DOCSLIB.ORG

Biotic Evaluation Dias and Hobbs City of Fremont

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biotic Evaluation Dias and Hobbs City of Fremont BIOTIC EVALUATION DIAS AND HOBBS CITY OF FREMONT, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By: LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES, INC. Rick Hopkins, Ph.D., Principal, Senior Ecologist Pamela Peterson, Sr. Project Manager, Plant/Wetland Ecologist Katrina Krakow, M.S., Project Manager, Staff Ecologist For: Robson Homes Attn: Jake Lavin 2185 The Alameda, Suite 150 San Jose, CA 95126 April 3, 2014 Project No. 1821-01 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 4 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 8 2.1 BIOTIC HABITATS/LAND USES .................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.1 PASTURE ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.2 RUDERAL FIELD ........................................................................................................................................ 13 2.1.3 DEVELOPED ................................................................................................................................................ 14 2.1.3 EUCALYPTUS GROVE ............................................................................................................................... 15 2.2 MOVEMENT CORRIDORS ............................................................................................................................. 15 2.3 SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ............................................................................................... 16 2.4 JURISDICTIONAL WATERS .......................................................................................................................... 25 3.0 IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS ............................................................................... 27 3.1 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................. 27 3.2 RELEVANT GOALS, POLICIES, AND LAWS .............................................................................................. 28 3.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................................................. 28 3.2.2 Migratory Birds .............................................................................................................................................. 29 3.2.3 Birds of Prey .................................................................................................................................................. 29 3.2.4 The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ................................................................................................... 29 3.2.5 Bats ................................................................................................................................................................ 29 3.2.6 Wetlands and Other Jurisdictional Waters ..................................................................................................... 30 3.2.7 City of Fremont Tree Ordinance .................................................................................................................... 32 3.2.8 City of Fremont Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance ............................................ 32 3.2.9 General Plan ................................................................................................................................................... 33 3.2.10 Habitat Conservation Plans .......................................................................................................................... 33 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT/MITIGATION ............................................................................................... 34 3.3.1 Potential Impacts to Special Status Animal Species ...................................................................................... 34 3.3.2 Potential Impacts to the Northern Harrier, White-tailed Kite, and Non-listed Raptors ................................. 34 3.3.3 Potential Impacts to Burrowing Owls ............................................................................................................ 35 3.3.4 Potential Impacts to Townsend’s Big-eared Bat, Pallid Bat, and Other Roosting Bats ................................. 37 3.3.5 Potential Impact to American Badgers .......................................................................................................... 38 3.3.6 Potential Impact to Special Status Plant Species ........................................................................................... 39 3.3.7 Potential Impacts to Riparian Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural Communities, Including Federally Protected Wetlands ................................................................................................................................................. 40 3.3.8 Impact to Movement or Nursery Sites of Fish or Wildlife Species ............................................................... 40 3.3.9 Impact to Habitat for Fish and Wildlife Species ............................................................................................ 40 3.3.10 Degradation of Water Quality in Seasonal Creeks, Reservoirs and Downstream Waters ........................... 40 3.3.11 Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances ................................................................................................. 41 Mitigation. As long as the project conforms to the two ordinances described above, no mitigation is warranted. 41 3.3.12 Conflict with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan .................................................................................. 41 LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................... 42 ii APPENDIX A: VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE SITE .................................................... 44 APPENDIX B: TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES THAT POTENTIALLY OCCUR ON THE SITE .................................................................................................. 47 APPENDIX C: SITE PLANS ......................................................................................... 51 iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report describes the biotic resources of the approximately 30-acre Dias and Hobbs Properties (hereafter referred to as the “study area” or “site”) and evaluates possible impacts to these resources resulting from future development into a residential community. The site is bordered by Mission Boulevard to the southwest, Alameda County Water District facilities and open space to the southeast, open space to the north and northwest, and residential housing to the west, and is located in the City of Fremont, Alameda County, California. The project includes three properties that are defined as the Lands of Hobbs (APNs 513-450-4-2, 513-450-5-10, and 513-450-5-12; addresses 41948, 42012, and 42092 Mission Boulevard) and one property defined as the Lands of Dias (APN 513-450-6-2; address 42232 Mission Boulevard) in Fremont, California (Figure 1, Appendix A). The parcel at 42012 Mission Boulevard (APN 513-450-5-10) was surveyed from the edges of the parcel with binoculars only, as access was not available at the time of the December 2013 site visit. The site can be found on the Niles U.S.G.S. 7.5’ quadrangle in Section 36 of Township 4 South, Range 1 West. The site consists of four parcels comprised of single-family residences, trailers, stables, barns, and outbuildings with associated pastures and ruderal fields; although riparian and wetland habitats are absent from the site, small runoff drainages carry seasonal water from the hills onto the site during storm events. In this report, Live Oak Associates, Inc. (LOA) identifies sensitive biotic resources, significant biotic habitats, regional fish and wildlife movement corridors, and existing local, state and federal natural resource protection policies, ordinances, and laws regulating land use. Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), the state and federal endangered species acts (FESA and CESA respectively), California Fish and Game Code, and California Water Code could greatly affect project costs, depending on the natural resources present on the site. The primary objectives of this report are as follows: To summarize all site-specific information related to existing biological resources; To make reasonable inferences about the biological resources that could occur onsite based on habitat suitability and the proximity of the site to a species’ known range; 4 Summarize all state and federal natural resource protection laws that may be relevant to possible future site development; Identify and discuss natural resource issues specific to the site that could affect future development; Identify avoidance and mitigation measures that could significantly reduce the magnitude of likely biological resource issues associated with site development. 5 Site Location Map 680 Project Site 880 2 miles 0 2 miles approximate scale Vicinity Map Regional Map 80 See Vicinity Map (left) 80 680 880 580 580 101 238 280 92 Project location 680 Live Oak Associates, Inc. 880 Dias & Hobbs Site / Vicinity Map Date Project # Figure # N 280 San Jose Not to scale 12/17/2013 1821-01
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Downloaded from Genbank (NCBI) Were Aligned with Clustalw 1.8 Available on Biology Workbench (SDSC) Using the Default Settings
    CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE EVOLUTION OF ANTHOCYANIDIN SYNTHASE IN HAWAIIAN SILVERSWORDS AND CALIFORNIA TARWEEDS A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Biology by Ekaterina Kovacheva May 2011 The thesis of Ekaterina Kovacheva is approved: Michael Summers, Ph.D. Date Stan Metzenberg, Ph.D. Date Virginia berholzer Vandergon, Ph.D., Chau Date California State University, Northridge 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page 11 List ofFigures IV Abstract v Introduction 1 Materials and Methods 9 Results 15 Discussion 19 Conclusion 24 References 25 Appendix A: Figures 31 Appendix B: Coding Sequences and Multiple Sequence Alignments 49 111 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Al: A generalized scheme ofthe flavonoid biosynthetic pathway 31 Figure A2: Proposed mechanism of action of anthocyanidin synthase 32 Figure A3. Comparison of the action of iron and 2-0G dependent oxygenases ANS and FLS 3 3 Figure A4: Structure of ANS 34 Figure AS: Map of ANS and primers used 35 Figure A6: Primers that successfully produced results 36 Figure A7: Species used for pylogenetic analysis 37 Figure A8: PCR Protocol for all reactions 39 Figure A9: Cycling conditions for PCR 40 Figure AlO: Number of forward and reverse clones 41 Figure All: Intron sizes and sections of exons 1 and 2 that were sequenced from each copy of ANS 42 Figure Al2: Maximum likelihood tree generated with MEGA 5 43 Figure A13: Bayesian tree generated with MrBayes 3.1.2 45 Figure Al4: Ka/Ks values for selected Madiinae 47 Figure Al5: Ka/Ks ratios for various structural and regulatory genes found in Madiinae 48 Figure B 1: Coding sequences obtained in this study 49 Figure B2: Protein sequence aligmnent of all sequences used in this study 52 Figure B3: Protein sequence alignment of the sequences, excluding the short Holocarpha sp.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges to Introducing and Managing Disturbance Regimes for Holocarpha Macradenia, an Endangered Annual Grassland Forb
    Challenges to Introducing and Managing Disturbance Regimes for Holocarpha macradenia, an Endangered Annual Grassland Forb KAREN D. HOLL∗ AND GREY F. HAYES† Environmental Studies Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, U.S.A. Abstract: Introducing rare plants to new sites for conservation to offset effects of habitat destruction requires detailed knowledge of habitat requirements, plant demography, and management needs. We conducted a factorial experiment replicated at three coastal prairie sites to test the effects of clipping frequency and litter accumulation on seed germination, seedling survival, reproduction, and seedling recruitment of introduced populations of the endangered, tall-stature, annual forb, Holocarpha macradenia (DC.) E. Greene. Clipping favored H. macradenia, primarily by enhancing seed germination and flower production. Litter accumulation had no effect on seed germination, even after 5 years of treatments. Seedling recruitment was highly site specific with large numbers of recruits recorded at only one of three sites. Although recruitment of seedlings was higher in clipped plots for 2–3 years, by 4–5 years after introduction very few seedlings survived to reproduction in any treatment. We attribute this result to a combination of poor habitat quality, small population size, and lack of a seed bank. We were unsuccessful in introducing this relatively well-studied species of concern to apparently suitable habitat at multiple sites in multiple years, which suggests that translocating rare plant populations
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plants of Santa Cruz County, California
    ANNOTATED CHECKLIST of the VASCULAR PLANTS of SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SECOND EDITION Dylan Neubauer Artwork by Tim Hyland & Maps by Ben Pease CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CHAPTER Copyright © 2013 by Dylan Neubauer All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written permission from the author. Design & Production by Dylan Neubauer Artwork by Tim Hyland Maps by Ben Pease, Pease Press Cartography (peasepress.com) Cover photos (Eschscholzia californica & Big Willow Gulch, Swanton) by Dylan Neubauer California Native Plant Society Santa Cruz County Chapter P.O. Box 1622 Santa Cruz, CA 95061 To order, please go to www.cruzcps.org For other correspondence, write to Dylan Neubauer [email protected] ISBN: 978-0-615-85493-9 Printed on recycled paper by Community Printers, Santa Cruz, CA For Tim Forsell, who appreciates the tiny ones ... Nobody sees a flower, really— it is so small— we haven’t time, and to see takes time, like to have a friend takes time. —GEORGIA O’KEEFFE CONTENTS ~ u Acknowledgments / 1 u Santa Cruz County Map / 2–3 u Introduction / 4 u Checklist Conventions / 8 u Floristic Regions Map / 12 u Checklist Format, Checklist Symbols, & Region Codes / 13 u Checklist Lycophytes / 14 Ferns / 14 Gymnosperms / 15 Nymphaeales / 16 Magnoliids / 16 Ceratophyllales / 16 Eudicots / 16 Monocots / 61 u Appendices 1. Listed Taxa / 76 2. Endemic Taxa / 78 3. Taxa Extirpated in County / 79 4. Taxa Not Currently Recognized / 80 5. Undescribed Taxa / 82 6. Most Invasive Non-native Taxa / 83 7. Rejected Taxa / 84 8. Notes / 86 u References / 152 u Index to Families & Genera / 154 u Floristic Regions Map with USGS Quad Overlay / 166 “True science teaches, above all, to doubt and be ignorant.” —MIGUEL DE UNAMUNO 1 ~ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ~ ANY THANKS TO THE GENEROUS DONORS without whom this publication would not M have been possible—and to the numerous individuals, organizations, insti- tutions, and agencies that so willingly gave of their time and expertise.
    [Show full text]
  • East Bay Regional Park District Checklist of Wild Plants Sorted Alphabetically by Scientific Name
    East Bay Regional Park District Checklist of Wild Plants Sorted Alphabetically by Scientific Name This is a comprehensive list of the wild plants reported to be found in the East Bay Regional Park District. The plants are sorted alphabetically by scientific name. This list includes the common name, family, status, invasiveness rating, origin, longevity, habitat, and bloom dates. EBRPD plant names that have changed since the 1993 Jepson Manual are listed alphabetically in an appendix. Column Heading Description Checklist column for marking off the plants you observe Scientific Name According to The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition (JM2) and eFlora (ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html) (JM93 if different) If the scientific name used in the 1993 edition of The Jepson Manual (JM93) is different, the change is noted as (JM93: xxx) Common Name According to JM2 and other references (not standardized) Family Scientific family name according to JM2, abbreviated by replacing the “aceae” ending with “-” (ie. Asteraceae = Aster-) Status Special status rating (if any), listed in 3 categories, divided by vertical bars (‘|’): Federal/California (Fed./Calif.) | California Native Plant Society (CNPS) | East Bay chapter of the CNPS (EBCNPS) Fed./Calif.: FE = Fed. Endangered, FT = Fed. Threatened, CE = Calif. Endangered, CR = Calif. Rare CNPS (online as of 2012-01-23): 1B = Rare, threatened or endangered in Calif, 3 = Review List, 4 = Watch List; 0.1 = Seriously endangered in California, 0.2 = Fairly endangered in California EBCNPS (online as of 2012-01-23): *A = Statewide listed rare; A1 = 2 East Bay regions or less; A1x = extirpated; A2 = 3-5 regions; B = 6-9 Inv California Invasive Plant Council Inventory (Cal-IPCI) Invasiveness rating: H = High, L = Limited, M = Moderate, N = Native OL Origin and Longevity.
    [Show full text]
  • Telegraph Avenue Rapid Corridors Project Natural
    Telegraph Avenue Rapid Corridors Project March 2020 ATTACHMENT A – CEQA CHECKLIST Project Description The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) plans to implement the Telegraph Avenue Rapid Corridors Project (Project) to: • Improve transit operations along 4 miles of Telegraph Avenue from 20th Street in Oakland to downtown Berkeley; • Improve 3 miles of Grand/West Grand Avenue from Maritime Street to Lake Park Avenue in Oakland; • Deliver a portion of the Southside Pilot Transit Project in the City of Berkeley; • Provide bus stop improvements and relocations north of 52nd Street. No bus stop improvements south of 52nd Street are proposed as part of this Project, as they will be implemented by the City of Oakland Department of Transportation. • Improve transit reliability for Line 6 along Telegraph Avenue; and Lines 12 and NL along Grand/West Grand Avenue to implement Rapid Bus service as a short-term strategy recommendation in the AC Transit’s Major Corridor Study (2016). Figures 3 through 6 show diagrammatic maps of the planned improvements. Tables in Attachment 1 describe the bus stop locations where improvements will be made along with a description of the planned enhancements. Upgrading the Project corridor infrastructure would produce cascading benefits that include ridership growth, reducing auto trips, and improving air quality. These benefits and goals are consistent with AC Transit’s strategy to maximize operational benefit and efficiency, and achieve Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Transit Sustainability Project performance metrics. Key project Elements include the following: Improvements to Bus Stops: Providing longer bus stops will allow buses to pull parallel to the curb and improve bus door access.
    [Show full text]
  • Holocarpha Macradenia (Santa Cruz Tarplant) Plant Community Composition, Seedling Density, Pollination, Seed Dispersal and Plant Vigor/Phenology
    Holocarpha macradenia (Santa Cruz tarplant) Plant community composition, seedling density, pollination, seed dispersal and plant vigor/phenology Prepared for: California Department of Fish and Game Habitat Conservation Branch 1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor Sacramento, CA 95816 By: Grey Hayes, PhD Department of Environmental Studies University of California, Santa Cruz Santa Cruz, CA 95064 May 2003 Introduction The following report summarizes work funded by CDFG to study various aspects of the ecology of Holocarpha macradenia (Santa Cruz tarplant). In 1999 – 2001, I collected data on the plant community composition, seedling density, pollination, seed dispersal and plant vigor/phenology in and around the natural populations at both the Porter Ranch and Arana Gulch. Community Composition Introduction In the following experiment, I measured the plant community composition in the natural population of Holocarpha macradenia as well as grazed and ungrazed areas of coastal prairie near this population and in coastal prairie plots that were experimentally manipulated with grazing-associated disturbances. Comparisons between these sites may further the understanding of the species with which Holocarpha macradenia associates and methodologies that might be used to manipulate those associates to better resemble that where the species proliferates. Methods -PORTER RANCH POPULATION- In 2000 and 2001, I randomly placed 8 and 16, 0.5 _ 0.5-m grids within the population of tarplant east of the drainage at the Porter Ranch. I recorded each species once at each sample point if it intersected a 1.8-mm metal pin lowered at intersections of strings that were spread across a 0.5 _ 0.5-m grid at 10 cm intervals (a total of 25 points).
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Habitat Designation
    Wednesday, October 16, 2002 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for Holocarpha macradenia (Santa Cruz Tarplant); Final Rule VerDate 0ct<09>2002 21:43 Oct 15, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\16OCR2.SGM 16OCR2 63968 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2002 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR one of only four species of the genus of dormant seeds, generally found in the Holocarpha. All four are geographically soil) in the field, and germination may Fish and Wildlife Service restricted to California. The plant is be delayed for many years until further rigid with lateral branches that grow to environmental cues break their 50 CFR Part 17 the height of the main stem, which is 10 dormancy (Bainbridge 1999). RIN 1018–AG73 to 50 centimeters (cm) (4 to 20 inches The disc achenes usually fall from the (in)) tall. The lower leaves are broadly receptacle to the ground below the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife linear and up to 12 cm (5 in) long; the parent plant, while the ray achenes are and Plants; Final Designation of upper leaves are smaller, with rolled enclosed in a sticky glandular phyllary Critical Habitat for Holocarpha back margins, and are truncated by a (leaf-like structure) which aides macradenia (Santa Cruz Tarplant) distinctive craterform (open pitted) dispersal by attaching to animals. Those gland. The yellow daisy-like flower animals likely to assist in seed dispersal AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, head is surrounded from beneath by include, but are not limited to, mule Interior.
    [Show full text]
  • Holocarpha Macradenia (Santa Cruz Tarplant) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation
    Holocarpha macradenia (Santa Cruz tarplant) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photos: Kim Hayes, Elkhorn Slough Foundation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office Ventura, California February 2014 5-YEAR REVIEW Holocarpha macradenia (Santa Cruz tarplant) I. GENERAL INFORMATION Purpose of 5-Year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing of a species as endangered or threatened is based on the existence of threats attributable to one or more of the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and we must consider these same five factors in any subsequent consideration of reclassification or delisting of a species. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed. If we recommend a change in listing status based on the results of the 5-year review, we must propose to do so through a separate rule-making process defined in the Act that includes public review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • All Appendices for Informal Biological Evaluation for Mosquito Source
    INFORMAL BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR MOSQUITO SOURCE REDUCTION IN TIDAL HABITATS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA Appendix A Proposed Work Areas for Mosquito Source Reduction by District/County Source: Alameda Mosquito Vector Control District 2013 ALAMEDA COUNTY OVERVIEW Bay Area Mosquito Abatement District Alameda County, California File: App-A_AMVCD_Project-Vicinity_Alameda_1178_2014-0506srb May 2014 Project No. 1178 Figure A-1 Source: Marin/Sonoma Mosquito Vector Control District 2013 MARIN COUNTY OVERVIEW Bay Area Mosquito Abatement District Marin County, California File: App-A_MSMVCD_Project-Vicinity_Marin_1178_2014-0505srb May 2014 Project No. 1178 Figure A-3 Source: Marin/Sonoma Mosquito Vector Control District 2013 MARIN/SONOMA COUNTY OVERVIEW Bay Area Mosquito Abatement District Marin and Sonoma County, California File: App-A_MSMVCD_Project-Vicinity_Marin-Sonoma_1178_2014-0505srb May 2014 Project No. 1178 Figure A-2 Source: Napa Mosquito Vector Control District 2013 NAPA COUNTY OVERVIEW Bay Area Mosquito Abatement District Napa County, California File: App-A_NMVCD_Project-Vicinity_Napa_1178_2014-0506srb May 2014 Project No. 1178 Figure A-4 Source: San Mateo Mosquito Vector Control District 2013 SAN MATEO COUNTY OVERVIEW Bay Area Mosquito Abatement District San Mateo County, California File: App-A_SMMVCD_Project-Vicinity_San-Mateo_1178_2014-0506srb May 2014 Project No. 1178 Figure A-5 Source: Solano Mosquito Vector Control District 2013 SOLANO COUNTY OVERVIEW Bay Area Mosquito Abatement District Solano County, California File: App-A_SMVCD_Project-Vicinity_Solano_1178_2014-0506srb May 2014 Project No. 1178 Figure A-6 INFORMAL BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR MOSQUITO SOURCE REDUCTION IN TIDAL HABITATS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA Appendix B Representative Images of Work Activities Appendix B: Representative Images of Work Activities Photo 1. Ditch excavation by MAD working using hand tools.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Site Assessment Single-Family Residence at 726 Point San Pedro Road Marin County, California
    BIOLOGICAL SITE ASSESSMENT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 726 POINT SAN PEDRO ROAD MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Mr. John Wright 55 Avenue Del Norte San Anselmo, CA 94960 415-254-3881 Prepared by: HUFFMAN-BROADWAY GROUP, INC. 828 Mission Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Contact: Gary Deghi Telephone: (415) 925-2000 ▪ Fax: (415) 925-2006 May 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 4 2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT .......................................................................... 5 3.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND ............................................................. 7 3.1 Federal Regulations ....................................................................... 7 3.2 State Regulations ........................................................................ 11 3.3 Marin County Policies ................................................................. 15 4.0 EXISTING BIOLOGICAL SETTING ....................................................... 17 4.1 Plant Communities ...................................................................... 17 4.2 Animal Populations ..................................................................... 18 4.3 Sensitive Habitats ....................................................................... 19 4.4 Special Status Species ................................................................. 20 4.4.1 Special Status Plant Species.................................................... 21 4.4.2 Special Status Animal Species .................................................22
    [Show full text]
  • Special Status Plant Species of the East
    Special Status Plant Species Of The East Bay (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties) Includes statewide rare and unusual (locally rare) species (* indicates statewide ranked species) July 2021 Following is a list of special status plant species occurring in Alameda and Contra Counties. Because of the East Bay’s unique geographical setting, it serves as a melting pot for the state’s vegetation with moist northern vegetation meeting drier southern habitats, and coastal meeting Great Valley. 91 taxa meet their range limit in the East Bay. The list contains 676 species, including 24 that are still being researched to determine whether or not they actually occur, or have historically occurred, in the East Bay. Of the 652 species that are definitely known from the two-county area, either currently or historically, 128 of them are ranked as statewide rare by the state level of CNPS. The remaining 524 are designated as unusual, or locally rare, by the East Bay Chapter, meaning they have no more than nine populations in the East Bay. Statewide Rare: Of the 128 CNPS state ranked species known from the East Bay, 98 have current populations here, with 20 of them having only one population in the East Bay, and ten having only two. Thirty species are only known historically from the East Bay, not having been found or reported in 25 years or more. The list shows the date they were last seen here. Unusual (Locally Rare): Of the 524 unusual species known from the East Bay, 406 have current populations here, with 95 of them having only one population in the East Bay, 83 only two, and the rest between four and nine populations.
    [Show full text]
  • State of California Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT of FISH and WILDLIFE Biogeographic Data Branch California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)
    State of California Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Biogeographic Data Branch California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) STATE AND FEDERALLY LISTED ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND RARE PLANTS OF CALIFORNIA August 6, 2018 This document contains a list of California plant taxa that have been officially classified as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare by the California Fish & Game Commission (FGC; state listed) or by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior or the U.S. Secretary of Commerce (federally listed). This list also includes taxa that are official Candidates for state or federal listing, or have been officially Proposed for federal listing, as well as taxa that were once listed but have since been delisted. State listing is pursuant to the Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (Fish and Game Code Chapter 10, §§1900-1913) and the California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (CESA; California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 6, §§783.0-787.9; Fish and Game Code Chapter 1.5, §§ 2050-2115.5). The official California listing of Endangered and Threatened species is contained in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §670.5. Federal listing is pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC §§1531-1544; 50 CFR §§17.1-17.108). The federal agencies responsible for listing are the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The official federal listing of Endangered and Threatened species is published in the Federal Register, 50 CFR §17.11.
    [Show full text]