DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Assessment Newtown Road at South Fork Weber Creek Bridge Replacement Project El Dorado County, CA District 3—El Dorado County—Newtown Road

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Assessment Newtown Road at South Fork Weber Creek Bridge Replacement Project El Dorado County, CA District 3—El Dorado County—Newtown Road Newtown Road Bridge (25C0033) at South Fork Weber Creek Replacement Project BA Biological Assessment Newtown Road at South Fork Weber Creek Bridge Replacement Project El Dorado County, CA District 3—El Dorado County—Newtown Road BRLS 5925 (086) FWS File #08ESMF00-2017-E-01693 February 2018 [This page intentionally blank] [This page intentionally blank] BRLS 5925 (086) Newtown Road Bridge at South Fork Weber Creek BA 2/26/2018 iv Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. v List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. vi List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................v Acronym List vii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 1 1.1. Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action ............................................................. 1 1.2. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed Threatened or Proposed Endangered Species, Critical Habitat .................................................................................................................. 1 1.3. Consultation History ............................................................................................... 3 1.4. Description of the Proposed Action ........................................................................ 4 1.4.1. Project Summary ............................................................................................. 4 1.4.2. Authorities and Discretion ............................................................................... 7 1.4.3. Project Location .............................................................................................. 8 1.4.4. Action Area ....................................................................................................13 1.4.5. Conservation Measures .................................................................................13 1.4.6. Interrelated and interdependent Actions .........................................................25 Chapter 2. Study Methods .........................................................................................27 2.1. Summary ...............................................................................................................27 2.2. Personnel and Survey Dates .................................................................................27 2.3. Resource Agency Coordination and Professional Contacts ...................................28 2.4. Limitations and Assumptions that may Influence Results ......................................29 Chapter 3. Environmental Baseline ...........................................................................31 3.1. Habitat Conditions in the Action Area ....................................................................31 3.2. Summary of Environmental Baseline .....................................................................31 3.3. Action Area ...........................................................................................................32 3.3.1. Physical Conditions ........................................................................................32 3.3.2. Biological Communities/Habitat Types ...........................................................32 3.3.3. Aquatic Resources .........................................................................................37 3.3.4. Invasive Species ............................................................................................38 3.3.5. Common Wildlife Species ..............................................................................40 3.3.6. Movement Corridors .......................................................................................40 Chapter 4. Federally-Listed/Proposed Species and Designated Critical Habitat within Action Area ..............................................................................................43 4.1. Federally-Listed/Proposed Species .......................................................................43 4.2. Discussion of California Red-Legged Frog (CRLF; Rana draytonii) .......................43 4.3. Survey Results ......................................................................................................46 4.4. Status of Designated Critical Habitat in the Action Area for CRLF .........................49 Chapter 5. Effects of the Project on the Action Area ..................................................51 5.1. Deconstruct Action ................................................................................................51 5.1.1. Construction Scenario (summary) ..................................................................52 5.1.2. Sequencing and Schedule..............................................................................54 5.1.3. Stressors from Project Actions .......................................................................55 5.1.4. Project Operation and Maintenance ...............................................................61 5.2. Exposure to Stressors from the Action ..................................................................62 BRLS 5925 (086) Newtown Road Bridge at South Fork Weber Creek BA 2/26/2018 v Table of Contents 5.3. Response to the Exposure ....................................................................................63 5.4. Effects of the Action ..............................................................................................63 5.5. Conservation Measures and Compensation Proposal ...........................................64 5.5.1. Conservation Measures .................................................................................64 5.5.2. Compensation ................................................................................................64 5.6. Effects of Interrelated and Interdependent Actions/Conclusions and Determination64 5.7. Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................64 5.8. Determination ........................................................................................................64 5.8.1. Species and critical habitat determination ......................................................64 5.8.2. Discussion supporting determination ..............................................................65 Chapter 6. References ..............................................................................................67 Appendix A USFWS Letter Appendix B NMFS List Appendix C California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Summary List Appendix D California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Plant List Appendix E Photographs Appendix F Regional Species and Habitats of Concern Appendix G Plant and Wildlife Species Observed Appendix H Revegetation Planting and Erosion Control Specifications Appendix I Replanting Plan Appendix J Glossary List of Figures Figure 1. Project Location Map ............................................................................................ 9 Figure 2. Aerial Photograph ................................................................................................11 Figure 3. Project Impact Maps ............................................................................................15 Figure 4. Biological Resources Map ...................................................................................33 Figure 5. Tree Impact Maps................................................................................................57 List of Tables Table 1. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed Threatened or Proposed Endangered Species, and Critical Habitat with Potential to Occur in the Action Area ................................. 2 Table 2. Summary of Biological Fieldwork ..........................................................................28 Table 3. Biological Communities within the Action Area .....................................................35 Table 4. Project Impacts to Natural Communities (Alternative 1) ........................................51 Table 5. Project Impacts to Natural Communities (Alternative 2) ........................................52 Table 6. RSP Placement in South Fork Weber Creek, Perennial Channel, and Riparian Habitat (Oregon Ash Groves Community) in the Action Area. .................................61 BRLS 5925 (086) Newtown Road Bridge at South Fork Weber Creek BA 2/26/2018 vi Acronym List Acronym List AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ADT Average Daily Traffic BA Biological Assessment BMP Best Management Practice Cal-IPC California Invasive Plant Council Caltrans California Department of Transportation CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CESA California Endangered Species Act CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CMPA Corrugated Metal Pipe Arch CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society CRLF California red-legged frog DPS Distinct Population
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tejon Ranch Botanical Survey Report
    David Magney Environmental Consulting FLORA OF THE TEJON RANCH CONSERVANCY ACQUISITION AREAS, TEJON RANCH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: TEJON RANCH CONSERVANCY July 2010 DMEC Mission Statement: To provide quality environmental consulting services, with integrity, that protect and enhance the human and natural environment. David Magney Environmental Consulting Flora of the Tejon Ranch Conservancy Acquisition Areas, Tejon Ranch, California Prepared for: Tejon Ranch Conservancy P.O. Box 216 Frazier Park, California 93225 Contact: Michael White Phone: 661/-248-2400 ext 2 Prepared by: David Magney Environmental Consulting P.O. Box 1346 Ojai, California 93024-1346 Phone: 805/646-6045 23 July 2010 DMEC Mission Statement: To provide quality environmental consulting services, with integrity, that protect and enhance the human and natural environment. This document should be cited as: David Magney Environmental Consulting. 2010. Flora of the Tejon Ranch Conservancy Acquisition Areas, Tejon Ranch, California. 23 July2010. (PN 09-0001.) Ojai, California. Prepared for Tejon Ranch Conservancy, Frazier Park, California. Tejon Ranch Conservancy – Flora of Tejon Ranch Acquisition Areas Project No. 09-0001 DMEC July 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................. 1 SECTION 2. METHODS ........................................................................................ 3 Field Survey Methods ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Survey for Special-Status Vascular Plant Species
    SURVEY FOR SPECIAL-STATUS VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES For the proposed Eagle Canyon Fish Passage Project Tehama and Shasta Counties, California Prepared for: Tehama Environmental Solutions 910 Main Street, Suite D Red Bluff, California 96080 Prepared by: Dittes & Guardino Consulting P.O. Box 6 Los Molinos, California 96055 (530) 384-1774 [email protected] Eagle Canyon Fish Passage Improvement Project - Botany Report Sept. 12, 2018 Prepared by: Dittes & Guardino Consulting 1 SURVEY FOR SPECIAL-STATUS VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES Eagle Canyon Fish Passage Project Shasta & Tehama Counties, California T30N, R1W, SE 1/4 Sec. 25, SE1/4 Sec. 24, NE ¼ Sec. 36 of the Shingletown 7.5’ USGS Topographic Quadrangle TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 4 II. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 III. Project Description ............................................................................................................................................... 4 IV. Location .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 V. Methods ..................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Botany Biological Evaluation
    APPENDIX I Botany Biological Evaluation Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Fungi Page 1 of 35 for the Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Restoration Project November 2009 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE – FOREST SERVICE LAKE TAHOE BASIN MANAGEMENT UNIT Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Restoration Project El Dorado County, CA Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Fungi PREPARED BY: ENTRIX, Inc. DATE: November 2009 APPROVED BY: DATE: _____________ Name, Forest Botanist, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit SUMMARY OF EFFECTS DETERMINATION AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND/OR REQUIREMENTS One population of a special-status bryophyte, three-ranked hump-moss (Meesia triquetra), was observed in the survey area during surveys on June 30, 2008 and August 28, 2008. The proposed action will not affect the moss because the population is located outside the project area where no action is planned. The following species of invasive or noxious weeds were identified during surveys of the Project area: cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum); bullthistle (Cirsium vulgare); Klamathweed (Hypericum perforatum); oxe-eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare); and common mullein (Verbascum Thapsus). The threat posed by these weed populations would not increase if the proposed action is implemented. An inventory and assessment of invasive and noxious weeds in the survey area is presented in the Noxious Weed Risk Assessment for the Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Restoration Project (ENTRIX 2009). Based on the description of the proposed action and the evaluation contained herein, we have determined the following: There would be no significant effect to plant species listed as threatened, endangered, proposed for listing, or candidates under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), administered by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Special-Status Plants and Invasive/Noxious Weeds Technical Report
    SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT UPPER AMERICAN RIVER PROJECT (FERC NO. 2101) SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS AND INVASIVE/NOXIOUS WEEDS TECHNICAL REPORT Prepared by: Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. Sacramento, California Prepared for: Sacramento Municipal Utility District Sacramento, California JULY 2004 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Upper American River Project FERC Project No. 2101 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section & Description Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Special-Status Plants Study Plan ............................................................................ 2 2.2 Invasive/Noxious Weeds Study Plan...................................................................... 3 2.3 Water Year Types................................................................................................... 4 2.4 Agency Requested Information .............................................................................. 5 3.0 METHODS ......................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Special-Status Plants............................................................................................... 5 3.2 Noxious Weeds ....................................................................................................... 6 4.0 RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Eldorado National Forest Placerville Ranger District Biological Assessment / Evaluation for Botanical Species
    ELDORADO NATIONAL FOREST PLACERVILLE RANGER DISTRICT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT / EVALUATION FOR BOTANICAL SPECIES: PILLIKEN FOREST HEALTH PROJECT 2016 Prepared By: /s/ Matt Brown Date: 4/13/2016 . Matt Brown Botanist Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 3 II. CONSULTATION TO DATE ....................................................................................... 6 III. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ............................................................... 6 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 7 V. EXISTING SPECIES AND HABITAT CONDITION ................................................. 7 VI. EFFECTS .................................................................................................................... 16 VII. OTHER MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS: ..................... 16 VIII. MITIGATIONS AND MONITORING ................................................................... 19 IX. DETERMINATION ................................................................................................... 19 X. REFERENCES............................................................................................................. 20 APPENDIX A: BOTANY REPORT FOR SPECIAL INTEREST PLANTS .................. 21 APPENDIX B: NOXIOUS WEED RISK ASSESSMENT .............................................. 27 APPENDIX C: NOXIOUS/INVASIVE WEEDS OF CONCERN .................................
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Botanical Studies Open Educational Resources and Data 9-17-2018 Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park James P. Smith Jr Humboldt State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Smith, James P. Jr, "Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park" (2018). Botanical Studies. 85. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/85 This Flora of Northwest California-Checklists of Local Sites is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources and Data at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Botanical Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A CHECKLIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE REDWOOD NATIONAL & STATE PARKS James P. Smith, Jr. Professor Emeritus of Botany Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State Univerity Arcata, California 14 September 2018 The Redwood National and State Parks are located in Del Norte and Humboldt counties in coastal northwestern California. The national park was F E R N S established in 1968. In 1994, a cooperative agreement with the California Department of Parks and Recreation added Del Norte Coast, Prairie Creek, Athyriaceae – Lady Fern Family and Jedediah Smith Redwoods state parks to form a single administrative Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosporum • northwestern lady fern unit. Together they comprise about 133,000 acres (540 km2), including 37 miles of coast line. Almost half of the remaining old growth redwood forests Blechnaceae – Deer Fern Family are protected in these four parks.
    [Show full text]
  • Ventura County Plant Species of Local Concern
    Checklist of Ventura County Rare Plants (Twenty-second Edition) CNPS, Rare Plant Program David L. Magney Checklist of Ventura County Rare Plants1 By David L. Magney California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program, Locally Rare Project Updated 4 January 2017 Ventura County is located in southern California, USA, along the east edge of the Pacific Ocean. The coastal portion occurs along the south and southwestern quarter of the County. Ventura County is bounded by Santa Barbara County on the west, Kern County on the north, Los Angeles County on the east, and the Pacific Ocean generally on the south (Figure 1, General Location Map of Ventura County). Ventura County extends north to 34.9014ºN latitude at the northwest corner of the County. The County extends westward at Rincon Creek to 119.47991ºW longitude, and eastward to 118.63233ºW longitude at the west end of the San Fernando Valley just north of Chatsworth Reservoir. The mainland portion of the County reaches southward to 34.04567ºN latitude between Solromar and Sequit Point west of Malibu. When including Anacapa and San Nicolas Islands, the southernmost extent of the County occurs at 33.21ºN latitude and the westernmost extent at 119.58ºW longitude, on the south side and west sides of San Nicolas Island, respectively. Ventura County occupies 480,996 hectares [ha] (1,188,562 acres [ac]) or 4,810 square kilometers [sq. km] (1,857 sq. miles [mi]), which includes Anacapa and San Nicolas Islands. The mainland portion of the county is 474,852 ha (1,173,380 ac), or 4,748 sq.
    [Show full text]
  • Terr–3 Special-Status Plant Populations
    TERR–3 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT POPULATIONS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During 2001 and 2002, the review of existing information, agency consultation, vegetation community mapping, and focused special-status plant surveys were completed. Based on California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2001a), CDFG’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFG 2003), USDA-FS Regional Forester’s List of Sensitive Plant and Animal Species for Region 5 (USDA-FS 1998), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species List (USFWS 2003), and Sierra National Forest (SNF) Sensitive Plant List (Clines 2002), there were 100 special-status plant species initially identified as potentially occurring within the Study Area. Known occurrences of these species were mapped. Vegetation communities were evaluated to locate areas that could potentially support special-status plant species. Each community was determined to have the potential to support at least one special-status plant species. During the spring and summer of 2002, special-status plant surveys were conducted. For each special-status plant species or population identified, a CNDDB form was completed, and photographs were taken. The locations were mapped and incorporated into a confidential GIS database. Vascular plant species observed during surveys were recorded. No state or federally listed special-status plant species were identified during special- status plant surveys. Seven special-status plant species, totaling 60 populations, were identified during surveys. There were 22 populations of Mono Hot Springs evening-primrose (Camissonia sierrae ssp. alticola) identified. Two populations are located near Mammoth Pool, one at Bear Forebay, and the rest are in the Florence Lake area.
    [Show full text]
  • (Lonicera L.) Genties Atstovų Genetinės Įvairovės Ir Filogenetiniai Tyrimai Dnr Ţymenų Metodais
    VILNIAUS UNIVERSITETAS Donatas Naugţemys SAUSMEDŢIO (LONICERA L.) GENTIES ATSTOVŲ GENETINĖS ĮVAIROVĖS IR FILOGENETINIAI TYRIMAI DNR ŢYMENŲ METODAIS Daktaro disertacija Biomedicinos mokslai, biologija (01 B) Vilnius, 2011 Disertacija rengta 2006 – 2010 metais Vilniaus universitete. Mokslinis vadovas: prof. dr. Donatas Ţvingila (Vilniaus universitetas, biomedicinos mokslai, biologija – 01 B) Konsultantas: dr. Silva Ţilinskaitė (Vilniaus universitetas, biomedicinos mokslai, biologija – 01 B) 2 TURINYS SANTRUMPOS ..................................................................................................... 5 ĮVADAS ................................................................................................................. 7 I. LITERATŪROS APŢVALGA ......................................................................... 13 1. Sausmedţio genties apţvalga ....................................................................... 13 1.1. Lonicera L. genties sistematikos istorija ir problemos .......................... 15 1.2. Lonicera L. genties kilmė ...................................................................... 21 2. Molekuliniai ţymenys ir augalų filogenetiniai tyrimai ................................ 24 2.1. RAPD metodo taikymas augalų sistematikoje ...................................... 26 2.2. Chloroplastų DNR nekoduojančių specifinių regionų tyrimas sekoskaitos metodu .............................................................................................. 31 2.3. Lonicera L. genties filogenetikos molekuliniai tyrimai
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Flora of the Liebre Mountains, Western Transverse Ranges, California Steve Boyd Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden
    Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany Volume 18 | Issue 2 Article 15 1999 Vascular flora of the Liebre Mountains, western Transverse Ranges, California Steve Boyd Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/aliso Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Boyd, Steve (1999) "Vascular flora of the Liebre Mountains, western Transverse Ranges, California," Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany: Vol. 18: Iss. 2, Article 15. Available at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/aliso/vol18/iss2/15 Aliso, 18(2), pp. 93-139 © 1999, by The Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, Claremont, CA 91711-3157 VASCULAR FLORA OF THE LIEBRE MOUNTAINS, WESTERN TRANSVERSE RANGES, CALIFORNIA STEVE BOYD Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden 1500 N. College Avenue Claremont, Calif. 91711 ABSTRACT The Liebre Mountains form a discrete unit of the Transverse Ranges of southern California. Geo­ graphically, the range is transitional to the San Gabriel Mountains, Inner Coast Ranges, Tehachapi Mountains, and Mojave Desert. A total of 1010 vascular plant taxa was recorded from the range, representing 104 families and 400 genera. The ratio of native vs. nonnative elements of the flora is 4:1, similar to that documented in other areas of cismontane southern California. The range is note­ worthy for the diversity of Quercus and oak-dominated vegetation. A total of 32 sensitive plant taxa (rare, threatened or endangered) was recorded from the range. Key words: Liebre Mountains, Transverse Ranges, southern California, flora, sensitive plants. INTRODUCTION belt and Peirson's (1935) handbook of trees and shrubs. Published documentation of the San Bernar­ The Transverse Ranges are one of southern Califor­ dino Mountains is little better, limited to Parish's nia's most prominent physiographic features.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plant Species with Documented Or Recorded Occurrence in Placer County
    A PPENDIX II Vascular Plant Species with Documented or Reported Occurrence in Placer County APPENDIX II. Vascular Plant Species with Documented or Reported Occurrence in Placer County Family Scientific Name Common Name FERN AND FERN ALLIES Azollaceae Mosquito fern family Azolla filiculoides Pacific mosquito fern Dennstaedtiaceae Bracken family Pteridium aquilinum var.pubescens Bracken fern Dryopteridaceae Wood fern family Athyrium alpestre var. americanum Alpine lady fern Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosorum Lady fern Cystopteris fragilis Fragile fern Polystichum imbricans ssp. curtum Cliff sword fern Polystichum imbricans ssp. imbricans Imbricate sword fern Polystichum kruckebergii Kruckeberg’s hollyfern Polystichum lonchitis Northern hollyfern Polystichum munitum Sword fern Equisetaceae Horsetail family Equisetum arvense Common horsetail Equisetum hyemale ssp. affine Scouring rush Equisetum laevigatum Smooth horsetail Isoetaceae Quillwort family Isoetes bolanderi Bolander’s quillwort Isoetes howellii Howell’s quillwort Isoetes orcuttii Orcutt’s quillwort Lycopodiaceae Club-moss family Lycopodiella inundata Bog club-moss Marsileaceae Marsilea family Marsilea vestita ssp. vestita Water clover Pilularia americana American pillwort Ophioglossaceae Adder’s-tongue family Botrychium multifidum Leathery grapefern Polypodiaceae Polypody family Polypodium hesperium Western polypody Pteridaceae Brake family Adiantum aleuticum Five-finger maidenhair Adiantum jordanii Common maidenhair fern Aspidotis densa Indian’s dream Cheilanthes cooperae Cooper’s
    [Show full text]
  • Baseline Biodiversity Report
    FINAL Baseline Biodiversity Survey for Potrero Mason Property Prepared for: County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation 5500 Overland Avenue Drive, Suite 410 San Diego, California 92123 Contact: Jennifer Price Prepared by: 605 Third Street Encinitas, California 92024 Contact: Brock Ortega DECEMBER 2012 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. Final Baseline Biodiversity Survey Potrero Mason Property TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................ V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................VII 1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose of the Report.............................................................................................. 1 1.2 MSCP Context ........................................................................................................ 1 2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................9 2.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Geographical Setting ............................................................................................... 9 2.3 Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]