Town of Los Gatos 15215 Shannon Road Planned Development Application PD-15-001 Initial Study | Appendices
Attachment 2 Biological Resources Assessment
2/4/16
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT FOR 10 RESERVOIR ROAD LOS GATOS, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
April 18, 2015
Prepared for: Geier & Geier Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 5054 Berkeley, CA 94705‐5054
Prepared by: Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. 65 Alta Hill Way Walnut Creek, CA 94595 (925) 899‐1282 mike@wood‐biological.com
The information provided in this document is intended solely for the use and benefit of Geier & Geier Consulting, Inc. and the Town of Los Gatos.
No other person or entity shall be entitled to rely on the services, opinions, recommendations, plans or specifications provided herein, without the express written consent of Wood Biological Consulting, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE SUMMARY ...... ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION ...... 1 2.0 METHODS AND LIMITATIONS ...... 1 3.0 SETTING ...... 3 3.1 PLANT COMMUNITIES ...... 3 3.2 WILDLIFE HABITATS ...... 5 3.3 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS ...... 7 4.0 SPECIAL‐STATUS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 8 4.1 SPECIAL‐STATUS NATURAL COMMUNITIES ...... 9 4.1.1 Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands ...... 9 4.1.2 Local Policies and Ordinances ...... 13 4.1.2.1 Construction Near Streams ...... 13 4.1.2.2 Protected Trees ...... 17 4.2 SPECIAL‐STATUS PLANT SPECIES ...... 19 4.3 SPECIAL‐STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES ...... 22 5.0 DISCUSSION ...... 28 5.1 SPECIAL‐STATUS NATURAL COMMUNITIES ...... 28 5.2 SPECIAL‐STATUS PLANT SPECIES ...... 33 5.3 SPECIAL‐STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES ...... 33 6.0 LITERATURE CITED ...... 37
LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE Figure 1. Project Location ...... 2 Figure 2. Preliminary Limits of Jurisdiction...... 12 Figure 3. Jurisdictional Impacts ...... 14 Figure 4. Riparian Setback ...... 16 Figure 5. Rare Plant Records from Project Vicinity ...... 21 Figure 6. Rare Animal Records from Project Vicinity ...... 24
LIST OF APPENDICES
A Database Printouts for Special‐Status Species B Explanation of Rarity Status Codes C Stream Analysis (LOA, 2007) D Riparian Assessment (WBC, 2008)
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road i
SUMMARY
This report presents the results of an assessment of existing or potentially occurring biological constraints to the proposed construction of a minor subdivision. This biological resource assessment report has been prepared in support of the Town’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
The report provides background and site‐specific information pertaining to special‐ status plant and wildlife species and other regulated biological resources (e.g., wetlands), which may represent constraints to the proposed activity. The conclusions contained herein are based on background research, a single reconnaissance‐level site survey performed by a qualified biologist, and review of the design features.
The 3.36‐acre project site encompasses three adjacent parcels (APN 529‐29‐061, 529‐29‐ 038 and 529‐29‐040) and is located at 10 Reservoir Road, Los Gatos, Santa Clara County. The subject property is situated in a heavily wooded residential neighborhood at the lower reaches of a minor ravine. The ravine conveys surface waters as an unnamed tributary to Los Gatos Creek. The dominant plant communities occurring within the study area are coast live oak woodland, and ruderal habitat.
No special‐status natural communities are present on site. However, the project site does support a surface tributary with overhanging riparian habitat. As proposed, the project would result in impacts to waters of the U.S. and waters of the state, and would be regulated under the Clean Water Act and the Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. Authorization for the proposed project will be required by local, state and federal agencies. Project implementation would also result in impacts on riparian habitat and trees protected under local ordinances.
The potential for occurrence of a total of 76 special‐status plant species was evaluated. Based on the altered nature of the subject parcel and surroundings, soil types, existing habitats, and geographic location, the potential for occurrence eof 71 of th target plant species can be ruled out. Based on the proposed grading plan, no specific impact avoidance or other mitigation measures are warranted. While marginally suitable habitat is present on site for the remaining five target species, their absence was confirmed during the present survey.
The potential for occurrence of a total of 35 special‐status animal species was evaluated. The potential for occurrence of 28 of the target species can be ruled out entirely based on the developed nature of the subject parcel and surroundings, soil types, existing habitats, and geographic location. Although marginally suitable habitat is present for five of the target species, their presence is not expected due to limitations presented by the limited amount of habitat present, the relatively high level of human activity in the project vicinity and the geographic location of the
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road ii
project site. Three special‐status animal species could occur on site; these include Cooper’s hawk, hoary bat, and the San Francisco dusky‐footed woodrat.
Project implementation would result in potentially significant impacts on biological resources. Impact avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures are outlined in the report. With the implementation of these measures, impacts can be reduced to a less‐than significant level.
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of an assessment of existing or potentially occurring biological constraints to the proposed construction of a minor subdivision. The subject property is located at 10 Reservoir Road in the Town of Los Gatos (Figure 1). This biological resource assessment report has been prepared in support of the Town’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
1.1 Project Background and Description
The project applicant is requesting approval of a lot line adjustment between four parcels to allow for future construction of two new single‐family residences on a 3.36‐ acre property, located at the southwest corner of the Reservoir Road/Cleland Avenue intersection. There are two existing single‐family residences on the largest, 2.19‐acre parcel, with access to these two homes from Reservoir Road provided by a single, 10‐ foot wide driveway. The proposed project would allow adjustment of existing lot lines to allow for future development of two new residences. Future development applications for these residences would be subject to the Architecture and Site review process.
The 3.36‐acre project site currently consists of one 2.19‐acre parcel (APN 529‐29‐061) and two smaller parcels (APN 529‐29‐038 and 529‐29‐040, totaling 1.17 acres). While all three parcels have frontage on Reservoir Road, the two smaller parcels have most of the site frontage on Reservoir Road and the entire site frontage on Cleland Avenue. Project lots are currently non‐conforming lots and do not meet various lot area, frontage, depth, and width requirements. The proposed lot line adjustment would reconfigure lots so they conform to Town requirements. Lot lines would be configured so that each parcel would have 106 to 356 feet of frontage along Reservoir Road and/or Cleland Avenue. The proposed project also includes grading and filling of the upper reaches of the ravine and the extension of an existing storm drain culvert by 25 feet.
2.0 METHODS AND LIMITATIONS
The findings for this biological evaluation are based on the following:
1. Database queries for the Los Gatos, San Jose West, San Jose East, Castle Rock Ridge, Felton, Cupertino, Santa Teresa Hills, Laurel, and Loma Prieta 7.5‐minute USGS quadrangles from the available databases (CNDDB, 2015; CNPS, 2015; USFWS, 2015; see Appendix A); 2. An assessment of habitat types and surrounding land uses completed by reviewing recent aerial photographs; and 3. A reconnaissance‐level survey by a qualified biologist.
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 1
Source: Google Maps
Figure 1. Project Location
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 2
Additional information regarding special‐status plants, animals, and habitats was compiled through a review of information sources maintained by the CDFW (2015a,b,c,d). Plant habitat affinities and local distribution information was obtained from Baldwin et al. (2012), Corelli (2011), Corelli and Chandik (1995), and Thomas (1961). Nomenclature for common, widespread plants and animals conforms to Jepson Online Interchange and CDFG (2005), respectively. Nomenclature for special‐status plants and animals conforms to CDFW (CDFW, 2015a and CDFW, 2015c, respectively). Plant community names conform to Sawyer et al. (2009), and Cowardin et al. (1979) where appropriate; special‐status plant communities follow CDFG (2010).
A stream analysis was prepared for the project applicant by Live Oak Associates, Inc. (LOA, 2007; Appendix C). A peer review of the stream analysis was prepared by Wood Biological Consulting (WBC, 2008; Appendix D). Subsequent to these studies, components of the project were altered, potentially affecting the analysis. The revised plans were evaluated and a follow‐up reconnaissance‐level survey was performed by WBC on March 31, 2015.
3.0 SETTING
The subject property is situated in a heavily wooded residential neighborhood at the lower reaches of a minor ravine located south of Cleland Avenue, extending along the west side of Reservoir Road. A paved access road extends onto the site from Reservoir Road, crossing the site’s culvert (just upstream of this ravine) and providing access for two existing residences on the project site. The two existing residences are situated on the upper (western) portion of the property, while the lower (eastern) portion of the property is undeveloped and supports woodland comprised of mature, mostly native tree species. Site elevations range from 131‐168 m (428 to 550 ft) above mean sea level (msl).
3.1 Plant Communities
The dominant plant community within the study area is coast live oak woodland, which presumably covered the entire project site prior to development. Following development, graded and filled portions of the site have been reconlonized by native and non‐native plants commonly associated with ruderal habitat. Each of these plant communities is described below.
Coast Live Oak Woodland Coast live oak woodland is typically found on north‐facing slopes and shaded ravines in the southern and inland portions of the state and on more exposed, mesic sites in the north. This community is dominated by coast live oak, a drought‐resistant evergreen tree growing to 80 feet tall. It produces both deep taproots and extensive surface roots. The species frequently occurs in pure, dense stands with a closed
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 3
canopy. Coast live oak woodland is restricted primarily to the coast side of the state and is distributed from Sonoma County to Baja California. It occurs throughout the outer South Coast ranges and coastal slopes of the Transverse and Peninsular ranges, from sea level to about 4000 feet in elevation. Coast live oak woodlands can be found on alluvial terraces, canyon bottoms, stream banks, slopes, and flats, growing on deep, sandy or loamy soils with high organic matter content (Sawyer et al., 2009).
Membership in this alliance requires that coast live oak comprise over 50 percent relative cover in the tree canopy, or, if California bay (Umbellularia californica) is present, less than 33 percent relative cover in the tree canopy. Stands with a mixed tree layer may include as co‐dominant species big‐leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), madrone (Arbutus menziesii), black walnut (Juglans californica), Coulter pine (Pinus coulteri), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), black oak (Quercus kelloggii), valley oak (Quercus lobata), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and California bay (Sawyer et al., 2009). Coast live oak woodland has been assigned a rarity ranking of G5/S4, which is considered secure statewide and is does not have a high priority for inventory in the CNDDB (CDFG, 2010).
The California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) defines oak woodland as “an oak stand with a greater than ten percent canopy cover or that may have historically supported greater than ten percent canopy cover”. The California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection has regulatory authority over all of California’s forested landscapes, including the power to regulate oak woodlands at the local or State level (California Oak Foundation, 2007).
Within the study area, coast live oak woodland dominates the ravine and slopes above the driveway. In addition to coast live oak, numerous mature California bay trees (Umbellularia californica) and valley oaks (Quercus lobata) are present. Other indigenous tree species present include coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), black oak (Quercus kelloggii), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), box elder (Acer negundo var. californicum), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and Mexican elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea). Non‐native trees and shrubs that have naturalized include the highly invasive tree‐of‐heaven (Ailanthus altissima), green wattle (Acacia decurrens), flowering plum (Prunus blireana), and privet (Ligustrum sp.). The understory of the ravine slopes are dominated by the non‐native vines periwinkle (Vinca major), Algerian ivy (Hedera canariensis), and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), with occasional plants of French broom (Genista monspessulana). A patch of the highly invasive species giant reed (Arundo donax) is present in the channel bottom.
On site, coast live oak woodland conforms to the Quercus agrifolia Woodland Alliance as described by Sawyer et al. (2009; CA vegetation code 71.060.02 and Holland code
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 4
71160). The plant association is classified as an upland habitat following Cowardin et al. (1979). Impacts to this plant community in upland or non‐riparian settings would not typically be regarded as significant under CEQA guidelines, except where protected under local policies or ordinances.
Ruderal Habitat Ruderal habitat is that from which the native vegetation has been completely removed by grading, cultivation, or other surface disturbances. Left undeveloped, such areas typically become recolonized by invasive exotic species. Scattered native species might recolonize such sites after disturbances have ceased. Ruderal sites are typically dominated by herbaceous species, although scattered woody shrubs and ytrees ma also begin to appear if left undisturbed long enough. Ruderal sites are characteristic of road sides, fallow agricultural fields, vacant lots, and landslides.
A large portion of the proposed project area would be characterized as ruderal, having been modified by grading which altered the natural topography, soils, and hydrology, and removed the native vegetation. Graded areas have since become colonized by a variety of native and non‐native grasses, forbs, vines and shrubs. Dominant plants occurring on site include wild oats (Avena fatua) and ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus). Commonly encountered species include such non‐native forbs as Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes‐caprae), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), bur‐clover (Medicago polymorpha), white stemmed filaree (Erodium moschatum), cut‐leaf geranium (Geranium dissectum). Other non‐native species present include Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), periwinkle (Vinca major), smilograss (Stipa miliacea). Native species present include giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia ssp. braunii), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), miner’s lettuce (Claytonia perfoliata), bedstraw (Galium aparine), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and blue elderberry.
Ruderal habitat is not specifically described by Sawyer et al. (2009), Holland (1986), or the CDFW (CDFG, 2010); with the exception of the ruderal wetland habitat described below, this association would be classified as an upland following Cowardin et al. (1979). Ruderal habitat has no global or state rarity ranking (Sawyer et al., 2009; CDFG, 2010).
3.2 Wildlife Habitats
The value of a site to wildlife is influenced by a combination of the physical and biological features of the immediate environment. Species diversity is a function of diversity of abiotic and biotic conditions and may be greatly affected by human use and occupation. The wildlife habitat quality of an area, therefore, is ultimately determined by the type, size, and diversity of vegetation communities present and their degree of disturbance. For example, as a plant community is degraded by the loss of understory diversity, creation of openings, or reduction in area, a loss of
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 5
structural diversity generally results. Degradation of the structural diversity of a community typically diminishes wildlife habitat quality and usually results in a reduced ability to support a diversity of animal species.
Wildlife habitats are typically distinguished by vegetation type, with varying combinations of plant species providing different resources for use by wildlife. Although the proposed project activities would be confined primarily to developed or previously disturbed habitats, the availability of a diversity of wildlife habitats at the interface of the project increases the potential for wildlife conflicts. A brief discussion of these habitat types and the characteristic wildlife species found in each, along with actual observations, is presented below.
Coast Live Oak Woodland In general, oak woodlands are considered critical habitats for the conservation of many bird and mammal species (USDA, 1999). Over 300 vertebrate species are known to use oak trees. Important components of oak habitats to wildlife include acorns, snags, trunk cavities, and downed wood/litter. As a seasonal food, acorns play an important role in the survival of many species of wildlife. Mature oak trees frequently bear snag limbs and trunk cavities, which are provide opportunities for nesting, roosting, foraging, caching and wintering by a wide variety of birds and bats. Acorns constitute a significant portion of the diet of numerous birds and mammals. Numerous species of raptors (birds‐of‐prey) are associated with coast live oak woodland. Coast live oak woodland provides foraging, nesting, cover, and movement habitat for a variety of other wildlife species. California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus) and California newt (Taricha torosa) can be found underneath surface litter, such as downed wood and bark. Western toad (Bufo boreas) and Pacific treefrog (Pseudacris regilla) also might occur in oak woodland if suitable spawning pools are nearby. Reptiles often found in oak woodland include western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata), western skink (Eumeces skiltonianus), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), common kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula), and terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophis elegans).
Avian insect eaters, such as chestnut‐backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus) and dark‐eyed junco (Junco hyemalis) feed on the foliage. Bark gleaner species, such as western scrub‐jay (Aphelocoma californica), Stellerʹs jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), and acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), feed on insects as well as acorns. California quail (Callipepla californica) and California towhee (Melozone crissalis) are ground foliage gleaners. Red‐ shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), red‐tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) may forage on small mammals in adjacent grasslands from the protection of the canopy of oak woodlands while Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi) and sharp‐shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) may hunt small birds among the tree canopy.
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 6
Mammals associated with coast live oak woodland include the native western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus) and the ubiquitous non‐native eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), which forage and nest in the canopy. The long‐tailed weasel (Mustela frenata) hunt for shrews (Sorex spp.) and California vole (Microtus californicus) on the ground. Mule deer (Odoicoileus hemionus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), mountain lion (Felis concolor), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and dusky‐footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes) are also likely to utilize the understory of this community (e.g., poison oak, black berry bushes) for shelter, hunting and for browse. Mature oaks and snags are important features within this habitat because they provide nesting and roosting areas for a variety of special‐status species of bats that occur in this region, including pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), long‐ legged myotis (Myotis volans), Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis) and long‐eared myotis (Myotis evotis) (Whitaker, 1997).
Ruderal Habitat Ruderal habitat is that from which the native vegetation has been completely removed by grading, cultivation, or other surface disturbances. In some cases, recolonization of such sites by non‐native and native grasses, forbs, shrubs and even scattered trees may be evident. However, vegetative cover and structural diversity is typically low. Ruderal sites are characterized as vacant lots, roadsides and cleared edges of development. Generally, ruderal sites have a relatively limited value for wildlife species as they are typically open and subject to a high level of human activity.
Ruderal sites commonly support a variety of passerines (perching birds) that forage on disturbed ground or among the scattered trees and shrubs, and may include mourning dove, European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), rock pigeon (Columba livia), Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and western scrub‐jay, among others. Fossorial (i.e., burrowing) mammals such as Botta’s pocket gopher and California ground squirrel are also expected, along with other rodents such as California vole, deer mouse, brush rabbit, and Norway rat. Mammals that are naturally inured to human habitation and activities include Virginia opossum, raccoon, striped skunk, and mule deer. Reptiles that may also be found include alligator lizard and western fence lizard.
3.3 Wildlife Movement Corridors
Under CEQA, impacts on wildlife movement are considered significant if a project would interfere substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Wildlife corridors (i.e., linear habitats that naturally connect and provide passage between two or more large habitats or habitat fragments) are important for the persistence of wildlife overtime. For
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 7
populations to be viable, wildlife must have access to adequate resources. Corridors are used to find suitable forage, nesting and resting sites, mates and for the establishment of new home ranges by dispersing juveniles. In addition, corridors for dispersal within breeding populations will decrease the likelihood that subpopulations will go extinct or become locally extirpated. Even where patches of pristine habitat are fragmented, as commonly occurs with riparian vegetation, wildlife movement between populations is facilitated through habitat linkages, migration corridors and movement corridors.
Wildlife movement includes migration (i.e., usually one direction per season), inter‐ population movement (i.e., long‐term genetic exchange) dan small travel pathways (i.e., daily movement within an animal’s home range). Daily movement patterns define an animal’s home range where activities such as foraging, resting and conspecific (individuals of the same species) interactions occur. Generally, longer movements, usually by dispersing individuals connect breeding populations, permit gene flow between subpopulations. Corridors generally provide adequate habitat for animals to disperse until reaching an area large enough to establish home ranges. Corridors are different depending on the type of organism; a corridor for a butterfly or bird may be a series of “stepping stones” of suitable habitat, while a terrestrial vertebrate may require a continuous band of suitable habitat for successful movement. Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation resulting from a change in land use or habitat conversion can alter the use and viability of corridors.
Although the region surrounding the Town of Los Gatos is largely rural, supporting extensive and connected non‐developed private and preserved open space lands, and the project vicinity is densely wooded, the project site can be characterized as a residential neighborhood close to the center of town. Despite the presence of a short section of open channel and dense oak woodland, the site is isolated by surface streets and the fenced yards of single‐family homes. The habitats on site are not therefore considered connected to other areas of non‐developed habitat and, with the exception of birds and mammals accustomed to human activities, are not expected to provide significant resources for wildlife species. For these reasons, the proposed project would have no impact on wildlife movement, significant corridors, or nursery sites.
4.0 SPECIAL‐STATUS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Existing and potentially occurring biological constraints at the subject parcel or potentially affected by the proposed action are defined and discussed below.
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 8
4.1 Special‐Status Natural Communities
Special‐status natural communities are those that are considered rare in the region, support special‐status plant or wildlife species, or receive regulatory protection under the Clean Water Act (CWA)1, Lake and Streambed Alteration Program (LSAP)2, and/or the Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter‐Cologne).3 A number of communities have been designated as rare and these communities are given the highest inventory priority (CNDDB, 2015; CDFG, 2010). Vegetation alliances given a rarity ranking of G1, G2 or G3 are considered to be of high inventory priority; alliances ranked as G4 or G5 are generally considered common enough to not be of concern (Sawyer et al., 2009; CDFG, 2010).
Riparian habitats are considered by federal and State regulatory agencies to represent a sensitive and declining resource. Wetlands and riparian areas can serve significant biological functions by providing nesting, breeding, foraging, and spawning habitat for a wide variety of resident and migratory wildlife species. Impacts to stream channels with a defined bed and bank are addressed specifically by the CFGC4 and may be regulated under the CWA. The USACE regulates dredging and placement of fill into waters of the U.S., including wetlands, with oversight of permitting decisions by the USEPA. The USFWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service) has input on permitting decisions by theE USAC when an activity could affect wetland‐dependent federally listed species.
Special‐status natural communities recorded from the project region include maritime Coast Range ponderosa pine forest, northern maritime chaparral, and serpentine bunchgrass grassland; none of these has been mapped as occurring in the project vicinity (CNDDB, 2015). No wetlands are present within the study area.
No special‐status natural communities are present on site; project implementation would result in no impact on special‐status natural communities. However, as discussed in Section 4.1, below, potentially significant impacts on waters of the U.S./waters of the state, protected trees and riparian habitat protected under local policies and ordinances would result from project implementation.
4.1.1 Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands
There are seven categories of Waters of the United States.5 These include:
1 CWA § 401 and §404 2 CFGC Division 2, Chapter 6, §§ 1600‐1607 3 Cal. Water Code §§ 13000‐14920 4 CFGC § 1600 et seq. 5 33 CFR 328.3(a); 40 CFR 230.3(s)
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 9
(1) All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; (3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: a) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or b) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or c) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce; 4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; 5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (1) through (4) of this section; 6) The territorial seas; and 7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (1) through (6) of this section. Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act (other than cooling ponds6, which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States.
In the absence of adjacent wetlands, the extent of USACE jurisdiction over non‐tidal waters is defined by the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The OHWM is the line on the shores established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as:7
a clear natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in the character of the soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the presence of litter and debris; or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.
Wetlands are defined as ʺthose areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life
6 as defined in 40 CFR 123.11(m) 7 USACE, 2006
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 10
in saturated soil conditions.ʺ8 Indicators of all three wetland parameters (e.g., hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology) must be present for a site to be classified as a wetland (Environmental Laboratory, 1987; USACE, 2006).
An unnamed tributary to Los Gatos Creek extends approximately 475 feet across the project site. The channel flows at the bottom of the ravine, parallel to the driveway and Reservoir Road. Just upstream of the ravine (south of the boundary between Parcels B and C), the channel is fed by a 220 foot‐long, 18 inch‐diameter corrugated metal pipe (CMP) that conveys stormwater from a concrete‐lined intercept. The intercept receives stormwater outflows from a stormwater drain on Prospect Avenue, which represents the top of the watershed. Downstream of the CMP, the channel is shallowly to deeply incised, and varies in width at the OHWM from 18 inch to 4 feet. At the downstream end, surface flows are directed into a 4 feet wide concrete catchment basin and then into an 18 inch‐diameter CMP and conveyed beneath the Town of Los Gatos in a buried stormwater drain system. A map illustrating the preliminary limits of federal and state jurisdiction regarding the stream course is presented in Figure 2.
Based on the current USGS topographic map as well as a historic topographic map, the on‐site channel is not currently nor has it ever been classified as a “blue‐line” creek. However, based on evidence of surface scour, the presence of a defined bed and bank with an OHWM, and a presumed hydrologic connection to Los Gatos Creek, the channel is presumed to be a first order9 ephemeral stream and is expected to qualify as a waters of the U.S.10 As such, the placement of fill below the OHWM would be regulated pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA) and would fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). As summarized by the USACE and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), both agencies assert jurisdiction over “non‐navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year‐round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months)” and “wetlands that abut such tributaries” (USEPA/USACE, 2008). The extent of USACE jurisdiction normally corresponds to the OHWM. Activities that would result in the placement of fill into a waters of the U.S. below the OHWM are regulated under the CWA.
8 CWA § 404 9 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strahler_Stream_Order for descriptions of stream orders. 10 As defined in 40 CFR 230.3(s)
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 11
The unnamed tributary also qualifies as a waters of the State.11 As such, any impacts below the tops of bank would be regulated pursuant to the CFGC and would fall under the jurisdiction of the CDFG. Impacts would also be regulated pursuant to the CWA and the California Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Act (Porter‐Cologne), falling under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Regardless of federal or State jurisdiction, any construction activities near streams, must conform to the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams (“Guidelines”; SCVWRPC, 2006), as adopted by the Town of Los Gatos.12
Based on the proposed limits of grading, project implementation would result in potentially significant impacts on waters of the U.S. falling under the jurisdiction of the USACE. Specifically, construction would require the extension of an existing culvert by 25 linear feet, resulting in the filling of a total of 37.5 square feet of unvegetated channel (Figure 3).
Grading would also result in potentially significant impacts on riparian corridor falling under the jurisdiction of the CDFW. Specifically, construction would require filling of the upper channel banks and removal of native overhanging trees, resulting in total impacts on 5410 square feet (see Figure 3).
No wetland areas, as defined above, are present in the channel or elsewhere in the study area. There would be no impact on wetlands. With the incorporation of the mitigation measures outlined below, impacts would be less‐than‐significant.
4.1.2 Local Policies and Ordinances
There are two adopted local policies and ordinances that apply to the proposed project, concerning construction near streams and the protection of trees.
4.1.2.1 Construction Near Streams In the publication User Manual: Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams (SCVWRPC, 2006) emphasis is placed on the vital role of riparian vegetation in “maintaining stream stability, providing valuable wildlife habitat, and moderating downstream flooding,” as well as regulating water quality by filtering pollutants from stormwater, such as oil and grease from roadways, fertilizer runoff from lawns, and
11 Waters of the State are defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” California Water Code Section 13050(e). These include nearly every surface or ground water in California, or tributaries thereto, and include drainage features outside USACE jurisdiction (e.g., dry and ephemeral/seasonal stream beds and channels, etc.), isolated wetlands (e.g., vernal pools, seeps, springs and other groundwater‐supplied wetlands, etc.), and storm drains and flood control channels. 12 The Town of Los Gatos officially adopted Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Guidelines under Resolution 2007‐ 020.
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 13
excess sediments from upstream. Specifically, the stream‐side environment supports riparian vegetation and the functions riparian vegetation provides.
In their report WBC (2008) describes the environmental and biological significance of riparian zones. WBC also identifies guidelines and regulations of the CDFW, SFRWQCB, and SCVWRPC that are used to define the limitse of th riparian zone and determine appropriate riparian setbacks (see Appendix D). WBC concluded that LOA’s ephemeral stream setback of 10 to 15 feet on both sides of the active channel (average width of 15 feet), would be reasonable given the limited channel width and depth of incision, as well as the extremely limited value the channel may provide for wildlife.The proposed widening of the site’s existing access road on the east side of the ravine would not provide any setback from the overlapping tree canopy. While this encroachment appears to be unavoidable given the existing access road’s location and topographic constraints of the site, it should be noted that the paved roadway already exists, impacts on the tree canopy would be limited to the area where road improvements occur, and the project would not result in any significant impacts on the channel, water quality, or wildlife.
Since completion of the LOA and WBC studies, changes to the proposed grading and drainage plan now call for the placement of fill within the stream channel and riparian corridor, and the removal of native trees overhanging the bank. As shown in Figure 3 and discussed in Section IV.c., above, project implementation would require filling of the upper channel banks and removal of native overhanging trees, resulting in total impacts on 5410 square feet. A total of 800 cubic yards of fill would be placed within the channel. A total of 15 mature, native trees overhanging the creek channel would be removed (see below for a discussion of all significant tree removals). After grading, the southeastern corner of the proposed home on Lot 4 would be approximately 45 feet from the nearest edge of the riparian corridor (Figure 4). New paving for the new driveway to Lots 3 and 4 would encroach upon the riparian corridor.
The proposed project would be in conflict with the Guidelines.13 This is a potentially significant impact. As stated, if the removal of vegetation is proposed for a development project, mitigation will be provided as defined through the CEQA process and as agreed to by the local agencies and appropriate regulatory agencies. Additional protections and mitigations are required pursuant to the Town’s tree protection ordinance (see discussion below).With the incorporation of the mitigation measures outlined below, impacts would be less‐than‐significant.
13 See Section 3B. I.B. Native Plant Removal, page 3.3
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 15
4.1.2.2 Protected Trees The Town of Los Gatos’s Tree Protection Ordinance14 regulates the removal of trees within the Town in order to retain as many trees as possible consistent with the reasonable use of private property. Prior to the removal of any protected tree, except under certain exceptions15, a permit must be obtained from the Town. Protected trees are defined as follows: 16 1. All trees which have a twelve‐inch or greater diameter (thirty‐seven and one half‐ inch circumference) of any trunk, or in the case of multi‐trunk trees a total of twelve‐inches or greater diameter or more of the sum diameter (thirty‐seven and one half‐inch circumference) of all trunks, where such trees are located on developed residential property. 2. All trees of the following species which have an eight inch diameter (twenty‐five inch circumference): a. Blue Oak (Quercus douglasii) b. Black Oak (Quercus kellogii) c. California Buckeye (Aesculus californica) d. Pacific Madrone (Arbutus menziesii) 3. All trees which have a four‐inch or greater diameter (twelve‐and one half‐inch circumference) of any trunk, when removal relates to any review for which zoning approval or subdivision approval is required. 4. Any tree that existed at the time of a zoning approval or subdivision approval and was a specific subject of such approval or otherwise covered by subsection (2) of this section (e.g., landscape or site plans). 5. Any tree that was required to be planted or retained by the terms and conditions of a development application, building permit or subdivision approval in all zoning districts, tree removal permit or code enforcement action. 6. All trees which have a four‐inch or greater diameter (twelve and one‐half inch circumference) of any trunk and are located on a vacant lot or undeveloped property. 7. All trees, which have a four‐inch or greater diameter (twelve and one half‐inch circumference) of any trunk and are located on developed commercial, office, or industrial property. 8. All publicly owned trees growing on Town lands, public places or in a right‐of‐ way easement.
14 Ordinance 2114, Ch. 29, Div. 2, Sec. 29.10.0950 – 29.10.0985 15 Under Sec. 29.10.0970 a Tree Removal Permit is not required in case of emergencies or for fruit and nut trees less than 18 inches in diameter. 16 Sec. 29.10.0960(6)
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 17
9. A Protected Tree may also be a stand of trees, the nature of which ʹmakes each dependent upon the other for the survival of the stand.
Based on the arborist’s report (Ellis, 2015), there are 76 protected trees on the subject property. Project implementation would require the removal of 39 protected trees, 15 of which are located within the riparian zone (Table 1). This is a potentially significant impact. With the incorporation of the mitigation measures outlined below, impacts would be less‐than‐significant.
Table 1. Summary of Impacts to Protected Trees
Trunk In Tree # Common Name Scientific Name diameter Riparian (in.) Zone 1 valley oak Quercus lobata 18 yes 11 coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 12 no 12 toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia 4, 5 no 13 California bay Umbellularia californica 6, 15, 16 no 14 California bay Umbellularia californica 8 no 15 valley oak Quercus lobata 20 no 16 coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 13 no 18 valley oak Quercus lobata 24 no 19 California bay Umbellularia californica 8 no 20 California bay Umbellularia californica 22 no 22 black oak Quercus kelloggii 14 no 23 California bay Umbellularia californica 11 no 24 toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia 5, 2 no 25 black oak Quercus kelloggii 7 no 26 California bay Umbellularia californica 10 no 27 California bay Umbellularia californica 2, 3, 3, 8 no 28 coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 18 no 30 black acacia Acacia melanoxylon 4 no 31 holly leaf cherry Prunus ilicifolia 3,3,4,4,6,8 no 32 red ironbark Eucalyputs sideroxylon 5,2,1 no 36 California bay Umbellularia californica 28 yes 39 coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 12 no 43 coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 12 no 44 coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 6 no 45 California bay Umbellularia californica 8 no 46 California bay Umbellularia californica 7 no 58 California bay Umbellularia californica 14 yes
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 18
59 California bay Umbellularia californica 9, 15 yes 60 blue oak Quercus douglasii 10, 11 yes 61 blue elderberry Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea 12 yes 63 coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 11 yes 64 California bay Umbellularia californica 11 yes 67 California bay Umbellularia californica 17 yes 68 valley oak Quercus lobata 32 yes 69 California sycamore Platanus racemosa 16 yes 71 London plane tree Platanus acerifolia 7, 9 yes 72 silver wattle Acacia decurrens 9 yes 73 box elder Acer negundo 7 yes 74 box elder Acer negundo 13 yes Total 39 15
4.2 Special‐Status Plant Species
Special‐status plant species include all plant species that meet one or more of the following criteria:17
Listed or proposed for listing as Threatened or Endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or candidates for possible future listing as Threatened or Endangered under the FESA.18 Listed19 or candidates for listing by the State of California as Threatened or Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).20 A species, subspecies, or variety of plant is endangered when the prospects of its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over‐exploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors.21 A plant is threatened when it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future in the absence of special protection and management measures.22 Listed as Rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (CNPPA).23 A plant is Rare when, although not presently threatened with extinction, the species, subspecies, or variety is found in such small
17 This definition is provided in CDFG (2009). 18 50 CFR § 17.12 19 Refer to current online published lists available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata. 20 CFGC § 2050 et seq. 21 CFGC § 2062 22 CFGC § 2067 23 CFGC § 1900, et seq.
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 19
numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if its environment worsens.24 Meet the definition of Rare or Endangered under CEQA.25 Species that may meet the definition of Rare or Endangered include the following: o Species considered by the CNPS to be “rare, threatened or endangered in California” (Lists 1A, 1B and 2); o Species that may warrant consideration on the basis of local significance or recent biological information; o Some species included on the California Natural Diversity Database’s (CNDDB) Special Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Locally significant species, that is, a species that is not rare from a statewide perspective but is rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region26 or is so designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines27). Examples include a species at the outer limits of its known range or a species occurring on an uncommon soil type.
In addition, plant species have been assigned global and state rarity rankings (for a definition of these rankings, see Appendix B). Species ranked as S1, S2, or S3 are considered to be critically imperiled, imperiled or vulnerable to extinction within the boundaries of the state (CDFW, 2015a). As such, these species may be considered to meet the criteria for listing as endangered, threatened or rare under CESA.28 Species ranked as S4 or S5 are generally considered common enough to be secure and not at risk of extinction. Impacts on special‐status plants species, as thusly defined, would be regarded as significant pursuant to CEQA29 and should be addressed in environmental review documents.30
A total of 76 special‐status plant species have been recorded from the nine USGS quadrangles including and surrounding the project site (CNDDB, 2015; CNPS, 2015; USFWS, 2015; copies of the database printouts are included as Appendix A). No federally or State‐listed plant species or other special‐status plant species have been recorded as occurring on the subject property or in the immediate vicinity (CNDDB, 2015). A total of 12 special‐status plant species have been recorded from within 5 miles of the project site (Figure 5). The potential for occurrence of 71 of the target special‐ status species can be rule out entirely based on habitat or geographic restrictions;
24 CFGC § 1901 25 CEQA § 15380[b] and [d] 26 CEQA § 15125 (c) 27 Appendix G 28 CEQA § 15380(d) 29 CEQA § 15065 30 CEQA § 15125
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 20 Source: CNDDB (2015); Species records from within 5 miles of the project site
Figure 5. Special‐status Plant Species Records
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 21
these species would not be expected to occur on the subject property. An explanation of rarity status codes is presented in Appendix B.
Marginally suitable habitat is present on site for the five remaining target plant species. These include bent‐flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris; CNPS List 1B.2), Brewer’s clarkia ( Clarkia breweri; CNPS List 4.2), Lewis’s clarkia (Clarkia lewisii; CNPS List 4.3), western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis; CNPS List 1B.2), and California bottle‐brush grass (Elymus californicus; CNPS List 1B.2). Based on the timing of the most recent survey, the presence of western leatherwood and California bottle‐brush grass can be ruled out as they would have been detectable. The potential for the remaining three species is negligible due to the level of historic impacts within the proposed limits of grading; no further analysis or impact avoidance measures related to special‐status plant species are warranted.
No special‐status plant species are present on site; project implementation would result in no impact on special‐status plant species.
4.3 Special‐Status Animal Species
Special‐status animal species include listed as Endangered, Threatened, Rare, or as Candidates for listing under the FESA (USFWS, 2015) or CESA (CDFW, 2015d). Other species regarded as having special‐status include special animals, as listed by the CDFW (2015c). Additional animal species receive protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA)31 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)32. The CFGC provides specific language protecting birds and raptors33, “fully protected birds”34, “fully protected mammals”35, “fully protected reptiles and amphibians”36 and “fully protected fish”.37 The California Code of Regulations (CCR) prohibits the take of fully protected fish38, certain fur‐bearing mammals,39 and restricts the taking of amphibians40 and reptiles41. Additional definitions are given in CEQA.42 Impacts on special‐status animal species, as thusly defined, may qualify as significant pursuant to the guidelines of the CEQA.
31 16 USC 668, et seq. 32 16 U.S.C. 703‐711 33 §§ 3503 and 3503.5 34 CFGC § 3511 35 CFGC § 4700 36 CFGC § 5050 37 CFGC § 5515 38 14 CCR § 5.93 39 14 CCR § 460 40 14 CCR § 5.05 41 14 CCR § 5.60 42 § 15380(d)
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 22
A total of 35 special‐status animal species have been recorded from the nine USGS quadrangles including and surrounding the project site (CNDDB, 2015; USFWS, 2015; copies of the database printouts are included as Appendix A). No federally or State‐ listed, or fully protected animal species have been recorded as occurring on the subject property (CNDDB, 2015). A total of 14 special‐status animal species have been recorded from within 5 miles of the project site (Figure 6). The potential for occurrence of 28 of the target special‐status species can be ruled out entirely based on lack of suitable habitat on site or geographic restrictions. Although marginally suitable habitat is present for five of the target species43, their presence is not expected due to limitations presented by the limited amount of habitat present, the relatively high level of human activity in the project vicinity and the geographic location of the project site. Two of the target species for which suitable habitat is present on site and which may occur on site include Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi) and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), as well as numerous species of migratory birds. Although not appearing on the CNDDB printout for the project region, one additional special‐status species, San Francisco dusky‐footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), could also occur on site. These species are discussed in more detail, below. An explanation of rarity status codes is presented in Appendix B.
Due to their high level of significance regionally, it is worth providing separate mention of four federally and/or State‐listed species known from the project region. The federally listed threatened California red‐legged frog (Rana draytonii) is known from two records (Occ. #17 and 211) within 5 miles of the project site (see Figure 6). The project site is quite far removed from suitable habitat for the species and no suitable aquatic or upland dispersal habitat is present on site. This species would not occur on site.
The federally and state‐listed California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) is known from three records (Occ. #41, 539 and 600) within 5 miles of the project site (see Figure 6). The project site is quite far removed from suitable habitat for the species and no suitable aquatic or upland dispersal habitat is present on site. This species would not occur on site.
The federally and state‐listed coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and the federally listed threatened steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykis irideus) are anadromous fish inhabiting streams lacking obstructions to the ocean and/or bay. The project site is quite far removed from suitable habitat for the species and no suitable aquatic or upland dispersal habitat is present on site. This species would not occur on site.
43 Species for which marginally suitable habitat is present on site but are not expected to occur include pallid bat (Antrozous pallida), white‐tailed kite (Elanus leucurus),long‐eared myotis (Myotis evotis), Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), and purple martin (Progne subis)
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 23 Source: CNDDB (2015); Species records from within 5 miles of the project site
Figure 6. Special‐status Animal Species Records
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 24
Cooper’s Hawk The Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi) is on the CDFW’s Watch List (CDFW, 2015c) and is protected under the MBTA. Like other raptors in general, Cooper’s hawk is covered under the CFGC44, which prohibits the taking or destroying of nest, egg or bird in the order of Falconiformes (falcons, kites, and hawks) and Strigiformes (owls). This species is a small raptor that breeds in oak woodlands and deciduous riparian areas. Nests are often constructed near water and are vigorously defended. It forages in a variety of woodland and edge habitats. It is an agile flier and will pursue small birds and mammals through thickets and woodlands. During the winter, Cooper’s hawks utilize a wider variety of habitats for foraging. Cooper’s hawk is a confirmed breeder in Santa Clara County (Bousman, 2007).
Critical Habitat: Critical habitat has not been designated for the Cooper’s hawk.
Habitat Suitability and Occurrence Data: Potentially suitable nesting habitat is present within the study area, consisting of the dense oak woodland canopy. The potential for occurrence of the species on site is considered to be low to moderate.
The Cooper’s hawk has not been recorded from the immediate project vicinity. The nearest record (Occ. #851) consists two nesting adults observed in 2003 at a commercial site located 6 miles to the northeast (CNDDB, 2015). Another record (Occ. #89) consists of a breeding pair observed in riparian grove of coast live oak trees in 2003 located 6.6 miles to the north northwest (CNDDB, 2015).
Potential Project‐Related Effects: Although not detected, the potential exists for Cooper’s hawk to occur on site. If the species were to be nesting on site or nearby, nests could be destroyed or breeding behavior could be adversely affected, indirectly, by construction activities. Impact avoidance measures are warranted, as outlined in Section 5.3, below.
Hoary Bat The hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) is designated as a Special Animal by the CDFW and a Medium Priority species by the WBWG (CDFW, 2015c). The species has been assigned a global and state ranking of G5/S4 by the CNDDB (2015); species assigned a ranking of S4 or higher are generally considered not to be vulnerable in the state.
Hoary bats are ubiquitous throughout California and roost alone in the foliage of evergreens and secondarily in deciduous trees, particularly in edge habitat (Bolster, 2005). They forage in small to large groups on large prey such as moths, beetles and dragonflies (Barclay, 1985). Hoary bats use a long‐range foraging strategy based on their echolocation characteristics; flying fast straight line paths (Barclay, 1985).
44 CFGC § 3503.5
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 25
Critical Habitat: Critical habitat has not been designated for hoary bat.
Habitat Suitability and Occurrence Data: Potentially suitable roosting habitat is present within the study area, consisting of trees on site. The potential for occurrence of the species on site is considered to be low.
The hoary bat has been recorded from the project vicinity. The nearest record (Occ. #96) consists of a single female specimen identified in 1988 from a site located 2.2 miles to the northeast southeast (CNDDB, 2015).
Potential Project‐Related Effects: Marginally suitable roosting habitat for the hoary bat is present within the project area. Although not detected, the potential exists for hoary bat to occur on site. If present on site or the project vicinity, project implementation could result insignificant adverse effects pursuant to CEQA. Impact avoidance measures are warranted, as outlined in Section 5.3, below.
San Francisco Dusky‐Footed Woodrat The San Francisco dusky‐footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens; hereafter SFDW) is a California Species of Special Concern (CDFW, 2015c). This subspecies has been assigned a global and state ranking of G5T2T3/S2S3 by the CNDDB (2015); species assigned a ranking of S3 are considered vulnerable in the state due to their restricted range, relatively few populations, recent and widespread declines, or other factors.
The SFDW is one of eleven recognized woodrat subspecies occurring in California (Matocq, 2002). It inhabits oak and riparian woodlands with a well‐developed understory and is distributed through the Santa Cruz Mountains and Diablo Range from the Pajaro River north to the San Francisco Bay (Hall, 1981). It is most common in riparian, oak woodland and scrub habitats, but is able to persist in semi‐rural areas in proximity to houses, if patches of native habitat are present. A study of a similar subspecies N. f. luciana on Camp Roberts found that densities increased significantly if dense under‐story was present; densities reached 46.7 animals per hectare in plots of dense vegetation (Tietje, 1995).
Woodrats typically build nests (nests) of sticks and other debris on the ground, in the lower branches of trees and occasionally in human‐made structures. Nests are often reused by successive generations and can be 6 feet high or more. Other atypical dens, including tree cavities, rock crevices and ground holes, are well‐hidden and easily overlooked. Nests are used for rearing young, protection from predators, resting, food storage, thermal protection and social interaction (Carraway and Verts, 1991). Individual woodrats can use and maintain more than one nest and, occasionally, more than one woodrat can occupy a den (Fargo et al., 1999). Woodrat nests are also used by a wide variety of native amphibians, small mammals, reptiles and insects (Ingles, 1965; Carraway and Verts, 1991). Woodrats feed on a variety of plant material,
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 26
including seeds, nuts, berries and leaves, oftentimes foraging above the forest floor (Jameson and Peeters, 1988). Woodrat home ranges may cover 46.2 acres, but activity may also be limited to a single tree over an individual’s lifetime (Zeiner et al., 1988). They are mostly nocturnal in habit and active throughout the year. Dusky‐footed woodrats breed year‐round and may produce up to five litters per year, with litters containing one to four young (Zeiner, et al. 1988). Development of oak woodlands and clearing of brushy under‐story are possible threats to this species.
Critical Habitat: Critical habitat has not been designated for the SFDW.
Habitat Suitability and Occurrence Data: The subject parcel lies within the geographic range of the subspecies and the riparian corridor within the project area provides suitable breeding and foraging habitat. No woodrats or nests have been detected on site. Although there are no records for SFDW in the CNDDB (2015), this relatively common subspecies is widely underreported. Its presence on site and in the region is to be expected.
Potential Project‐Related Effects: Considering the availability of abundant suitable habitat and the subspecies’ occurrence in the project vicinity mean that it could move onto the site prior to the initiation of construction activities. Although not detected, the potential exists for SFDW to occur on site. If present on site or the project vicinity, project implementation could result in direct mortalities of individuals. Such impacts would be considered a significant adverse effect pursuant to CEQA. Impact avoidance measures are warranted, as outlined in Section 5.3, below.
Special‐status and Other Migratory Birds In addition to the Cooper’s hawk discussed above, the study area supports suitable nesting habitat for a variety of other special‐status and migratory raptors (birds of prey) and passerines (perching birds). Migratory birds are protected under the MBTA and MBTRA. Under the MBTA it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture or kill; attempt to take, capture or kill; possess, offer to or sell, barter, purchase, deliver or cause to be shipped, exported, imported, transported, carried or received any migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product, manufactured or not. A list of bird species covered under the MBTA is maintained by the USFWS (2013). Certain other migratory birds receive protection under the BGEPA and CFGC.
Although no active nesting was detected at the time of the most recent survey, the potential exists for migratory birds to breed on site. If nests and/or active breeding by migratory birds occurs on site or eth project vicinity, project implementation could result in a take of migratory birds. In addition, construction activities could result in nest abandonment and mortality of young. Such impacts would be significant pursuant to CEQA. Impact avoidance measures are warranted, as outlined in Section 5.3, below.
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 27
5.0 DISCUSSION
As described in Section 3.0, the project site is situated in a heavily wooded residential neighborhood. A minor ravine is present on the property, with an overhanging canopy of native oaks and bay trees. From a regulatory perspective, the creek channel is of greatest significance. Project implementation would result in potentially significant impacts on this regulated feature.
As summarized in Section 4.2, above, no federally or state‐listed plant species are considered to have any potential to occur on site. Similarly none of the target special‐ status plant species is considered to have any potential to occur on site. Project implementation is therefore not expected to have any significant effects on special‐ status plant species.
As summarized in Section 4.3, numerous special‐status bird species and two special‐ status mammal species are considered to have a potential to occur on site. If present, project implementation could result in significant adverse effects on special‐status animal species. These impacts, along with measures to avoid significant impacts are discussed in Section 5.3, below.
5.1 Special‐status Natural Communities
No special‐status plant associations, per se, are present within the study area
However, the stream control channel is expected to qualify as a waters of the U.S. and a waters of the state. Impacts on these habitats and below the tops of bank of the channel are regulated and fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, and the CDFW. The expected limits of jurisdiction are illustrated in Figure 2, above. In addition, protected trees and riparian habitat protected under local policies and ordinances would result from project implementation.
As outlined in Section 1.1, above, the proposed project calls for grade modifications that would result in the placement of fill into the upper reaches of the ravine and the extension of an existing storm drain culvert by 25 feet. While no wetlands would be adversely affected, construction would require the removal of native trees from the riparian corridor. These impacts would be regarded as significant under CEQA and are regulated under federal, state, and local laws and policies.
Avoidance/Minimization/Mitigation Measures – Waters of the U.S./State: In order to avoid, minimize and compensate for unavoidable impacts on wetlands, riparian habitat and other waters of the U.S./waters of the state, the following measures should be implemented:
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 28
a. Prior to project implementation, the project proponent shall secure from the USACE a verified jurisdictional determination. b. No construction activities may commence before the project proponent has applied for and received authorization pursuant to the Clean Water Act (Section 404 and 401). The project proponent shall comply with all permit conditions, as specified by the USACE and RWQCB. c. No construction activities may commence before the project proponent has applied for and received authorization pursuant to CFGC (Section 1600). The project proponent shall comply with all permit conditions, as specified by the CDFW. d. The placement of fill below the OHWM typically requires mitigation in the form of the creation of new linear features or protection of another similar feature elsewhere. This is typically a difficult standard to meet in terms of feasibility. Therefore, the following alternatives should be considered: Preserved sections of the channel shall be afforded a suitabler buffe (see below) on either side to preserve or improve the existing functions and values of the water course, in conformance to the Guidelines. The project proponent shall prepare a Riparian Restoration, Enhancement and Monitoring Plan, to be reviewed and approved by the regulatory agencies. The plan shall specify the planting of re‐contoured channel banks with indigenous, native trees, shrubs, vines and grasses. The Plan shall include specifications for the enhancement of the corridor through the eradication of invasive, non‐native plant species. Finally, the Plan shall outline the long‐term (minimum duration of five years) monitoring, reporting and criteria for determining the success of the restoration program. e. Grading plans shall clearly identify the limits of work and designate as sensitive all habitats downstream of the work area. High visibility fencing shall be installed to prevent accidental incursion by construction equipment or workers into sensitive habitats. f. Under no circumstances shall spoils, waste asphalt, gravel, paving materials or other construction materials or debris be placed, even temporarily, along or below the top of bank of the creek. g. The Town of Los Gatos routinely requires implementation of protective measures for all projects adjacent to stream course. For all work adjacent to stream channels, best management practices (BMPs) shall be implemented to prevent bank erosion, sedimentation, and accidental incursion by construction equipment below the tops of bank. Such measures may include installation of silt fencing, hay bales, straw wattles or other
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 29
protective devices to prevent the downslope migration of silt or sediment from the construction site. h. All storm water treatment facilities must be in accordance with local and regional water quality standards to ensure there is no release of contaminants into the aquatic environment. Stormwater discharge shall not be permitted beneath the canopies of oak trees.
Additional measures may be outlined in the conditions of the permits issued by the USACE, CDFW and RWQCB. All permit conditions must be conformed to.
Avoidance/Minimization/Mitigation Measures – Riparian Habitat: Encroachments into the riparian corridor as part of the designed project will be mitigated as part of the permitting process. These impacts are in conflict with the Guidelines, but are mitigated to a less‐than‐significant level. As proposed, there will be a minimum setback of 45 feet between the nearest permanent structure and the riparian corridor; this is consistent with the Guidelines. Paving for the driveway to Lots 3 and 4 encroach upon the riparian corridor; this is in conflict with the Guidelines (Section 3B.I.G).The following measures shall be followed to reduce the project’s potential effects on riparian habitat: a. All conditions outlined in the permits issued by the USACE, CDFW and RWQCB shall be complied with. b. Re‐contoured channel banks shall be revegetated as outlined above. c. Storm water shall be directed away from the re‐contoured banks and treated properly to prevent erosion, sedimentation and the release of contaminants into the aquatic environment. d. Nighttime lighting shall be minimal to provide safety and comfort of future residents but shall not be directed into the riparian corridor. e. Orange construction fencing or a similar visual barrier shall be installed to prevent accidental grading or movement of equipment beyond what is specified on the grading plans and approved under the grading permit. f. All permitted excavation within the dripline of any riparian trees shall be performed in accordance with tree protection measures outlined by a licensed arborist (see discussion, below).
Avoidance/Minimization/Mitigation Measures – Protected Trees: Project implementation would require the removal of a total of 39 protected trees, 15 of which are growing in the riparian zone. In conformance with the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance, no tree removals may be removed prior to receipt of a Protected Tree Removal Permit from the Director of Community Development Department. The
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 30
Permit application shall include a tree replacement plan illustrating the quantity, species, and container sizes of all replacement trees to be installed on site. Mitigation plantings shall conform to the replacement ratios listed in the Ordinance (Sec. 29.10.0985) and summarized in Table 2, below. If a tree cannot be reasonably planted on the subject property, the value of the removed tree(s) shall be paid to the Town Forestry Fund to: a. Add or replace trees on public property in the vicinity of the subject property or b. Add trees or landscaping on other Town property. Replacement value of a tree shall be detem1ined using the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, as prepared by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.
Table 2. Summary of Impacts to Protected Trees
Protected Tree Impacts # of Replacement Trees (box Tree Canopy Class (in feet) size, in inches) Common Name # 4‐ 10‐ 28‐ 40‐ 56‐ 60ʹ+ 24ʺ 36ʺ 48ʺ or 36ʺ 48ʺ 9ʹ 27ʹ 40ʹ 56ʹ 60ʹ 1 valley oak 1 4 0 0 0 2 11 coast live oak 1 3 0 0 2 0 12 toyon 1 3 0 0 2 0 13 California bay 1 6 0 0 2 2 14 California bay 1 6 0 0 2 2 15 valley oak 1 2 2 2 tbd tbd 16 coast live oak 1 6 0 0 2 2 18 valley oak 1 2 2 2 tbd tbd 19 California bay 1 4 0 0 0 2 20 California bay 1 4 0 0 0 2 22 black oak 1 3 0 0 2 0 23 California bay 1 4 0 0 0 2 24 toyon 1 3 0 0 2 0 25 black oak 1 3 0 0 2 0 26 California bay 1 4 0 0 0 2 27 California bay 1 4 0 0 0 2 28 coast live oak 1 4 0 0 0 2 30 black acacia 1 3 0 0 2 0 31 holly leaf cherry 1 3 0 0 2 0 32 red ironbark 1 3 0 0 2 0
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 31
36 California bay 1 4 0 0 0 2 39 coast live oak 1 6 0 0 2 2 43 coast live oak 1 2 2 2 tbd tbd 44 coast live oak 1 3 0 0 2 0 45 California bay 1 4 0 0 0 2 46 California bay 1 4 0 0 0 2 58 California bay 1 6 0 0 2 2 59 California bay 1 6 0 0 2 2 60 blue oak 1 4 0 0 0 2 61 blue elderberry 1 4 0 0 0 2 63 coast live oak 1 3 0 0 2 0 64 California bay 1 4 0 0 0 2 67 California bay 1 tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd 68 valley oak 1 tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd California 69 1 0 0 2 2 sycamore 6 70 flowering plum* 0 0 0 0 0 71 London plane tree 1 4 0 0 0 2 72 silver wattle 1 6 0 0 2 2 73 box elder 1 6 0 0 2 2 74 box elder 1 2 2 2 tbd tbd total 0 10 14 9 4 2 1488 8 or 38 46
Notes: Trees indicated with an ʺ*ʺ are exempt from the Tree Ordinance. Replacement trees quantities indicated with ʺtbdʺ are to be determined by the Director of Community Development
Tree Protection When development impacts are within the dripline of or will affect any Protected Tree, the applicant shall provide a Tree Preservation Report prepared by a certified or consulting arborist. The Tree Preservation Report shall stipulate a required tree protection zone (TPZ) for trees to be retained, including street trees, Protected Trees and trees whose canopies are hanging over the project site from adjacent properties. The Tree Protection Report shall consider all trees that were to remain within the development. The report shall note the treesʹ health in relation to the initially reported condition of the trees ande shall not any changes in the treesʹ numbers or physical conditions. The applicant will then be responsible for the loss of any tree not previously approved for removal. For trees that are not Protected Trees, which were removed, the developer shall pay a fine in the amount equal to the appraised value of
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 32
the subject tree. For Protected Trees, which were removed, the developer shall pay a fine in the amount of the appraised value of such tree in addition to replacement requirements contained in Section 29.10.0985 of this code. The applicant shall remain responsible for the health and survival of all trees within the development for a period of one year following acceptance of the public improvements of the development.
Protection of trees during construction. Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permit, the applicant or contractor shall submit to the building department a written statement verifying that the required tree protection fence is installed around street trees and Protected Trees in accordance with the Tree Preservation Report. Protective tree fencing and additional precautions shall conform to the standards outlined in Section 29.10.1005 of the code.
5.2 Special‐Status Plant Species
No federally or state‐listed plant species were detected and none is expected to occur within the construction areas. No avoidance measures or further studies are warranted.
5.3 Special‐Status Animal Species
Construction could result in direct and indirect effects to special‐status wildlife species through direct mortality, injury or harassment of individuals and the loss of suitable breeding, non‐breeding aquatic, roosting, foraging, and dispersal habitat and/or daily/seasonal movement corridors. To minimize impacts associated with the project, the measures outlined below should be implemented.
Implications of the Proposed Project: Special‐Status and Migratory Birds Within the study area, grasslands and trees provide nesting habitat for the special‐ status bird species Cooper’s hawk as well as many other migratory bird species. Site clearing activities (e.g., grubbing, grading, trenching, and tree removal or pruning) could result in direct or indirect impacts to nesting birds by causing the destruction or abandonment of occupied nests. To ensure compliance with the MBTA/MBTRA and the CFGC the avoidance measures outlined below should be performed. With the incorporation of these measures, impacts to migratory or other special‐status birds should be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level.
1. Prior to the removal or significant pruning of any trees, they should be inspected by a qualified biologist for the presence of raptor nests. This is required regardless of season. If a suspected raptor nest is discovered, the CDFW shall be notified. Pursuant to CFGC Section 3503.5, raptor nests, whether or not they are occupied, may not be removed until approval is granted by the CDFW.
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 33
2. If clearing, grubbing and/or tree removal or pruning are to be conducted outside of the breeding season (i.e., September 1 through January 31), no preconstruction surveys for actively nesting migratory birds (passerines or other non‐raptor species) is necessary. 3. If clearing, grubbing and/or tree removal or pruning are to be conducted during the breeding season (i.e., February 1 through August 31), a preconstruction nesting bird survey should be conducted. The survey should be performed by a qualified biologist no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of work. If no nesting or breeding activity is observed, work may proceed without restrictions. To the extent allowed by access, all active nests identified within 76 m (250 ft) for raptors and 15 m (50 ft) for passerines should be mapped. 4. For any active nests found near the construction limits (e.g., 76 m [250 ft] for raptors and 15 m [50 ft] for passerines), the project biologist should make a determination as to whether or not construction activities are likely to disrupt reproductive behavior. If it is determined that construction is unlikely to disrupt breeding behavior, construction may proceed. If it is determined that construction may disrupt breeding, the no‐construction buffer zone should be expanded; avoidance is the only mitigation available. The ultimate size of the no‐construction buffer zone may be adjusted by the project biologist based on the species involved, topography, lines of site between the work area and the nest, physical barriers, and the ambient level of human activity. If it is determined that construction activities are likely to disrupt raptor breeding, construction activities within the no‐construction buffer zone may not proceed until the project biologist determines that the nest is long longer occupied. 5. If maintenance of a no‐construction buffer zone is not feasible, the project biologist should monitor the nest(s) to document breeding and rearing behavior of the adult birds. If it is determined that construction activities are likely to cause nest abandonment, work should cease immediately and the CDFW and/or the USFWS Division of Migratory Bird Management should be contacted for guidance. Work may not resume until an agreement has been reached with the authorities specifying the conditions under which work may proceed.
Implications for Proposed Project: Special‐Status Bats Removal or pruning of large trees, removal of structures, and construction activities in the vicinity of occupied roosts could result in the destruction of roosts or disruption of breeding of special‐status bats such as hoary bat. In addition, disturbance during the maternity roosting season could result in potential roost abandonment and mortality of young. Prior to the removal of mature trees, the avoidance measures outlined below should be performed. With the incorporation of these measures, impacts to special‐status bats should be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level.
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 34
1. A preconstruction survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify suitable bat roosting sites. If no evidence of roosting is detected, no further avoidance or minimization measures are necessary. 2. Any trees determined to support or potentially support maternal roosting sites may only be removed or demolished after coordination with the CDFW and/or the USFWS. Passive exclusion of roosting bats would be required and this may only be performed during the non‐breeding season (i.e., between October 1 and March 30). 3. Any trees determined to provide suitable bat day or night roosting sites should be identified and marked on site plans. Such roosting sites include snags, rotten stumps, and decadent trees with broken limbs, exfoliating bark, cavities, openings leading to interior portions of any structures. If no suitable roost sites or evidence of bat roosting are identified, impact minimization measures are not warranted. If suitable roosting sites or evidence of bat roosting are identified, the following measures should be conducted: a. A qualified biologist should survey suitable roost sites immediately prior to the removal or significant pruning of any of the larger trees, or demolition or significant renovation of any structures. b. If the project biologist identifies suitable day or night roost sites or evidence of bat occupation, the following steps should be followed to discourage use of the sites by bats and to ensure that any bats present are able to safely relocate. For trees: o Tree limbs smaller than 7.6 cm (3 in) in diameter should be removed and any loose bark should be peeled away. o Any competing limbs that provide shelter around the potential roost site should be removed to create as open of an area as possible. o The tree should then be alone to allow any bats using the tree/snag to find another roost during their nocturnal activity period. o The project biologist should re‐survey the trees a second time 48 hours after trimming. o If no bats are present, work may proceed. o If bats remain on site, additional measures would be prescribed by the biologist.
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 35
Implications for Proposed Project: San Francisco Dusky‐Footed Woodrat Although not detected, the potential exists for San Francisco dusky‐footed woodrat to take up residence at the project site prior to the start of construction. To ensure no woodrats are harmed during construction, the following measures are recommended.
1. A pre‐construction wildlife survey should be performed at the project site to search for woodrat nests. If no nests are detected, no further avoidance measures are warranted. 2. If a woodrat nest is detected, it should be mapped in relation to the proposed limits of work. If the nest can be avoided, it should be isolated from the work zone by installation of wildlife exclusion fencing (WEF)45. 3. If a woodrat nest is in the work zone and it cannot be avoided, site clearing should be performed during the non‐breeding season (e.g., September 1 through November 30). During the non‐breeding season, the nest should be disassembled by hand and the nest materials (e.g., sticks) removed and disposed of off‐site. Any adult animals will be passively relocated into the adjacent woodland habitat. This work should be performed by a qualified biologist in coordination with the CDFW. 4. If site clearing must proceed during the breeding season, it will be necessary to determine whether or not the nest is currently occupied. This may be done by direct observation over the course of at least two evenings no more than 48 hours prior to nest disassembly. Direct observation may consist of installation of wildlife cameras at the nest or by a biologist on the ground. If no animals are observed, the nest may be disassembled by hand. If, during the process of disassembling the nest, live animals are encountered, nest materials should be replaced on top of the nest and the effort abandoned. Nest may not be disassembled if young woodrats are present. Construction must then be postponed until the end of the breeding season.
45 Wildlife Exclusion Fencing should provide a barrier for terrestrial wildlife gaining access to the project work areas. The fencing may vary to meet the needs of a particular species, but should be buried and/or backfilled to prevent animals passing under the fence and should be high enough to deter reptiles and amphibian or small mammals from climbing or jumping over the fence. Acceptable fencing materials including ERTEC E‐Fence® (Ertec Environmental Systems LLC), plywood, corrugated metal, silt fencing or other suitable materials.
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 36
6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Anderson, J. D. 1968. A Comparison of the Food Habits of Ambystoma macrodactylum sigillatum, Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum, and Ambystoma tigrinum californiense. Herpetologica 24:273‐284. Austin, C. C. and Shaffer, H. B. 1992. Short‐, Medium‐ and Long‐term Repeatability of Locomotor Performance in the Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense. Funct. Ecol. 6, 145–153. Baicich , P. and C. Harrison. 1997. A Guide to Nests, Eggs and Nestlings of North American Birds. Second Edition. Natural World Academic Press. San Diego. 347 pp. Baldwin, B.G, D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. Second edition. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley. 1568 pp. Barclay, R. M. R. 1985. Long‐Versus Short‐Range Foraging Strategies of Hoary (Lasiurus cinereus) and Silver‐Haired (Lasionycteris noctivagans ) Bats and the Consequences for Prey Selection. Can. J. Zoo. 63(11):2507‐2515. Barry, S. J., and H.B. Shaffer. 1994. The Status of the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) at Lagunita: a 50‐year Update. Journal of Herpetology 28:159‐164. Bash, J.S. 1999. The Role of Wood in the Life Cycle of Western Pond Turtles (Clemmys marmorata). An unpublished report to ELWd Systems, a division of Forest Concepts LLC. 14pp Block, W.M., M.L. Morrison, and J. Verner. 1990. Wildlife and Oak Woodland Interdependency. Fremontia, July Edition. Bogan, M. A., E. W. Valdez, and K.W. Navo. 2005a. Long‐eared Myotis (Myotis evotis). Species Account. Western Bat Working Group. http://wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/species_accounts.html _____. 2005b. Yuma Myotis (Myotis yumanensis). Species Account. Western Bat Working Group. http://wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/species_accounts.html Bolster, B.C. 2005. Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus). Species Account. Western Bat Working Group. http://wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/species_accounts.html Bousman, W.G. 2007. Breeding Bird Atlas of Santa Clara County, California. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Cupertino, California. 547 pp. Bulger, J.B., N.J. Scott Jr. and R. Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial Activity and Conservation of Adult California Red‐legged Frogs Rana aurora draytonii in Coastal Forests and Grasslands. Biological Conservation. Vol. 110: pp. 85‐95. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1980. At the Crossroads; A Report on the Status of Californiaʹs Endangered and Rare Fish and Wildlife. The Resources Agency. December. _____. 2005. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships. California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. CWHR Version 8.1 for personal computer program. Sacramento, CA. Available online at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/wildlife_habitats.asp. _____. 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. November 24. Available online at
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 37
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/Protocols_for_Surveying_and_Evaluating_Imp acts.pdf. _____. 2010. List of Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the California Natural Diversity Database. Natural Diversity Database, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. September. Available online at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/pdfs/natcomlist.pdf. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2015a. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Biogeographic Data Branch, Natural Diversity Database. Quarterly publication. January. 125 pp. Available online at https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPPlants.pdf _____. 2015b. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. Biogeographic Data Branch, Natural Diversity Database. Quarterly publication. 7 pp. January. Available online at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/TEPlants.pdf _____. 2015c. Special Animals List. Natural Diversity Database. January. 50 pp. Available online at https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPAnimals.pdf _____. 2015d. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. Biogeographic Data Branch, Natural Diversity Database. January. 14 pp. Available online at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/TEAnimals.pdf California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2015. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8‐02). Query of for the Calaveras Reservoir, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mount Day, Lick Observatory, Mendenhall Springs, Milpitas, San Jose West, and San Jose East USGS 7.5’ Quadrangles. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Accessed March 23 at www.rareplants.cnps.org/ California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2015. Query of for the Calaveras Reservoir, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mount Day, Lick Observatory, Mendenhall Springs, Milpitas, San Jose West, and San Jose East USGS 7.5’ Quadrangles. RareFind 5.0. Database accessed March 23. California Oak Foundation. 2007. California Oak Report. June. Available on line at http://www.californiaoaks.org/html/oak_report_06‐07.html Carraway, L.N. and B.J. Verts. 1991. Neotoma fuscipes. Mammalian Species, No. 386, pp. 1‐10. Corelli, Toni. 2011. Checklist of the Vascular Plants of San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, California. Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. 161 pp. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 131 pp. Available online at http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/classwet/index.htm Dunk, J. R. 1995. White‐tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). In The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/178. Ellis, D. 2015. Arborist Report, 10 Reservoir Road, Los Gatos. Unpublished technical report prepared for the Town of Los Gatos. April 7. Ellis, S. 1987. Alameda Whipsnake: Five‐year status report. California Department of Fish and Game. 6 pp.
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 38
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y‐ 87‐1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. January. 100 pp. Available online at http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/organizations/cespk‐ co/regulatory/pdf/delineation_manual.pdf. Feaver, P.E. 1971. Breeding Pool Selection and Larval Mortality of Three California Amphibians: Ambystoma tigrinum californiense Gray, Hyla regilla Baird and Girard and Scaphiopus hammondi hammondi Girard. Master’s Thesis, Department of Biology, Fresno State College, Fresno, California. 58 pp. Fellers, G. M., and P. M. Kleeman. 2007. California Red‐Legged Frog (Rana draytonii) Movement and Habitat Use: Implications for Conservation. Journal of Herpetology 41:276–286. Hall, E.R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. University of California Press, Berkeley. Harvey, M. J., J. S. Altenbach and T. L. Best. 1999. Bats of the United States. Arkansas Fish and Game Commission. 64 pp. Hayes, M., and M. Jennings. 1988. Habitat Correlates of Distribution of the California Red‐legged Frog and the Foothill Yellow‐legged Frog: Implications for Management. In R. Sarzo, K. Severson, and d. Patton (technical coordinators). Proceedings of the Symposium on the Management of Amphibians, Reptiles and Small Mammals in California. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Range and Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. General Technical Report (RM‐166): 1‐458. Hermanson, J.W., and T.J. O’Shea. 1983. Antrozous pallidus. American Society of Mammalogists. Mammalian Species. No. 213. December 15. Holland, D.C. 1994. The Western Pond Turtle: Habitat and History. Final Report. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration. Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game, The Resources Agency. 156 pp. Availablee on lin at http://www.cal‐ipc.org/ip/inventory/pdf/HollandReport.pdf. Holte, D.L. 1998. Nest Site Characteristics of the Western Pond Turtle, Clemmys marmorata, at Fern Ridge Reservoir, in West Central Oregon. A Master’s Thesis, Oregon State University, Eugene, OR.:106pp. Ingles, L. 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. 506 pp. Jameson, E.W. and H. J. Peeters. 1988. California Mammals. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Jennings, M.R. 1983. Masticophis lateralis. In Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Jennings, W.B. and M.P. Hayes. 1984. Pre‐1900 overharvest of the California red‐legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii): the inducement for bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) introduction. Herpetologica 41:94‐103. Jennings, M.R. and Hayes, M.P. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. Prepared for the Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game Inland Fisheries Div. Rancho Cordova, Calif. November 1. 255 pp. Available on line at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/info/herp_ssc.pdf
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 39
Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014. The National Wetland Plant List: 2014 Update of Wetland Ratings – Arid West. Phytoneuron 2014‐41: 1‐42. Available online at http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/NWPL/ Live Oak Associates (LOA). 2007. Stream Analysis of the Property Located at 10 Reservoir Road in the Townof Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California. Unpublished technical report prepared for TS Civil Engineering, San Jose. October 9. Matocq, M.D. 2002. Morphological and Molecular Analysis of a Contact Zone in the Neotoma fuscipes Species Complex. Journal of Mammalogy, 83(3):866–883. Available online at http://www.isu.edu/~matomarj/Matocqjm02%20copy.pdf Piaggio, A. and R. Sherwin. 2005. Townsend’s Big‐Eared Bat (Corynorhinis townsendii). Species Account. Western Bat Working Group. Available online at http://wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/species_accounts.html Pierson, E.D. 1994. Management Guidelines for Bats, New Melones Project. Technical report prepared for Environmental Science Associates. Rathbun, G.B., N. Siepel, and D.C. Holland. 1992. Nesting Behavior and Movements of Western Pond Turtles (Clemmys marmorata). The Southwestern Naturalist 37(3):319‐324. Reese, D. A. 1996. Comparative Demography and Habitat Use of Western Pond Turtles in Northern California: The Effects of Damming and Related Alterations. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. 253 pp. Reese, D.A., and H. H. Welsh Jr. 1997. Use of Terrestrial Habitat by Western Pond Turtles, Clemmys marmorata: Implications for Management. Pp. 352‐357. In J. Van Abbema (ed.), Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles, An International Conference WCS Turtle Recovery Program and the New York Turtle and Tortoise Society, New York. Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative (SCVWRPC). 2006. Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. Revised July. Available online at file:///C:/Users/Mike/Downloads/Guidelines%20and%20Standards%20for%20Land%2 0Use%20Near%20Streams.pdf
Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler‐Wolf, and J.M. Evans. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation (2nd edition). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. 1300 pp. Available on line at http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/manual_2ed.php. Shaffer, H. B., and R. Fisher. 1991. Final Report to the California Department of Fish and Game: California tiger salamander surveys, 1990‐‐Contract (FG9422). California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, CA. Shaffer, H.B., R.N. Fisher, S.E. Stanley. 1993. Status Report: The California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense). A Final report to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Rancho Cordova, California. Under contracts FG9422 and FG 1383. Sherwin, R., and D.A. Rambaldini. 2005. Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus). Species Account. Western Bat Working Group. Available online at http://wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/species_accounts.html Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Sunset Publishing Corporation. 2001. Western Garden Handbook. Menlo Park, California. 768 pp.
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 4 0
Swaim, K. 1994. Aspects of the Ecology of the Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus). Masters Thesis, California State University, Hayward. 140 pp. Tatarian, P. J. 2008. Movement Patterns of California Red‐Legged Frogs (Rana Draytonii) in an Inland California Environment. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(2):155‐169. November. Available online at http://www.herpconbio.org/Volume_3/Issue_2/Tatarian_2008.pdf Tietje, W. 1990. Acorns: Planning for Oak‐Woodland Wildlife.Fremontia 18(3):80‐81. Available online at http://docubase.berkeley.edu/cgi‐bin/pl_query _____. 1995. Woodrat Abundance and Habitat Measurements in Oak Woodland at Camp Roberts, California: Preliminary Results. In Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 31:53‐57. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2006. Distribution of Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Indicators and their Reliability in Identifying the Limits of “Waters of the United States” in Arid Southwest Channels. Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Technical Report TR‐06‐05. February. Available online at http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/techpub/CRREL_Reports/reports/TR06‐5.pdf. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1999. Dead and Dying Trees: Essential for Life in the Forest. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Science Findings Issue 20. November. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/sciencef/scifi20.pdf _____. 2006. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 6.0. G.W. Hurt and L.M Vasilas, eds. Fort Worth, Tx: USDA NRCS in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Available online at http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/ _____. 2015a. Custom Soil Resource Report for Santa Clara Area, California, Western Part: 2021 Old Calaveras Road. Natural Resource Conservation Service; Web Soil Survey, available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Report printed March 23. _____. 2015b. Hydric Soils, Eastern Santa Clara Area, California. Natural Resource Conservation Service; Web Soil Survey, available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Report printed March 24. United States Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USEPA/USACE). 2008. Revised Guidance on Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the Supreme Court Decision in Rapanos v. U.S. and Carabell v. U.S. December 2. Available online at http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/cwa_guide/cwa_juris_2dec08.pdf. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Determination and Critical Habitat for the Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus). March 8. _____. 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red‐legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Region 1, Portland, Oregon. May 28. 180 pp. _____. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red‐ Legged Frog, and Special Rule Exemption Associated With Final Listing for Existing Routine Ranching Activities; Final Rule. Federal Register 71(71):19244‐19292. April 13. Available online at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr5071.pdf _____. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern‐2008. United States Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Div. of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. Available online at
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 4 1
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BCC2008/BCC200 8.pdf _____. 2013. List of Migratory Bird Species Protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as of December 2. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsPolicies/mbta/mbtandx.html#alpha1 _____. 2015. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in or may be Affected by Projects in the Calaveras Reservoir, Niles, La Costa Valley, Mount Day, Lick Observatory, Mendenhall Springs, Milpitas, San Jose West, and San Jose East USGS 7.5’ Quadrangles. Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS) printout. Data current as of March 10. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ES_Species/Lists/es_species_lists‐overview.htm. Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1997. National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals. Revised Edition. Chanticleer Press, Inc., New York. 937 pp. Zeiner, D., W. Laudenslayer, K. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988‐1990. Californiaʹs Wildlife Volume I. Amphibians and Reptiles. Volume II. Birds. Volume III. Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. State of California, The Resources Agency, Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, Calif.
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road 4 2
APPENDIX A
DATABASE PRINT‐OUTS FOR SPECIAL‐STATUS SPECIES
California Natural Diversity Database (2015) USFWS Database (2015) California Native Plant Society (201)
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database
Query Criteria: Quad is (Santa Teresa Hills (3712127) or Los Gatos (3712128) or Loma Prieta (3712117) or Castle Rock Ridge (3712221) or Felton (3712211) or San Jose East (3712137) or San Jose West (3712138) or Cupertino (3712231))
Rare Plant Rank/CDFW Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP Accipiter cooperii ABNKC12040 None None G5 S4 WL Cooper's hawk Adela oplerella IILEE0G040 None None G2 S2 Opler's longhorn moth Agelaius tricolor ABPBXB0020 None Endangered G2G3 S1S2 SSC tricolored blackbird Ambystoma californiense AAAAA01180 Threatened Threatened G2G3 S2S3 SSC California tiger salamander Anomobryum julaceum NBMUS80010 None None G4G5 S2 4.2 slender silver moss Antrozous pallidus AMACC10010 None None G5 S3 SSC pallid bat Aquila chrysaetos ABNKC22010 None None G5 S3 FP golden eagle Arctostaphylos andersonii PDERI04030 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Anderson's manzanita Arctostaphylos silvicola PDERI041F0 None None G1 S1 1B.2 Bonny Doon manzanita Arenaria paludicola PDCAR040L0 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1 marsh sandwort Athene cunicularia ABNSB10010 None None G4 S3 SSC burrowing owl Balsamorhiza macrolepis PDAST11061 None None G2 S2 1B.2 big-scale balsamroot Buteo swainsoni ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S3 Swainson's hawk Calasellus californicus ICMAL34010 None None G2 S2 An isopod California macrophylla PDGER01070 None None G2 S2 1B.1 round-leaved filaree Calyptridium parryi var. hesseae PDPOR09052 None None G3G4T2 S2 1B.1 Santa Cruz Mountains pussypaws Campanula californica PDCAM02060 None None G3 S3 1B.2 swamp harebell Carex saliniformis PMCYP03BY0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 deceiving sedge Ceanothus ferrisiae PDRHA041N0 Endangered None G2 S2 1B.1 Coyote ceanothus
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 3 2015 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 5 Report Printed on Monday, March 09, 2015 Information Expires 9/3/2015 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database
Rare Plant Rank/CDFW Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii PDAST4R0P1 None None G3T2 S2 1B.1 Congdon's tarplant Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegiana PDPGN040M1 Endangered None G2T1 S1 1B.1 Ben Lomond spineflower Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens PDPGN040M2 Threatened None G2T2 S2 1B.2 Monterey spineflower Chorizanthe robusta var. hartwegii PDPGN040Q1 Endangered None G2T1 S1 1B.1 Scotts Valley spineflower Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta PDPGN040Q2 Endangered None G2T1 S1 1B.1 robust spineflower Cicindela ohlone IICOL026L0 Endangered None G1 S1 Ohlone tiger beetle Cirsium fontinale var. campylon PDAST2E163 None None G2T2 S2 1B.2 Mt. Hamilton fountain thistle Clarkia concinna ssp. automixa PDONA050A1 None None G5?T3 S3 4.3 Santa Clara red ribbons Collinsia multicolor PDSCR0H0B0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 San Francisco collinsia Corynorhinus townsendii AMACC08010 None Candidate G3G4 S2 SSC Threatened Townsend's big-eared bat Cypseloides niger ABNUA01010 None None G4 S2 SSC black swift Dacryophyllum falcifolium NBMUS8Z010 None None G1 S1 1B.3 tear drop moss Dipodomys venustus venustus AMAFD03042 None None G4T1 S1 Santa Cruz kangaroo rat Dirca occidentalis PDTHY03010 None None G2 S2 1B.2 western leatherwood Dudleya abramsii ssp. setchellii PDCRA040Z0 Endangered None G4T2 S2 1B.1 Santa Clara Valley dudleya Elanus leucurus ABNKC06010 None None G5 S3S4 FP white-tailed kite Emys marmorata ARAAD02030 None None G3G4 S3 SSC western pond turtle Eriogonum nudum var. decurrens PDPGN08492 None None G5T1 S1 1B.1 Ben Lomond buckwheat Erysimum teretifolium PDBRA160N0 Endangered Endangered G2 S2 1B.1 Santa Cruz wallflower Euphilotes enoptes smithi IILEPG2026 Endangered None G5T1T2 S1S2 Smith's blue butterfly Euphydryas editha bayensis IILEPK4055 Threatened None G5T1 S1 Bay checkerspot butterfly
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 3 2015 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 5 Report Printed on Monday, March 09, 2015 Information Expires 9/3/2015 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database
Rare Plant Rank/CDFW Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP Falco peregrinus anatum ABNKD06071 Delisted Delisted G4T4 S3S4 FP American peregrine falcon Fissidens pauperculus NBMUS2W0U0 None None G3? S1 1B.2 minute pocket moss Fritillaria liliacea PMLIL0V0C0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 fragrant fritillary Hesperocyparis abramsiana var. abramsiana PGCUP04081 Endangered Endangered G1T1 S1 1B.2 Santa Cruz cypress Hoita strobilina PDFAB5Z030 None None G2 S2 1B.1 Loma Prieta hoita Holocarpha macradenia PDAST4X020 Threatened Endangered G1 S1 1B.1 Santa Cruz tarplant Horkelia cuneata var. sericea PDROS0W043 None None G4T2 S2? 1B.1 Kellogg's horkelia Horkelia marinensis PDROS0W0B0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Point Reyes horkelia Lasiurus cinereus AMACC05030 None None G5 S4 hoary bat Lasthenia conjugens PDAST5L040 Endangered None G1 S1 1B.1 Contra Costa goldfields Lessingia micradenia var. glabrata PDAST5S062 None None G2T2 S2 1B.2 smooth lessingia Malacothamnus aboriginum PDMAL0Q020 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Indian Valley bush-mallow Malacothamnus arcuatus PDMAL0Q0E0 None None G1Q S1 1B.2 arcuate bush-mallow Malacothamnus hallii PDMAL0Q0F0 None None G2Q S2 1B.2 Hall's bush-mallow Margaritifera falcata IMBIV27020 None None G4G5 S1S2 western pearlshell Maritime Coast Range Ponderosa Pine Forest CTT84132CA None None G1 S1.1 Maritime Coast Range Ponderosa Pine Forest Microcina homi ILARA47020 None None G1 S1 Hom's micro-blind harvestman Microseris paludosa PDAST6E0D0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 marsh microseris Monardella sinuata ssp. nigrescens PDLAM18162 None None G3T2 S2 1B.2 northern curly-leaved monardella Monolopia gracilens PDAST6G010 None None G2G3 S2S3 1B.2 woodland woollythreads Myotis evotis AMACC01070 None None G5 S3 long-eared myotis
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 3 2015 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 5 Report Printed on Monday, March 09, 2015 Information Expires 9/3/2015 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database
Rare Plant Rank/CDFW Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP Myotis yumanensis AMACC01020 None None G5 S4 Yuma myotis North Central Coast Drainage Sacramento CARA2623CA None None GNR SNR Sucker/Roach River North Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach River Northern Maritime Chaparral CTT37C10CA None None G1 S1.2 Northern Maritime Chaparral Oncorhynchus kisutch AFCHA02034 Endangered Endangered G4 S2? coho salmon - central California coast ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus AFCHA0209G Threatened None G5T2T3Q S2S3 steelhead - central California coast DPS Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus AFCHA0209H Threatened None G5T2Q S2 SSC steelhead - south/central California coast DPS Pandion haliaetus ABNKC01010 None None G5 S4 WL osprey Penstemon rattanii var. kleei PDSCR1L5B1 None None G4T2 S2 1B.2 Santa Cruz Mountains beardtongue Pentachaeta bellidiflora PDAST6X030 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1 white-rayed pentachaeta Philanthus nasalis IIHYM20010 None None G1 S1 Antioch specid wasp Phrynosoma blainvillii ARACF12100 None None G3G4 S3S4 SSC coast horned lizard Piperia candida PMORC1X050 None None G3? S2 1B.2 white-flowered rein orchid Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus PDBOR0V061 None None G3T2Q S2 1B.2 Choris' popcornflower Plagiobothrys diffusus PDBOR0V080 None Endangered G1Q S1 1B.1 San Francisco popcornflower Plagiobothrys glaber PDBOR0V0B0 None None GH SH 1A hairless popcornflower Polygonum hickmanii PDPGN0L310 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1 Scotts Valley polygonum Polyphylla barbata IICOL68030 Endangered None G1 S1 Mount Hermon (=barbate) June beetle Progne subis ABPAU01010 None None G5 S3 SSC purple martin Rana boylii AAABH01050 None None G3 S2S3 SSC foothill yellow-legged frog Rana draytonii AAABH01022 Threatened None G2G3 S2S3 SSC California red-legged frog Rosa pinetorum PDROS1J0W0 None None G2Q S2 1B.2 pine rose
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 3 2015 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 4 of 5 Report Printed on Monday, March 09, 2015 Information Expires 9/3/2015 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database
Rare Plant Rank/CDFW Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank SSC or FP Senecio aphanactis PDAST8H060 None None G3? S2 2B.2 chaparral ragwort Serpentine Bunchgrass CTT42130CA None None G2 S2.2 Serpentine Bunchgrass Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus PDBRA2G011 Endangered None G2T1 S1 1B.1 Metcalf Canyon jewelflower Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus PDBRA2G012 None None G2T2 S2 1B.2 most beautiful jewelflower Taxidea taxus AMAJF04010 None None G5 S3 SSC American badger Trifolium buckwestiorum PDFAB402W0 None None G2 S2 1B.1 Santa Cruz clover Trifolium hydrophilum PDFAB400R5 None None G2 S2 1B.2 saline clover Trimerotropis infantilis IIORT36030 Endangered None G1 S1 Zayante band-winged grasshopper Record Count: 90
Commercial Version -- Dated March, 3 2015 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 5 of 5 Report Printed on Monday, March 09, 2015 Information Expires 9/3/2015 Plant List
76 matches found. Click on scientific name for details
Search Criteria
Found in 9 Quads around 37121B8
Rare Plant State Global Scientific Name Common Name Family Lifeform Rank Rank Rank Amsinckia lunaris bent-flowered fiddleneck Boraginaceae annual herb 1B.2 S2? G2? Androsace elongata ssp. acuta California androsace Primulaceae annual herb 4.2 S3S4 G5?T3T4 Anomobryum julaceum slender silver moss Bryaceae moss 4.2 S2 G4G5 Arabis blepharophylla coast rockcress Brassicaceae perennial herb 4.3 S4 G4 perennial evergreen Arctostaphylos andersonii Anderson's manzanita Ericaceae 1B.2 S2 G2 shrub perennial evergreen Arctostaphylos silvicola Bonny Doon manzanita Ericaceae 1B.2 S1 G1 shrub perennial Arenaria paludicola marsh sandwort Caryophyllaceae 1B.1 S1 G1 stoloniferous herb Balsamorhiza macrolepis big-scale balsamroot Asteraceae perennial herb 1B.2 S2 G2 Calandrinia breweri Brewer's calandrinia Montiaceae annual herb 4.2 S34 G4 California macrophylla round-leaved filaree Geraniaceae annual herb 1B.1 S2 G2 Calyptridium parryi var. Santa Cruz Mountains Montiaceae annual herb 1B.1 S2 G3G4T2 hesseae pussypaws South Coast Range perennial Calystegia collina ssp. venusta Convolvulaceae 4.3 S4 G4T4 morning-glory rhizomatous herb perennial Campanula californica swamp harebell Campanulaceae 1B.2 S3 G3 rhizomatous herb perennial Carex comosa bristly sedge Cyperaceae 2B.1 S2 G5 rhizomatous herb perennial Carex saliniformis deceiving sedge Cyperaceae 1B.2 S2 G2 rhizomatous herb perennial evergreen Ceanothus ferrisiae Coyote ceanothus Rhamnaceae 1B.1 S2 G2 shrub Centromadia parryi ssp. Congdon's tarplant Asteraceae annual herb 1B.1 S2 G3T2 congdonii Chorizanthe pungens var. Ben Lomond spineflower Polygonaceae annual herb 1B.1 S1 G2T1 hartwegiana Chorizanthe pungens var. Monterey spineflower Polygonaceae annual herb 1B.2 S2 G2T2 pungens Chorizanthe robusta var. Scotts Valley spineflower Polygonaceae annual herb 1B.1 S1 G2T1 hartwegii Chorizanthe robusta var. robust spineflower Polygonaceae annual herb 1B.1 S1 G2T1 robusta Mt. Hamilton fountain Cirsium fontinale var. campylon Asteraceae perennial herb 1B.2 S2 G2T2 thistle Clarkia breweri Brewer's clarkia Onagraceae annual herb 4.2 S4 G4 Clarkia concinna ssp. automixa Santa Clara red ribbons Onagraceae annual herb 4.3 S3 G5?T3 Clarkia lewisii Lewis' clarkia Onagraceae annual herb 4.3 S4 G4 Collinsia multicolor San Francisco collinsia Plantaginaceae annual herb 1B.2 S2 G2 perennial Cypripedium fasciculatum clustered lady's-slipper Orchidaceae 4.2 S4 G4 rhizomatous herb perennial Cypripedium montanum mountain lady's-slipper Orchidaceae 4.2 S4 G4 rhizomatous herb Dacryophyllum falcifolium tear drop moss Hypnaceae moss 1B.3 S1 G1 perennial deciduous Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood Thymelaeaceae 1B.2 S2 G2 shrub Santa Clara Valley Dudleya abramsii ssp. setchellii Crassulaceae perennial herb 1B.1 S2 G4T2 dudleya California bottle-brush Elymus californicus Poaceae perennial herb 4.3 S4 G4 grass Eriogonum nudum var. Ben Lomond buckwheat Polygonaceae perennial herb 1B.1 S1 G5T1 decurrens Erysimum teretifolium Santa Cruz wallflower Brassicaceae perennial herb 1B.1 S2 G2 Fissidens pauperculus minute pocket moss Fissidentaceae moss 1B.2 S1 G3? perennial bulbiferous Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary Liliaceae 1B.2 S2 G2 herb phlox-leaf serpentine Galium andrewsii ssp. gatense Rubiaceae perennial herb 4.2 S3 G5T3 bedstraw Helianthus exilis serpentine sunflower Asteraceae annual herb 4.2 S3 G3Q Hesperocyparis abramsiana perennial evergreen Santa Cruz cypress Cupressaceae 1B.2 S1.1 G1T1 var. abramsiana tree Hoita strobilina Loma Prieta hoita Fabaceae perennial herb 1B.1 S2 G2 Holocarpha macradenia Santa Cruz tarplant Asteraceae annual herb 1B.1 S1 G1 Horkelia cuneata var. sericea Kellogg's horkelia Rosaceae perennial herb 1B.1 S2? G4T2 Horkelia marinensis Point Reyes horkelia Rosaceae perennial herb 1B.2 S2 G2 perennial Iris longipetala coast iris Iridaceae 4.2 S3 G3 rhizomatous herb Lasthenia conjugens Contra Costa goldfields Asteraceae annual herb 1B.1 S1 G1 Leptosiphon acicularis bristly leptosiphon Polemoniaceae annual herb 4.2 S3 G3 Leptosiphon ambiguus serpentine leptosiphon Polemoniaceae annual herb 4.2 S4 G4 large-flowered Leptosiphon grandiflorus Polemoniaceae annual herb 4.2 S3 G3 leptosiphon Lessingia hololeuca woolly-headed lessingia Asteraceae annual herb 3 S3 G3 Lessingia micradenia var. smooth lessingia Asteraceae annual herb 1B.2 S2 G2T2 glabrata Indian Valley perennial deciduous Malacothamnus aboriginum Malvaceae 1B.2 S2 G2 bush-mallow shrub perennial evergreen Malacothamnus arcuatus arcuate bush-mallow Malvaceae 1B.2 S1 G1Q shrub perennial evergreen Malacothamnus hallii Hall's bush-mallow Malvaceae 1B.2 S2 G2Q shrub Micropus amphibolus Mt. Diablo cottonweed Asteraceae annual herb 3.2 S3S4 G3G4 Microseris paludosa marsh microseris Asteraceae perennial herb 1B.2 S2 G2 Mimulus rattanii ssp. Santa Cruz County Phrymaceae annual herb 4.2 S1S3 G4T1T3Q decurtatus monkeyflower Monardella sinuata ssp. northern curly-leaved Lamiaceae annual herb 1B.2 S2 G3T2 nigrescens monardella Monolopia gracilens woodland woolythreads Asteraceae annual herb 1B.2 S2S3 G2G3 Santa Cruz Mountains Penstemon rattanii var. kleei Plantaginaceae perennial herb 1B.2 S2 G4T2 beardtongue Pentachaeta bellidiflora white-rayed pentachaeta Asteraceae annual herb 1B.1 S1 G1 Piperia candida white-flowered rein orchid Orchidaceae perennial herb 1B.2 S2 G3? Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. Choris' popcorn-flower Boraginaceae annual herb 1B.2 S2 G3T2Q chorisianus Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. Hickman's popcorn-flower Boraginaceae annual herb 4.2 S3 G3T3Q hickmanii San Francisco popcorn- Plagiobothrys diffusus Boraginaceae annual herb 1B.1 S1 G1Q flower Plagiobothrys glaber hairless popcorn-flower Boraginaceae annual herb 1A SH GH Polygonum hickmanii Scotts Valley polygonum Polygonaceae annual herb 1B.1 S1 G1 Ranunculus lobbii Lobb's aquatic buttercup Ranunculaceae annual herb 4.2 S3 G4 Rosa pinetorum pine rose Rosaceae perennial shrub 1B.2 S2 G2Q Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort Asteraceae annual herb 2B.2 S2 G3? maple-leaved Sidalcea malachroides Malvaceae perennial herb 4.2 S3 G3 checkerbloom Silene verecunda ssp. San Francisco campion Caryophyllaceae perennial herb 1B.2 S2 G5T2 verecunda Streptanthus albidus ssp. Metcalf Canyon jewel- Brassicaceae annual herb 1B.1 S1 G2T1 albidus flower Streptanthus albidus ssp. most beautiful jewel- Brassicaceae annual herb 1B.2 S2 G2T2 peramoenus flower Trifolium buckwestiorum Santa Cruz clover Fabaceae annual herb 1B.1 S2 G2 Trifolium hydrophilum saline clover Fabaceae annual herb 1B.2 S2 G2 caper-fruited Tropidocarpum capparideum Brassicaceae annual herb 1B.1 S1 G1 tropidocarpum
Suggested Citation
CNPS, Rare Plant Program. 2015. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 09 March 2015].
Search the Inventory Information Contributors Simple Search About the Inventory The Calflora Database Advanced Search About the Rare Plant Program The California Lichen Society Glossary CNPS Home Page About CNPS Join CNPS
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in or may be Affected by Projects in the Counties and/or U.S.G.S. 7 1/2 Minute Quads you requested Document Number: 150309121437 Current as of: March 9, 2015
Quad Lists Listed Species Invertebrates Euphydryas editha bayensis bay checkerspot butterfly (T) Critical habitat, bay checkerspot butterfly (X) Fish Eucyclogobius newberryi tidewater goby (E) Hypomesus transpacificus delta smelt (T) Oncorhynchus kisutch coho salmon - central CA coast (E) (NMFS) Oncorhynchus mykiss Central California Coastal steelhead (T) (NMFS) Central Valley steelhead (T) (NMFS) Critical habitat, Central California coastal steelhead (X) (NMFS) Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon (T) (NMFS) winter-run chinook salmon, Sacramento River (E) (NMFS) Amphibians Ambystoma californiense California tiger salamander, central population (T) Critical habitat, CA tiger salamander, central population (X) Rana draytonii California red-legged frog (T) Critical habitat, California red-legged frog (X) Birds Brachyramphus marmoratus Critical habitat, marbled murrelet (X) marbled murrelet (T) Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Western yellow-billed cuckoo (T) Rallus longirostris obsoletus California clapper rail (E) Sternula antillarum (=Sterna, =albifrons) browni California least tern (E) Mammals Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox (E) Plants Ceanothus ferrisae Coyote ceanothus (E) Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta robust spineflower (E) Dudleya setchellii Santa Clara Valley dudleya (E) Holocarpha macradenia Critical habitat, Santa Cruz tarplant (X) Santa Cruz tarplant (T) Lasthenia conjugens Contra Costa goldfields (E) Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus Metcalf Canyon jewelflower (E) Quads Containing Listed, Proposed or Candidate Species: SANTA TERESA HILLS (407A) LOS GATOS (407B) LAUREL (407C) LOMA PRIETA (407D) CASTLE ROCK RIDGE (408A) SAN JOSE WEST (427C) SAN JOSE EAST (427D) CUPERTINO (428D)
County Lists Listed Species Invertebrates Branchinecta conservatio Conservancy fairy shrimp (E) S
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp (T) S
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus valley elderberry longhorn beetle (T) S
Euphydryas editha bayensis bay checkerspot butterfly (T) Critical habitat, bay checkerspot butterfly (X) S
Incisalia mossii bayensis San Bruno elfin butterfly (E) S
Lepidurus packardi Critical habitat, vernal pool tadpole shrimp (X) vernal pool tadpole shrimp (E) S
Fish Acipenser medirostris green sturgeon (T) (NMFS) S Eucyclogobius newberryi tidewater goby (E) S
Hypomesus transpacificus delta smelt (T) S
Oncorhynchus kisutch coho salmon - central CA coast (E) (NMFS) Critical habitat, coho salmon - central CA coast (X) (NMFS) S
Oncorhynchus mykiss Central California Coastal steelhead (T) (NMFS) Central Valley steelhead (T) (NMFS) Critical habitat, Central California coastal steelhead (X) (NMFS) South Central California steelhead (T) (NMFS) S
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon (T) (NMFS) winter-run chinook salmon, Sacramento River (E) (NMFS) S
Amphibians Ambystoma californiense California tiger salamander, central population (T) Critical habitat, CA tiger salamander, central population (X) S
Rana draytonii California red-legged frog (T) Critical habitat, California red-legged frog (X) S
Reptiles Gambelia (=Crotaphytus) sila blunt-nosed leopard lizard (E) S
Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus Alameda whipsnake [=striped racer] (T) Critical habitat, Alameda whipsnake (X) S
Thamnophis gigas giant garter snake (T) S
Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake (E) S Birds Brachyramphus marmoratus Critical habitat, marbled murrelet (X) marbled murrelet (T) S
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus western snowy plover (T) S
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Western yellow-billed cuckoo (T) S
Pelecanus occidentalis californicus California brown pelican (E) S
Rallus longirostris obsoletus California clapper rail (E) S
Sternula antillarum (=Sterna, =albifrons) browni California least tern (E) S
Vireo bellii pusillus Least Bell's vireo (E) S
Mammals Reithrodontomys raviventris salt marsh harvest mouse (E) S
Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox (E) S
Plants Acanthomintha duttonii San Mateo thornmint (E) S
Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta Tiburon paintbrush (E) S
Ceanothus ferrisae Coyote ceanothus (E) S
Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta robust spineflower (E) S Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale fountain thistle (E) S
Dudleya setchellii Santa Clara Valley dudleya (E) S
Eriophyllum latilobum San Mateo woolly sunflower (E) S
Hesperolinon congestum Marin dwarf-flax (=western flax) (T) S
Holocarpha macradenia Critical habitat, Santa Cruz tarplant (X) Santa Cruz tarplant (T) S
Lasthenia conjugens Contra Costa goldfields (E) Critical habitat, Contra Costa goldfields (X) S
Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus Metcalf Canyon jewelflower (E) S
Suaeda californica California sea blite (E) S
Trifolium amoenum showy Indian clover (E) S
Proposed Species Amphibians Rana draytonii Critical habitat, California red-legged frog (PX) S
Key: (E) Endangered - Listed as being in danger of extinction. (T) Threatened - Listed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. (P) Proposed - Officially proposed in the Federal Register for listing as endangered or threatened. (NMFS) Species under the Jurisdiction of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service. Consult with them directly about these species. Critical Habitat - Area essential to the conservation of a species. (PX) Proposed Critical Habitat - The species is already listed. Critical habitat is being proposed for it. (C) Candidate - Candidate to become a proposed species. (V) Vacated by a court order. Not currently in effect. Being reviewed by the Service. (X) Critical Habitat designated for this species Important Information About Your Species List How We Make Species Lists We store information about endangered and threatened species lists by U.S. Geological Survey 7½ minute quads. The United States is divided into these quads, which are about the size of San Francisco.
The animals on your species list are ones that occur within, or may be affected by projects within, the quads covered by the list. Fish and other aquatic species appear on your list if they are in the same watershed as your quad or if water use in your quad might affect them. Amphibians will be on the list for a quad or county if pesticides applied in that area may be carried to their habitat by air currents. Birds are shown regardless of whether they are resident or migratory. Relevant birds on the county list should be considered regardless of whether they appear on a quad list.
Plants Any plants on your list are ones that have actually been observed in the area covered by the list. Plants may exist in an area without ever having been detected there. You can find out what's in the surrounding quads through the California Native Plant Society's online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants.
Surveying Some of the species on your list may not be affected by your project. A trained biologist and/or botanist, familiar with the habitat requirements of the species on your list, should determine whether they or habitats suitable for them may be affected by your project. We recommend that your surveys include any proposed and candidate species on your list. See our Protocol and Recovery Permits pages. For plant surveys, we recommend using the Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories. The results of your surveys should be published in any environmental documents prepared for your project.
Your Responsibilities Under the Endangered Species Act All animals identified as listed above are fully protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations prohibit the take of a federally listed wildlife species. Take is defined by the Act as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect" any such animal. Take may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or shelter (50 CFR §17.3).
Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity may be authorized by one of two procedures: If a Federal agency is involved with the permitting, funding, or carrying out of a project that may result in take, then that agency must engage in a formal consultation with the Service. During formal consultation, the Federal agency, the applicant and the Service work together to avoid or minimize the impact on listed species and their habitat. Such consultation would result in a biological opinion by the Service addressing the anticipated effect of the project on listed and proposed species. The opinion may authorize a limited level of incidental take. If no Federal agency is involved with the project, and federally listed species may be taken as part of the project, then you, the applicant, should apply for an incidental take permit. The Service may issue such a permit if you submit a satisfactory conservation plan for the species that would be affected by your project. Should your survey determine that federally listed or proposed species occur in the area and are likely to be affected by the project, we recommend that you work with this office and the California Department of Fish and Game to develop a plan that minimizes the project's direct and indirect impacts to listed species and compensates for project-related loss of habitat. You should include the plan in any environmental documents you file.
Critical Habitat When a species is listed as endangered or threatened, areas of habitat considered essential to its conservation may be designated as critical habitat. These areas may require special management considerations or protection. They provide needed space for growth and normal behavior; food, water, air, light, other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; and sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination or seed dispersal. Although critical habitat may be designated on private or State lands, activities on these lands are not restricted unless there is Federal involvement in the activities or direct harm to listed wildlife. If any species has proposed or designated critical habitat within a quad, there will be a separate line for this on the species list. Boundary descriptions of the critical habitat may be found in the Federal Register. The information is also reprinted in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 17.95). See our Map Room page.
Candidate Species We recommend that you address impacts to candidate species. We put plants and animals on our candidate list when we have enough scientific information to eventually propose them for listing as threatened or endangered. By considering these species early in your planning process you may be able to avoid the problems that could develop if one of these candidates was listed before the end of your project.
Species of Concern The Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office no longer maintains a list of species of concern. However, various other agencies and organizations maintain lists of at-risk species. These lists provide essential information for land management planning and conservation efforts. More info
Wetlands If your project will impact wetlands, riparian habitat, or other jurisdictional waters as defined by section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, you will need to obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Impacts to wetland habitats require site specific mitigation and monitoring. For questions regarding wetlands, please contact Mark Littlefield of this office at (916) 414-6520.
Updates Our database is constantly updated as species are proposed, listed and delisted. If you address proposed and candidate species in your planning, this should not be a problem. However, we recommend that you get an updated list every 90 days. That would be June 07, 2015.
APPENDIX B
EXPLANATION OF RARITY STATUS CODES
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road EXPLANATION OF RARITY STATUS CODES
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA) LISTING CODES OTHER CODES FE = federally listed as Endangered ABC: WL - American Bird Conservancy Watch List of Birds of Conservation Concern. FT = federally listed as Threatened AFS - American Fisheries Society categories of risk for marine, estuarine and diadromous fish FPE = proposed for listing Endangered stocks. Codes: E=endangered; T=threatened; V=vulnerable FPT = proposed for listing Threatened AUD: WL - Audubon: Watch List 2007. Bird species facing population decline and/or threats FC = federal candidate; former Category 1 candidates such as loss of breeding and wintering grounds, or species with limited geographic ranges. FD/FPD = delisted/proposed for delisting R – Red List, global conservation concern; Y – Yellow List, national conservation concern. SC = species of concern; established by NMFS, effective April 15, 2004. BLM: S - Bureau of Land Mgt: Sensitive. Includes species under review by USFWS or NMFS, species whose numbers are declining so rapidly that federal listing may become necessary, CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (CESA) LISTING CODES species with small and widely dispersed populations, or species inhabiting refugia or other unique habitats. SE = state-listed as Endangered CDF: S – CA Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection: Sensitive. Includes species that warrant ST = state-listed as Threatened special protection during timber operations. SR = state-listed as Rare DFW: FP - CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife: Fully Protected. Species protected under §§3511 SCE = state candidate for listing as Endangered (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fish) of the California SCT = state candidate for listing as Threatened Fish and Game Code. SD/SCD = delisted/State candidate for delisting DFW: SA - CA. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife: Special Animal. Species included on the CDFW’s lists of special animals. GLOBAL AND STATE RANKINGS DFW: SP - CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife: Special Plant. Species included on the CDFW’s lists G1/S1 = Critically imperiled: at high risk of extinction, extremely rare. of special plants. G2/S2 = Imperiled: at high risk of extinction, restricted range, very few populations. DFW: SSC - CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife: California Species of Special Concern. G3/S3 = Vulnerable: moderate risk of extinction, restricted range, few populations. DFW: WL - CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife: (Watch List): taxa that don’t meet SSC criteria but G4/S4 = Apparently secure: uncommon, not rare, possible long-term declines. about which there is concern and additional information is needed to clarify status. G5/S5 = Secure: common, widespread, abundant. FS: S - USDA Forest Service: Sensitive. Species whose population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trends in numbers or density, or in CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY DESIGNATIONS habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution. List 1: Plants of highest priority. FWS: BCC - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Birds of Conservation Concern. Migratory and non-migratory bird species that represent the USFWS’s highest conservation priorities. List 1A: Plants presumed extinct in CA. List 1B: Plants rare and endangered in CA and elsewhere. FWS: BEPA - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Bald Eagle Protection Act. List 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in CA but common elsewhere. FWS: MBTA U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: International Migratory Bird Treaty Act. List 2B: Plants rare, threatened or endangered in CA but common elsewhere. FWS: MNB - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Migratory Nongame Birds of Management List 3: Plants for which additional data are needed – Review List. Concern. Species of concern in the U.S. due to documented or apparent population List 4: Plants of limited distribution – Watch List. declines, small or restricted populations, or dependence on restricted or vulnerable habitats. MMPA – Marin Mammal Protection Act CNPS Threat Code Extensions NMFS: SC - National Marine Fisheries Service: Species of Concern. .1 - Seriously endangered in CA WBWG - Western Bat Working Group. Priority for funding, planning or conservation actions. .2 – Fairly endangered in CA Codes: H=high; MH=medium-high; M=medium; LM=low-medium .3 – Not very endangered in CA Xerces - Xerces Society Red List. Codes: C=critically imperiled; I=imperiled; V=vulnerable; D=data deficient
Wood Biological Consulting. Inc. APPENDIX C
STREAM ANALYSIS (LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES, 2007)
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road
APPENDIX D
RIPARIAN ASSESSMENT (WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING, 2008)
Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING 65 Alta Hill Way Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Tel: (925) 899-1282 Fax: (925) 939-4026 e-mail: [email protected]
July 26, 2008
Fritz Geier Geier & Geier Consulting P.O. Box 5054 Berkeley, CA 94705-5054
RE: Riparian Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road, Los Gatos
Dear Fritz:
This report presents my conclusions regarding an evaluation of stream and riparian habitat on the 2.6-acre parcel located at 10 Reservoir Road, Los Gatos, Santa Clara County. This analysis is based on a single site reconnaissance survey, review of recent and historic aerial photographs and topographic maps, and review of a stream analysis prepared by Live Oak Associates (2007). The primary objective of this effort is to evaluate the stream dimensions as defined by Live Oak Associates and determine if the proposed building setback line is consistent with guidelines of the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative (SCVWRPC 2006)1.
1. Site Characterization of the Subject Property
The subject property is situated at the lower reaches of a minor ravine south of Cleland Avenue and on the west side of Reservoir Road. A paved driveway enters the property from Reservoir Road, servicing two residences. The existing residences are situated at the upper (western) portion of the property; the lower (eastern) portion of the property is undeveloped and supports a dense woodland comprised of mature, mostly native tree species. Elevations of the property range from 428 to 550 feet above mean sea level.
The ravine, which is the focus of this analysis, is dominated by mature California bay trees (Umbellularia californica) and numerous large specimens of valley oaks (Quercus lobata). Other indigenous tree species present include coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), black oak (Quercus kelloggii), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), box elder (Acer negundo var. californicum), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and Mexican elderberry
1 The SCVWRPC Guidelines & Standards for Land Use Near Streams have been adopted by the Town of Los Gatos in Resolution 2007-020 z Page 2 July 26, 2008
(Sambucus mexicana). Non-native trees and shrubs that have naturalized include the highly invasive tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), green wattle (Acacia decurrens), cherry plum (Prunus cerasifera), and privet (Ligustrum sp.). The understory of the ravine slopes are dominated by the non-native vines periwinkle (Vinca major) and Algerian ivy (Hedera canariensis), and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), with occasional plants of French broom (Genista monspessulana). No wetlands or native riparian plant communities are present on site, although a few scattered wetland or streamside plant species are present, including giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia ssp. braunii) and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus).
A surface channel runs approximately 475 linear feet on site. The channel flows in the bottom of the ravine and is parallel to the driveway and Reservoir Road. At its upstream end, the channel is fed by a 220 foot-long 18” corrugated metal pipe (CMP) that conveys stormwater from a concrete-lined intercept located just beyond the southern property boundary; the intercept receives stormwater outflows from a stormwater drain on Prospect Avenue, which represents the top of the watershed. On site, the channel is shallowly to deeply incised and varies in width at the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) from 18” to four feet. At the downstream end, surface flows are directed into a four foot-wide concrete catchment basin and then into a 18” CMP and conveyed beneath the Town of Los Gatos in a buried stormwater drain system.
Based on the current USGS topographic map2 as well as an historic topographic map3, the channel on site is not now and has not ever been classified as a “blue-line” creek. However, based on evidence of surface scour, the presence of a defined bed and bank with an ordinary high water mark (OHWM), and a presumed hydrologic connection to Los Gatos Creek, the channel is likely to qualify as a waters of the U.S. subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act (as administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)4. The channel is also expected to qualify as a waters of the State5 and is presumably subject to the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB)6 and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG7).
2 USGS 1978 3 USGS 1919 4 Pursuant to Clean Water Act §404 5 Waters of the State are defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” California Water Code §13050(e). These include nearly every and all surface or ground water in the state, or tributaries thereto, and include drainage features outside USACE jurisdiction, e.g., dry and ephemeral/seasonal stream beds and channels, etc., isolated wetlands, e.g., vernal pools, seeps, springs and other groundwater-supplied wetlands, etc., and storm drains and flood control channels. 6 Pursuant to Clean Water Act §401 and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act 7 Pursuant to California Fish and Game Code §§1600, et seq. z Page 3 July 26, 2008
2. Environmental and Biological Significance of the Riparian Zone
Riparian vegetation plays a crucial role in stabilizing the cross-section geometry in alluvial rivers and streams (Mount 1995). Intertwined roots of woody plants physically hold the soil together, resisting lateral forces of surface flows that would erode the channel banks. The canopy of trees, shrubs and vines intercept raindrops, lessening the force with which they strike the surface of the ground. Removal of forest canopy in riparian areas increases runoff rates and velocities, decreases infiltration and groundwater recharge, leads to erosion and sedimentation, and increases water turbidity, among other effects.
The riparian zone is at the interface between upland and wetland or aquatic systems. Biologically, healthy riparian zones are species diverse, highly productive environments, providing structural diversity, breeding and foraging opportunities for a wide host of organisms. In California, 25 percent of mammal, 80 percent of amphibian, and 40 percent of reptiles are limited to or dependent on riparian habitats, and over 135 species of California birds depend on or prefer riparian habitats. (Sorenson 1989). Of the 3,011 plant and animal species in California that are considered rare, 728 (24.2 percent) occur in riparian, wetland or other aquatic habitats. It is estimated that as much as 89% of the extent of riparian areas in California have been lost or degraded since colonization (Noss and Peters 1995).
Riparian vegetation is particularly critical for the support and maintenance of native fisheries. Tree canopies shade the surface of flowing streams, keeping water temperatures low. Riparian vegetation preserves water quality by restricting erosion and sedimentation. Tree roots stabilize channel banks and contribute to the formation of riffles and pools, which are essential for breeding, feeding, and over- summering. Riparian vegetation also slows the movement of water downstream and through the soil profile, resulting in its gradual release into stream channels, prolonging the availability of surface water into the dry summer season. Large woody debris creates hiding spaces for juvenile and adult fish, and leaf litter promotes invertebrate populations, an essential food source for fish species.
In their publication User Manual: Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams, the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative (SCVWRPC 2006) emphasizes the vital role of riparian vegetation in “maintaining stream stability, providing valuable wildlife habitat, and moderating downstream flooding8”, as well as regulating water quality by filtering pollutants from stormwater, such as oil and grease from roadways, fertilizer runoff from lawns, and excess sediments from upstream. Specifically, the stream-side environment supports riparian vegetation and the functions riparian vegetation provides. Riparian
8 page 4.3 z Page 4 July 26, 2008
vegetation benefits terrestrial species, as well as semi-aquatic amphibians and reptiles and fish. Such habitat functions include: • Sediment stabilization: provided by riparian trees, shrubs, and grasses;
• Shading and water temperature moderation: provided by mature riparian shrubs and trees;
• Overhanging escape cover: provided by shrubs and grasses near the stream edge;
• Coarse particulate organic matter: organic material dropping into the stream in the form of leaves, insects, etc., that provide input for aquatic food webs;
• Bird breeding and foraging habitat: provided by mature native riparian species, such as cottonwoods and willows, oaks, other trees, shrubs, forbs, grasses, and the streambank itself;
• Foraging, refugia, aestivation, and breeding habitat for semi-aquatic amphibian and reptile species: provided by low vegetation, rocks, downed materials, and the streambank itself;
• Foraging, breeding, hibernacula, and dispersal habitat for mammals: provided by the riparian vegetation and the streambank substrate.
3. Defining the Limits of the Riparian Zone
As defined by the SCVWRPC (2006), the term riparian9 generally means:
1) On, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream. 2) Pertaining to the banks and other adjacent, terrestrial (as opposed to aquatic) environs of freshwater bodies, watercourses, and surface- emergent aquifers (e.g., springs, seeps, oases), whose imported waters provide soil moisture significantly in excess of that otherwise available through local precipitation – soil moisture to potentially support a mesic vegetation distinguishable from that of the adjacent more xeric upland.
The SCVWRPC defines riparian vegetation10 as:
2) Vegetation growing on or near the banks of a stream or other body of water on soils that exhibit some wetness characteristics during some portion of the growing season. 3) Vegetation that occurs along watercourse, and is structurally or floristically distinct from nearby, non streamside vegetation.
9 page 11.4 10 page 11.5 z Page 5 July 26, 2008
4) Riparian vegetation is terrestrial vegetation that grows beside rivers, streams, and other freshwater bodies and that depends on these water sources for soil moisture greater than would otherwise be available from local precipitation.
Trees and shrubs native to the Santa Clara Valley and eastern foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains characteristic of riparian habitats include alder (Alnus spp.), willows (Salix spp.), cottonwood (Populus spp.), dogwood (Cornus spp.), box elder (Acer negunda var. californica), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), among others.
The mapping of riparian vegetation on a given property is a relatively simple task that can be achieved by identifying the riparian plant species associated with a particular watercourse and delimiting the canopy edge on an aerial photograph or topographic map. However, for projects regulated under the California Lake and Streambed Alteration Program11, the CDFG routinely extends its jurisdiction to include upland species when growing adjacent to water courses. Species normally associated with upland habitats such as oaks (Quercus spp.), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and California bay (Umbellularia californica), among others, may be regarded as riparian if such trees exert an ecological influence on the aquatic environment of the stream course
Although no typical riparian habitat is present on the subject property, the rationale for determining the limits of the riparian zone is based on the limits typically claimed by the CDFG, as currently applied pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code12. These limits are generally applied to the top of bank or the outer edge of the dripline (canopy) of native trees whose canopies extend over the tops of bank of a regulated stream course, whichever is greater. A tree need not be rooted within a creek channel to be considered part of the riparian zone. For example, in areas where there is a continuous canopy of native trees extending beyond the top of bank, the CDFG will assume that they contribute to the habitat values for fish and wildlife species that occupy, or could occupy the channel. Specifically, riparian trees provide shade and contribute woody and leaf debris on the channel banks that enhance wildlife habitat values.
4. Determining Appropriate Riparian Setbacks
Background
The CDFG requires issuance of a Lake and Streambed Alteration Program (LSAP) agreement for any modifications to a creek channel below the top of bank. Similarly, for projects which could affect the quality of waters of the State, the SFRWQCB
11 California Fish and Game Code, Section 1600, et. seq. 12 §1600, et seq. z Page 6 July 26, 2008
requires submittal of a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) to ensure the protection of water quality and “beneficial uses” of waters of the State.
Typically, both agencies may regulate the removal of native trees outside the channel but with canopies extending over the top of bank. When authorization by the CDFG and/or SFRWQCB is required, the LSAP agreement and Waste Discharge Requirements, respectively, will typically include conditions intended to preserve the integrity of the creek and its associated riparian habitats. A standard condition of these permits is the designation of a setback or buffer between the top of bank or outer edge of riparian habitat, whichever is greater, and the closest edge of pavement, structures, or actively used yards or playfields. Even without the need for a permit, the CDFG and SFRWQCB may comment on the CEQA document and make similar recommendations to the lead agency.
Riparian setbacks typically vary from as little as 10 feet to as much as 100 feet or more. The actual setback width is based on habitat values, size of watershed, connectivity to open space lands upstream and/or downstream, wildlife usage (as a corridor), and presence of federally or State-listed endangered, threatened, rare or candidate species. For intensively developed creeksides in urban or suburban settings where there is limited or no function as a significant wildlife corridor, riparian setbacks (as measured from the outer dripline) of as little as 10 feet may be considered adequate from the perspective of the resource agencies.
For projects not regulated under the Lake and Streambed Alteration Program, i.e., would not result in any impacts below the top of bank of a waters of the State (or within adjacent riparian habitat), the creek setback guidelines described by the SCVWRPC (2006) should be conformed to. As defined by the SCVWRPC (2006)13, a riparian buffer is:
Land next to a stream or river that is vegetated, usually with trees and shrubs, that serves as a protective filter for streams. A buffer helps to stabilize stream banks from washing away and to reduce the impact of upland sources of pollution by trapping, filtering, and converting sediments, nutrients, and other chemicals. In addition, a buffer helps supply food, cover, and thermal protection to fish and other wildlife. Riparian buffers can be 300 feet wide or 20 feet wide; it depends on the stream and the land around the stream.
In addition to the critical role buffer zones play in protecting the biological values of riparian vegetation and stream habitats, they are also important in providing long- term protection of property and structures from flooding and erosion. According to the SCVWRPC (2006), setbacks for purposes of slope stability are typically measured from the top of bank and vary depending on geomorphic and hydrologic conditions of the stream, streambank characteristics such as composition and height,
13 SCVWRPC 2006, ch. 11, p. 4 z Page 7 July 26, 2008
potential for instability or erosion, structure loading, and other environmental considerations14. The SCVWRPC (2006) recommends minimum “slope stability protection areas”, measured from top of bank, ranging from as wide as 25 feet for unarmored streams to as little as 10 feet for ephemeral streams15.
Assessment of Subject Property
The subject property does not support riparian vegetation as defined by the SCVWRPC (2006), and due to the isolated nature of the property and its limited value for fish or wildlife species, the few native trees that overlap the channel are not likely to be deemed by the CDFG to serve an important role in preserving creek habitat. As such, the removal of trees and development within the subject property is not likely to be regarded as having an adverse effect on the stream environment. Furthermore, since no impacts to the creek channel below the top of bank will occur, only local approvals will be required for this project. Therefore, setbacks and compensation for impacts woodland within the riparian zone are at the discretion of the lead agency.
5. Conclusions
As illustrated in their stream analysis, Live Oak Associates (2007) defines an ephemeral stream setback of 10-15 feet on both sides of the active channel, which they assign an average width of 15 feet. While the channel width may be a slight exaggeration of the actual OHWM, this setback is not unreasonable based on the limited channel width and depth of incision, as well as the extremely limited value the channel may provide for wildlife. However, the setback would not provide adequate protection of the overhanging tree canopy, as outlined in Section 4, above.
Nonetheless, as shown on the site plans prepared by TS Civil Engineering (lot line adjustment exhibit, sheet 1, dated 12/10/2007), the proposed project includes a ten- foot building setback line between the top of slope, which basically corresponds to outer edge of the dripline of the native trees on the ravine slope. This setback is both consistent with the SCVWRPC guidelines and is likely to be satisfactory to the CDFG and SFRWQCB.
Improvements to the existing driveway on the east side of the ravine do not provide any setback from the overlapping tree canopy. The small amount of grading within the canopy, including some tree removals, seems unavoidable given the topographic constraints of the site. Considering that there is an existing paved driveway, that tree canopy would not be significantly impacted, and that the project is not likely to result in any significant impacts to the channel, water quality or wildlife, this encroachment should be permissible with mitigation. Appropriate mitigation measures include the implementation of best management practices to prevent erosion and sedimentation,
14 page 3.5 15 SCVWRPC 2006, Appendix B, p. 5 z Page 8 July 26, 2008
protection of remaining trees from trunk or root damage, and replacement plantings as specified in the Los Gatos tree protection ordinance16.
While grading may be permitted within that setback, as needed for slope stabilization, drainage improvements, or other subsurface modifications, the surface grade within the setback should be restored and revegetated with appropriate native species, as approved by a qualified habitat restorationist or vegetation ecologist.
It is important to emphasize that any proposal to excavate or alter the existing surface elevation (by cutting or filling) within the dripline of any trees to be retained, riparian or otherwise, should be reviewed by a qualified arborist. For trees to be retained on steep slopes, an even greater protection zone may be warranted, as much as one and a half times the diameter of the tree canopy, as determined by a qualified arborist.
It is also worth mentioning that the non-native species, tree of heaven, present on site should be eradicated. This highly invasive species is considered a moderate pest species (CalIPC 2006). Even though the subject property does not abut any open space lands nor is it contiguous with upstream or downstream riparian habitat, it could spread by wind or bird carried seed into natural plant communities elsewhere.
I hope this assists you and the Town in evaluating this project and making an appropriate determination regarding the protection of the creek and riparian habitats on site. If I can be of further assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Michael Wood
16 Los Gatos Ord. 2114 §29.10.0985 z Page 9 July 26, 2008
Literature Cited
California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2006. California Invasive Plant Inventory. Cal-IPC Publication 2006-02. California Invasive Plant Council: Berkeley, CA. February. Available on line at http://www.cal-ipc.org. Live Oak Associates. 2007. Stream Analysis of the Property Located at 10 Reservoir Road in the Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California. Unpublished report prepared for Terry Szewczyk, San Jose. October 9. Mount, J.F. 1995. California Rivers and Streams: the Confluence between Fluvial Process and Land Use. Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley, California. 359 pp. Noss, R. F., and R. L. Peters. 1995. Endangered Ecosystems: A Status Report on America's Vanishing Habitat and Wildlife. Defenders of Wildlife. Washington, DC. Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). 2005. Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative. Revised July 2006. Available online at http://www.valleywater.org/media/pdf/Creekwise/Guidelines_chapters/Title%20pa ge%20and%20aknowledgements.pdf Sorenson, J. 1989. Managing Wildlife Associations within Riparian Systems. In: Proceedings of the California Riparian Systems Conference; protection, management, and restoration for the 1990s; 1988 September 22-24; Davis, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-110. Berkeley, CA; Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 544 pp.