 D-tt,G-C,m HBC53 11111016 D-tt,G-C,m HBC54 112150100 UD,G-C,m HBC55 112150100 UD,G-C,m SM01 44 >18 18 >30 >18 111k 118k UD,G-C,m SW01 46 32421246 1256 C UD,G-C,m SW02 46 4242375375 UD,G-C,m SW03 45 42425k5k UD,G-C,m SW04 46 42429751000 UD,G-C,m SW05 45 42425251700 UD,G-C,m SW06 45 53531000 2000 C UD,G-C,m SW11 45 64641200 3200 UD,G-C,m SW12 44 >24 >12 >24 >12 23k 23.6k UD,G-C,m SW13 45 53541250 23k UD,G-C,m SW14, SW15, SW16 46626316k19k UD,G-C,m SW17 46 31422000 2800 UD,G-C,m SW18 45 42421200 1200 UD,G-C,m SW29 46 4264320800 UD,G-C,m SW30 45 52537k8200 UD,G-C,m SW31 46 2132200500 UD,G-C,m SW33 44 20 >12 >20 >12 320 350 UD,G-C,m SW34 45 75867202300 UD,G-C,m SW35 46 32322802k UD,G-C,m SW36 45 >24 6 >24 6 2k 4700 UD,G-C,m SW39 45 63647004000 UD,G-C,m SW41 45 53538001100 UD,G-C,m Project: Creekview Surveyor(s): Helm Quad: Pleasant Grove County: Placer Date: 01/25/2008 Weather Cond: Rainy Township: 11 North Lat.: 38o 48' North Time: 8:15 am Air Temperature(°F): 50 Range: 5 East Long.: 121o 23' West

Abundance: R = Rare (£2 individuals), NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals), C = Common (11-50 individuals), VC = Very Common (51-100 individuals), A = Abundant (>100 individuals) Habitat Condition: Hydrology: D = dry, N/P = not ponding, M=moist, S = saturated to surface, I/P = intermittent ponding, X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample UD = undisturbed, D = disturbed - tt = tire tracks, t = trash, p =plowing LB Redroductive Status: i = immature, m = mature, g = gravid (with eggs) UG = ungrazed, G = grazed - C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, l = light grazing, m = moderate grazing, h = heavy grazing Turbell Collem Present Depth Potential Crustacea Insecta Mollusca aria Acari bola Other Herps (inches) Depth (Inches) Surface Area (ft2) Copepods Large Branchiopods (LB) Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Other Water Other Max Max Ave. Ave. LIOC Physidae LEPA BRLY LYBR CYCA Cladocera BRME Ostracods Present Pseudacris Hydracarini Trichoptera Planorbidae Invertebrate Lymnaeidae Culicidae Temp Corixidae Haliplidae Pot. Max* Pot. Calanoida Zygoptera Dytiscidae Cyclopoda Anisoptera Hydrophilidae Ephemeroptera

o Notonectidae Micro-turbularian Pool No. ( F) Chironomidae Habitat Condition Comments SW42 46 31421500 2300 UD,G-C,m SW43 46 31422000 2300 UD,G-C,m SW44 48 52522000 3300 UD,G-C,m SW45 46 5454210700 UD,G-C,m SW46 47 85851000 2500 NC UD,G-C,m SW47 45 52522300 3800 UD,G-C,m SW48 45 41534k58k UD,G-C,m SW49 45 21321000 1400 UD,G-C,m SW50 46 2222600900 UD,G-C,m SW51 47 2132250250 UD,G-C,m SW52 46 52422000 3500 UD,G-C,m SW53 45 2122200400 UD,G-C,m SW54, SW55, SW56 444242100k 105k UD,G-C,m SW57 45 21211200 1500 UD,G-C,m SW58 46 2121100150 UD,G-C,m SW60 45 32421500 2200 UD,G-C,m SW61 46 2232200600 UD,G-C,m SW62 45 3232100400 UD,G-C,m SW63 48 3232100400 UD,G-C,m SW65 46 3232200800 UD,G-C,m SW66 45 53534001300 UD,G-C,m SW67 113230600 UD,G-C,m SW68 46 53531200 1500 D-tt,G-C,m SW69 45 53531950 5300 NC UD,G-C,m SW73 S 9700 UD,UG SW81 46 21216401300 UD,G-C,m SW82 45 6464960960 UD,G-C,m SW85 45 53541280 2500 UD,G-C,m SW86 46 5353300600 UD,G-C,m SW88 45 4343500500 UD,G-C,m SW89 46 64641500 2000 UD,G-C,m SW91 45 31322501k VP01 44 16 9 18 14 2900 3900 NC UD,G-C,m VP02 45 86863001200 UD,G-C,m VP03 46 42427003000 UD,G-C,m VP04 46 13 9 14 10 3300 13.5k C NC UD,G-C,m VP05, WS06, WS05, 4563943k24kR X UD,G-C,m IP VP07 45 7 5 10 7 6k 11.5k NC R UD,G-C,m VP08 45 63639602300 UD,G-C,m VP13 46 42538004300 UD,G-C,m VP14 45 42531100 1800 UD,G-C,m VP15 46 32321001000 UD,G-C,m VP16 44 85853k3500 NC UD,G-C,m VP18, WS07 45 649410k20k UD,G-C,m VP19 46 3142150450 D-tt,G-C,m WS01 47 515117k39k UD,G-C,m WS02 45 51722k53k UD,G-C,m WS04 46 54641k15k UD,G-C,m WS06 47 21328001300 UD,G-C,m WS08 47 1132100600 UD,G-C,m WS09 46 32951004400 NC UD,G-C,m WS16b 44 >20 7 >20 >12 35k 111k UD,G-C,m WS17 47 21323507.8k UD,G-C,m WS18 45 10 7 12 9 500 800 UD,G-C,m WS21 47 21214001200 D-tt,G-C,m , HBC42, HBC55, 47 22321600 6900 UD,G-C,m WS28 46 54652400 3200 UD,UG WS29 44 >12 >12 >12 >12 30 36 UD,UG plunge pool Project: Creekview Surveyor(s): Helm Quad: Pleasant Grove County: Placer Date: 01/25/2008 Weather Cond: Rainy Township: 11 North Lat.: 38o 48' North Time: 8:15 am Air Temperature(°F): 50 Range: 5 East Long.: 121o 23' West

Abundance: R = Rare (£2 individuals), NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals), C = Common (11-50 individuals), VC = Very Common (51-100 individuals), A = Abundant (>100 individuals) Habitat Condition: Hydrology: D = dry, N/P = not ponding, M=moist, S = saturated to surface, I/P = intermittent ponding, X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample UD = undisturbed, D = disturbed - tt = tire tracks, t = trash, p =plowing LB Redroductive Status: i = immature, m = mature, g = gravid (with eggs) UG = ungrazed, G = grazed - C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, l = light grazing, m = moderate grazing, h = heavy grazing Turbell Collem Present Depth Potential Crustacea Insecta Mollusca aria Acari bola Other Herps (inches) Depth (Inches) Surface Area (ft2) Copepods Large Branchiopods (LB) Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Other Water Other Max Max Ave. Ave. LIOC Physidae LEPA BRLY LYBR CYCA Cladocera BRME Ostracods Present Pseudacris Hydracarini Trichoptera Planorbidae Invertebrate Lymnaeidae Culicidae Temp Corixidae Haliplidae Pot. Max* Pot. Calanoida Zygoptera Dytiscidae Cyclopoda Anisoptera Hydrophilidae Ephemeroptera

o Notonectidae Micro-turbularian Pool No. ( F) Chironomidae Habitat Condition Comments WS30 S 700 UD,UG WS34 45 64641000 3400 UD,UG * derived from wetland delineation calculations Project: Creekview Surveyor(s): Helm Quad: Pleasant Grove County: Placer Date: 02/06/2008 Weather Cond: Cool, damp Township: 11 North Lat.: 38o 48' North Time: 1:15 pm Air Temperature(°F): 54 Range: 5 East Long.: 121o 23' West

Abundance: R = Rare (£2 individuals), NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals), C = Common (11-50 individuals), VC = Very Common (51-100 individuals), A = Abundant (>100 individuals) Habitat Condition: Hydrology: D = dry, N/P = not ponding, M=moist, S = saturated to surface, I/P = intermittent ponding, X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample UD = undisturbed, D = disturbed - tt = tire tracks, t = trash, p =plowing LB Redroductive Status: i = immature, m = mature, g = gravid (with eggs) UG = ungrazed, G = grazed - C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, l = light grazing, m = moderate grazing, h = heavy grazing Turbell Collem Present Depth Potential Crustacea Insecta Mollusca aria Acari bola Other Herps (inches) Depth (Inches) Surface Area (ft2) Copepods Large Branchiopods (LB) Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Other Water Other Max Max Ave. Ave. LIOC Physidae LEPA BRLY LYBR CYCA BRME Cladocera Ostracods Present Pseudacris Hydracarini Trichoptera Planorbidae Invertebrate Culicidae Lymnaeidae

Temp Corixidae Pot. Max* Haliplidae Calanoida Zygoptera Dytiscidae Cyclopoda Anisoptera Hydrophilidae

o Ephemeroptera Notonectidae Micro-turbularian Pool No. ( F) Chironomidae Comments HBC04 50 2 1 4 1 140 400 HBC05 50 2 1 4 2 30 85 HBC06 48 2 1 3 2 600 800 HBC07 49 2 1 5 3 200 700 C C HBC08 50 2 1 3 2 20 64 HBC12 48 2 1 2 1 300 300 C C HBC14 49 4 2 4 2 70 140 HBC23 48 3 2 3 2 90 100 R HBC25 49 4 2 4 3 200 250 R HBC26 50 4 2 4 2 150 200 C HBC31 54 4 2 6 4 250 350 C X C HBC32 53 3 2 3 2 225 225 C C HBC36 53 3 2 3 2 100 100 HBC43 53 2 1 5 4 120 450 HBC44 50 3 1 7 4 150 300 HBC45 49 2 1 5 4 50 160 HBC46 49 4 2 6 3 80 250 C HBC47 50 5 2 7 5 200 300 C C NC HBC48 49 4 2 7 4 1500 3000 NC C NC HBC49 48 5 2 6 4 80 100 HBC50 48 5 2 6 4 15 80 HBC51 46 3 2 5 4 70 120 SM01 52 >12 >12 >30 >18 80k 118k NC C X X R SW01 52 2 1 4 2 400 1256 SW02 50 2 1 4 2 180 375 SW03 49 3 2 4 2 4k 5000 SW04 51 2 1 4 2 400 1000 SW05 53 4 2 4 2 1500 1700 SW06 50 2 1 5 3 300 2k SW11 49 3 2 6 4 300 3200 SW12 52 >12 10 >24 >12 19k 23.6k R NC NC A C R X NC SW13 50 3 2 5 4 800 3k SW14,SW15,S W16 S 6 3 18k SW17 S 4 2 2800 SW18 51 3 2 4 2 800 1200 NC C C SW29 52 3 2 6 4 230 800 SW30 50 3 2 5 3 3k 8200 SW31 S 3 2 500 SW33 49 >12 8 >20 >12 150 350 VC VC NC NC SW34 51 4 3 8 6 400 23k SW35 52 5 3 5 3 400 2k C SW36 52 6 3 >24 6 600 4.7k C SW39 50 7 3 7 4 1000 4000 NC C R R SW41 52 2 1 5 3 600 1100 SW42 52 2 1 4 2 1000 2300 SW44 48 2 1 5 2 1000 3300 SW45 48 3 2 5 4 100 700 SW46 56 8 4 8 5 1000 2500 NC C C NC SW47 50 7 3 7 3 3000 3800 NC C NC R SW48 50 6 4 6 4 7k 58k C SW49 51 2 1 3 2 1000 1400 SW52 50 7 4 7 4 3000 3500 NC C C SW54 49 5 4 5 4 3000 6700 NC C NC NC SW60 49 5 2 5 2 2000 2200 NC SW63 54 4 2 4 2 300 400 NC SW68 54 5 2 5 3 1300 1500 R SW69 50 3 1 5 3 1000 5300 NC Project: Creekview Surveyor(s): Helm Quad: Pleasant Grove County: Placer Date: 02/06/2008 Weather Cond: Cool, damp Township: 11 North Lat.: 38o 48' North Time: 1:15 pm Air Temperature(°F): 54 Range: 5 East Long.: 121o 23' West

Abundance: R = Rare (£2 individuals), NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals), C = Common (11-50 individuals), VC = Very Common (51-100 individuals), A = Abundant (>100 individuals) Habitat Condition: Hydrology: D = dry, N/P = not ponding, M=moist, S = saturated to surface, I/P = intermittent ponding, X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample UD = undisturbed, D = disturbed - tt = tire tracks, t = trash, p =plowing LB Redroductive Status: i = immature, m = mature, g = gravid (with eggs) UG = ungrazed, G = grazed - C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, l = light grazing, m = moderate grazing, h = heavy grazing Turbell Collem Present Depth Potential Crustacea Insecta Mollusca aria Acari bola Other Herps (inches) Depth (Inches) Surface Area (ft2) Copepods Large Branchiopods (LB) Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Other Water Other Max Max Ave. Ave. LIOC LEPA Physidae BRLY LYBR CYCA BRME Ostracods Cladocera Present Pseudacris Hydracarini Trichoptera Planorbidae Invertebrate Culicidae Lymnaeidae

Temp Corixidae Pot. Max* Haliplidae Calanoida Zygoptera Dytiscidae Cyclopoda Anisoptera Hydrophilidae

o Ephemeroptera Notonectidae Micro-turbularian Pool No. ( F) Chironomidae Comments SW74 52 6 2 7 4 5000 9400 C C C C SW75 50 7 4 12 3 4200 11.7k C C NC R SW76 49 6 3 10 6 8500 9k C C C C SW77 48 11 5 13 9 42k 46k C C NC R NC SW79, SW84, WS33 48 6 3 9 4 12k 17.9k C SW80 47 4 2 6 4 6000 8400 SW81 50 2 1 2 1 700 1300 SW82 51 3 3 6 4 400 960 SW83 52 2 1 12 8 100 1500 C C SW85 53 3 2 5 4 1000 2500 SW86 53 3 2 5 3 500 600 SW88 52 2 1 4 3 200 500 SW89 53 6 3 6 4 1500 2200 CCCC SW90 50 6 2 20 12 2k 6k C VC C X X NC SW91 48 4 2 4 2 300 1000 NC SW92 49 6 3 6 4 2000 3200 NC C NC C NC VP01 52 6 4 18 14 1800 3900 VC A C NC X X X VP04 53 8 4 14 10 2800 13.5k A C NC X X VP05 52 8 4 9 4 7500 9500 C C C X X VP06 52 4 2 9 4 13k 48k VP07 50 11 6 11 7 10k 11.5 C C VC R X VP08 54 5 3 6 3 800 2300 NC VP13 52 5 3 5 3 800 4300 VP15 54 4 2 4 2 200 1000 NC NC VP16 53 7 3 8 5 3k 3500 NC C R R VP17 50 8 4 8 5 4k 4700 NC NC C X VP18 53 6 4 9 6 8k 12k NC X NC VP19 52 5 3 5 3 300 450 NC WS01 52 3 1 5 1 10k 39k WS02 55 5 3 7 2 2k 53k X X WS04 50 6 4 6 4 1.2k 15k NC NC WS16B 49 >12 2 >20 >12 25k 111k NC NC WS28, SW74 46 4 2 6 5 6k 12.6k R R NC R WS31 45 7 3 9 6 112k 115k NC NC R WS32 47 >12 7 >20 8 6k 14k NC C C X WS33 51 7 4 7 5 6k 6k C NC C C C * derived from wetland delineation calculations Project:Creekview Surveyor(s): Helm/Wood Quad: Pleasant Grove County: Placer Quad: Pleasant Grove Date:02/20/08 Weather Cond: 20% Cloud Cover Township: 11 North Lat.: 38o 48' NorthTownship: 11 North Time: 3:00 pm Air Temperature(°F): 58 Range: 5 East Long.: 121o 23' W Range: 5 East

Abundance: R = Rare (≤2 individuals), NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals), C = Common (11-50 individuals), VC = Very Common (51-100 individuals), A = Abundant (>100 individuals) Habitat Condition: Hydrology: D = dry, N/P = not ponding, M=moist, S = saturated to surface, I/P = intermittent ponding, X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample UD = undisturbed, D = disturbed - tt = tire tracks, t = trash, p =plowing LB Redroductive Status: i = immature, m = mature, g = gravid (with eggs) UG = ungrazed, G = grazed - C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, l = light grazing, m = moderate grazing, h = heavy grazing Turbell Collem Present Depth Potential Crustacea Insecta Mollusca aria Acari bola Other Herps (inches) Depth (Inches) Surface Area (ft2) Copepods Large Branchiopods (LB) Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Other Water Other Max Max Ave. Ave. LIOC Physidae LEPA BRLY LYBR CYCA Cladocera BRME Ostracods Present Pseudacris Hydracarini Trichoptera Planorbidae Invertebrate Lymnaeidae Culicidae Temp Corixidae Haliplidae Pot. Max* Pot. Calanoida Zygoptera Dytiscidae Cyclopoda Anisoptera Hydrophilidae Ephemeroptera

o Notonectidae Micro-turbularian Pool No. ( F) Chironomidae Comments HBC07 63 2153200700NC NC HBC46 63 3263 60250NC NC HBC47 63 4275200300C CNC C HBC48 63 3274 2k3kNCCNC NC HBC49 63 4264 70100 HBC50 63 4264 6080 SW74 63 52743500 9400 C C NC C SW75 62 6 2 12 3 4k 11.7 C C NC X C SW76 62 8 4 10 6 6k 9k C C NC C SW77 62 10 5 13 9 43k 46k C C NC R NC SW83 63 4 2 12 8 1000 1500 C C NC SW87 NP SW90 61 8 4 20 12 5k 6k C VC C X X NC WS32 61 >12 7 >20 8 7k 14k NC C C X NC WS33 63 42754.5k 6k C R C WS33 63 6293 1k6kCNCCC C * derived from wetland delineation calculations Project: Creekview Surveyor(s): Helm/Wood Quad: Pleasant Grove County: Placer Date: 02/22/08 Weather Cond: Light rain Township: 11 North Lat.: 38o 48' North Time: 9:30 am Air Temperature(°F): 50 Range: 5 East Long.: 121o 23' West

Abundance: R = Rare (≤2 individuals), NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals), C = Common (11-50 individuals), VC = Very Common (51-100 individuals), A = Abundant (>100 individuals) Habitat Condition: Hydrology: D = dry, N/P = not ponding, M=moist, S = saturated to surface, I/P = intermittent ponding, X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample UD = undisturbed, D = disturbed - tt = tire tracks, t = trash, p =plowing LB Redroductive Status: i = immature, m = mature, g = gravid (with eggs) UG = ungrazed, G = grazed - C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, l = light grazing, m = moderate grazing, h = heavy grazing Turbell Collem Present Depth Surface Crustacea Insecta Mollusca aria Acari bola Other Herps (inches)Area (ft2) Copepods Large Branchiopods (LB) Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Other Water Other Max Ave. LIOC LEPA Physidae BRLY LYBR CYCA BRME Cladocera Ostracods Present Pseudacris Hydracarini Trichoptera

Temp Invertebrate Planorbidae Lymnaeidae Culicidae Corixidae Haliplidae Calanoida Zygoptera Dytiscidae Cyclopoda Anisoptera Hydrophilidae

o Ephemeroptera Notonectidae Micro-turbularian Pool No. ( F) Chironomidae Comments HBC04 54 2 1 60% HBC05 54 3 1 40% HBC08 53 5 2 80% HBC12 54 4 2 75% C NC HBC14 54 2 1 60% HBC22 <1 HBC23 54 2 1 70% HBC25 49 4 2 50% X HBC26 50 3 1 40% NC HBC31 54 4 2 90% NC NC HBC32 53 3 2 70% NC NC HBC33 <1 HBC36 53 2 1 50% HBC38 <1 HBC39 <1 SM01 52 >12 >12 95% NC C R NC SW01 <1 SW06 <1 SW12 53 >12 10 95% X X NC A R X X NC SW13 55 3 1 30% NC NC SW18 50 10 5 95% C C NC X SW18 55 2 1 30% NC NC SW33 49 >12 7 95% VC VC NC NC SW35 52 4 2 65% C SW36 56 5 2 40% NC NC SW39 56 6 2 60% NC NC NC NC SW42 <1 SW46 56 5 2 60% NC NC NC NC SW47 50 6 2 40% NC C C NC SW48 50 5 2 20% C NC SW49 <1 < SW50 <1 SW52 50 6 3 80% NC C C SW54 49 4 2 40% NC NC NC NC SW57 <1 SW60 49 4 1 80% NC SW63 54 3 1 65% C C SW68 54 4 2 60% R SW89 53 5 2 65% CCCC C SW91 54 3 1 60% NC NC SW92 49 5 2 40% NC C NC C NC VP01 54 5 3 70% VC A C NC X X X NC VP04 53 7 90% A C NC X X VP05 52 7 3 85% C C C X X VP06 52 3 1 50% NC VP07 50 10 5 90% C C VC R X VP08 54 4 2 40% NC NC VP13 52 4 2 35% NC VP15 54 3 2 80% NC NC VP16 53 6 3 85% NC C R R VP17 50 7 4 75% NC NC C X VP18 53 5 3 90% NC X NC NC VP19 52 4 2 90% NC WS02 55 4 2 20% X X NC H2O IN HOOF PRINTS WS04 56 5 2 50% NC NC NC Project: Creekview Surveyor(s): Helm/Wood Quad: Pleasant Grove County: Placer Date: 02/22/08 Weather Cond: Light rain Township: 11 North Lat.: 38o 48' North Time: 9:30 am Air Temperature(°F): 50 Range: 5 East Long.: 121o 23' West

Abundance: R = Rare (≤2 individuals), NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals), C = Common (11-50 individuals), VC = Very Common (51-100 individuals), A = Abundant (>100 individuals) Habitat Condition: Hydrology: D = dry, N/P = not ponding, M=moist, S = saturated to surface, I/P = intermittent ponding, X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample UD = undisturbed, D = disturbed - tt = tire tracks, t = trash, p =plowing LB Redroductive Status: i = immature, m = mature, g = gravid (with eggs) UG = ungrazed, G = grazed - C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, l = light grazing, m = moderate grazing, h = heavy grazing Turbell Collem Present Depth Surface Crustacea Insecta Mollusca aria Acari bola Other Herps (inches)Area (ft2) Copepods Large Branchiopods (LB) Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Other Water Other Max Ave. LIOC LEPA Physidae BRLY LYBR CYCA BRME Cladocera Ostracods Present Pseudacris Trichoptera Hydracarini

Temp Invertebrate Planorbidae Lymnaeidae Culicidae Corixidae Haliplidae Calanoida Zygoptera Dytiscidae Cyclopoda Anisoptera Hydrophilidae

o Ephemeroptera Notonectidae Micro-turbularian Pool No. ( F) Chironomidae Comments WS09 <1 WS16A 49 12 6 10% WS16B 49 >12 4 30% NC NC R Project: Creekview Surveyor(s): Helm Quad: Pleasant Grove County: Placer Date: 03/06/2008 Weather Cond: Clear, warm, no wind, 10% cloud cover Township: 11 North Lat.: 38o 48' North Time: 2:00 pm Air Temperature(°F): 74 Range: 5 East Long.: 121o 23' West

Abundance: R = Rare (£2 individuals), NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals), C = Common (11-50 individuals), VC = Very Common (51-100 individuals), A = Abundant (>100 individuals) Habitat Condition: Hydrology: D = dry, N/P = not ponding, M=moist, S = saturated to surface, I/P = intermittent ponding, X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample UD = undisturbed, D = disturbed - tt = tire tracks, t = trash, p =plowing LB Redroductive Status: i = immature, m = mature, g = gravid (with eggs) UG = ungrazed, G = grazed - C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, l = light grazing, m = moderate grazing, h = heavy grazing Turbell Collem Present Depth Surface Area Crustacea Insecta Mollusca aria Acari bola Other Herps (inches) (ft2) Copepods Large Branchiopods (LB) Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Other Water Other Max Ave. LIOC LEPA Physidae BRLY LYBR CYCA BRME Cladocera Ostracods Present Pseudacris Hydracarini Trichoptera

Temp Invertebrate Planorbidae Lymnaeidae Culicidae Corixidae

Haliplidae Habitat Calanoida Zygoptera Dytiscidae Cyclopoda Anisoptera Hydrophilidae

o Ephemeroptera Notonectidae Micro-turbularian Pool No. ( F) Chironomidae Condition Comments SM01 68 >20 >18 NC R R R SW12 68 >12 >12 12 wdth CR R XX R SW33 67 8 5 78 R R RX R SW36 73 13 6 300 NC NC R R SW46 <1 SW89 74 1 1 50 C C R SW90 73 5 3 700 C C A VP01 78 6 4 75 NC C C NC R R R VP04 74 7 4 2500 NC A NC XXXX R VP05 78 5 3 1200 R NC X R VP07 73 5 3 2100 R NC X R R R VP16 78 4 2 700 C C R VP17 77 5 3 600 NC NC NC VP18 79 3 2 1700 C WS16A 71 7 5 48 NC NC WS16B 69 8 5 2000 A X X WS16B 70 >20 8 1000 NC NC R WS18 68 7 4 450 R XR R Project: Creekview Surveyor(s): Helm Quad: Pleasant Grove County: Placer Date: 03/20/2008 Weather Cond: Cool, wind from south Township: 11 North Lat.: 38o 48' North Time: 10:19 pm Air Temperature(°F): 64 Range: 5 East Long.: 121o 23' West

Abundance: R = Rare (£2 individuals), NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals), C = Common (11-50 individuals), VC = Very Common (51-100 individuals), A = Abundant (>100 individuals) Habitat Condition: Hydrology: D = dry, N/P = not ponding, M=moist, S = saturated to surface, I/P = intermittent ponding, X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample UD = undisturbed, D = disturbed - tt = tire tracks, t = trash, p =plowing LB Redroductive Status: i = immature, m = mature, g = gravid (with eggs) UG = ungrazed, G = grazed - C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, l = light grazing, m = moderate grazing, h = heavy grazing Turbell Collem Present Depth Surface Area Crustacea Insecta Mollusca aria Acari bola Other Herps (inches) (ft2) Copepods Large Branchiopods (LB) Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Other Water Other Max Ave. LIOC LEPA Physidae BRLY LYBR CYCA BRME Cladocera Ostracods Present Pseudacris Trichoptera Hydracarini

Temp Invertebrate Planorbidae Lymnaeidae Culicidae Corixidae Haliplidae Calanoida Zygoptera Dytiscidae Cyclopoda Anisoptera Hydrophilidae

o Ephemeroptera Notonectidae Micro-turbularian Pool No. ( F) Chironomidae Comments SM01 56 >20 >18 NC R R R SW12 56 >12 >12 12 wdth CR R XX R SW33 57 6 4 60 R R RX R SW36 57 10 5 200 NC NC R R SW90 58 3 2 400 NC C VC VP01 58 4 2 50 NC C C NC R R R VP04 57 5 2 200 NC A NC XXXX R VP05 58 4 2 800 R NC X R VP07 58 4 2 1700 R NC X R R R VP16 58 3 2 500 C C R VP17 58 4 3 300 NC NC NC VP18 58 3 2 560 C WS16A 56 5 3 35 NC NC WS16B 57 6 4 1200 A X X WS16B 53 >20 5 700 NC NC R R WS18 56 6 2 300 R XR R WS29 56 9 6 24 NC NC R R Plunge pool WS32 54 13 9 84 NC NC NC X R R Project: Creekview Surveyor(s): Helm Quad: Pleasant Grove County: Placer Date: 04/03/2008 Weather Cond: Warm, calm Township: 11 North Lat.: 38o 48' North Time: 1:32 pm Air Temperature(°F): 75 Range: 5 East Long.: 121o 23' West

Abundance: R = Rare (£2 individuals), NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals), C = Common (11-50 individuals), VC = Very Common (51-100 individuals), A = Abundant (>100 individuals) Habitat Condition: Hydrology: D = dry, N/P = not ponding, M=moist, S = saturated to surface, I/P = intermittent ponding, X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample UD = undisturbed, D = disturbed - tt = tire tracks, t = trash, p =plowing LB Redroductive Status: i = immature, m = mature, g = gravid (with eggs) UG = ungrazed, G = grazed - C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, l = light grazing, m = moderate grazing, h = heavy grazing Turbell Collem Present Depth Surface Area Crustacea Insecta Mollusca aria Acari bola Other Herps (inches) (ft2) Copepods Large Branchiopods (LB) Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Other Water Other Max Ave. LIOC LEPA Physidae BRLY LYBR CYCA BRME Cladocera Ostracods Present Pseudacris Trichoptera Hydracarini

Temp Invertebrate Planorbidae Lymnaeidae Culicidae Corixidae Haliplidae Calanoida Zygoptera Dytiscidae Cyclopoda Anisoptera Hydrophilidae

o Ephemeroptera Notonectidae Micro-turbularian Pool No. ( F) Chironomidae Comments SM01 69 >18 >12 NC R R SW12 70 >12 9 12wdth CR R XX R SW33 S Project: Creekview Surveyor(s): Helm Quad: Pleasant Grove County: Placer Date: 04/18/2008 Weather Cond: Warm, calm Township: 11 North Lat.: 38o 48' North Time: 12:32 pm Air Temperature(°F): 73 Range: 5 East Long.: 121o 23' West

Abundance: R = Rare (£2 individuals), NC = Not Common (3-10 individuals), C = Common (11-50 individuals), VC = Very Common (51-100 individuals), A = Abundant (>100 individuals) Habitat Condition: Hydrology: D = dry, N/P = not ponding, M=moist, S = saturated to surface, I/P = intermittent ponding, X = Present but not observed in 1 meter sample UD = undisturbed, D = disturbed - tt = tire tracks, t = trash, p =plowing LB Redroductive Status: i = immature, m = mature, g = gravid (with eggs) UG = ungrazed, G = grazed - C = cattle, H = horse, S = sheep, l = light grazing, m = moderate grazing, h = heavy grazing Turbell Collem Present Depth Surface Area Crustacea Insecta Mollusca aria Acari bola Other Herps (inches) (ft2) Copepods Large Branchiopods (LB) Coleoptera Hemiptera Odanota Diptera Other Water Other Max Ave. LIOC LEPA Physidae BRLY LYBR CYCA BRME Cladocera Ostracods Present Pseudacris Trichoptera Hydracarini

Temp Invertebrate Planorbidae Lymnaeidae Culicidae Corixidae Haliplidae Calanoida Zygoptera Dytiscidae Cyclopoda Anisoptera Hydrophilidae

o Ephemeroptera Notonectidae Micro-turbularian Pool No. ( F) Chironomidae Comments SM01 70 >12 9 R X SW12 71 5 3 800 R X X WS16B 71 6 2 30 R X

APPENDIX C. REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS

Wet-Season Sampling: Second Year Ph: (916) 543-7397 Creekview Project Fax: (916) 543-7398 10

Creekview – SW-90 (facing northwest)

Creekview – SW-83 (facing west) Creekview – SW-13 (facing southeast)

Creekview – SM-01 (facing northwest) Creekview – VP-08 and SW-30 in background) (facing east)

Creekview – VP-08 and SW-28 and SW-27 in background (facing northwest) Creekview – VP-07 (facing southwest)

Creekview – WS-16b (facing east) Creekview – WS-16B with SW-34 in background (facing northeast)

Creekview – WS-16a and SW-31 and SW-29 in background (facing north) Creekview – SW-45 (facing south)

Creekview – SW-45 (facing south)

Creekview – SM-02 (facing east)

Creekview – WS-33 (facing northwest) APPENDIX D

Wetland Delineation for the 470-Acre Creekview Project.

North Fork Associates, 2006.

VP-02 VP-01 27# WS-03 !26 SW-02 SW-10 VP-03 WS-11 WS-02 !30 SW-01 # SW-19 31 ! #29 SW-03 SW-11 28

13 #14 !SW-04 #33 SW-21 ! 15 ! 32 SW-20 SW-41 WS-13 WS-04 WS-13 SW-07 # WS-01 SW-12 ! 25 24 SW-43 SW-44 WS-12 WS-14 #17 ! SW-42 16 SW-38 SW-08 SW-39 WS-17 SW-51 40 !# SW-13 41 SW-09 SW-05 SW-36 SW-45 SW-46 SW-06 SW-91 SW-14 WS-18 WS-16a SW-29 SW-47 WS-16a WS-16b APN 017-100-042-000 SW-34 SW-92 SW-49SW-50 SW-60 SW-53 WS-16a SW-54 VP-13 !34 SW-31 # SW-35 35 SW-52 VP-17SW-57 WS-16b SW-33 SW-48 #10 SW-15 WS-05 SW-58 9 !11 42 SW-27 SW-55 ! 12# #! WS-09 WS-20 VP-04 43 WS-16b SW-28 VP-14 WS-16b SW-16 SM-01 WS-16b SW-56 SW-32 WS-16b 21# !20 VP-06 VP-08 SW-30 SW-17 WS-06 VP-07 VP-15 WS-21 SW-62 WS-22 SW-61 VP-16 VP-05 SW-63 SW-65 SW-64 SW-66 !44 SW-18 WS-07 # 45 SW-67 APN 017-100-039-000 VP-19 VP-18

WS-08 SW-59 !# 39# 36 37 !38 SW-89

SW-68 SW-69

SW-70 SW-71 SW-72 WS-23 WS-27 51# @@ !50

WS-25 48!#49

APN 017-100-041-000 WS-24

ES-01 47# SW-82 ! 46 SW-83 WS-26 Pl SW-85 #2 ea 1! sa nt SW-86 WS-28 G SW-81 r o WS-30 v e !SW-74 C # 7 r e SW-73 e WS-298 k

SW-75 APN 017-100-038-000 APN 017-100-033-000 6#!5 ES-02

SW-88 SW-76 Bridge 58 # WS-31 WS-33 #57 SW-90

SW-77 SW-84 56 SW-78 SW-87 # SW-79 #59 WS-32 SW-80 4 #53 # 52! 3! WS-33 @ @ @ @ Phillip Road APN 017-100-028-510

@ @ APN 017-100-027-510

WS-34 #55 !@@ WS-35 54 SM-02

Roseville Energy Park

Phillip Road

Wastewater Treatment Plant

PREPARED BY: PREPARED FOR: WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES Blue Oaks Property Owners Appendix C WETLANDS ACREAGE Seasonal Marsh 2.82 WETLAND DELINEATION MAP Seasonal Wetland 7.43 Creekview Vernal Pool 1.75 Wetland Swale 14.51 City of Roseville, Placer County, California 110 Maple Street Revised October 26, 2006 Auburn, CA 95603 OTHER WATERS (530) 887-8500 Ephemeral Stream 0.08 Project Site Boundary ( ± 470.7 acres) DRAWN BY: D. Cao & E. Douglas Intermittent Stream 1.77 USACE REGULATORY FILE#: 200600650 !@ Culvert DELINEATORS: J. Glazner, B. Anderson, S. Frazier Perennial Stream 5.48 VERIFIED BY: Andrea Jones, USACE, Sacramento District # Upland Data Point DATE OF FIELDWORK: 2005 & 2006 DATE OF VERIFICATION: October 13, 2006 ! ± Wetland/Waters Data Point TOTAL 33.84

0 150 300 600 REVISIONS NOTES: 1. Aerial photograph by Geoimagery. Date of photo: May 28, 2006 DATE DESCRIPTION BY 2. Topographic base map provided by Wood Rogers. Feet 3. Wetland field verification conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District on October 13, 2006. Scale 1:3,600 4. Acreage of individual wetlands is included in report.