Section 6: Appendices

Appendix A ± Air Impact Analysis

Madera County San Joaquin River Conservancy Page | 176 Page: 1 8/3/2012 10:30:04 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: Y:\River West\Environmental\Air Study RWMMP.urb924 Project Name: River West-Madera Master Plan Project Location: Madera County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Page: 2 8/3/2012 10:30:04 AM

Summary Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2013 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 0.14 0.90 0.57 0.00 0.55 0.05 0.60 0.12 0.05 0.16 101.70

2013 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) 0.14 0.90 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.05 0.18 0.03 0.05 0.08 101.70

Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.24 0.00 70.32 77.18 0.00 53.86 0.00

AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.03 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.01 0.01 5.25

OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 1.62 1.25 8.37 0.01 0.61 0.14 716.19

SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 1.65 1.25 8.58 0.01 0.62 0.15 721.44

Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 Page: 3 8/3/2012 10:30:04 AM

2013 0.14 0.90 0.57 0.00 0.55 0.05 0.60 0.12 0.05 0.16 101.70

Fine Grading 06/03/2013- 0.07 0.57 0.35 0.00 0.55 0.03 0.58 0.11 0.03 0.14 66.11 08/16/2013 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.55 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 0.07 0.57 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 61.80

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.31

Asphalt 08/05/2013-09/27/2013 0.07 0.33 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 35.59

Paving Off-Gas 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 0.05 0.29 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 25.45

Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.22

Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.92

Phase Assumptions Phase: Fine Grading 6/3/2013 - 8/16/2013 - Default Fine Site Grading Description Total Acres Disturbed: 42.64 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day

Phase: Paving 8/5/2013 - 9/27/2013 - Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 11.61 Page: 4 8/3/2012 10:30:04 AM Off-Road Equipment: 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day Page: 5 8/3/2012 10:30:04 AM

Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2

2013 0.14 0.90 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.05 0.18 0.03 0.05 0.08 101.70

Fine Grading 06/03/2013- 0.07 0.57 0.35 0.00 0.12 0.03 0.15 0.03 0.03 0.05 66.11 08/16/2013 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00

Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 0.07 0.57 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 61.80

Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.31

Asphalt 08/05/2013-09/27/2013 0.07 0.33 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 35.59

Paving Off-Gas 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Off Road Diesel 0.05 0.29 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 25.45

Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.22

Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.92

Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 6/3/2013 - 8/16/2013 - Default Fine Site Grading Description For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 84% PM25: 84% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69% PM25: 69% Page: 6 8/3/2012 10:30:04 AM

Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report:

AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated

Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Natural Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.92

Hearth 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.01 2.07

Landscape 0.01 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26

Consumer Products 0.01

Architectural Coatings

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 0.03 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.01 0.01 5.25

Area Source Changes to Defaults

Percentage of residences with wood stoves changed from 0% to 67%

Percentage of residences with natural gas fireplaces changed from 0% to 33%

Operational Unmitigated Detail Report:

OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated

Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2

Single family housing 0.01 0.02 0.17 0.00 0.01 0.00 14.18

State Park/Open Space Area 1.61 1.23 8.20 0.01 0.60 0.14 702.01

TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 1.62 1.25 8.37 0.01 0.61 0.14 716.19

Operational Settings:

Does not include correction for passby trips Page: 7 8/3/2012 10:30:04 AM

Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips

Analysis Year: 2013 Season: Annual

Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006

Summary of Land Uses

Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT

Single family housing 0.33 9.56 dwelling units 1.00 9.56 75.52

State Park/Open Space Area 0.70 acres 795.00 556.50 3,763.05

566.06 3,838.57

Vehicle Fleet Mix

Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel

Light Auto 37.7 0.8 98.9 0.3

Light Truck < 3750 lbs 16.7 2.4 91.0 6.6

Light Truck 3751-5750 lbs 20.5 1.0 98.5 0.5

Med Truck 5751-8500 lbs 11.4 0.9 99.1 0.0

Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 lbs 2.6 0.0 73.1 26.9

Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs 1.1 0.0 45.5 54.5

Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs 1.0 0.0 20.0 80.0

Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs 2.4 0.0 0.0 100.0

Other Bus 0.1 0.0 100.0 0.0

Urban Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Motorcycle 4.7 53.2 46.8 0.0

School Bus 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.0

Motor Home 1.6 0.0 87.5 12.5 Page: 8 8/3/2012 10:30:04 AM

Travel Conditions

Residential Commercial

Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer

Urban Trip Length (miles) 10.8 7.3 7.5 9.5 7.4 7.4

Rural Trip Length (miles) 16.8 7.1 7.9 14.7 6.6 6.6

Trip speeds (mph) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0

% of Trips - Residential 0.0 0.0 100.0

% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)

State Park/Open Space Area 2.0 1.0 97.0

Operational Changes to Defaults

The urban/rural selection has been changed from Urban to Rural

Appendix B – Historic Property Survey, J&R Environmental Services

Madera County San Joaquin River Conservancy Page | 187 HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEY FOR THE RIVER -WEST -MADERA MASTER PLAN PROJECT MADERA COUNTY , CALIFORNIA

Submitted To:

Scott Larson Environmental Site Restoration, Inc. 40029 Highway 41, Suite 9B Oakhurst, CA 93644

Submitted By:

Jon L. Brady, M.A. J&R Environmental Services 17900 Auberry Road Clovis, CA 93619

Contributions By:

William B. Secrest, Jr., M.S., C.A. J&R Environmental Services

March 6, 2011

Approximately 800 Acres USGS Lane’s Bridge and Fresno North, California, 7.5' Quadrangles Section 20 and 21, T12S R20E, and Sections 20, 29-32, T12S R20E, Mount Diablo Base Meridian

J&R Environmental Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

River West-Madera is a planned facility lying within the San Joaquin River Parkway, on the shared southern border of Fresno and Madera Counties. The Master Plan is funded by the State of California San Joaquin River Conservancy, through a grant administered by the California Wildlife Conservation Board. Madera County will be partnering with the San Joaquin River Conservancy, wherein the County will be the lead agency for this Resource Assessment (Phase 1).

The project area consists of approximately 800 acres west of Highway 41 in Madera County, owned by the San Joaquin River Conservancy (Sycamore Island and Proctor- Broadwell-Cobb properties) west of Highway 41 in Madera County. Large ponds and seasonally dry pits are scattered throughout the area, the result of past sand and gravel operations. Fragments of riparian habitat exist, along with portions of undisturbed river channel. The area is bounded by Fresno County to the south (river channel) and the bluffs above the river to the north.

The River West-Madera Master Plan will be consistent with the 1995 Madera County General Plan and 1997 San Joaquin River Parkway Master Plan. The Parkway Master Plan calls for the conservation, enhancement, and restoration of natural resources, preservation of cultural resources, and public access, recreation, and education compatible with long term protection of those resources. The River-West-Madera Plan will be the first step in implementing the Parkway Master Plan and County General Plan as both relate to the Project Area.

Thus, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it is the responsibility of the County of Madera to determine if the proposed project will have a significant impact on important historical resources.

This report meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which mandates that public agencies determine whether a project will have a significant impact on important historical resources.

As a result of the present study, two historic-period buildings were identified, recorded, and evaluated within the project study area. The subject buildings do not meet CEQA's definition of a "historical resource" (Title 14 CCR §15064.5[a][1]-[3]).

No further cultural resources investigation is recommended for this undertaking unless project plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. However, if buried cultural materials are encountered during construction, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera i Master Plan Project, Madera County J&R Environmental Services

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...... i Table of Contents...... ii 1.0 Introduction ...... 1 2.0 Regulatory Context ...... 5 2.1 California Environmental Quality Act ...... 5 3.0 Setting ...... 6 3.1 Natural Setting ...... 6 3.1.1 Soils ...... 6 3.2 Cultural Setting ...... 9 3.2.1 Archaeological Context ...... 9 3.3 Ethnohistoric Context ...... 10 3.4 Historical Context ...... 11 3.4.1 Early Exploration of Madera County ...... 11 3.4.2 Agriculture, Ranching, and Water...... 12 3.4.3 Project Study Area-Specific History ...... 13 3.4.3.1 Sycamore Island Ranch ...... 13 3.4.3.2 Proctor-Broadwell-Cobb Property ...... 16 4.0 Research Methods ...... 18 4.1 Records Search ...... 18 4.2 Native American Consultation ...... 18 4.3 Field Methodology...... 18 4.4 Historical Research ...... 19 5.0 Results and Findings ...... 20 5.1 Records Search ...... 20 5.2 Native American Consultation ...... 20 5.3 Field Survey...... 21 5.4 Historic Research ...... 23 5.4.1 Stewart and Nuss Sand and Gravel Plant Buildings ...... 23 6.0 Management Considerations ...... 25 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 26 References ...... 27 Maps ...... 30 Newspapers ...... 31 Web Sites ...... 32 Appendix A: Qualifications of Preparers ...... 34 Appendix B: California Historical Resource Information System ...... 35 Appendix C: Correspondence ...... 40

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera ii Master Plan Project, Madera County J&R Environmental Services

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Project Study Area ...... 3 Figure 2. Aerial View of Project Study Area ...... 4 Figure 3. View of Previously Excavated Pit ...... 7 Figure 4. View of Ponding Area ...... 8 Figure 5. View of Oak Trees and Dirt Road ...... 8 Figure 6. 1957 Aerial View of North Bank San Joaquin River ...... 16 Figure 7. View of 1962 Stewart and Nuss Scale Building ...... 22 Figure 8. View of 1962 Stewart and Nuss Warehoues Building...... 22 Figure 9. View of Façade of Scale Building ...... 23 Figure 10. View of Façade of Warehouse Building ...... 23

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 ...... 20

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera iii Master Plan Project, Madera County J&R Environmental Services

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Madera County Planning Department desires to complete a Resource Assessment (Phase I) of the River-West-Madera Master Plan. River West-Madera is a planned facility within the San Joaquin River Parkway. The Master Plan is funded by the State of California San Joaquin River Conservancy, through a grant administered by the California Wildlife Conservation Board. Madera County will be partnering with the San Joaquin River Conservancy, wherein the County will be the lead agency for the Phase I Resource Assessment.

The project area consists of approximately 800 acres west of Highway 41 in Madera County, owned by the San Joaquin River Conservancy (Sycamore Island and Proctor- Broadwell-Cobb properties) west of Highway 41 in Madera County. Large ponds and seasonally dry pits are scattered throughout the area, the result of past sand and gravel operations. Fragments of riparian habitat exist, along with portions of undisturbed river channel. The area is bounded by Fresno County to the south (river channel) and the bluffs above the river to the north.

The River West-Madera Master Plan will be consistent with the 1995 Madera County General Plan and 1997 San Joaquin River Parkway Master Plan. The Parkway Master Plan calls for the conservation, enhancement, and restoration of natural resources, preservation of cultural resources, and public access, recreation, and education compatible with long term protection of those resources. The River-West-Madera Plan will be the first step in implementing the Parkway Master Plan and County General Plan as both relate to the Project Area.

This report fulfills California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA; PRC §21000, et seq.) requirements that mandate public agencies such as Madera County determine whether a project will have a significant impact on important historical resources. A substantial adverse change in the significant qualities of a historical resource is considered a significant effect on the environment.

The proposed project study area is located in the southeastern portion of Madera County, along the north side of the San Joaquin River. The project area is roughly bounded on the east by State Route 41 and Road 39 to the west. The northern boundary extends along the base of the bluffs and the southern portion of the project is bounded by the north edge of the San Joaquin River (refer to Figure 1).

The proposed project is further described as being located in Section’s 20 and 21, Township 12 South, Range 20 East and portions of Sections 20, 29, and 30-32 , Township 12 South, Range 20 East, Mount Diablo Base Meridian, as depicted on the USGS Lanes Bridge and Fresno South, California, 7.5-minute topographical quadrangles (USGS 1962; 1962).

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 1 Master Plan Project, Madera County J&R Environmental Services

In order to determine whether the proposed project would have a significant impact on cultural resources that might exist in the project study area, it was recommended that a historical/archaeological survey be completed. In January and February 2011, J&R Environmental Services performed a Phase I archaeological/architectural survey in accordance with the requirements California Environmental Quality Act of (CEQA; Public Resource Code §21000, et seq.). The survey and subsequent historical research was conducted by Jon L. Brady of J&R Environmental Services, who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for both archaeology and architectural history (Appendix A).

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 2 Master Plan Project, Madera County J&R Environmental Services

Figure 1. Project Study Area

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 3 Master Plan Project, Madera County J&R Environmental Services

Figure 2. Aerial View of Project StudyArea

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 4 Master Plan Project, Madera County J&R Environmental Services

2.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT

2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

CEQA requires consideration of project impacts on archaeological or historical sites deemed to be "historical resources." Under CEQA, a substantial adverse change in the significant qualities of a historical resource is considered a significant effect on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, a "historical resource" is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (Title 14 CCR §15064.5[a][1]-[3]). Historical resources may include, but are not limited to, "any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California" (PRC §5020.1[j]).

The eligibility criteria for the California Register are the definitive criteria for assessing the significance of historical resources for the purposes of CEQA (Office of Historic Preservation n.d.). Generally, a resource is considered "historically significant" if it meets one or more of the following criteria for listing on the California Register:

(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. (2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC §5024.1[c])

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 5 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

3.0 SETTING

3.1 NATURAL SETTING

The project study area lies within the Lower Sonoran Zone, which is west of and not part of the Sierra Nevada. The Greater Central Valley (mainly the Lower Sonoran Zone) community is characterized by flat terrain with elevations ranging from 300 to 400 feet at the north and south ends and 50 feet at the center (Storer and Usinger 1963:26).

The Lower Sonoran plant community is part of the California biotic province (Munz and Keck 1959:11). The dominant species of tree are the Fremont cottonwood ( Populus fremontii ), California sycamore ( Platanus racemosa ), valley oak ( Quercus lobata ), and willow (Salix ), which is found along stream beds or near springs (Chesemore and Latimer 1980). The following plants were identified by a nature guide, Bill Watterbarger, during a nature walk within the project study area in May 2006 (Madera Tribune 2006): Poison Hemlock (Conium maculatum L), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica)), milk thistle (Silybum marianum ) and Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus L.). Later wild tobacco (Nicotiana rustica), mugwort (Artemisia vulgari) , elderberry (Sambucus nigra), horehound (Marrubium vulgare ), lubine, pussy willow (Salix caprea ), California brome ( Bromus carinatus ). Exotic trees introduced within the project area included Eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus globulus). Scott Larson, a biologist, noted that along the San Joaquin River and most of the ponds is scarlet wisteria (sesbania punicea ), a very aggressive shrub (Personal Communication 2011).

Fauna common to the area include the wood duck ( Aix sponsa ), coyote ( Canis latrans ), and California quail ( Lophortyx californicus ). Other fauna common to the APE include the Stellar’s jay ( Cyanocitta stelleri ), the horned lark ( Eremophila alpestris ), the yellow-billed magpie ( Pica nuttali ), and the Desert Cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus audubonii ) (Ingles 1965; Storer and Usinger 1963; Verner and Boss 1980).

Presently, the majority of the project area consists of ponding basins, previously excavated pits, and dirt roads (refer to Figures 4-6).

3.1.1 Soils

The soils located along the north bank of the San Joaquin River within the project study area are described as being the Ramona series. These soils “…occupy level to gentle sloping areas on the old, low terraces” (United States Department of Agriculture 1962:46). According to the Madera County Soils Survey (1962:46):

The parent material was old alluvium derived principally from granitic rocks. The Vegetation is mostly annual grasses and herbs, and in places, a few widely scattered Oaks.

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 6 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

The Ramona soils occur in long, narrow tracts, most of which traverse areas of the San Joaquin and Madera soils, and are slightly higher than the associated soils. They have more clay in the subsoil and are at a more advanced stage of soil development than the Greenfield soils, which were derived from similar parent materials. They are less well developed than the San Joaquin or Madera soils and lack an iron-silica hardpan in the subsoil.

The Ramona soils are used mostly for dryfarmed grain and range, but some are irrigated and planted to figs, grapes, pasture, alfalfa, and cotton.

Figure 3. View of Previously Excavated Pit.

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 7 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Figure 4. View of Ponding Area.

Figure 5. View of O ak Trees and Dirt Road.

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 8 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

3.2 CULTURAL SETTING

3.2.1 Archaeological Context

(This section is adapted from a report authored by Lloyd, Baloian, and Baloian [2005:6- 7]).

In contrast to the numerous archaeological excavations in the south-central Sierra Nevada and adjacent foothills, there has been little archaeological work done in the central San Joaquin Valley generally or in the project vicinity specifically. The closest excavations to the project area include investigations at Hidden Reservoir (Fenenga 1973), approximately 13 miles northwest; Buchanan Reservoir (Eastman Lake) (King 1976; Moratto 1972), 25 miles northwest; and along Highway 168 at CA-FRE-1671 (Moratto 1988), approximately 20 miles east. Prehistoric sequences developed from these excavations provide a fairly clear understanding of culture change during the last 2,000 to 3,000 years; however, archaeological investigations in the Tulare Lake and Buena Vista Lake localities, south of the Project vicinity, suggest the people occupied the San Joaquin Valley as early as 11,000- 12,000 years ago (Fredrickson and Grossman 1977; Riddell and Olson 1969). Because there has been very little archaeological excavation in the immediate project vicinity, it is unclear whether the cultural phases identified in the adjacent foothills or southern valley extend[s] to this area.

Archaeological evidence suggests that the valley’s initial occupants settled mostly in lakeshore and streamside environments and used the foothills seasonally. Early (“Paleoindian”) sites are typified by fluted points, stemmed dart points, and flaked stone crescents. The Middle and late Holocene witnessed mobile hunters and gatherers. As compared with their predecessors, Archaic groups utilized a broad resource base, including both large and small game and hard seeds. Manos, milling slabs, mortars, and pestles are common in Archaic assemblages, as are atlatl dart points. Favorable climatic conditions between 3000 and 3500 years ago instigated widespread settlement along the Sierran west slope. The late Holocene witnessed various technological and social changes, including the adoption of the bow and arrow, expansion of trade, increasing use of acorns, and improved food storage techniques. As populations grew, social relations became more complex. Violence among many Sierran and foothill groups was common as economic stress and social instability became more pronounced during a period of xeric climates between A.D. 450 and 1250. Thereafter, new levels of population growth were achieved resulting in part from movement of new Sierran groups. By circa 1600-1700 most groups claimed the territories that would identify them ethnographically.

These late Holocene (circa 1000 B.C. and A.D. 1850) adaptations occurred at various times throughout the south-central Sierra and foothill regions. The prehistoric sequence developed from careful excavations at Eastman Lake divides these events into three

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 9 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services phases: the Chowchilla Phase (circa 800 B.C.-A.D. 550), the Raymond Phase (A.D. 550- 1500), and the Madera Phase (A.D. 1500-1850) (Moratto 1972). To summarize:

Chowchilla Phase occupation (now dated circa 800 B.C.-A.D. 550) of the Buchanan Reservoir locality was centered at a few main villages along the Chowchilla River. Large, socially complex populations exploited local resources and actively traded with their neighbors. After circa A.D. 550, however, both population size and social complexity diminished; local Raymond Phase settlement was sporadic, violence was common and trade was disrupted. Then, after circa A.D. 1500, scores of small settlements were established, and these maintained social ties with the revitalized older centers. The Madera Phase, with its village community organization and distinctive economic patterns, represents the late prehistory of the Southern Sierra Miwok (King 1976) [Moratto 1984:323].

Several archaeological sites have been recorded in the immediate Project vicinity (see Section 4.1 [referring to the 2005 report]). In addition to sites located along the San Joaquin River, many small processing stations and temporary camps have been found along seasonal channels near the lower foothills (Meighan and Dillion 1987) suggesting a pattern of widespread use of this area during the late Holocene (McGuire et al. 1992). The San Joaquin River supplied an abundance of salmon during the fall and spring (Baumhoff 1963:169, 174, Table 5) and the numerous granite outcroppings along the river and smaller tributaries provided grinding surfaces to process acorns, a staple of the California Indian diet. Until more extensive archaeological work can be done, interpretations regarding prehistoric land use in the project vicinity are speculative.

3.3 ETHNOHISTORIC CONTEXT

The Yokuts occupied virtually all of the San Joaquin Valley and the surrounding foothills. Kroeber "classified the Yokuts dialects into 12 groups belonging to two divisions: Foothill and Valley" (INFOTEC Research, Inc. 1988:27). Their habitat included the entire San Joaquin Valley, "from the mouth of the [San Joaquin] river to the foot of the Tehachapi Pass. In addition, they occupied the adjacent lower slopes or foothills of the Sierra Nevada, up to an altitude of a few thousand feet, from Fresno River south, but nowhere to the north of that stream" (Kroeber 1976:475).

Within the project vicinity, the Yokuts tribes identified by Latta (1977:161) whose spheres of influence extended into the current study area were the Dumna and Hoyima Yokuts. Kroeber (1976:484) places the Hoyima tribe within the tribes of the northern group of the Valley division. Like other Yokuts groups, the Hoyima was politically organized into a tribe, with its own distinctive name, dialect, settlements and recognized territory. Permanent wintering areas usually were situated around major watercourses. From these

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 10 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services areas they moved out to temporary camp sites to take advantage of the "seasonal resource- procurement cycle" (Kroeber 1976:484).

Kroeber (1976:484) places the Hoyima , Hoyim'a or Hoyimha (plural Hoyeyami ) on the north side of the San Joaquin River opposite the Pitkachi . He notes that the Hoyima may have ranged as far north as the Fresno River. Hoyima settlements were at K'eliutanau , on "a creek entering the San Jaoquin from the north, and at Moyoliu above the mouth of Little Dry Creek" (Kroeber 1976:484).

The Dumna , a subgroup of the Foothill Yokuts, was located around present day Millerton Lake. It was here at Millerton Lake that their largest village ( A’tbu ) was located (Gayton 1948:152). According to one source (Lloyd et al. 2005) the Dumna occupied “…the broader banks of the San Joaquin River, both up and down the San Joaquin River (Spier 1978:471; Kroeber 1925:481).” One other village site was identified by Pah’-Mit a member of the Dumna (Dum’-Nah) , who was born in 1826. In an interview with F.F. Latta in 1934, Pah’- Mit noted that the village he was born in was about two miles above where the community of Friant is located. He referred to this village as Koo-Yoo Ill’-IK.

3.4 HISTORICAL CONTEXT

3.4.1 Early Exploration of Madera County

José Joaquin Moraga made the earliest documented Spanish colonial-era visit to what is now Madera County in 1776, when he was dispatched to evaluate California's interior. Upon entering the San Joaquin Valley from the north, Moraga traveled as far south as Madera County. Then turning east after fording the San Joaquin River, he traveled an additional day. Thirteen years later, Color Sergeant Gabriel Moraga, the son of José Joaquin Moraga, crossed the San Joaquin River and explored what became the Dos Palos and Chowchilla areas of Madera County. Eventually Moraga turned east toward the Sierra Nevada, reaching the Mariposa area (Clough 1968:9).

As early as 1820, explorers, trappers and soldiers traveled through parts of Madera County, continuing such activities through the Gold Rush period. However, it was John C. Fremont who provided the earliest record of trails through Madera County as part of his expedition into California. Between April 4-6, 1844, Fremont progressed through the valley from the north, with his party fording Bear Creek in Merced County by raft and from there proceeding southward. Eventually they followed the San Joaquin River and camped along its banks. On April 6, the Fremont expedition crossed the river at "Gravelly Ford, west of where SR 145 today crosses the river" (Hoover et. al. 1966).

The 1850 discovery of gold in what became eastern Madera County brought miners to the area. Communities such as Coarsegold, Fine Gold, and Cassidy's Bar, began to dot the Sierra Nevada foothills. Population centers eventually shifted to the valley floor as gold

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 11 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services played out and when railroad tracks were first laid, in the early 1870s. Families began to farm the fertile lands in southern Madera County as irrigation colonies were established.

3.4.2 Agriculture, Ranching, and Water

(This section is adapted from a report authored by Lloyd, Baloian, and Baloian [2005:9- 10]).

Although ranching had been a part of the state’s economy since the Mexican period, the industry’s growth accelerated as many successful prospectors and businessmen reinvested their profits from the gold rush in cattle and sheep herds. Joseph P. Lane parlayed the earnings from his Stockton liquor business in the 1850s to become one of the state’s prominent stockmen. His family settled in southern Madera County in 1870 and acquired over 7,000 acres of San Joaquin River terrace near what is now known as Lane’s Bridge, just south of the [current] study area (Guinn 1905:1262-1263). In the early days of ranching, sheep were a valued commodity because they not only could be sold for consumption but could be sheared for their wool. From 1857 to 1871, the amount of wool produced in California increased more than twenty fold, while revenue grew at an average annual rate of 30 percent (Vandor 1919:164). Similarly, cattle provide[d] beef and dairy products as well as hides. Tallow can be rendered from the fat of both cattle and sheep.

Agriculture had been gathering its own momentum since the gold rush. Early efforts to grow wheat without a sufficient water supply met with failure. Before the 1870s and the advent of large-scale water conveyance systems, farms were generally located near a perennial water source. This constraint on early agriculture kept the valley’s two major industries – farming and ranching - in balance within the economy. Competition for real estate was minimized because agricultural interests had little reason to expand into pasturelands that were unsuitable for farming.

By the early 1870s, however, the scales began to tip in favor of agriculture. The construction of extensive irrigation systems, typically financed by land developers like A.Y. Easterby, converted the valley’s dry soils into fertile farmlands. The 1874 “No Fence” law underscored the growing dominance of agricultural interests and resulted in both operational and monetary repercussions to the sheep and cattle industry:

The “no fence” law obligated the stock owner to herd his sheep and cattle, whereas before the stock roamed at will and was not assembled except for the annual rodeo. He was also made responsible for damage done by his beasts. The farmer was not required to fence his holdings, though…he occasionally did so [Vandor 1919:163]

The “no fence” law was a major setback to ranching; the stockman no longer had the entire extent of the San Joaquin Valley at his disposal and was now burdened with the cost of fencing in his herds and flocks. Nevertheless, the industry continued to grow within the

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 12 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services county, albeit not at the pace as agriculture. The cattle empire of Miller and Lux, which operated well into the twentieth century, owned as much as 145,000 acres of pasture land in Madera County (Barcroft 1933).

While much of the valley was covered in wheat fields in the mid-1870s (Clough 1968), farmers had been experimenting with grape vines and citrus trees since the 1850s. By the 1880s, a nationwide glut in the grain market and attendant drop in the price of wheat caused valley farmers to shift their attention to these newer crops. In a relatively short time, large-scale vineyards and orchards had replaced wheat fields in most regions of the valley.

On either side of any of the roads that center at Madera can be seen a large number of vineyards and orchards in full bearing. A great many of the vineyards are planted to raisin grapes, turning out a first class quality of raisins. New vineyards are constantly being planted, and it will not be long before this will form one of Madera’s most important industries [Fresno Expositor 1890].

3.4.3 Project Study Area-Specific History

3.4.3.1 Sycamore Island Ranch

The modern history of this property dates from 1950, when James and Carrie Moen moved from Berkeley to manage her family’s working ranch. It was located at a point roughly two miles southwest of the San Joaquin River—Highway 41 intersection, in Madera County, where the river separated into major and minor channels (Warszawski, 2008).

This formation, along with a large number of sycamore trees on the property, led to its being named “Sycamore Island Ranch” in 1952. At different times, it is said to have been home to a cattle herd, a watermelon patch, fish hatcheries, and a blue crawdad farm (Sycamore Island on the San Joaquin River, n.d.).

Despite these commercial presences, Sycamore Island was also well-known as a wildlife refuge. Fontana (2006) notes that fauna ranged “…from ducks and egrets to deer and raccoons,…” and cohabited with the Moens and their various business ventures.

In February 1963, a rock and gravel plant was created on a large segment of the property 1. The Moens leased 358 acres to Stewart and Nuss, Inc., of Fresno, for this purpose. Concurrently, for the same purpose, the firm leased 158 acres on the Fresno County side of the San Joaquin from local land developer Oscar Spano (Coyle 1963).

1 According to Mr. Moen (Personal Communication 2011), work on the rock and gravel plant actually commenced in 1960.

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 13 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Stewart and Nuss, a concrete, paving and general construction firm, was founded in 1918 by Charles W. Stewart (1887-1984) and Claude Edward Nuss (1889-1957; Keeler 1993, California Death Index, 1940-1997 ). The firm helped build various public and private developments during its existence, and was ever-hungering for new and least expensive material sources.

To this end, Stewart and Nuss opened an excavation and processing plant in 1936, near the intersection of the San Joaquin River and Highway 99, where gravel, sand and rock was plentiful.

At that time, the firm boasted: “It is the most modern and up-to-date plant on the Pacific Coast…With our modern equipment and facilities we are capable of handling excavating, grading, and oiling jobs of any size and can furnish truck-mixed concrete in any quantities that will meet the most rigid specifications” (Stewart and Nuss, 1936).

A year after Nuss’s 1957 demise, Stewart sold the business to Rice Brothers Inc. of Marysville and Lodi, another concrete and gravel enterprise. Jesse Rice took over as principal of the business, reorganizing it but retaining the familiar corporate name (“Jesse L. Rice,” 1970).

A major difficulty for the reconstituted Stewart and Nuss was the playing-out of its quarter-century-old rock and gravel plant. By 1961, it had begun to work the areas west of the San Joaquin River-Highway 41 intersection, on the Fresno County side, and after two years deemed it necessary to expand onto the Sycamore Island property (Coyle 1963).

Controversy surrounded the move, as both neighborhood residents and the California Department of Fish and Game contested Fresno County’s issuance of a conditional use permit for the operation. While various restrictions were imposed on plant hours, excavation areas and waste/dust abatement, it was requested that a fifteen-foot strip alongside the river be preserved to retain natural vegetation and some of the wildlife habitat.

Both Fresno County Counsel Robert Wash and Supervisor George Malm concurred in the opinion that no further restrictions could be added to the permit, and Malm went so far as to say: “As far as I am concerned, the matter is closed” (“Bluffs Residents Appeal Gravel Plant Decision [1963], “Group Will Push River Bank Fight” [1963]).

Unfortunate as the vegetation loss was to the permit opponents, it developed that the gravel pits had a beneficial effect on local wildlife. River water would naturally drain or seep into the hollows, creating more than a half-dozen ponds which became stocked with various fish types, including catfish, carp, stripers, crappie, and largemouth bass (Sycamore Island on the San Joaquin, n.d.; Fontana, 2006). The ponds also provided a convenient stop for local and migrating waterfowl (Steinberg 1997).

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 14 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

This teeming quasi-preserve encouraged the Moens to open up the property for camping and fishing enthusiasts, bringing as many as 100 cars every weekend. Eventually, it was sheltered by more than 400 trees, where as many as 160 different bird species could be sighted, and canoeing and kayaking became popular in the adjoining waterway (Fontana 2006; Warszawski 2008).

Stewart and Nuss continued operations on Sycamore Island Ranch with little fanfare. In 1988, to meet new environmental regulations, it installed a closed-gravel-washing system to keep silt from building up in the river (“Water Recycling: A Wringing Success,” 1991). Also, to comply with the California Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, the company was further obligated to rebuild the island’s foliage, and plant seven trees per acre in areas where excavations were complete (Lopez, 1989).

By the late 1990s, the Sycamore Island plant—like its downriver precursor—was playing out and winding down operations (Nax 1996). John C. Buada, a Stewart and Nuss representative, said at the time: "Ninety-five percent of all sand and gravel in this area has been excavated from the San Joaquin. That's all of Fresno, Mendota, Clovis, Madera, all the concrete, asphalt, every foundation, every home and all the concrete commercial buildings, driveways and schools” (Steinberg 1997).

Major corporate changes came to Stewart and Nuss during the same era. Sold to the Monolith Portland Cement Company, Monolith was eventually purchased in turn by CBR Cement Corporation of San Mateo in 1989 (Morris-Versaw, 1989). CBR’s parent firm, SA Cimenteries CBR of Belgium, was later acquired by Heidelberg Cement of Germany in stages during the 1990s (“Heidelberger Zement AG,” n.d.). Though its ownership is now wholly foreign, and its immediate parent company is known as Calaveras Material Inc., Stewart and Nuss has retained the same local name it has used ever since its founding (Nax 1997).

With the departure of the Moens’ two children, neither of whom were interested in ranching or other ventures, and the return of Sycamore Island Ranch to non-commercial purposes, the family elected to sell the property in November 2006. It was purchased by the San Joaquin River Conservancy, a State of California agency, for $6.6 million (Fontana 2006).

The acquisition was intended to help preserve and restore the San Joaquin River. Sycamore Island joined a series of properties set aside for that purpose, together forming a twenty- two-mile-long parkway down the San Joaquin River which stretches from Friant Dam to Highway 99 (San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Trust, n.d.).

At present, the property is operated as a joint venture between the Conservancy and Falcontail Enterprises, which operates a bait shop for fishers and maintains a concrete boat

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 15 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services ramp. Falcontail collects automobile entry and canoe/kayak portage fees, turning over a portion of them to the Conservancy for overhead expenses (Warszawski 2008).

The demolition of a culvert in 2005 caused the upper channel surrounding Sycamore Island to go dry; hence it is no longer an island (Warszawski 2008). The main river channel, along the ranch’s southern border, retains its same contours and appearance (Sycamore Island on the San Joaquin River, n.d.)

Examination of recent satellite photography (Google Maps, 2011) confirms that the traces left by Stewart and Nuss on the Sycamore Island property are now minimal, and save for the excavation-created ponds and introduced vegetation, the property has been largely returned to its natural state.

3.4.3.2 Proctor-Broadwell-Cobb Property

East of Sycamore Island Park is the Proctor-Broadwell-Cobb 300-acre property that may have been owned by Fresno housing developer Oscar Spano in the 1950s. According to Steve High (Personal Communication 2011), Spano owned land on both side of the San Joaquin River. Moen (Personal Communication 2011), the original owner of the Sycamore Island Ranch (now the Sycamore Island Park) noted that there was indeed a gravel and sand operation on the Spano property, which commenced operations in the mid-1950s. A review of aerial photographs (Fresno Irrigation District) for the years of 1950 and 1957 suggest that the commercial venture did not commence until after 1950, but appeared to be in full operation by 1957 (refer to Figure 6).

Based on research conducted by William B. Secrest, Jr., telephone directories for the period of 1954 through 1960 indicate that Anderson Rock and Gravel was operating in the immediate vicinity. It is clear that the rock and gravel operation on the Proctor – Broadwell-Cobb property was continuously operated from circa 1954 through 2003. According to recent satellite photography (Google Maps, 2011), sand and gravel operations on this Figure 6. 1957 Aerial view of north bank of San Joaquin River. property ceased around May 2004. The same imagery

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 16 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services indicates that the buildings associated with the operation were removed by June 2004.

In an April 17, 2007 Madera Tribune article written by Romona Frances, the 300-acre parcel was acquired in 2003 by the San Joaquin River Trust; however, it was not until 2007 that the public was allowed to take nature walks in the area with Bill Wattenbarger, a field biologist, serving as guide. In order to open the area to the public, the equipment associated with the sand and gravel operation was removed - in all likelihood, by the company that leased the land for sand and gravel extraction.

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 17 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

4.0 RESEARCH METHODS

4.1 RECORDS SEARCH

Prior to the commencement of fieldwork, J&R Environmental Services initiated an in-house records search (RS 11-058) at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resource Information System, located at California State University, Bakersfield. During the records search, the files of the SSJVIC were examined for known cultural resources in or near the study area and previously completed cultural resources studies pertaining to the vicinity. Additional sources consulted that were consulted at the SSJVIV during the records search included the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks List, Points of Historical Interest, the Historic Property Data File, the California Inventory of Historic Resources, as well as site records and existing cultural resources reports.

4.2 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION

As part of the research procedures, J&R Environmental Services contacted the State of California's Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento in February 2011 to request a records search in the commission's sacred lands file (Appendix C).

4.3 FIELD METHODOLOGY

Prior to the field work, a survey strategy was developed based on the culturally-modified landscape within the project study area (refer to Figure 3). The natural landscape has been heavily modified as a result of farming and industrial use. Over the last fifty-plus years, the land has been heavily modified as a result of gravel and sand extraction. Large ponds and seasonally dry pits are scattered throughout the project area.

During the month of January and February 2011, a pedestrian survey of the entire project study area was conducted by staff of J&R Environmental Services to determine what cultural resources might be present. The land surface was carefully searched for any evidence of aboriginal utilization or habitation, soil discoloration, artifactual debris and activity features (bedrock mortars, rock rings, hunting blinds, etc.), or remnants of human activities dating to the historic period.

Survey methods included complete, intensive-level coverage with parallel transects at intervals of ten to twenty meters and a reconnaissance-level sampling strategy. Complete coverage was employed along perennial (blue-line) and intermittent drainages, especially at the confluence of said drainages, where there appeared to be a high potential for uncovering cultural material; and along all dirt roads within the project area. Portions of the San Joaquin River ’s north bank that were accessible were also surveyed completely.

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 18 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

The sampling strategy was used on all areas 100 meters beyond the banks of perennial and intermittent drainages and all areas used previously as borrow pits during the period Stewart and Nuss’s rock and gravel operation (approximately 1962 to 2005) within the project study area. Transects at fifty-meter intervals were employed as part of this strategy; as most of the project study area was laden with borrow pits.

Areas most likely to be associated with historic activities, such as homesteading, were also visited within the study area. Anticipated evidence of historic activity potentially included can dumps, backfilled privies, and collapsed wood structures.

Buildings in the study area that were at least forty-five years old at the time of the survey (i.e., constructed prior to 1962) were photographed and recorded on the State of California's standard site record forms (DPR 523A and 523B). The completed forms are provided in Appendix B. The buildings were evaluated with reference to historical themes described above, within the context of extant resources in the project area (refer to Figure 2).

4.4 HISTORICAL RESEARCH

In order to facilitate documentation and evaluation of pre-1962 buildings within the project study area, Jon L. Brady and William B. Secrest, Jr. focused historical background research on the study area and on the buildings in particular. Sources consulted during the research included the California History and Genealogy Room of the Fresno County Library; the Madera County Library; the Maps and Government Information Department of the Henry Madden Library, California State University, Fresno; the Madera County Planning Department; the Madera County Assessor's Office; and aerial photos collected at the Fresno Irrigation District Office.

Mr. Secrest, Jr., wrote the Sycamore Island Ranch section and peer-reviewed this document.

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 19 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

5.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS

5.1 RECORDS SEARCH

According to the records (RS #11-058) on file at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, portions of the project study area had been surveyed previously for cultural resources prior to compiling this report. No archaeological sites, historic-era buildings, or other cultural resources within the area were found to have been previously recorded at the Center.

Within a one-mile radius of the APE, Information Center records revealed only one previous archaeological study conducted in 1975 (MA-00896), which covered portions of Sections 20 and 21, Township 12 South, Range 20 East. Surveys conducted within a one- half mile radius of the project study included those conducted by Mason and Brechbeil in 1993 (MA-201), Crist in 1981 (MA-210), and Mikesell (n.d.; MA-136).

No cultural resources were found within the project study area. There have been two historic sites (P-20-002552 and P-20-002553) recorded within a one-half mile radius of the study area. Both sites consisted of buildings that were over 50-years old.

No cultural resources within a one-mile radius are designated as California State Historic Landmarks or California Points of Historic Interest, or are listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources.

5.2 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION

On February 11, 2011 the Native American Heritage Commission indicated in a letter that the Sacred Lands file failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. The Commission provided a list of Native Americans (individuals/organizations) to contact concerning any knowledge of cultural resources within the project study area (Refer to Table 1):

Table 1 – Native American Consultation Native Tribe Date of Method Date of Comments American Contact of Follow-up Contact Contact Morris Reid, Picayune Rancheria February Letter February Left message via phone call. There has been no further contact Chairperson Of Chuckchansi 12, 2011 with 27, 2011 copy of Project area map Jay Johnson, Southern Sierra February Letter February Mr. Johnson indicated that he is trying to have his name removed from NAHC list. Mr. Spiritual Miwuk Nation 12, 2011 with 27, 2011 Johnson had no further comment. Leader copy of Project area map Patricia Ann Dumna/Foothill February Letter February Called Ms. Brattland and left voice message to contact me if she had any concerns regarding Murphy Pomo 12, 2011 with 27, 2011 the project. There has been nor further contact. Brattland copy of Project area map Keith F. Turner, Dumna Wo-Wah February Letter February Called Mr. Turner and left voice message (cell phone) to contact me if he had any concerns Tribal Contact Tribal Government 12, 2011 with 27, 2011 regarding the project. There has been no response to my voice message. copy of

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 20 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Project area map Katherine North Valley February Letter February Called Ms. Perez and left voice message to contact me if she had any concerns regarding the Erolinda Yokuts Tribe 12, 2011 with 27, 2011 project. There has been no response to my voice message Perez copy of Project area map Anthony Southern Sierra February Letter February Sent e-mail indicating this was the second contact and requested any information that he Brochini, Miwuk Nation 12, 2011 with 27, 2011 might share regarding the project area. Asked Mr. Brochini to contact me either e-mail or Chairperson copy of phone. Project area map Samuel Picayune Rancheria February Letter February Sent e-mail indicating this was the second contact and requested any information that he Elizondo, of 12, 2011 with 27, 2011 might share regarding the project area. Asked Mr. Brochini to contact me either by e-mail or Environmental Chuckchansi copy of phone. There has been no further response. Director Project area map Mary Motola, Picayune Rancheria February Letter February Sent e-mail indicating this was the second contact and requested any information that Ms. Cultural of 12, 2011 with 27, 2011 Motola might share regarding the project area. Requested Ms. Motola to contact me either by Specialist Chuckchansi copy of e-mail or phone. Project area map Kenneth Esohm Valley February Letter February Sent e-mail indicating this was the second contact and requested any information that Mr. Woodrow, Band of 12, 2011 with 27, 2011 Woodrow might share regarding the project area. Requested him to contact me either by e- Chairperson Indians/Wuksache copy of mail or phone. Tribe Project area map Jim Redmoon, Dumna Wo-Wah February Letter February Sent e-mail indicating this was the second contact and requested any information that Mr. Cultural Tribal Government 12, 2011 with 27, 2011 Redmoon might share regarding the project area. Asked him to contact me either by e-mail Resource copy of or phone. Mr. Redmoon contacted the author by e-mail indicating that he did not receive the Specialist Project February 11, 2011 letter and map; thus, he requested an electronic copy of the letter and area map associated map. An electronic copy of the letter was sent to Mr. Redmoon on February 28, 2011. There has been no additional contact with Mr. Redmoon.

As of the writing of this report, there has been no response from persons mentioned on the Commission list. If any substantive responses are received, these will be forwarded to ESR, Inc.

5.3 FIELD SURVEY

An intensive pedestrian survey was conducted along all perennial and intermittent drainages. Transects were spaced at twenty-meter intervals extending out fifty meters on either side of these drainages. Special attention was paid to those areas around the confluences of two or more drainages. Ground visibility was poor due to tall grasses and heavy brush situated throughout the project area. In these instances grasses were pushed away to expose the surface area. The only area where ground visibility was good was on roads, trails and areas devoid of any brush. Clear areas corresponded to locations where buildings had once stood.2 The intensive pedestrian survey constituted approximately twenty percent of the total survey area.

Portions of the north bank of the San Joaquin River within the project study area were also surveyed using an intensive strategy. In most instances steep banks or heavy brush made it impossible to safely view the ground along the river.

A sampling survey strategy was utilized in all areas at least fifty meters’ distance from the banks of perennial and intermittent drainages, within the project study area. This strategy was employed due to the absence of granite outcrops away from drainages and the absence

2 These locations were identified through the use of aerial photography dating between 1957 and 2004 (Fresno Irrigation District archives; Google 2011).

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 21 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services of vegetation other than annual grasses. This strategy constituted approximately seventy percent of the pedestrian survey.

No prehistoric cultural resources were identified during the pedestrian survey.

Historic-era resources included two extant buildings associated with the Stewart and Nuss plant, Pacific Gas & Electric transmission lines (aerial) with towers, concrete rubble scattered throughout the project area, a possible tree house or hunting blind, portions of the roads covered with asphalt, and miscellaneous trash.

Although aerial photographs dating from the 1950s and Figure 7. View northeast toward former scale building (now 1960s (Fresno Irrigation bait and fee building). District Archives) showed a number of buildings within the project study area associated with sand and gravel operations, nothing remained of most to suggest that they were ever present (except for the two buildings discussed above).

Figure 8. View 1962 warehouse/maintenance building Associated with Stewart and Nuss sand and gravel plant.

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 22 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

5.4 HISTORIC RESEARCH

Based on archival research historic period properties within the project area include: two extant buildings, a treehouse or hunting tree blind, metal culverts, and concrete rubble. The buildings are located within the boundaries of the former Sycamore Island Ranch (previously owned by Mr. James Moen). According to Mr. Moen (Personal Communication 2011), construction on the plant buildings began circa 1960 with operations beginning in 1963. Only the two extant Stewart and Nuss buildings were evaluated for this report.

5.4.1 Stewart and Nuss Sand and Gravel Plant Buildings

The scale building and the warehouse were constructed circa 1960. The building has a rectangular footprint and rests on a concrete slab. The composition shingle roof is low-pitched with wide eaves. The walls are constructed with cinder block. Window piercings are filled with single-lite aluminum sliders. There are two wood-framed doors, one on the facade and the other on the rear elevation. All windows are covered with Figure 9. View of façade of 1962 scale building. double-wide wood shutters. The only alteration to the building appears to be a wood-framed structure of a late date that supports a plastic awning.

The warehouse/maintenance building has a rectangular footprint rests on a concrete slab. The building has a low-pitched metal-covered roof. The exterior walls are clad with corrugated tin. There are no window piercings for this building. Entryways include three metal bay roll-up doors with two Figure 10. View of façade of warehouse/maintenance pedestrian doors located on building.

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 23 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services either side elevation. The only alteration is a shed-type building of a later date located at the western end of the building. The exterior walls of the addition are clad with corrugated tin. A single pedestrian entryway is located on the north elevation of the addition.

The subject property was constructed between 1960 and 1962 as part of the Stewart and Nuss sand and gravel plant. The property was leased by Stewart and Nuss from Mr. James Moen who owned the land from 1948 through 2005. When Stewart and Nuss ceased their sand and gravel operation all buildings, were removed. Both surviving buildings appear to have good integrity.

These utilitarian-style buildings do not reflect extraordinary workmanship associated with a master craftsman; nor do they represent important examples of their type, period, region, or method of construction. Further, there is no evidence that the buildings are associated with individuals or events of recognized local, state, or regional history. Consequently, the Stewart and Nuss buildings, as a whole, do not meet any of the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources, and do not constitute a “historical resource”, as defined by California Public Resource Code §21084.1.

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 24 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

6.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

No archaeological sites were identified within the project study area as a result of the pedestrian survey. Other resources noted during the pedestrian survey included concrete rubble and a possible tree house or hunting blind, but these resources lacked integrity; thus, these required no further consideration.

Two buildings dating to the early 1960s and associated with the Stewart and Nuss sand and gravel operation were identified, recorded, and evaluated for this report. While the buildings appear to retain good integrity, they do not reflect extraordinary workmanship associated with a master craftsman, nor do they represent important examples of their type, period, region, or method of construction. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the property is associated with events or individuals of recognized significance in national, state, regional, or local history. Consequently, the former Stewart and Nuss buildings, as a whole, do not meet any of the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources; nor do the buildings constitute a "historical resource," as defined by Calif. PRC §21084.1.

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 25 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the research results presented above, the buildings evaluated for the report were recorded into the California Historical Resource Information System due to their age, but they do not meet the CEQA definition of a "historical resource."

The results of the archaeological survey were negative for both prehistoric and historic sites.

In light of the results stemming from the pedestrian survey and archival research discussed in this report, no further studies are required unless project plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study.

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 26 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

REFERENCES

Ambro, R. A., B. J. Peck, and M. Crist 1980 Cultural Resource Inventory of Fresno River Estates EIR, Madera County . Prepared for McGlasson and Associates.

Barcroft, Joseph 1933 History of Fresno and Madera Counties , www.cagenweb.com/madera/MadHistory.html. Gen Web, Madera County, California, accessed May 2005.

Baumhoff, Martin A. 1963 Ecological Determinants of Aboriginal California Populations. In University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 49(2):155-236. Berkeley.

Brady, J. L. 1985 Stagecoaching in the San Joaquin Valley, California: 1850-1875 . Unpublished Master's Thesis, California State University, Fresno.

Chesemore, D. L., and H. L. Latimer 1980 Investigations of the Vegetation and Wildlife at Fresno River Estates Subdivision, Madera County, California . Prepared by McGlasson and Associates, Fresno.

Crist, Michael K. 1981 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance for San Joaquin River Bluffs Estates EIR, Madera County. Prepared for Madera County Planning Department by Buada Associates, Fresno, California. On file at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield.

Clough, C. W. 1968 Madera . Reprinted 1983. Panorama West Books, Fresno.

Dillion, B. D. 1987 Archaeological Background. In Redbank and Fancher Creeks Intensive Cultural Resources Survey , by C. W. Meighan and B. D. Dillion. Draft report submitted to the Sacramento District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Fenenga, F. 1973 Archaeological Work in the Hidden Valley Reservoir Area, Madera County, California . Submitted to the Western Archaeological and Conservation Center, National Parks Service, Tucson, Arizona.

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 27 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Gayton, A. H. 1948 “Yokuts and Western Mono Ethnography II: Northern Foothill Yokuts and Western Mono”. University of California Anthropological Records 10(2):143-301. Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Guinn, James H. 1905 History of the State of California and Biographical Record of the San Joaquin Valley, California: An Historical Story of the State’s Marvelous Growth from its Earliest Settlement to the Present Time. Chapman Publishing, Chicago, Illinois.

Ingles, L. G. 1965 Mammals of the Pacific States: California, Oregon, and Washington. Stanford University, Stanford.

King, Thomas F. 1976 Political Differentiation Among Hunter-Gatherers, An Archaeological Test . Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.

Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Smithsonian Insitution. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Washington, D.C. 1976 Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover Publications, Inc., New York.

Latta, Frank F. 1934 Yokuts Indian Folklore – A Collection of Yokuts Folklore Tales Which Have Been Told as Children’s Bedtime Stories Since Before the White Man Came to the San Joaquin Valley, as Told to F.F. Latta By: Wah-Now’-Kat, Tawp’-Naw, I’-Chow, Pah’-Mit, Ah-Kah-Dih’-Nim, Wah-Hum’-Chah, and Law-Haw’-Sa. Unpublished Manuscript, courtesy of Bear State Press, Exeter. 1977 Handbook of Yokuts Indians . Bear State Books, Santa Cruz.

Lloyd, Jay B., Randy Baloian and Mary Clark Baloian 2005 Archaeological Sensitivity Analysis for the Highway 41 Quarry Project, Madera County, California. Prepared for Vulcan Materials Company by Applied Earthworks, Inc., Fresno, California.

Mason, Roger D., Ph.D. and Brant A. Brechbiel 1993 Results of the Cultural Resources Records Search and Survey Conducted for the Gunner Ranch South/Valley Children’s Hospital Project, Madera County, California. Prepared by The Keith Companies (Archaeology Division), Costa Mesa, California (MA-00201). On file at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield.

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 28 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

McAlester, Virginia and Lee McAlester 1990 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

McGuire, Kelly A. with contributions by R. Bethand, H. McCarthy, K. Tate, and E. Wohlgemuth 1992 Rural Route 180, Fowler to Cove Avenues (o6-Fre-180-R64.6/84.0 06-342500); Test Excavations at CA-FRE-61 and Extended Survey at CA-FRE-2851: A Preliminary Report. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California. Submitted to Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Oakland, California, and California Department of Transportation, District 6, Fresno, California.

Meighan, Clement W. and Brian D. Dillion 1987 Redbanks and Fancher Creeks Intensive Cultural Resources Survey. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Sacramento.

Mikesell, Stephen D. Nd. Historic Resource Evaluation Report – Perrin Ditch and Madera Canal. Prepared by JRP Historical Consulting Services, Davis, California (MA-136 [FR 01573]). On file at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, California State University, Bakersfield

Moratto, M. J. 1972 A Study of Prehistory in the Southern Sierra Nevada Foothills, California . Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando and London. 1988 Archaeological Excavations at Site CA-FRE-1671, Fresno, California: Final Report. 2 vols. INFOTEC Research, Inc., Sonora, California. Submitted to the California Department of Transportation, Sacramento.

Munz, P. A., with D. D. Keck 1959 A California Flora . University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Office of Historic Preservation N.d. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Historic Resources. California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #1. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.

Peak, Ann S. 1975 Archaeological Assessment of the Stewart & Nuss, Inc. Sand and Gravel Plant Expansion, Fresno County, California. Prepared Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc., Sacramento, California by Ann S. Peak. On file at the San Joaquin Valley Information Center, CHRIS, California State University, Bakersfield.

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 29 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Riddell, Francis A., and William H. Olsen 1969 An Early Man Site in the San Joaquin Valley. American Antiquity 34:121-130.

Spier, Robert F. G. 1978 Foothill Yokuts. In California , edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 426-436. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8. William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.

Storer, Tracy I., and Robert L. Usinger 1963 Sierra Nevada Natural History. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Vandor, Paul E. 1919 History of Fresno County, California, with Biographical Sketches: The Leading Men and Women of the County Who Have Been Identified with Its Growth and Development from the Early Days to the Present, vol. 1. Historic Record Company, Los Angeles.

Ulrich, Rudolph and Leslie K. Stomberg 1962 Madera Area California Soil Survey Report. Prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with California Agricultural Experiment Station.

Verner, J., and A. S. Boss (coordinators) 1980 California Wildlife and Their Habitats: Western Sierra Nevada. Pacific Southwest Forest and Experimental Station, Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Berkeley.

Maps

Fresno Irrigation District 1937 Aerial Photograph of the San Joaquin River Area. Flight line 13-ABH-49-18. On file at the Fresno Irrigation District Office, October 5, 1937. 1937 Aerial Photograph of the San Joaquin River Area. Flight line 13-ABH-49-20. On file at the Fresno Irrigation District Office, October 5, 1937. 1937 Aerial Photograph of the San Joaquin River Area. Flight line 13-ABH-49-36. On file at the Fresno Irrigation District Office, October 5, 1937. 1950 Aerial Photograph of the San Joaquin River Area. Flight line ABI-3G-131. On file at the Fresno Irrigation District Office, January 30, 1950. 1950 Aerial Photograph of the San Joaquin River Area. Flight line ABI-3G-133. On file at the Fresno Irrigation District Office, January 30, 1950. 1950 Aerial Photograph of the San Joaquin River Area. Flight line ABI-3G-32. On file at the Fresno Irrigation District Office, January 30, 1950.

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 30 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

1957 Aerial Photograph of the San Joaquin River Area. Flight line ABI-51T-75. On file at the Fresno Irrigation District Office, August 9, 1957. 1957 Aerial Photograph of the San Joaquin River Area. Flight line ABI-51T-73. On file at the Fresno Irrigation District Office, August 9, 1957. 1957 Aerial Photograph of the San Joaquin River Area. Flight line ABI-51T-5. On file at the Fresno Irrigation District Office, August 9, 1957. 1961 Aerial Photograph of the San Joaquin River Area. Flight line ABH-6BB-250. On file at the Fresno Irrigation District Office, June 5, 1961. 1961 Aerial Photograph of the San Joaquin River Area. Flight line ABH-6BB-198. On file at the Fresno Irrigation District Office, June 5, 1961. 1967 Aerial Photograph of the San Joaquin River Area. Flight line ABH-3HH-51. On file at the Fresno Irrigation District Office, May 3, 1967. 1967 Aerial Photograph of the San Joaquin River Area. Flight line ABH-3HH-90. On file at the Fresno Irrigation District Office, May 3, 1967. 1967 Aerial Photograph of the San Joaquin River Area. Flight line B1-3HH-88. On file at the Fresno Irrigation District Office, May 3, 1967. 1979 Aerial Photograph of the San Joaquin River Area. Flight line 103D. On file at the Fresno Irrigation District Office.

USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1977 Topographic Map: Lane’s Bridge, California, 7.5-Minute Quadrangle. 1978 Topographic Map: Fresno North, California, 7.5-Minute Quadrangle.

Newspapers

Coyle, Wanda 1963 River Gravel Pit Plan Stirs Row . The Fresno Bee , November 24, 1963. Pp. 1-B, 4- B.

Frances, Ramona 2007 300 Acres Open for Hikes. Madera Tribune, April 6, 2007.

Fresno Bee 1936 Stewart and Nuss, Inc. Advertisement. The Fresno Bee, December 28, 1936, p. 13-C.

Fresno Bee 1963 Bluffs Residents Appeal Gravel Plant Decision. pp. 1-B, 6-B, November 27, 1963.

Fresno Bee. 1991 Water Recycling: A Wringing Success” 1991, May 13. p. D1.

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 31 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Fresno Bee 1963 Group Will Push River Bank Fight. The Fresno Bee, December 4, 1963, pp. 1-D, 3-D.

Fresno Bee 1970 Jesse L. Rice. The Fresno Bee, October 24, 1970, p. 5-B.

Fresno Expositor 1890 Ranches and Vineyards . October 1, 1890.

Keeler, Guy 1993 Historic Homes . The Fresno Bee ,May 1, 1993, p. H1.

Lopez, Pablo 1989 Fewer Trees Along River Excavation . The Fresno Bee , October 11, 1989, p. B1.

Morris-Versaw, Arlene 1989 Foreign Purchases in Fresno Are Part of a Concrete Trend . The Fresno Bee , June 30, 1989, p. A1.

Nax, Sanford 1996 Mining Company Targets Kings River’s Reserves . The Fresno Bee , August 28, 1996, p. E1. 1997 Business in the Black . The Fresno Bee , October 20, 1997, p. C1.

Steinberg, Jim 1997 Looking to Next Source of Building Materials for Growing City . The Fresno Bee , August 25, 1997, p. A1.

Warszawski, Marek 2008 Backyard Getaway - Sycamore Island Ranch Quietly Earning a Reputation . The Fresno Bee , September 25, 2008, p. D8.

Web Sites

California Death Index, 1940-1997 (n.d.) Retrieved from http://vitals.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ca/death/search.cgi on February 12, 2011.

Fresno Bee n.d. San Joaquin River Parkway and Conservation Trust (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.riverparkway.org/ on February 13, 2011.

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 32 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Google Maps (2011). Retrieved from http://maps.google.com on February 13, 2011. “Heidelberger Zement AG” (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Heidelberger-Zement-AG- Company-History.html on February 13, 2001. http://glorecords.blm.gov/patentsearch. Accessed December 29, 2009).

Sycamore Island on the San Joaquin River (n.d.). “Some History.” Retrieved from http://www.sycamoreislandpark.com/id1.html on February 13, 2011.

Trust for Public Land (2006). California Newsletter , Summer/Fall 2006. Retrieved from http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=20821&folder_id=266 on February 13, 2011.

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 33 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Appendix A: Qualifications of Preparers

Jon L. Brady meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for archaeology and architectural history. Mr. Brady holds a B.A. in both Political Science and Anthropology and an M.A. in History (with an emphasis on Historical Archaeology) from California State University, Fresno. Mr. Brady has worked as a consulting archaeologist and historian over the last thirty years working with both Section 106 and CEQA compliance documents. He has also taught at the community college level in California over the last sixteen years as an adjunct instructor. Courses taught include Ancient Civilizations, Modern European History, U.S. History, Political Science, Cultural Anthropology, and Field Methods in Archaeology.

William B. Secrest, Jr. has been a historical researcher, specializing in Fresno County and the San Joaquin Valley, for the past thirty years. He holds a B.A. in Journalism from California State University, Fresno, and an M.S. in library science from Florida State University. In addition, he is a member of the Academy of Certified Archivists. Since 2006, he has been employed as the Local History Librarian for the Fresno County Public Library system. Among his publications are Fresno County: The Pioneer Years (1984) and the revised edition of Wallace Smith's San Joaquin Valley history, Garden of the Sun (2004).

David Lanner meets the Secretary of the Interior Guidelines for Archaeology. Mr. Lanner has completed all but one course work for his BA in Anthropology and a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree from Utah State University. Mr. Lanner has sixteen years of both field experience in archaeology and working with Section 106 and CEQA compliance documents.

R. Kristina Brady has fifteen years of archaeological survey experience in California. She has been part of Phase I archaeological surveys and has assisted in Extended Phase I field investigations. Ms. Brady has met the basic course work in anthropology to qualify her for field survey work and report writing. Her experience includes laboratory work, including both cataloging and drawing of artifacts for a number of archaeological projects, and report writing.

Justin M. Brady has five years of archaeological survey experience in California. He has participated in numerous archaeological surveys in the Greater Central Valley and the Sierra Nevada under the supervision of the principal investigator for the present project.

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 34 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Appendix B: California Historical Resource Information System

DPR Forms 523A & 523B

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 35 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 36 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 37 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 38 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 39 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Appendix C: Correspondence

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 40 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 41 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 42 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 43 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 44 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 45 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 46 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 47 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 48 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 49 Master Plan Project, Madera County

J&R Environmental Services

Historic Property Survey for the River-West-Madera 50 Master Plan Project, Madera County

Appendix C – Biological Resource Assessment

Madera County San Joaquin River Conservancy Page | 188

River West - Madera Master Plan Biological Assessment

Madera County, CA

Prepared for

Madera County, Planning Department Scott Harmstead, Planner III 2037 W. Cleveland Avenue, Mail Stop G Madera, CA 93637

Prepared by

ESR, Inc. P.O. Box 4086 Oakhurst, CA 93644 (559) 683-5335 [email protected]

March 26, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 4 1.1 Project Area Description ...... 4 1.2 Purpose of Assessment ...... 5 1.3 Studies Required ...... 7 1.4 Survey Dates and Personnel ...... 7 1.5 Problems/Limitations to Influence Results ...... 8 2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND ...... 11 2.1 Federal Endangered Species Act ...... 11 2.2 California Endangered Act ...... 11 2.3 California Environmental Quality Act ...... 12 2.4 California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement ...... 12 2.5 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ...... 12 2.6 Birds of Prey ...... 13 2.7 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ...... 13 2.8 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act ...... 14 2.9 Madera County General Plan ...... 15 3.0 REGIONAL SETTING ...... 16 3.1 Geographic Area ...... 16 3.2 Local Setting ...... 16 3.3 Rainfall and Growing Season ...... 17 3.4 Soil ...... 18 3.4.1 Soil Briefs ...... 18 4.0 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES...... 29 4.1 Annual Grassland ...... 33 4.2 Mixed Willow/Fremont Cottonwood Series ...... 34 4.3 Urban ...... 35 4.4 Mixed Chaparral Series ...... 37 4.5 Sycamore Woodland Series ...... 38 4.6 Barren ...... 38 4.7 Eucalyptus Woodland Series ...... 40

i 4.8 Valley Foothill Riparian Habitat ...... 42 4.9 Sensitive Natural Communities ...... 44 4.9.1 Riverine ...... 45 4.9.2 Lacustrine ...... 46 4.9.3 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Habitat ...... 48 4.9.4 Freshwater Emergent Wetland ...... 49 5.0 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES ...... 50 5.1 Special-Status Plant Species ...... 55 5.1.1 California Satintail ...... 55 5.1.2 Blue Elderberry ...... 56 5.2 Special-Status Wildlife Species ...... 56 5.2.1 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle ...... 57 6.0 BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION ...... 58 6.1 Disturbed Grassland ...... 60 6.2 Riparian/Riverine/Wetland Habitats ...... 60 6.3 Drainages ...... 61 6.4 Existing Level of Disturbance ...... 62 6.4.1 Special Status Species Likely to Occur in the Project Area ...... 62 6.4.2 Important Natural Communities ...... 62 6.4.3 Birds of Prey ...... 62 7.0 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT CEQA COMPONENT ...... 63 7.1 Definition of Significant Impact ...... 63 7.2 Department of Water Resources Restoration Plan ...... 64 7.3 Department of Fish and Game Restoration Discussions ...... 66 7.4 Impacts to Waters of the US ...... 66 7.5 Impacts to Special Status Animal Species ...... 67 7.6 Impacts to Special Status Plant Species...... 67 7.7 Disturbance to Nesting Raptors ...... 67 7.8 Interference with Wildlife Movement ...... 67 7.9 Cumulative Effects ...... 68 7.10 Mitigation Measures ...... 69 7.10.1 Impacts to Special Status Animal Species ...... 69 7.10.2 Impacts to Special Status Plant Species ...... 69 7.10.3 Disturbance to Nesting Raptors ...... 70 7.10.4 Interference with Wildlife Movement ...... 71 8.0 LITERATURE CITED ...... 72

ii TABLES

Table 1 - River West Habitat Classification Summary ...... 30 Table 2 - Federal, State, CNPS Sensitive Species Nine Quad List...... 52 Table 3 - River West Plant List...... 75 Table 4 - River West Fauna List...... 84 Table 5 - USFWS Species ...... 89 Table 6 - CNDDB Species ...... 94 Table 7 - CNPS Species ...... 96

FIGURES

Figure 1 - River West Vicinity Map ...... 9 Figure 2 - River West Site Map ...... 10 Figure 3 - River West NRCS Soils Map ...... 28 Figure 4 - River West Habitat Classification - Western Portion ...... 31 Figure 5 - River West Habitat Classification - Eastern Portion ...... 32 Figure 6 - River West Habitat Map 1 250' Scale ...... 109 Figure 7 - River West Habitat Map 2 250' Scale ...... 110 Figure 8 - River West Habitat Map 3 250' Scale ...... 111 Figure 9 - River West Habitat Map 4 250' Scale ...... 112 Figure 10 - River West Habitat Map 5 250' Scale ...... 113 Figure 11 - River West Habitat Map 6 250' Scale ...... 114 Figure 12 - River West Habitat Map 7 250' Scale ...... 115 Figure 13 - River West Habitat Map 8 250' Scale ...... 116 Figure 14 - River West Habitat Map 9 250' Scale ...... 117 Figure 15 - River West Habitat Map 10 250' Scale ...... 118 Figure 16 - River West Habitat Map 11 250' Scale ...... 119 Figure 17 - River West Habitat Map 12 250' Scale ...... 120 Figure 18 - River West Habitat Map 13 250' Scale ...... 121 Figure 19 - River West Habitat Map 14 250' Scale ...... 122 Figure 20 - River West Habitat Map 15 250' Scale ...... 123 Figure 21 - River West Habitat Map 16 250' Scale ...... 124

APPENDIX APPENDIX A - River West Habitat Maps 250' Scale ...... 108

i SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

ESR, Inc. prepared a biological assessment of the River West property (project area) based on a review of existing literature and reconnaissance level field surveys conducted during non-consecutive days between September 21, 2010 and March 10, 2011. However the bulk of the field survey was conducted December 15 -16, 2010, January 12-13, February 16-17, and March 9-10, 2011. The focus of this effort was the identification of biotic resources that are present at the location as part of the development of the Madera County River West - Master Plan. Evaluation of sensitive habitat and resources included state and federally listed threatened and endangered species, state and federally listed species of concern, federal candidate species, California rare species, and California Native Plant Society listed species (hereafter referred to as “special status species”). In addition, biotic habitats protected by state or federal law, or otherwise considered sensitive according to the guidelines of CEQA were assessed and graphically depicted on enclosed figures.

The biological survey was conducted on a currently “naturalized”, “developed1” and reclaimed property consisting of several parcels located downstream (west) of the Highway 41 Bridge across the San Joaquin River, hence the likely moniker “River West”. The site majorly follows the bluff line along the northern boundary and the current river channel contour of the San Joaquin River to the south. The western boundary aligns along neighboring property lines and the interception point back to the river and includes approximately 795 acres. The site has undergone several transformations since the 1950’s, including use for ranching and agricultural purposes (i.e. cattle, sheep, watermelons, fish, and crawfish etc.), and in 1963 the land was developed for sand and gravel mining operations. The site has been highly disturbed by mining during the historical use as a sand and gravel extraction location. Reclamation of the area has been successfully accomplished in a significant portion of the property with the creation of several water features that support a variety of associated habitats. In addition to the created basins, the site also includes an interlinking system of berms, open fields, access roads and paths. However, little natural habitat remains when compared to other “native” portions of the San Joaquin River. There are only small bands of habitat that is relatively “native” on the subject property. The areas that are somewhat undisturbed are along the immediate edges and limited fringe of the San Joaquin River, near the entrance to the northeastern portion of the property, and somewhat at the toe of the bluff

1 For the purpose of this biological document “develop” property refers to the portions of the property that are not currently in a “natural state”, such as unpaved roadways, launching facilities, buildings, electrical poles and towers, etc.

1 along the northern border of the property but even these areas exhibit influences and alterations from the previous development and are not considered in a “native” wetland, riparian, woodland, or mixed chaparral state. The wetland areas are primarily associated with the created water features. The fragmented riparian area adjacent to the river traverses from the eastern portion of the subject property to the west along the southern edge of the project location. The fragmented woodlands are comprised primarily of separate valley oak, cottonwood, sycamore, and eucalyptus dominated assemblages. There is a short zone of intergradations between the various habitats. Due to the influence of storm events and upstream releases, the dynamics and characteristics of the habitat can vary through the year, as experienced during the early part of the year when the storm flows raised the water level in the river five or six feet in places causing certain near stream areas to become temporarily inundated.

The surveyed habitats were classified as Annual Grassland, Valley Foothill Riparian, Riverine, Lake, Freshwater Pond, Mixed Willow, Mixed Chaparral, Freshwater Emergent Wetland, Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland, Sycamore Woodland, Fremont Cottonwood Woodland, Eucalyptus Woodland, Barren and Urban.

Portions of the site are separated by fences; the fencing is not considered a restrictive boundary for wildlife migration along the river or riparian corridor. The sites’ use as wildlife foraging, or refugia habitat is considered moderate. The habitats are conducive to use by wildlife but the biological value is lowered somewhat due to the existing and surrounding development. The observed species appear to be acclimating to human intrusion and activity. The winter and spring river flows can result in a temporary barrier for some terrestrial species.

There are several recognizable jurisdictional waters and wetlands located around the site. Some of these are from natural conditions (e.g. the riverine channel) and some are the result of manipulation by previous reclamation activities (e.g. freshwater ponds). The dominant habitat types of the project area are characterized as Valley Riparian and disturbed Annual Grassland. Native flora was represented in the disturbed grassland and riparian habitat; however, there is a widespread influence from non-native noxious species such as Scarlet wisteria, Tobacco tree, Giant reed, and Yellow-star thistle. The site is currently utilized by various activities such as commercial usage by a lessee for fishing and river access, and recreational use. There are several areas that have been impacted by the parking of vehicles, improved and non-improved access roads and paths to different areas of the parcels and recreational usage along the river. The function and value of the remaining habitat types was also somewhat reduced due to the direct impacts from these activities.

2

Several special status animal species or special status plant species were indicated by the California Natural Diversity Database as potentially occurring on the project site. The site is within the CNDDB radius buffer for the San Joaquin pocket mouse, Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB), Molestan blister beetle, Antioch efferian robberfly and Orcutt grass. Elderberry plants at various stages of life cycle development are located at assorted locations on the project site as either individual plants or in a community setting along the riparian corridor and within the upland communities.

The project area provides foraging and roosting habitat for various species of raptors such as American Kestrels, Red-tailed Hawks, Ospreys, Barn Owls, etc. Even though a nesting pair of Ospreys was observed utilizing the site, the potential as a raptor breeding or nesting site is not considered as high as it could be due to the current state of disturbance and continued use of the site by a variety of activities. Due to the level of disturbance, the success of past reclamation efforts, and the distribution of suitable habitat, the impacts on that habitat value (i.e., importance, desirability, benefit, etc.) for special status species and sensitive biotic habitats is anticipated to range between moderate to high for some of the species.

3 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Area Description

The biological survey was conducted on a currently “naturalized”, “developed” and reclaimed property consisting of several parcels located downstream (west) of the Highway 41 Bridge across the San Joaquin River, hence the likely moniker “River West”. The site majorly follows the bluff line along the northern boundary and the current river channel contour of the San Joaquin River to the south. The western boundary aligns along neighboring property lines and the interception point back to the river and includes approximately 795 acres. The site has undergone several transformations since the 1950’s, including use for ranching and agricultural purposes (i.e. cattle, sheep, watermelons, fish, and crawfish etc.), and in 1963 the land was developed for sand and gravel mining operations. The site has been highly disturbed by mining during the historical use as a sand and gravel extraction location. Reclamation of the area has been successfully accomplished in a significant portion of the property with the creation of several water features that support a variety of associated habitats. In addition to the created basins, the site also includes an interlinking system of berms, open fields, access roads and paths. However, little natural habitat remains when compared to other “native” portions of the San Joaquin River. There only small bands of habitat that is relatively “native” on the subject property. The areas that are somewhat undisturbed are along the immediate edges and limited fringe of the San Joaquin River, near the entrance to the northeastern portion of the property, and somewhat at the toe of the bluff along the northern border of property but even these areas exhibit influences and alterations from the previous development and are not considered in a “native” wetland, riparian, woodland, or mixed chaparral state.

The wetland areas are primarily associated with the created water features. The fragmented riparian area adjacent to the river traverses from the eastern portion of the subject property to the west along the southern edge of the project location. The fragmented woodlands are comprised primarily of separate valley oak, cottonwood, sycamore, and eucalyptus dominated assemblages. There is a short zone of intergradations between the various habitats.

Due to the influence of storm events and upstream releases, the dynamics and characteristics of the habitat can vary through the year, as experienced during the early part of the year (Jan-Feb 2011) when storm flow raised the water level in the river

4 approximately five or six feet in places causing some near stream areas to become temporarily inundated.

The site is currently utilized by various activities such as commercial usage by a lessee for fishing, river access, events, and recreational use. There are several areas that have been impacted by the parking of vehicles, improved and non-improved access roadways and paths to different areas of the parcels and recreational usage along the river.

This survey report is intended to be reviewed and used by Madera County as part of their lead agency role in completing the Madera County River West Master Plan. Refer to Figure 1 and Figure 2 for a graphic depiction of the Project Vicinity and the Project Site, respectively.

1.2 Purpose of Assessment

Madera County is in the process of developing a master plan for the River West location. A biological assessment is required in order to assess what the current biological condition is at the site, identify if sensitive biological resources will be adversely affected by the modifications to the project area, and to propose appropriate mitigation measures where impacts will be significant or otherwise regulated by state and federal resource agencies. Sensitive biotic resources generally include the following:

• Special Status Species “Special Status Species” is a general term that refers to all taxa tracked by the California Department of Fish and Game’s (DFG) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), regardless of their legal or protection status. These taxa generally fall into one or more of the following categories: o Officially listed or proposed for listing under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts. o State or Federal candidate for possible listing. o Taxa that meet the criteria for listing, even if not currently included on any list, as described in Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines. o Taxa considered by the Department to be a “Species of Special Concern”. o Taxa that are biologically rare; very restricted in distribution; declining throughout their range; or have a critical, vulnerable stage in their life cycle that warrants monitoring.

5 o Populations in California that may be on the periphery of a taxon range but are threatened with extirpation in California. o Taxa closely associated with a habitat that is declining in California at an alarming rate e.g., wetlands, riparian, old growth forests, desert aquatic systems, native grasslands, vernal pools, etc.). o Taxa designated as a special status, sensitive, or declining species by other state or federal agencies, or a non-governmental organization

For most animal taxa, the CNDDB is interested in sightings that indicate the presence of a resident population; for many birds, however, the CNDDB tracks only nesting locations. It is not necessary to actually locate a nest to confirm breeding status. Any indication of breeding (territorial males, adults carrying nest material or food, the presence of newly fledged young, etc.) is acceptable evidence of nesting. For other taxa where only a certain part of a distribution range or life history is tracked, the area or life stage is indicated.

• Sensitive Habitats. Sensitive habitats may include the following:

o native habitats of limited distribution (i.e. wetlands of various types, riparian habitat, native grasslands, etc.); o native habitats used by state or federally listed threatened or endangered species; o habitats supporting particularly high concentrations of native plants and animals; o habitat that is within the jurisdiction of one or more state and federal resource agencies (i.e. wetland, endangered species habitat, etc.).

• Migratory Corridors of Native Fish and Wildlife. Such corridors could include riparian habitats, ridge tops, spur ridges, etc. Some amphibians may make regular localized movements between breeding habitat and aestivation habitat through grasslands that are indistinguishable from adjacent grasslands that are not so used. Although this report focuses on the sensitive biotic resources of the project area, the broader environmental setting has been described. Thus, the various biotic habitats observed in the project area have been described and their component plants and animals listed in Tables 1.0 and 2.0. This has been done in order to provide context for the discussion more specifically related to special status species and other sensitive habitats.

6 1.3 Studies Required

Studies in support of this biological assessment have included the following:

• Literature Review and Database Search. A database and literature review was conducted to include some, or all, of the following: USFWS Federal Endangered and Threatened Species list (March 2011), CNDDB (CDFG, March 2011), California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS, March 2011), other technical studies recently completed for other projects in the area, current listings for special status species (CDFG, 2011), U.S.G.S. topographic maps, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil maps, National Wetland Inventory Maps, etc.

• Floristic Survey. ESR, Inc. conducted walking surveys of the project area, during which the biotic habitats were noted, and vascular plants recorded. Particular attention was given to habitats of the project site, which would be suitable, or potentially suitable, for special status plant species (state or federally listed species, candidate species, and species with CNPS listing status).

• Wildlife Survey. ESR, Inc. conducted walking surveys of the project area, during which terrestrial vertebrates and their sign were recorded. Particular attention was given to the habitats of the project site, which would be suitable, or potentially suitable, for special status animal species (state and federally listed species, species proposed for such listing, or candidate species).

1.4 Survey Dates and Personnel Messrs. William Stolp and Scott Larson, senior biologists with ESR, Inc., in Oakhurst, California conducted reconnaissance level field surveys based on the results of the literature review during non-consecutive days between September 21, 2010 and March 10, 2011. However the bulk of the field survey was conducted December 15 -16, 2010, January 12-13, February 16-17, and March 9-10, 2011.

7 1.5 Problems/Limitations to Influence Results

No problems were encountered during the field survey (i.e. bad weather, access restrictions, etc.) that would bias the conclusions of this report. Although the timing of the study did permit specific surveys for special status plants, appropriate habitat for any of the species was not observed within the project area. The fringe areas around the riverine corridor and some of the water features were comprised of dense stands of willows and scrub in some areas which prohibited access. Also there were a few areas with thick growths of blackberry and/or poison oak which were avoided. These areas were not traversed through; however, the habitat in the immediate area could be observed and assessed without encountering the patches of poison oak.

8 O

Property Legend River West Project Boundary (~795 ac.) 1 inch equals 5 miles

Figure 1 - River West Vicinity Map

9 O

Property Legend River West Project Boundary (~795 ac.) 1 inch = 2,000 feet

Figure 2 - River West Site Map

10 2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND

2.1 Federal Endangered Species Act

The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits the “take” of federally-listed endangered or threatened wildlife species. “Take” is defined to include harassing, harming (including significantly modifying or degrading habitat), pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting wildlife species or any attempt to engage in such conduct (16 USC 1532, 50 CFR 17.3). Actions that result in take can result in civil or criminal penalties. The federal ESA and Section 404 guidelines prohibit the issuance of wetland permits for projects that would jeopardize the existence of threatened or endangered species. The US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE or Corps) must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and possibly the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) when threatened or endangered species may be affected by the proposed project to determine whether issuance of a Section 404 permit would jeopardize the continued existence species. In the context of the project site, the federal ESA would be triggered if the River West Master Plan resulted in take of a threatened or endangered species or if issuance of a Section 404 permit or other federal agency action could adversely affect or jeopardize a threatened or endangered species.

2.2 California Endangered Act

The state ESA is similar to the federal ESA but pertains to state-listed endangered and threatened species. It required state agencies to consult with the California Department of Fish and Game when preparing California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents to ensure that the state lead agency actions do not jeopardize the existence of listed species. It directs agencies to consult with DFG on projects or actions that could affect listed species, directs DFG to determine whether jeopardy would occur, and allows DFG to identify “reasonable and prudent alternatives” to the project consistent with conserving the species. Agencies can approve a project that affects a listed species if they determine that there are “overriding considerations”; however, the agencies are prohibited from approving projects that would result in the extinction of a listed species. The state ESA prohibits the taking of state-listed endangered or threatened plant and wildlife species. DFG exercises authority over mitigation projects involving state-listed species, including those resulting from CEQA mitigation requirements. DFG may authorize “take” if an approved habitat management plan or management agreement

11 that avoids or compensates for possible jeopardy is implemented. DFG required preparation of mitigation plans in accordance with published guidelines.

2.3 California Environmental Quality Act

CEQA applies to public agencies in California with discretionary authority over project approvals and permits. CEQA requires that impacts of proposed projects be assessed before the project is approved. Projects with significant impacts on the environment cannot be approved without adequate mitigation or compensation, unless a finding of overriding consideration is made. Discretionary approval from public agencies may require avoidance measures or compensatory mitigation. CEQA also provides that less than significant impacts of an individual project can be treated as significant if they contribute to significant cumulative impacts on the environment.

2.4 California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement

Under Sections 1600 - 1616 of the California Fish and Game Code, DFG is responsible for protecting and conserving the state’s fish and wildlife resources. Section 1600 and 1603 of the code describes DFG’s responsibilities and Sections 1602 and 1603 identify the procedures and requirements that must be followed to obtain an agreement to “substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake.” These agreements may include specific requirements related to construction techniques and remedial and compensatory measures to mitigate adverse impacts. DFG also may require long-term monitoring as part of an agreement to assess the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation.

2.5 Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), first enacted in 1918, implements domestically a series of treaties (on behalf of Canada) between the United States and Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and the former USSR. The MBTA provides for international migratory

12 bird protection, and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate the “taking” of migratory birds. Specifically, the MBTA states that it shall be unlawful, except as permitted by regulations, to “at any time, by any means, or in any manner, to pursue, take, kill, posses, sale, purchase, ship, transport, carry, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird” (16 USC 703). The current list of species protected by the MBTA can be located in Title 50, CFR Section 10.13. The Fresno North and Lanes Bridge Lake U.S.G.S. 7-minute quadrangles were used in the search for special status species directly located on the project site. A nine quad search centered on the Fresno North quad and including the Lanes Bridge, Gregg, Friant, Herndon, Clovis, Kearney Park, Fresno South, and Malaga quads was conducted to evaluate sensitive species potentially occurring within the project vicinity.

2.6 Birds of Prey

Birds of prey are also protected in California under provisions of the State Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5, 1992) which states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (bird of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by the DFG.

2.7 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

The US Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into “Waters of the United States” under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). ACOE jurisdiction over non-tidal “Waters of the United States” extends to the “ordinary high water mark,” provided the jurisdiction is not extended by the presence of “wetlands” (33 CFR Part 328, Section 328.4). The discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of the United States at the project site requires an individual Section 404 permit.

As discussed above, ACOE regulatory jurisdiction under Section 404 is founded on a connection between the water body in question and interstate commerce. This

13 connection may be direct; through a tributary system linking a stream channel with traditional navigable waters used in interstate or foreign commerce, or may be indirect, through a nexus identified in the ACOE regulations. On January 9, 2001, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County [SWANCC] v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concerning Clean Water Act jurisdiction over isolated waters. This decision substantially affected the extent of Corps regulatory authority over “non-navigable, isolated, intrastate waters,” and particularly, the use of indirect indicators of interstate commerce (e.g., use by migratory birds that cross state lines) as a basis for jurisdiction.

The preamble to Corps regulations in the Preamble Section 328.3 – Definitions, states that the Corps does not generally consider the following waters to be waters of the U.S. The Corps does, however, reserve the right to regulate these waters on a case by case basis.

• Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land, • Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased, • Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing, • Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons, • Water filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for purposes of obtaining fill, sand or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the U.S.

2.8 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act

In association with obtaining a Section 404 permit, a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the project proponent for any project that affects Waters of the United States must request a 401 Water Quality Certification, which must be issued before the start of project construction. To obtain approval of the application for Water Quality Certification, projects must follow the Corps’ 404(b)(1) Guidelines which specify avoidance of wetland impacts and minimization and mitigation of impacts to any affected wetlands. If the River West Master plan includes impacting any of the wetland features

14 a 404 permit would be anticipated to be required for the project. The associated 401 certification will also then be required.

2.9 Madera County General Plan

The Madera County General Plan (General Plan) (Madera County Planning Department 1995) identifies specific policies regarding biological resources. While this assessment analyzes the project’s consistency with the Madera County General Plan pursuant to CEQA Section 15125(d), the Madera County Board of Supervisors would ultimately make the determination of the project’s consistency with this General Plan. The Madera County General Plan has adopted an Open Space Element that recognizes the value of maintaining biological resources. In general, the Madera County Open Space Element regarding biological resources is consistent with, and is superseded by federal and state ESA’s, CEQA, and Section 1603 of the Fish and Game Code (described above). The project site is located within a designated Natural Resource Area, and does encompass Key (Rare) Vegetative Habitat, Key Wildlife Habitat or Significant Wildlife Habitat, including riverine, palustrine, lacustrine habitats that contain specific, definable areas of valley riparian, sycamore woodland, valley oak woodlands, and a variety of jurisdictional waters of the US, which are primarily in the form of open waters, freshwater emergent wetland, and freshwater forested/shrub wetlands. No vernal pools, vernal complexes, or vernal habitat or claypan/hardpan were located onsite. Additionally, the project site is used by a local deer population for foraging and likely as habitat for breeding purposes. The site also likely serves as a migratory route for deer to reach other foraging, wintering, and fawning areas.

15 3.0 REGIONAL SETTING

Madera County (County) is located in Central California along the western slope of the Sierra Nevada mountain range.

Madera County is located in the center of California, in the heart of the Central Valley and the Central Sierras. It is one of the fastest growing counties in California. Fresno County borders Madera County on the south, Mariposa and Merced counties borders Madera County on the north, and Mono County borders Madera County to the east.

The county seat is located approximately 20 miles from the Fresno Metropolitan Area, 166 miles from the Bay Area, 240 miles from Los Angeles, 88 miles from Yosemite, 160 miles from Pacific beaches. Refer to Figure 1 for graphic depiction of the Project Vicinity.

3.1 Geographic Area

Madera County consists of 1,374,160 acres or approximately 2,147 square miles and is located at the exact (surveyed) geographical center of the State of California. The county stretches from the rich San Joaquin Valley to the crest of the Sierra Nevada, the highest mountains in the contiguous United States. Bordered on the north by the Chowchilla River and on the south by the San Joaquin River, the County includes some of the richest agricultural land in the nation.

The County is characterized by agricultural, grasslands, and rolling foothills to the east of where the project is located. The foothills rise from approximately 300 feet in elevation to mountain peaks at 8,795 feet in elevation at the northeast. The project is located within the San Joaquin Valley sub-region of the Great Valley (or Central Valley) of the California Floristic Province. This floristic sub-region is characterized by mixed native and non-native grasslands, rivers, marshes, and other wetland features, riparian woodlands, and areas of Valley and Blue oak savannah.

3.2 Local Setting

The property consisting of several parcels located downstream (west) of the Highway 41 Bridge across the San Joaquin River, hence the likely moniker “River West”. The site majorly follows the bluff line along the northern boundary and the current river channel

16 contour of the San Joaquin River to the south. The western boundary aligns along neighboring property lines and the interception point back to the river and includes approximately 795 acres. The site has undergone several transformations since the 1950’s, including use for ranching and agricultural purposes (i.e. cattle, sheep, watermelons, fish, and crawfish etc.), and in 1963 the land was developed for sand and gravel mining operations. The site has been highly disturbed by mining during the historical use as a sand and gravel extraction location. Reclamation of the area has been successfully accomplished in a significant portion of the property with the creation of several water features that support a variety of associated habitats. In addition to the created basins, the site also includes an interlinking system of berms, open fields, access roads and paths. However, little natural habitat remains when compared to other “native” portions of the San Joaquin River. There are only small bands of habitat that is relatively “native” on the subject property. The areas that are somewhat undisturbed are along the immediate edges and limited fringe of the San Joaquin River, near the entrance to the northeastern portion of the property, and somewhat at the toe of the bluff along the northern border of property but even these areas exhibit influences and alterations from the previous development and are not considered in a “native” wetland, riparian, woodland, or mixed chaparral state.

The project site is located within the San Joaquin Valley sub-region of the California Floristic Province (Hickman 1993). This floristic sub-region corresponds to the grassland and foothill area of the County mentioned above, and is characterized by disturbed annual grassland, valley riparian habitat, oak, sycamore, and cottonwood woodlands with mixed willow and chaparral scrub interspersed within the reclamation water features that exhibit associated wetlands.

3.3 Rainfall and Growing Season

Rainfall totals from the Madera data station provided by the California Department of Water Resources (2010) was used to approximate rainfall conditions at the project site. According to the data, yearly rainfall averages 11.94 inches, with the majority of precipitation occurring between January and March. Seasonal runoff from precipitation episodes is the primary hydrological source for the watercourses on and near the project site. It should be noted that the 2011 wet season was very intense with heavy rains over extended periods resulting in exceeding the annual averages.

The Natural Resource Conservation Service’s National Water and Climate Center website (NRCS 2010) was referenced in order to approximate the length of the growing

17 season for the study area. Using frost-free days as an index, the annual growing season is estimated at 280 days. Thus, the surface soils would need to be saturated for at least 14 consecutive days per year to satisfy the ACOE’s minimum criteria for wetland hydrology (i.e., continuous surface saturation for five percent of the annual growing season).

3.4 Soil

Thirteen soil types of varying composition and slope are located within the perimeter of the project site according to the Soil Surveys of Madera (Survey Unit CA654) and Fresno County (Survey Unit CA653) (USDA-NRCS 2011). Approximate boundaries of these soil types are shown in Figure 3 - River West NRCS Soils Map. Appendix C provides a detailed description of the soil survey, the hydric soils associated with the survey area, and the Soil Unit descriptions. A summary of the soil types is provided in the following section.

3.4.1 Soil Briefs

The following data provides a brief description of the soil units located at the River West project site. The data has been compiled from the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service as part of the National Cooperation Soil Survey.

Madera Area (Survey Unit CA654)

CaA - Cajon loamy sand, 0 to 1 percent slopes

Map Unit Setting Elevation: 170 to 250 feet; Mean annual precipitation: 10 inches; Mean annual air temperature: 63 degrees F; Frost-free period: 270 to 310 days

Map Unit Composition Cajon and similar soils: 85 percent; Minor components: 15 percent

Description of Cajon Setting Landform: Alluvial fans; Down-slope shape: Convex; Across-slope shape: Concave; Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite

18

Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent; Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches; Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained; Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr); Depth to water table: More than 80 inches; Frequency of flooding: Rare; Frequency of ponding: None; Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent; Maximum salinity: Very slightly saline to slightly saline (4.0 to 8.0; mmhos/cm); Available water capacity: Low (about 5.0 inches)

Typical profile 0 to 12 inches: Loamy sand; 12 to 60 inches: Loamy fine sand

GbA - Grangeville fine sandy loam, slightly saline-alkali, 0 to 1 percent slopes

Map Unit Setting Elevation: 10 to 1,800 feet; Mean annual precipitation: 8 to 16 inches; Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 64 degrees F; Frost-free period: 200 to 300 days

Map Unit Composition Grangeville and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent

Description of Grangeville Setting Landform: Alluvial fans; Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope; Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf; Down-slope shape: Linear; Across-slope shape: Linear; Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite;

Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent; Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches; Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained; Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr); Depth to water table: More than 80 inches; Frequency of flooding: Rare; Frequency of ponding: None; Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 1 percent; Maximum salinity: Very slightly saline to slightly saline (4.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm); Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 5.0; Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.3 inches)

19 Typical profile 0 to 11 inches: Fine sandy loam; 11 to 20 inches: Sandy loam; 20 to 60 inches: Stratified loamy sand to silt loam

HaA - Hanford fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes

Map Unit Setting Elevation: 150 to 900 feet; Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 20 inches; Mean annual air temperature: 63 degrees F; Frost-free period: 250 to 280 days

Map Unit Composition Hanford and similar soils: 85 percent; Minor components: 15 percent

Description of Hanford Setting Landform: Alluvial fans; Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope; Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf; Down-slope shape: Linear; Across-slope shape: Linear; Parent material: Alluvium derived from igneous rock

Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent; Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches; Drainage class: Well drained; Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr); Depth to water table: More than 80 inches; Frequency of flooding: Rare; Frequency of ponding: None; Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.1 inches)

Typical profile 0 to 12 inches: Fine sandy loam; 12 to 36 inches: Fine sandy loam; 36 to 60 inches: Stratified gravelly loamy sand to gravelly sandy loam

HdA—Hanford (ripperdan) fine sandy loam, moderately deep and deep over silt, 0 to 3 percent slopes

Map Unit Setting Elevation: 900 feet;Mean annual precipitation: 12 inches; Mean annual air temperature: 63 degrees F; Frost-free period: 250 to 280 days

Map Unit Composition Hanford (ripperdan) and similar soils: 85 percent; Minor components: 15 percent

20 Description of Hanford (ripperdan)

Setting Landform: Alluvial fans; Down-slope shape: Linear; Across-slope shape: Linear; Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite

Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent; Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches; Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr); Depth to water table: More than 80 inches; Frequency of flooding: Rare; Frequency of ponding: None; Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (2.0 to 4.0 mmhos/; cm); Available water capacity: Low (about 5.1 inches)

Typical profile 0 to 10 inches: Fine sandy loam; 10 to 26 inches: Fine sandy loam; 26 to 60 inches: Silt loam

Rh - Riverwash

Map Unit Composition Riverwash: 100 percent

Description of Riverwash Setting Landform: Flood plains; Parent material: Sandy and gravelly alluvium

Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent; Drainage class: Excessively drained; Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr); Depth to water table: About 0 inches; Frequency of flooding: Frequent; Available water capacity: Very low (about 3.0 inches)

Typical profile 0 to 6 inches: Sand; 6 to 60 inches: Stratified coarse sand to sandy loam

SaA - San Joaquin sandy loams, 0 to 3 percent slopes

21 Map Unit Setting Elevation: 50 to 500 feet; Mean annual precipitation: 12 inches; Mean annual air temperature: 63 degrees F; Frost-free period: 250 to 275 days

Map Unit Composition San Joaquin and similar soils: 85 percent; Minor components: 15 percent

Description of San Joaquin Setting Landform: Fan remnants; Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope; Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread; Down-slope shape: Linear; Across-slope shape: Linear; Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite

Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent; Depth to restrictive feature: 19 to 23 inches to duripan; Drainage class: Moderately well drained; Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low (0.00 to 0.00 in/hr); Depth to water table: More than 80 inches; Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None; Available water capacity: Very low (about 1.7 inches)

Typical profile 0 to 11 inches: Sandy loam; 11 to 19 inches: Clay; 19 to 23 inches: Indurated; 23 to 60 inches: Stratified sandy loam to loam

Tf - Terrace escarpments

Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation: 14 inches; Mean annual air temperature: 61 degrees F; Frost-free period: 200 to 300 days

TwA - Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes

Map Unit Setting Elevation: 10 to 1,500 feet; Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 25 inches; Mean annual air temperature: 59 to 64 degrees F; Frost-free period: 250 to 350 days

Map Unit Composition Tujunga and similar soils: 85 percent; Minor components: 15 percent

22 Description of Tujunga Setting Landform: Alluvial fans; Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope; Landform position (three-dimensional): Rise; Down-slope shape: Linear; Across-slope shape: Linear; Parent material: Sandy alluvium derived from granite

Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent; Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches; Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained; Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High tovery high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr); Depth to water table: More than 80 inches; Frequency of flooding: Occasional; Frequency of ponding: None; Available water capacity: Low (about 3.9 inches)

Typical profile 0 to 11 inches: Loamy sand; 11 to 24 inches: Stratified sand to loamy sand; 24 to 60 inches: Stratified gravelly sand to gravelly loamy sand

TzB - Tujunga and Hanford soils, channeled, 0 to 8 percent slopes

Map Unit Setting Elevation: 10 to 1,500 feet; Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 25 inches; Mean annual air temperature: 57 to 64 degrees F; Frost-free period: 230 to 350 days

Map Unit Composition Hanford and similar soils: 40 percent; Tujunga and similar soils: 40 percent; Minor components: 20 percent

Description of Tujunga Setting Landform: Alluvial fans; Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope; Landform position (three-dimensional): Rise; Down-slope shape: Linear; Across-slope shape: Linear; Parent material: Sandy alluvium derived from granite

Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 8 percent; Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches; Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained; Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr); Depth to water table: More than 80 inches; Frequency of flooding: Rare; Frequency of ponding: None; Available water capacity: Low (about 3.9 inches)

23

Typical profile 0 to 11 inches: Loamy sand; 11 to 24 inches: Stratified sand to loamy sand; 24 to 60 inches: Stratified gravelly sand to gravelly loamy sand

Description of Hanford Setting Landform: Alluvial fans; Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope; Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf; Down-slope shape: Linear; Across-slope shape: Linear; Parent material: Alluvium derived from igneous rock

Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 5 percent; Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches; Drainage class: Well drained; Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr); Depth to water table: More than 80 inches; Frequency of flooding: Rare; Frequency of ponding: None; Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.3 inches)

Typical profile 0 to 7 inches: Sandy loam; 7 to 27 inches: Fine sandy loam; 27 to 60 inches: Stratified loamy sand to sandy loam

VaA - Visalia fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes

Map Unit Setting Elevation: 600 to 1,200 feet; Mean annual precipitation: 15 inches; Mean annual air temperature: 57 degrees F; Frost-free period: 225 to 350 days

Map Unit Composition Visalia and similar soils: 85 percent; Minor components: 15 percent

Description of Visalia Setting Landform: Alluvial fans; Down-slope shape: Linear; Across-slope shape: Linear; Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite

Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent; Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches; Drainage class: Well drained; Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to

24 5.95 in/hr); Depth to water table: More than 80 inches; Frequency of flooding: Rare; Frequency of ponding: None; Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.9 inches)

Typical profile 0 to 12 inches: Fine sandy loam; 12 to 35 inches: Sandy loam; 35 to 60 inches: Stratified sandy loam to fine sandy loam

W—Water

Map Unit Composition Water: 100 percent

Fresno Area (Survey Unit CA653)

Gp—Grangeville soils, channeled

Map Unit Setting Elevation: 160 to 500 feet; Mean annual precipitation: 8 to 12 inches; Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 63 degrees F; Frost-free period: 200 to 250 days

Map Unit Composition Grangeville and similar soils: 85 percent; Minor components: 15 percent

Description of Grangeville Setting Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains; Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, toeslope; Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope; Down-slope shape: Linear; Across-slope shape: Linear; Parent material: Recent granitic alluvium

Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent; Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches; Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained; Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr); Depth to water table: About 48 to 72 inches; Frequency of flooding: Occasional; Frequency of ponding: None; Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm); Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.2 inches)

Typical profile 0 to 8 inches: Sandy loam; 8 to 60 inches: Fine sandy loam

25 Rh—Riverwash

Map Unit Setting Elevation: 170 to 3,100 feet; Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 34 inches; Mean annual air temperature: 57 to 64 degrees F; Frost-free period: 180 to 275 days

Map Unit Composition Riverwash: 85 percent; Minor components: 15 percent

Description of Riverwash Setting Landform: Flood plains, flood plains; Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope; Landform position (three-dimensional): Rise; Down-slope shape: Linear; Across-slope shape: Linear; Parent material: Alluvium Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent; Surface area covered with cobbles, stones or boulders: 3.0 percent; Drainage class: Excessively drained; Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr); Depth to water table: About 0 to 24 inches; Frequency of flooding: Frequent; Available water capacity: Very low (about 2.9 inches)

Typical profile 0 to 6 inches: Coarse sand; 6 to 60 inches: Stratified coarse sand to sandy loam

TzeB—Tujunga soils, channeled, 0 to 9 percent slopes

Map Unit Setting Elevation: 180 to 400 feet; Mean annual precipitation: 8 to 12 inches; Mean annual air temperature: 62 to 64 degrees F; Frost-free period: 225 to 275 days

Map Unit Composition Tujunga and similar soils: 85 percent; Minor components: 15 percent

Description of Tujunga Setting Landform: Flood plains, alluvial fans; Down-slope shape: Linear; Across-slope shape: Linear; Parent material: Granitic alluvium

26 Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 9 percent; Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches; Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained; Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr); Depth to water table: More than 80 inches; Frequency of flooding: Occasional; Frequency of ponding: None; Available water capacity: Low (about 3.6 inches)

Typical profile 0 to 4 inches: Gravelly sand; 4 to 60 inches: Stratified extremely gravelly sand to loamy sand

W—Water

Map Unit Composition Water: 100 percent

27 O

TzB Rh TzB HaA TwA Rh

TwA W HaA TzB GbA

TzB Rh

W SaA

Rh Rh TzeB NRCS Soils Legend Tf Project Boundary W Madera Soil (CA654) HdA TzeB HdA Tf Soil Symbol - Description (% in Project) GbA TzB CaA - Cajon Loamy Sand (18.4%) W Rh CaA GbA - Grangeville Fine Sandy Loam (4.5%) TzeB W VaA HaA - Hanford Fine Sandy Loam (10.9%) W Rh HdA - Handford (Ripperdan) Fine Sandy Loam (1.2%) TwA W CaA W Rh - Riverwash (4.2%) W W Rh SaA - San Joaquin Sandy Loam (0.1%) W W TzB Gp Tf - Terrace Escarpment (2.8%) W Gp W TwA - Tujunga Loamy Sand (1.8%) W CaA TzB - Tujunga and Hanford (18.5%) W Rh VaA - Visalia Fine Sandy Loam (3.0%) W - Water (26%) Fresno Soil (CA653) Soil Symbol - Description (% in Project) Gp - Grangeville (0.1%) Rh - Riverwash (1.1%) Source: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service TzeB - Tujunga (1.8%) Web Soil Survey, National Cooperation Soil Survey 1 inch = 2,000 feet 03/18/11 W - Water (5.5%)

Figure 3 - River West NRCS Soils Map

28 4.0 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES

A community is an assemblage of populations of plants, animals, bacteria, and fungi that live in an environment and interact with one another, forming a distinctive living system with its own composition, structure, environmental relationships, development, and functions (Whittaker 1975). The communities are illustrated at a 1 inch equals 1,000 feet scale in Figure 4 - River West Habitat Classification - Western Portion and Figure 5 - River West Habitat Classification - Eastern Portion with more detailed depictions at 1 inch equals 250 feet provided in Figure 6 through Figure 21 at the end of the report.

The surveyed habitats were classified as Annual Grassland, Valley Foothill Riparian, Riverine, Lake, Freshwater Pond, Mixed Willow, Mixed Chaparral, Freshwater Emergent Wetland, Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland, Sycamore Woodland, Fremont Cottonwood Woodland, Eucalyptus Woodland, Barren and Urban.

These classification were derived from combining the habitat categories described in Wildlife Habitat Relations program, the National Wetland Inventory, and the Manual of California Vegetation since the use of a single descriptor method did not, in our opinion, adequately portray the site biological condition.

29 The following Table provides the habitat acreages and percent of coverage.

Table 1 - River West Habitat Classification Summary

Classification Acronym Acres % Coverage Annual Grassland AGS 244.59 30.6% Lake LAC 105.48 14.1% Mixed Willow Series MWS 74.40 9.3% Fresh Water Pond FWP 105.48 13.2% Riverine RIV 46.55 5.8% Fremont Cottonwood Series FCS 43.35 5.4% Freshwater Emergent Wetland FEW 40.92 5.1% Freshwater Forested/Shrub FFSW 36.70 4.6% Wetland Urban URB 29.34 3.7% Valley Foothill Riparian VRI 28.17 3.5% Mixed Chaparral MCH 13.75 1.7% Sycamore Woodland SYC 12.49 1.6% Barren BAR 7.61 1.0% Eucalyptus Woodland EUC 2.88 0.4%

It should be noted that due to the varying degree of habitat intergradations of one habitat into the other that the total acreage for the habitat can exceed the project boundary total acres. This is a common artifact of the blending of the habitats as they transition from one type to the other coupled with the inherent inaccuracies when rounding the decimal place up or down. The minor discrepancies do not affect the generalized percentage totals which present a sufficient level of accuracy for the purposes of this document. The values; however, should not be substituted for engineered calculations for designs or other applications.

30 O

Property Legend River West Project Boundary (~795 ac.) River West Habitat Types Habitat Class (~acres and %) Annual Grassland (~244.59 ac. 30.6%) Barren (~7.61 ac. 1.0%) Eucalyptus (~2.88 ac. 0.4%) Fremont Cottonwood (~43.35 ac. 5.4%) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (~40.92 ac. 5.1%) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (~36.70 ac. 4.6%) Freshwater Pond (~105.48 ac. 13.22%) Lake (~112.51 ac. 14.1%) Mixed Chaparral (~13.75 ac. 1.7%) Mixed Willow (~74.40 ac. 9.3%) Riverine )~46.55 ac 5.8%) Sycamore (~12.49 ac. 1.6%) Urban (~29.34 ac. 3.7%) Valley Foothill Riparian (~28.17 ac. 3.5%) 1 inch = 1,000 feet

Figure 4 - River West Habitat Classification - Western Portion 31 O

Property Legend River West Project Boundary (~795 ac.) River West Habitat Types Habitat Class (~acres and %) Annual Grassland (~244.59 ac. 30.6%) Barren (~7.61 ac. 1.0%) Eucalyptus (~2.88 ac. 0.4%) Fremont Cottonwood (~43.35 ac. 5.4%) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (~40.92 ac. 5.1%) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (~36.70 ac. 4.6%) Freshwater Pond (~105.48 ac. 13.2%) Lake (~105.48 ac. 14.1%) Mixed Chaparral (~13.75 ac. 1.7%) Mixed Willow (~74.40 ac. 9.3%) Riverine )~46.55 ac 5.8%) Sycamore (~12.49 ac. 1.6%) Urban (~29.34 ac. 3.7%) Valley Foothill Riparian (~28.17 ac. 3.5%) 1 inch = 1,000 feet

Figure 5 - River West Habitat Classification - Eastern Portion

32 4.1 Annual Grassland

Annual grassland (~244.59 acres or 30.6%) is the most abundant community type at the project site. It should be noted that the grassland acreage overlaps into some of the riparian, wetland and individual or grouped woodland features since the grasses tend to grow up to the base of the trees and intergrades with the other habitat types in most areas. The riparian, wetland, woodland and other feature locations used in this report are based on aerial photography approximation of areal area coupled with the use of handheld GPS system for field verification and therefore could possibly duplicate some of the grassland areas calculations. It should be further noted that while the reclamation efforts conducted to date have been fairly successful, the annual grasslands at the site are still considered disturbed due to previous mining activities that unconsolidated and segregated the soils by mechanical means prior to placement and contouring by tracked vehicles. The species palette in the grassland includes numerous ruderal and invasive noxious plants that degrade the quality of the grasslands. Additionally, the continued use for recreational activities, community events, and parking facilities has downgraded the quality of the grassland community. The resulting grasslands are located on the flatten areas across the majority of the north and eastern portions of the project site, and as an understory in riparian and the woodland locations scattered around the project site.

Non-native annual grasses dominate the annual grassland of the project site. Characteristic dominant non-native grasses observed include soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), wild oat (Avena fatua), and ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus). Tarweed (Holocarpha heermanii) and vinegar weed (Trichostema lanceolatum) are common forbs in the annual grasslands of the project site.

Annual grasslands provide breeding and foraging habitat for a variety of bird species. The proximity of the isolated and clustered oak, sycamore, cottonwood and eucalyptus trees scattered around the annual grasslands in addition to the fragmented and un- fragmented riparian area along the San Joaquin River on the site enhances the value of the annual grasslands by providing foraging habitat for those species that nest in wooded communities; however, the level of disturbance to the site would likely reduce the use of the site by those species when compared to “natural” sites that are less impacted by the level of human contact realized at the location.

Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) are two of the raptors among the wildlife species observed utilizing the annual grassland during the field surveys. The Red-tails appear to be using the site for foraging while the Ospreys

33 have built a large stick nest in the eastern portion of the property on power pole located within a grassland island surrounded by the unpaved roadway. Typically, annual grasslands provide habitat for many mammal species, particularly small rodents and their larger predators.

The following mammals or their signs (i.e., scat, tracks, hair, fur, etc.) were observed in the annual grasslands along the mixed riparian and oak tree habitat along the river: black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), black-tailed hare (Lepus californicus), and coyote (Canis latrans). The site was observed to have obvious communities of gopher or ground squirrel holes or mounds in some of the northern grasslands and along the upland bluff.

Annual grasslands also provide habitat for several reptiles, including gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis), Northern alligator lizard (Elargaria coerulea), and western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis).

4.2 Mixed Willow/Fremont Cottonwood Series

The project site supports two types of riparian communities which freely intermingle. They are Fremont Cottonwood Series [FCS] (~43.35 acres or 5.4%)” and Mixed Willow Series [MWS] (~74.40 acres or 9.3%), as identified by Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995). The occurrence of these riparian types depends largely upon the permanence of the water source and the level of stream disturbance that has occurred. Holland (1986) refers to these community types as the “Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest” and the “Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest,” respectively. Riparian communities occur along river, stream, and creek courses where the presence of water keeps soils moist and therefore supports a vegetation makeup different from the surrounding drier upland areas. Riparian trees and shrubs are tolerant of long periods of surface waters and/or saturated soil conditions along a stream corridor, and also have the ability to tap into deeper zones of soil moisture during the dry season via extended root systems. Riparian systems occur where steep slopes channel water from spring rains into shallow channels or folds in the topography. Although often dry except for late winter and early spring, the drainages are often more densely vegetated than the surrounding slopes as plants take advantage of seasonal pulses of moisture. Both the Fremont cottonwood series and mixed willow series tend to occur on relatively fine-textured alluvium deposited by seasonal flooding.

34 The general appearance of riparian vegetation in the project site depends on the type of stand and whether it occurs along a perennial or an intermittent seasonal drainage. The canopy of Fremont cottonwood dominated riparian stands in the area is typically less than 25 meters in height and may be continuous or open (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). Mixed willow riparian stands typically have a canopy that is less than 10 meters in height and the understory is typically sparse (Figure PL-11).

The vegetation in the Fremont cottonwood series is dominated by Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), black willow (Salix gooddingii), and California ash (Fraxinus dipetala). Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), white alder (Alnus rhombofolia), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), and California grape (Vitis californica) are common understory species. In contrast, the mixed willow series is dominated by willows including black willow, arroyo willow, and narrowleaf willow (Salix exigua). Cottonwood/willow riparian communities are distributed across approximately 117.75 acres of the site. These communities occur along the perennial creeks and intermittent streams along the San Joaquin River corridor and the seasonal flows associated with the intermittent streams feeding the Lakes and the Freshwater ponds. Intermittent streams are small drainages that flow seasonally for extended periods and may receive inflows from both surface run-off and groundwater.

4.3 Urban

The structure of urban [URB] (~29.34 acres or 3.7%) vegetation varies, with five types of vegetative structure defined: tree grove, street strip, shade tree/lawn, lawn, and shrub cover. In this report, the determinant has been used to describe locations where manmade structures, paths, roads, and other improvements have been placed. Tree groves, common in city parks, green belts, recreation facilities, and cemeteries, vary in height, tree spacing, crown shape, and understory conditions, depending upon the species planted and the planting design. The site has both clustered plantings and individual plantings which have a full array of coverage from dying remnants to a continuous canopy in some areas of the site. Mature tree groves vary in height from 19.3 m (64 ft) (eucalyptus) to 14.5 m (48 ft) (Sycamore). Coverage by grassland or ruderal species in the urban areas of the site vary from 0 to 90 percent (McBride and Froehlich (1984). Both continuous and discontinuous canopies are observed. Most of the trees from the reclamation plan are planted in the disturbed grassland habitats but other ground covers are not uncommon. Shade trees and lawns are typical of urban areas and try to replicate natural savannas. Structural variation in the shade tree/ground cover type is typical when a large number of species are incorporated in the landscape.

35 Grassland and lawns are structurally the most uniform vegetative units of the California urban habitat. A variety of grass species are employed, which are maintained at a fairly uniform height and continuous ground cover. Biomass productivity is greater than natural grasslands because of irrigation and fertilization (Falk 1977). It is evident that the site at one time had a robust irrigation system feeding the planted trees; however, this system is currently not maintained to a level to be consistently utilized. Shrub cover is more limited in distribution than the other structural types. Species, planting design, and maintenance control the structural characteristics of these types. Height ranges from 10 cm (4 in) tall to tree height. The juxtaposition of urban vegetation types produces a rich mosaic with considerable edge areas. The overall mosaic may be more valuable as wildlife habitat than the individual units in that mosaic.

Species composition in urban habitats varies with planting design and climate. Monoculture is commonly observed in tree groves and tree strips. Climatic variation associated with elevation in California also influences the mix of tree species. A distinguishing feature of the urban wildlife habitat is the mixture of native and exotic species. Both native and exotic species are valuable, with exotic species providing a good source of additional food in the form of fruits and berries.

Most units of urban vegetation are relatively static in species composition because of maintenance. Unmaintained units often are invaded by exotic and native species. Lawns are commonly invaded by Bermuda grass and crab grass as well as broad leaved weeds (i.e., dandelion, English daisy, etc.).

Urban development has occurred within or adjacent to most other habitats in California, with the highest density at lower elevations. The majority of urban development’s exceeding 10,000 in population were developed in grassland or scrub (coastal sagebrush or chaparral) vegetation. Very probably the original vegetation at such locations was modified by agriculture and today most of our cities are surrounded by agricultural and grazing lands rather than natural vegetation.

36 4.4 Mixed Chaparral Series

The scrub habitat contiguous to and along the San Joaquin River has been primarily classified as Mixed Chaparral [MCH] (~13.75 acres or 1.7%). The MCH is a structurally homogeneous brushland type dominated by shrubs with thick, stiff, heavily cutinized evergreen leaves. Shrub height and crown cover vary considerably with age since last burn, precipitation regime (cismontane vs. transmontane), aspect, and soil type (Hanes 1977). At maturity, cismontane Mixed Chaparral typically is a dense, nearly impenetrable thicket with greater than 80 percent absolute shrub cover. Canopy height ranges from 1 to 4 m (3.3 to 13.1 fl), occasionally to 6 m (19.6 fl) (Horton 1960, Cheatham and Haller 1975, Hanes 1977). On poor sites, serpentine soils or transmontane slopes, shrub cover may be only 30 to 60 percent and shrubs may be shorter, 0.5 to 3.0 m (1.6 to 9.8 fl) (Cheatham and Haller 1975, Hanes 1976, 1977). Considerable leaf litter and standing dead material may accumulate in stands that have not burned for several decades.

Mixed Chaparral is a floristically rich type that supports approximately 240 species of woody plants (Oruduff 1974). Composition changes between northern and southern California and with precipitation regime, aspect, and soil type. Dominant species in cismontane Mixed Chaparral include scrub oak, chaparral oak, and several species of ceanothus and manzanita. Individual sites may support pure stands of these shrubs or diverse mixtures of several species. Commonly associated shrubs include chamise, birchleaf mountain mahogany, silk-tassel, toyon, yerba-santa, California buckeye, poison-oak, sumac, California buckthorn, hollyleaf cherry, Montana chaparral-pea, and California fremontia. Some of these species may be locally dominant. Leather oak and interior silktassel are widely distributed on cismontane serpentine soils, and chamise and toyon may be abundant on these soils. Shrub live oak, desert ceanothus, and desert bitterbrush are examples of shrubs found in Mixed Chaparral only on transmontane slopes (Cheatham and Haller 1975, Thorne 1976, Hanes 1977, and Zabriskie 1979).

Mixed and Chamise-Redshank Chaparral (CRC) occur as a mosaic on low to middle elevation slopes below several woodland and forest types. Compared to Chamise- Redshank Chaparral, Mixed Chaparral generally occupies more mesic sites at higher elevations or on north-facing slopes. In southern California, Coastal Scrub (CSC) may form the lower chaparral boundary (Hanes 1977). In northern California, Mixed Chaparral merges with Annual Grassland (AGS) and Blue Oak-Digger Pine (BOP) at lower elevations. Chaparral shrubs form the understory of many Blue Oak-Digger Pine stands.

37 No wildlife species are restricted to Mixed Chaparral. Most species are found in other shrub-dominated types including Chamise-Redshank Chaparral (CRC), Montane Chaparral (MCP), Coastal Scrub (CSC), and Sagebrush (SGB), or the shrubs beneath several woodland and forest types. Wildlife management considerations usually focus on selecting alternative fire management treatments. Potential impacts of management actions in Mixed Chaparral generally are similar to Chamise-Redshank Chaparral.

4.5 Sycamore Woodland Series

The Sycamore Woodland Series [SYC] (~12.49 acres or 1.6%) is characterized by Platanus racemosa as the dominant species in the canopy overstory as widely spaced trees. Various other tree species may be present in the over-and understory, but they are subordinate. The Platanus racemosa alliance occurs in a variety of wetland and riparian locations, including perennial stream courses that are seasonally or intermittently flooded and terraces that are above the active floodplain subject to high- intensity flooding. It occurs in cismontane California from the Central Coast Ranges and Sacramento Valley east to the Mojave and Colorado Deserts and south to Baja California. In the mixed alliance of Sycamore and Cottonwood, both species may occur as co-dominants, or one is dominant and the other is subdominant in the overstory canopy.

Stands described in the coastal ranges are known from flood plains and stream courses with soil textures of silt and sand. Common associated species include Acer macrophyllum, Aesculus californica, Alnus rhombifolia, Quercus lobata, Salix laevigata, and S. lucida, Umbellularia californica, Toxicodendron diversilobum, and Symphoricarpos rivularis. Herb species include Carduus pycnocephalus, Galium aparine, Brassica nigra, B. geniculata, Bromus diandrus, B. mollis, and Stellaria media.

4.6 Barren

Barren habitat [BAR] (~7.61 acres or 1.0%) is defined by the absence of vegetation. Any habitat with <2% total vegetation cover by herbaceous, desert, or non-wildland species and <10% cover by tree or shrub species is defined this way. Structure and composition of the substrate is largely determined by the region of the state and surrounding environment. In the marine and estuarine environment, barren habitat includes rocky outcroppings in the intertidal and subtidal zones, open sandy beaches and mudflats. Along rivers, it includes vertical river banks and canyon walls. Desert

38 habitats may be defined as barren when vegetation is widely spaced. Alpine barren habitat includes exposed parent rock, glacial moraines, talus slopes and any surface permanently covered with snow or ice. Urban settings covered in pavement and buildings may classified as barren as long as vegetation, including non-native landscaping, does not reach the % cover thresholds for vegetated habitats.

Most vegetation classification systems do not include a barren category. Sparsely vegetated substrate is assumed to be a component of the surrounding vegetation type. CALVEG (1981) defines a Barren and a Snow/Ice type. UNESCO (1996) includes a Barren type.

No stages are defined for this type. Many barren types will remain so during the time frame of consideration for management actions. An example is exposed rock in alpine settings, where the combined actions of freezing and thawing, wind and water erosion, and chemical breakdown caused by colonizing lichens eventually creates enough organic material to support higher plants. However, the time period for primary succession to a vegetated habitat type may be thousands of years.

Seasonal changes and management regimes may render some habitats barren for short periods of time. Disked or plowed agricultural fields will be barren for a few months until sowed again. In an urban setting, newly-graded suburban sites converted from other habitat types may be barren for up to two years -- usually until trees, shrubs, lawns or other ground covers have been planted.

Barren habitat may be found in juxtaposition with many different habitats, depending on the region of the state. In the Central Valley, bluffs above river corridors covered with valley oak woodland, valley foothill-riparian or annual grassland habitat may drop sharply into steep barren riverbanks of loose soils.

Where there is little or no vegetation, structure of the non-vegetated substrate becomes a critical component of the habitat. Many hawks and falcons nest on rock ledges. Plovers, stilts, avocets, several gulls and terns, nighthawks and whippoorwills rely on open ground covered with sand or gravel for constructing small scrape nests. Bank swallows use barren vertical cliffs of friable soils along river corridors to dig holes for nesting and cover. Rocky river canyon walls above open water are preferred foraging habitat for many bats.

The physical settings for permanently barren habitat represent extreme environments for vegetation. An extremely hot or cold climate, a near-vertical slope, an impermeable

39 substrate, constant disturbance by either human or natural forces, or a soil either lacking in organic matter or excessively saline can each contribute to a habitat being inhospitable to plants. Barren habitat occurs throughout the state at every elevation.

4.7 Eucalyptus Woodland Series

Eucalyptus habitats [EUC] (~2.88 acres or 0.4%) range from single-species thickets with little or no shrubby understory to scattered trees over a well-developed herbaceous and shrubby understory. In most cases, eucalyptus forms a dense stand with a closed canopy. Stand structure for this habitat may vary considerably because most eucalyptus have been planted into either rows for wind protection or dense groves for hardwood production and harvesting (Cornell 1909, U.S. Forest Service 1933). Eucalyptus is often found in monotypic stands. The genus is composed of over 150 species with high morphological diversity (Cornell 1909). Thus, habitat structure may be affected if more than two or three species coexist. Tree size may vary considerably depending on spacing and species. Typically, trees may range in height from 26 to 40 m (87 to 133 ft) and have diameters (dbh) of 21.8 to 38.4 cm (8.6 to 15.1 in) (Walters 1980), with most growth occurring in the first 15 years. Trees in excess of 46 to 80 m (152 to 264 ft) are not uncommon (Munz 1974, Walters 1980).

Overstory composition is typically limited to one species of the genus, or mixed stands composed of other species of the same genus; few native overstory species are present within eucalyptus planted areas, except in small cleared pockets (Fenwick 1980). The most common species is blue gum followed by red gum (Munz 1974, Smith 1976). Hybridization between species is known to occur (Smith 1976, Fenwick 1980). Typical understory species may vary depending on whether or not the trees were artificially established into groves or rows or have escaped and become independently established. In groves or rows, the understory is commonly composed of a host of annual grasses (mostly introduced Mediterranean and European species of the genus Bromus), and other weedy species including mustard, thistle, spurge, cheeseweed, and prickly pear cactus. The allelopathic nature of eucalyptus and litter deposition often prevents the establishment of any significant shrubby understory (McArthur 1962, Smith 1976). Where trees of this genus are established as small groves in native plant communities, understory species typically include coastal sage, chamise, manzanita, buckwheat, toyon, scrub oak, mountain mahogany, and assorted annuals. Eucalyptus is also known to become established along stream courses, encroaching upon existing riparian vegetation.

40 No other classifications are specified for this habitat. However, the habitat is often included in general habitat classifications of disturbed, agricultural, and urban sites.

Most species of eucalyptus are characterized by adaptations that allow them to survive and recover quickly from disturbances like fire. Most eucalyptus produce epicormic shoots from any undamaged region of the cambium (McArthur 1967, Fenwick 1980, King and Krugman 1980). Even if totally killed by some disturbance, many eucalyptus produce subsurface ground shoots from lignotubers. For non-lignotuberous eucalyptus, the ability to seed heavily and produce heavy natural regeneration suggests that this genus has adapted to a constant environment of fire (McArthur 1967). These adaptations allow this habitat to recover quickly from disturbance, permitting limited succession or development to other habitats. At most, following a fire or some other disturbance, increased growth of the understory usually an annual grassland can be expected until the eucalyptus can regenerate through epicormic shoots and lignotuber sprouting.

Eucalyptus is characterized as having rapid growth from shoots and seedlings, with trees attaining 70 to 90 percent of their height within 15 years after planting (Walters 1980). Annual height growth of trees in experimental plots has averaged 4.3 m (14 ft) for the first 5 years, 1.2 m (4 ft) for the second 5 years, and about 0.3 m (1 ft) for the third 5 years (Walters 1980). Ten-year-old trees can easily achieve heights of 30 to 33 m (90 to 100 ft) (Howell 1982). Canopy closure is achieved in a fairly short period.

Eucalyptus woodlands generally adjoin a number of other wildlife habitats and are found at low elevations, where freezing is not a problem. Most eucalyptus has been artificially established, usually in and around urban/rural areas. Other habitats found in proximity to eucalyptus include cropland, valley foothill riparian, Orchard-vineyard, Coastal Scrub, Chamise Redshank Chaparral, Annual Grass, Pasture and Residential Park.

Characteristic species of this habitat include crow, raven, barn owl, and red-tailed and red-shouldered hawks. Eucalyptuses are important as roosts, perches, and nest sites for a number of bird species, particularly raptors. Those eucalyptus with stringy bark or a tendency for rapid deposition of litter, create micro habitats for a number of small vertebrate species, including alligator lizard, gopher snake, and woodrat.

Eucalyptus habitats have been extensively planted throughout the state since their introduction in 1856 with large-scale planting operations beginning in 1870 (Cornell 1909, Howell 1982). As such, they are found in locations with highly variable site characteristics. Generally, they are found on relatively flat or gently rolling terrain,

41 occasionally in the foothills. Climatic conditions are typically referred to as Mediterranean, characterized by hot, dry summers and cool, mild winters. Precipitation ranges from approximately 30 cm (12 in) to 60 cm (24 in). Temperature regimes in areas of eucalyptus groves range from a mean monthly low of 6 C (43 F) in January to 23 C (73 F) in August, with low temperatures occasionally reaching 0 to 4 C (32 to 25 F) and high temperatures typically exceeding 38 C (100 F) (King and Krugman 1980). Eucalyptus demonstrates the ability to withstand many temperature conditions, with the exception of prolonged cold or freezing weather (U.S. Forest Service 1933, King and Krugman 1980). Eucalyptus should not be planted where temperatures are consistently lower than 5 C (24 F) (Cornell 1909).

Eucalyptus occurs in California from San Diego and Imperial counties in the south, usually at elevations below 500 m (1500 ft), but it has been found up 700 m (2100 ft); and to Shasta in the north (Cornell 1909). Most eucalyptus, however, is found around populated areas of southern and central California.

4.8 Valley Foothill Riparian Habitat

The fragmented and consolidated riparian habitat (~28.17 acres or 3.5%) is most concentrated along the fringe of the San Joaquin River. For the purpose of this study, the habitat was characterized by fragmented stands of various types of shrubs with isolated oak, willow and cottonwood trees. The shrub layer is sparse, fragmented and when present consists primarily of buckbrush (Ceanothus cuneatus) and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). The understory of trees is dominated by many of the same species as described above for annual grassland. Other characteristic forbs of include various wildflowers such as brodiaeias (Brodiaea spp.), clovers (Trifolium spp.), and popcorn flowers (Plagiobothrys spp.). Riparian habitat provides nesting, foraging, and resting habitat for many species. The acorn crops from oak trees are important food sources for a variety of birds and mammals. Snags (standing dead trees) provide nesting opportunities for cavity-nesting birds such as acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus) and northern flicker (Colaptes auratus); however, neither of these species was observed on site. For some species, all of their life requirements are met in the riparian and oak woodland; other species nest in the wooded habitat and forage in the annual grasslands.

Canopy height is approximately 30 m (98 ft) in a mature riparian forest, with a canopy over of 20 to 80 percent. Most trees are winter deciduous. There is a sub-canopy tree layer and an understory shrub layer. Lianas (usually wild grape) frequently provide 30 to

42 50 percent of the ground cover and festoon trees to heights of 20 to 30 m (65 to 98 ft). Herbaceous vegetation constitutes about one percent of the cover, except in openings where tall forbs and shade-tolerant grasses occur (Conard et al. 1977). Generally, the understory is impenetrable and includes fallen limbs and other debris.

Dominant species in the canopy layer are cottonwood, California sycamore and valley oak. Subcanopy trees are white alder, boxelder and Oregon ash. Typical understory shrub layer plants include wild grape, wild rose, California blackberry, blue elderberry, poison oak, buttonbrush, and willows. The herbaceous layer consists of sedges, rushes, grasses, miner's lettuce, Douglas sagewort, poison-hemlock, and hoary nettle.

Other classification schemes that describe VRI habitats are Cottonwood and California Sycamore (Parker and Matyas 1981), Central Valley Bottomland Woodland 6.11, Southern Alluvial Woodland - 6.31 (Cheatham and Haller 1975), Wild Rose Alder, Cottonwood, Sycamore, Willow (Paysen et al. 1980), Riparian Forest - 28 (Küchler 1977) and Forested Wetland -61 (Anderson et al. 1976).

Cottonwoods grow rapidly and can reach WHR size/age class 5 in about 20 to 25 years. One specimen measuring 92 cm (36 in) (inside the bark) showed an age of 29 years (Sudworth 1908). This secondary succession to climax could occur as rapidly as 25 to 30 years in VRI habitats dominated by cottonwood. One valley oak tree 54 cm (21 in) in diameter (WHR size/age class 4) showed an age of 57 years. Valley oak dominated riparian systems would probably take over 75 years to reach climax or maturity. Some VRI types consisting of only a shrub layer (VRI 1;2: S-D) (willows, wild rose, blackberry) may persist indefinitely.

Shrubby riparian willow thickets may last 15-20 years before being overtopped and shaded out by cottonwoods. Cottonwood or willow tree habitats close to river channels that receive a good silt infusion, without major disruptive flows, tend to be self perpetuating.

Transition to adjacent non-riparian vegetation is usually abrupt, especially near agriculture (Cheatham and Haller 1975). The Valley-Foothill Riparian habitat is found in association with Riverine (RIV), Grassland (AGS, PGS), Oak Woodland (VFH) and Agriculture (PAS, CRP). It may intergrade upstream with Montane Riparian.

Valley-foothill riparian habitats provide food, water, migration and dispersal corridors, and escape, nesting, and thermal cover for an abundance of wildlife. At least 50 amphibians and reptiles occur in lowland riparian systems. Many are permanent

43 residents, others are transient or temporal visitors (Brode and Bury 1985). In one study conducted on the Sacramento River, 147 bird species were recorded as nesters or winter visitants (Laymon 1985). Additionally, 55 species of mammals are known to use California's Central Valley riparian communities (Trapp et al. 1985

Valley-foothill riparian habitats are found in valleys bordered by sloping alluvial fans, slightly dissected terraces, lower foothills, and coastal plains. They are generally associated with low velocity flows, flood plains, and gentle topography. Valleys provide deep alluvial soils and a high water table. The substrate is coarse, gravelly or rocky soils more or less permanently moist, but probably well aerated (Cheatham and Haller 1975). Average precipitation ranges from 15 to 76 cm (6-30 in), with little or no snow. The growing season is 7 to 11 months. Frost and short periods of freezing occur in winter (200 to 350 frost-free days). Mean summer maximum temperatures are 24 to 39 C (75 to 102 F), mean winter minima are 2 to 7 C (29 to 44 F) (Munz and Keck 1973). VRI habitats are characterized by hot, dry summers, mild and wet winters. Coastal areas have a more moderate climate than the interior and receive some summer moisture from fog (Bailey 1980). Potential evaporation during the warmest months is often greater than precipitation. Low rainfall and stream flow result in water scarcity in many parts of the area.

Valley-foothill riparian habitats occur in the Central Valley and the lower foothills of the Cascade, Sierra Nevada and Coast ranges. They are also found in lower slopes at the bases of the Peninsular and Transverse ranges. A few lower elevation locations are on the desert side of the southern California mountain range. VRI habitats range from sea level to 1000 m (3000 ft), fingering upward to 1550 m (5000 ft) on south-facing slopes.

4.9 Sensitive Natural Communities

A sensitive community has particularly high ecological value or functions. Sensitive communities are considered important because their degradation or destruction could threaten populations of dependent plant and wildlife species and significantly reduce the regional distribution and viability of the community. As the number and extent of sensitive communities continue to diminish, the endangerment status of dependent special-status (i.e., rare, threatened, or endangered) species could become more precarious, and populations of currently stable species (i.e., non-special-status species) could become rare. Loss of sensitive communities can also eliminate or reduce important ecosystem functions, such as water filtration by wetlands and bank stabilization by riparian forests.

44

Sensitive natural communities occurring at the project site include the fringe of the riparian habitat associated with the reach of the San Joaquin River that traverses the southern border of the site. There were several areas identified on the property associated with seasonal/perennial wetlands. Numerous swales or seasonal wetland areas met the criteria to be considered jurisdictional waters of the United States.

4.9.1 Riverine

Riverine Habitat (~46.55 acres or 5.8%) are typically intermittent or continually running water distinguishes rivers and streams. A stream originates at some elevated source, such as a spring or lake, and flows downward at a rate relative to slope or gradient and the volume of surface runoff or discharge. In this case the flow is regulated upstream at Millerton Dam. Velocity generally declines at progressively lower altitudes, and the volume of water increases until the enlarged stream finally becomes sluggish. Over this transition from a rapid, surging stream to a slow, sluggish river, water temperature and turbidity will tend to increase, dissolved oxygen will decrease and the bottom will change from rocky to muddy (McNaughton and Wolf 1973).

The majority of fast stream inhabitants live in riffles, on the underside of rubble and gravel, sheltered from the current. Characteristic of the riffle insects are the nymphs of mayflies, caddisflies, alderflies, stoneflies; and the larva and pupae of true flies. In pools, the dominant insects are burrowing mayfly nymphs, dragonflies, damselflies and water striders. Water moss and heavily branched filamentous algae are held to rocks by strong holdfasts and align with the current. Other algae grow in spheric, or cushion-like colonies with smooth, gelatinous surfaces. Algae growth in streams often exhibits zonation on rocks, which is influenced by depth and current. With increasing temperatures, decreasing velocities and accumulating bottom sediment, organisms of the fast water are replaced by organisms adapted to slower moving water. Mollusks and crustaceans replace the rubble-dwelling insect larvae. Backswimmers, water boatmen and diving beetles inhabit sluggish stretches and backwaters. Emergent vegetation grows along river banks, and duckweed floats on the surface. Abundant decaying matter on the river bottom promotes the growth of plankton populations that are not usually found in fast water.

Other classification systems of rivers and streams are: Riverine (Cowardin et al. 1979); Streams-10.2, Rivers-10.3 (Cheatham and Haller 1975) and Proctor et al. (1980).

45 Open water is defined as greater than 2 meters in depth and/or beyond the depth of floating rooted plants, and does not involve substrate. Small rivers and streams may not have an open water zone. The submerged zone is between open water and shore. The shore is seldom flooded (except for wave wash or fluctuations in flow) and is less than 10 percent canopy cover. For shorelines with 10 percent canopy cover or more, a terrestrial habitat designation is used such as Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland.

Riverine habitats can occur in association with many terrestrial habitats. Riparian habitats are found adjacent to many rivers and streams. Riverine habitats are also found contiguous to lacustrine and fresh emergent wetland habitats.

The open water zones provide resting and escape cover for many species of waterfowl. Gulls, terns, osprey and bald eagle hunt in open water. Near-shore waters provide food for waterfowl, herons, shorebirds, belted kingfisher and American dipper. Many species of insectivorous birds (swallows, swifts, flycatchers) hawk their prey over water.

4.9.2 Lacustrine

Lacustrine habitats are inland depressions or dammed riverine channels containing standing water (Cowardin 1979). In this report the lacustrine habitat is segmented into two type of descriptors; 1) referred to as Lake [LAC] (~112.51 acres or 14.1%); and, 2) Freshwater Pond [FWP] (~105.48 acres or 13.2%). The Lake designator has been distinguished from Freshwater Pond designation due to the direct connection to the San Joaquin River. The Freshwater Ponds have no direct connection to the San Joaquin River and derive water from stormwater runoff or by physically pumping/transferring water and likely from riverine recharge. Some of the lacustrine features at the site are open to the flow of the river in an upstream and downstream configuration. They may vary from small ponds less than one hectare to large areas covering several square kilometers. Depth can vary from a few centimeters to hundreds of meters. Typical lacustrine habitats include permanently flooded lakes and reservoirs (e.g., Millerton Lake), intermittent lakes (e.g., playa lakes) and ponds (including vernal pools) so shallow that rooted plants can grow over the bottom. Most permanent lacustrine systems support fish life; intermittent types usually do not.

Suspended organisms such as plankton are found in the open water of lacustrine habitats. Dominant are the phytoplankton, including diatoms, desmids and filamentous green algae. Because these tiny plants alone carry on photosynthesis in open water, they are the base upon which the rest of limnetic life depends. Suspended with the

46 phytoplankton are animal or zooplankton organisms which graze upon the minute plants. Most characteristic are rotifers, copepods and cladocerans (Smith 1974). The plants and animals found in the littoral zone vary with water depth, and a distant zonation of life exists from deeper water to shore. A blanket of duckweed may cover the surface of shallow water. Desmids and diatoms, protozoans and minute crustaceans, hyrdras and snails live on the under-surface of the blanket; mosquitoes and collembolans live on top. Submerged plants such as algae and pondweeds serve as supports for smaller algae and as cover for swarms of minute aquatic animals. As sedimentation and accumulation of organic matter increases toward the shore, floating rooted aquatics such as water lillies and smartweeds often appear. Floating plants offer food and support for numerous herbiverous animals that feed both on phytoplankton and the floating plants (Smith 1974).

Other names of lacustrine habitats include Lacustrine (Cowardin et al. 1979), Lakes - 10.41, Manmade Reservoirs - 10.42 and Ponds -10.43 (Cheatham and Haller 1975). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service summarize several lacustrine habitats according to their occurrence in certain terrestrial habitats (Proctor et at. 1980).

The limnetic or open water zone extends from the deepest part to the depth of effective light penetration. The submerged (littoral) zone is shallow enough to permit light penetration and occurs at the edges of lakes and throughout most ponds. Periodically flooded lacustrine habitats should be evaluated only when water is present. This stage usually cannot support fish populations, and therefore will not attract fish predators. To qualify as shoreline, there must be a water border and less than 2 percent vegetation. Shoreline vegetation exceeding 2 percent would fall into the riparian category. Lakes and ponds are more or less temporary features of the landscape because of a slow siltation process. The time it takes depends on size, rate of sedimentation and the increase of organic matter.

Lacustrine habitats may occur in association with any terrestrial habitats, Riverine (RIV) and Fresh Emergent Wetlands (FEW).

Lacustrine habitats are used by 18 mammals, 101 birds, 9 reptiles and 22 amphibians for reproduction, food, water and cover. This represents about 23 percent of the species in the Wildlife Habitat Relationships data base.

The relatively calm waters of lakes and ponds offer environmental conditions that contrast sharply with those of running water. Light penetration is dependent on turbidity. Temperatures vary seasonally and with depth. Because only a small proportion of the

47 water is in direct contact with the air and because decomposition is taking place on the bottom, the oxygen content of lake water is relatively low compared to that of running water. In some lakes, oxygen may decrease with depth, but there are many exceptions. These gradations of oxygen, light and temperature along with the currents and seiches, profoundly influence the vertical distribution of lake organisms (Smith 1974).

4.9.3 Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Habitat

The Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland [FFSW] (~36.70 acres or 4.6%) habitat consists primarily of riparian and riverine habitat. This habitat classification was assigned to the landscape and/or vegetation feature that is usually supported and associated with a perennial water source and typically located in a topographic drainage. This area is directly supported by the southwest trending reach of the San Joaquin River. Where water ponds or flows because of limitations to surface or subsurface drainage the increase in the riparian vegetation community is improved. Subsurface hydrological conditions can be enhanced by the topography of the drainage giving support to a variety of vegetative species that require a longer, more sustained hydro- period. Soil layers impervious to the downward infiltration of water inhibit subsurface drainage resulting in shallow saturation during the wet season. Perennial and seasonal waters and wetlands support distinct vegetation adapted to periodic or continuous inundation during the wet season, and the absence of either ponded water or wet soil during the dry season. Riparian areas at the project site support a sparse flora consistent with that of seasonal/perennial. Characteristic plant species include annual bluegrass (Poa annua), swamp timothy (Crypsis schoenoides), and rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis). Riparian habitats support a variety of common wildlife species. During their aquatic phase, they may support an abundance of aquatic invertebrate species such as seed shrimp (Podocopa), California clam shrimp (Cyzicus californicus), waterflea (Cladocera), planarians (Turbularia), beetles (Coleoptera), dragonflies, and damselflies. These invertebrates are food for a variety of birds and reptiles and amphibians such as the pacific chorus frog, western toad (Bufo borealis), and common garter snake. Other bird species, such as Brewer’s blackbirds (Euphagus cyanocephalus), and red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus), can forage at the water’s edge. Riverine and the associated riparian systems along with the related seasonal wetlands also serve as water sources used for drinking and bathing by a variety of upland wildlife species including rodents, hares, coyotes, and deer. Many grassland birds such as western meadowlarks, savannah sparrows (Passerculus sandwichensis), and mourning doves forage on seeds or terrestrial insects in the dry seasonally wet areas.

48 4.9.4 Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetlands (~40.92 acres or 5.1%) are located throughout the site primarily associated with the freshwater ponds that are not directly connected to the San Joaquin river. According to Department of Fish and Game’s Wildlife Habitat Relation definitions, Fresh Emergent Wetlands (FEW) are characterized by erect, rooted herbaceous hydrophytes. Dominant vegetation is generally perennial monocots to 2m (6.6 ft) tall (Cheatham and Haller 1975, Cowardin et al. 1979). All emergent wetlands are flooded frequently, enough so that the roots of the vegetation prosper in an anaerobic environment (Gosselink and Turner 1978). The vegetation may vary in size from small clumps to vast areas covering several kilometers. The acreage of Fresh Emergent Wetlands in California has decreased dramatically since the turn of the century due to drainage and conversion to other uses, primarily agriculture (Gilmer et al. 1982).

On the upper margins of Fresh Emergent Wetlands, saturated or periodically flooded soils support several moist soil plant species including big leaf sedge, baltic rush, redroot nutgrass and on more alkali sites, saltgrass. On wetter sites, common cattail, tule bulrush, river bulrush, and arrowhead are potential dominant species (Cheatham and Haller 1975, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1978, Wentz 1981).

It is commonly thought that as depressions or shoreline areas that support Fresh Emergent Wetlands (FEW) accumulate silt, marsh communities are replaced by upland communities. This process is slow unless erosion, either natural or man caused, is accelerated (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1978). In areas with relatively stable climatic conditions, fresh emergent wetlands maintain the same appearance year to year (Cowardin et al. 1979); however, where extreme climatic fluctuations occur, they may revert to an open water phase in some years (Stewart and Kantrund 1971).

Fresh emergent wetland habitats may occur in association with terrestrial habitats or aquatic habitats including Riverine (RIV), Lacustrine (LAC) and Wet Meadows (WTM). The up\and limit of Fresh Emergent Wetlands is the boundary between land with predominantly hydrophytic cover and land with primarily mesophytic or xerophytic cover or the boundary between hydric and non hydric soils (Cowardin et al. 1979). The boundary between fresh emergent wetlands and deep water habitats (e.g., Lacustrine or Riverine) is the deep water edge of the emergent vegetation. It is generally accepted that this demarcation is at or above the 2 m (6.6 ft) depth (Cowardin et al. 1979, Zoltai et al. 1975). The 2 m (6.6 ft) lower limit for emergent wetlands was selected because it

49 represents the maximum depth to which emergent plants normally grow (Welch 1952, Sculthorpe 1967).

Fresh emergent wetlands are among the most productive wildlife habitats in California. They provide food, cover, and water for more than 160 species of birds (U.S. Comptroller General 1979), and numerous mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Many species rely on Fresh Emergent Wetlands for their entire life cycle. The endangered Aleutian Canada goose, bald eagle, and peregrine falcon use Fresh Emergent Wetlands as feeding areas and roost sites (Calif. Dept. Fish Game 1980).

Fresh emergent wetlands are found throughout California at virtually all elevations but are most prevalent below 2270 meters (7500 ft) (Cheatham and Haller 1975). The largest acreage of fresh emergent wetland occurs in the Klamath Basin, Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Imperial Valley-Salton Sea.

5.0 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES

The following discussion describes the plant and wildlife species that have been afforded special recognition by federal, state, or local resource agencies or organizations. Special-status species are of relatively limited distribution and may require specialized habitat conditions. Special status species are defined as species that are:

• legally protected under the California and Federal Endangered Species Acts or under other regulations; • considered sufficiently rare by the scientific community to qualify for such listing; or; • considered sensitive because they are unique, declining regionally or locally, or at the extent of their natural range.

A review of the California Department of Fish and Game’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), California Native Plant Society, and the Sacramento Fish & Wildlife office for Endangered and Threatened Species for species that occur in or may be affected by projects in the Fresno North and Lanes Bridge U.S. Geological Survey 7 ½ minute quadrangles did not reveal any known occurrences of special-status plant or wildlife species specifically on the project site. However, several special status animal species or special status plant species were indicated by the CNDDB during the nine quad searches as potentially occurring on the project site. The site is within the CNDDB

50 radius buffer for the San Joaquin pocket mouse, Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB), Molestan blister beetle, Antioch efferian robberfly and Orcutt grass. Elderberry plants at various stages of life cycle development are located at assorted locations on the project site as either individual plants or in a community setting along the riparian corridor and within the upland communities. Special status habitats identified in the general area include Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest, Northern Claypan Vernal Pool, Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool, and Sycamore Woodland. There are no vernal pools, vernal complexes or vernal pool habitats located on the site. There were no identified claypan or hardpan areas remaining following the previous mining activities and reclamation that were readily observable.

In addition, reconnaissance level surveys have been performed by the project proponent for special status habitat type, plant and wildlife species. Typically, a list of special species is generated from the CNDDB, USFWS, and CNPS databases using the surrounding nine quads as the basis for identification. Of the 37 special-status species that were originally considered in this analysis, 15 species were excluded from the analysis due to a variety of conditions. The first condition to consider is the age of the element sighting. Species were excluded from likely utilizing the site if the species element date was over 50 years old. Many of the archived sightings were from the early 1900s. In addition to the age of the sighting, some species are not likely to utilize the locations due to the lack of suitable habitat; the project site is out of their known range; they were not detected during site surveys; or they were otherwise considered unlikely to occur at the project site based on the disturbed or altered habitats present at the site or the confirmed presence of multiple predatory species occurring in the required habitat for the species to exist.

51 Table 2 - Federal, State, CNPS Sensitive Species Nine Quad List

Suitable Federal State Global State CNPS Scientific Name Common Name Site Listing Listing Ranking Ranking Ranking Conditions Agelaius tricolor Tricolored blackbird None None G2G3 S2 Yes Ambystoma californiense California tiger salamander Threatened Threatened G2G3 S2S3 No2,2 Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat None None G5 S3 No1 Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl None None G4 S2 Yes Branchinecta lynchi Vernal pool fairy shrimp Threatened None G3 S2S3 No3 Branchinecta mesovallensis Midvalley fairy shrimp None None G2 S2 No2 Castilleja campestris ssp. Succulent owl's-clover Threatened Endangered G4?T2 S2.2 1B.2 No2 succulenta Caulanthus californicus California jewel-flower Endangered Endangered G1 S1.1 1B.1 No1,2 Coccyzus americanus Western yellow-billed cuckoo Candidate Endangered G5T3Q S1 No1 occidentalis Desmocerus californicus Valley elderberry longhorn Threatened None G3T2 S2 Yes dimorphus beetle Dipodomys nitratoides exilis Fresno kangaroo rat Endangered Endangered G3T1 S1 No2 Downingia pusilla Dwarf downingia None None G3 S3.1 2.2 No2 Efferia antiochi Antioch efferian robberfly None None G1G3 S1S3 No1

2 Species has not recently utilized location due to the age of element sighting being at least over 50 years old; some nearly 100 years old. Habitat may exist but the species may not preferentially select the habitat or location. 3 Species not likely to utilize location due to lack of suitable habitat; the project site is out of their known range; they were not detected during site surveys; or they were otherwise considered unlikely to occur at the project site based on the disturbed or altered habitats present at the site or the confirmed presence of multiple predatory species occurring in the required habitat for the species to exist.

52 Table 2 - Federal, State, CNPS Sensitive Species Nine Quad List

Suitable Federal State Global State CNPS Scientific Name Common Name Site Listing Listing Ranking Ranking Ranking Conditions Emys marmorata Western pond turtle None None G3G4 S3 Yes Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark None None G5T3Q S3 Yes Eryngium spinosepalum Spiny-sepaled button-celery None None G2 S2.2 1B.2 No1,2 Euderma maculatum Spotted bat None None G4 S2S3 No2 Eumops perotis californicus Western mastiff bat None None G5T4 S3? No2 Falco mexicanus Prairie falcon None None G5 S3 Yes Great Valley Mixed Riparian Great Valley Mixed Riparian None None G2 S2.2 Yes Forest Forest Imperata brevifolia California satintail None None G2 S2.1 2.1 Yes Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat None None G5 S4? Yes Leptosiphon serrulatus Madera leptosiphon None None G1? S1? 1B.2 No1 Linderiella occidentalis California linderiella None None G3 S2S3 No2 Lytta moesta Moestan blister beetle None None G2 S2 No1 Lytta molesta Molestan blister beetle None None G2 S2 No1 Metapogon hurdi Hurd's metapogon robberfly None None G1G3 S1S3 Yes Mylopharodon conocephalus Hardhead None None G3 S3 Yes Northern Claypan Vernal Pool Northern Claypan Vernal Pool None None G1 S1.1 No2 Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool None None G3 S3.1 No2 Orcuttia inaequalis San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass Threatened Endangered G2 S2.1 1B.1 No1,2 Orcuttia pilosa Hairy Orcutt grass Endangered Endangered G2 S2.1 1B.1 No1,2

53 Table 2 - Federal, State, CNPS Sensitive Species Nine Quad List

Suitable Federal State Global State CNPS Scientific Name Common Name Site Listing Listing Ranking Ranking Ranking Conditions Perognathus inornatus inornatus San Joaquin pocket mouse None None G4T2T3 S2S3 Yes Pseudobahia bahiifolia Hartweg's golden sunburst Endangered Endangered G2 S2.1 1B.1 No2 Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford's arrowhead None None G3 S3.2 1B.2 No1 Spea hammondii Western spadefoot None None G3 S3 Yes Sycamore Alluvial Woodland Sycamore Alluvial Woodland None None G1 S1.1 Yes Taxidea taxus American badger None None G5 S4 Yes Tropidocarpum capparideum Caper-fruited tropidocarpum None None G1 S1.1 1B.1 No1 Tuctoria greenei Greene's tuctoria Endangered Rare G2 S2.2 1B.1 No1,2 Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox Endangered Threatened G4T2T3 S2S3 Yes

54

5.1 Special-Status Plant Species

Although the CNDDB, USFWS, and CNPS search did not show any records of special- status plant species occurring at the project site, only one of the twelve plant species located in a nine USGS quadrangle search is considered to have potential to occur at the project site. That species is the California satintail (Imperata brevifolia), which is described below. Succulent owl’s Clover (Castilleja campestris ssp. Succulent); California jewel flower (Caulanthus californicus), Dwarf Downingia (Downigia pusilla), Spiny-sepaled button-celery (Eryngium spinosepalum), Madera leptosiphon (Leptosiphon serrulatus), San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis), Hairy Orcutt grass (Orcuttia pilosa), Hartweg’s golden sunburst (Psuedobahia bahiifolia), Sanford’s arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii) and/or Greene’s tuctoria (Tuctoria greeni) are not likely to occur at the site nor would they likely survive if inoculated at the location due primarily to habitat needs that include a vernal landscape with “mima” mounds or heavy clay soils. Both of these types of habitat conditions are absent from the location.

To date, surveys for special-status plant species have been performed for the species during the “prime” identification periods. None of the species were found or identified during the site visits due in part to the project site lacking suitable habitat; the project site is out of the species known range; or they were otherwise considered unlikely to occur at the project site based on the habitats present at the site. A complete list of the plants observed on the site is included as Table 3 - River West Plant List. The database review of special status plant species is included as Table 5 - USFWS Species, Table 6 - CNDDB Species, and Table 7 - CNPS Species.

5.1.1 California Satintail

California Satintail (Imperata brevifolia), a monocot, is a perennial herb that is native to California and is also found outside of California, but is confined to western North America. California Satintail is also classified by the California Department of Food and Agriculture as a Noxious Weed List B: Control required in nurseries, control elsewhere at the discretion of local County Agricultural Commissioner. It is included in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants as a list 2.1 (rare, threatened, or endangered in California; common elsewhere) species. The species is confined to Chaparral, Coastal Sage Scrub, Creosote Bush Scrub, wetland-riparian communities. It is also equally likely to occur in wetlands or non wetlands at an elevation of between 0 and

55 1,640 feet. Since it is considered a Noxious Weed it is not recommended at this time to introduce it into the project area.

5.1.2 Blue Elderberry

The surveys did locate numerous individual and clustered Blue elderberry plants that meet the criteria for VELB habitat due to their size (stems greater than 1” in diameter measured at the base), locations in non-upland habitat, and the community assemblages of multiple plants. The plant serve as the host species for the Valley Longhorn Beetle but protocol level VELB surveys have not been completed to date. Nonetheless, random plants were inspected and no evidence (i.e. exit holes) of use by the beetle was observed.

Throughout much of its range, the blue elderberry naturally occurs at low population densities in riparian habitat (Arnold 1995). This species, however, commonly occurs in interior live oak and mixed oak woodlands, chaparral and foothill riparian of the Sierra foothills. Favored locations include dry rocky outcroppings of granite where large bushes are often observed growing out of large cracks in the rock. Although this species grows well on dry exposed foothill slopes and rocky road shoulders, it particularly favors well-watered spots where it can grow rapidly (up to 6 feet in a single year) into small trees.

The blue elderberry appears to be a fire-adapted species that stump sprouts after fire or other disturbance and grows to maturity within 20 to 30 years and then begins to die back as other foothill shrubs and trees mature. Elderberry plants do not appear to be particularly tolerant of overcrowding and shade.

5.2 Special-Status Wildlife Species

Eleven special-status wildlife species were considered to have potential to occur at the project site. All of the species have a relative potential for occurring within the project site because of the site’s suitable habitat; the project site is in their known range; they were detected during site or nearby location surveys; or they were otherwise considered to occur at the project site. The species assessed include the Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), western pond turtle (both northwestern pond turtle [Clemmys marmorata pallida] and southwestern pond turtle [Clemmys marmorata

56 marmorata] sub-species), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), Hardhead (Mylopharodon conocephalus), San Joaquin pocket mouse (Perognathus inornatus inornatus), Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), American Badger (Taxidea taxus), and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrtis mutica). When considering the habitat requirements of the species in conjunction with the species mobility, migratory, foraging, and breeding needs, the list of species that have an enhanced opportunity to establish on the site property, if given assistance by inoculation, habitat refinement or modification, reduces to the Western Pond turtle by inoculation into the lakes and ponds, Hoary bat by placement of bat boxes, and Western spadefoot by inoculation into ephemeral freshwater ponds. The other species; Tricolored blackbird, Burrowing owl, California horned lark, Prairie falcon, Hardhead, San Joaquin pocket mouse, American badger, and San Joaquin kit fox are very mobile and may or may not use the project habitats depending on species preference and site selection.

The VELB has ample opportunity to utilize the site and is currently within a non-site specific polygon in the CNDDB that includes the northeastern portion of the project. The element occurrence consisting of a single female was originally dated in 1987 by a DFG biologist 1992 along Highway 41 North of Lanes Bridge and west of the San Joaquin River in the riparian strip between the old turf farm and the river. An additional survey in March 1992 identified 35 potential habitat sites with eight confirmed exit holes. The element occurrence was again updated in June 1999. Additional protocol level surveys may locate the VELB species as the habitat requirements are currently available at the site for utilization. The VELB is further described below.

A complete list of the faunal species observed in included as Table 4 - River West Fauna List. The database reviews of special status faunal species are included as Table 5 - USFWS Species and Table 6 - CNDDB Species.

5.2.1 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle

The Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), was listed as a threatened species on August 8, 1980 (Federal Register 45: 52803-52807) and proposed for delisting by the FWS in February 2007 following the five review of the species. This animal is fully protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (beetle) is completely dependent on its host plant, elderberry (Sambucus sp.), which is a common component of the remaining riparian forests and adjacent upland habitats of California’s

57 Central Valley. Use of the elderberry by the beetle, a wood borer, is rarely apparent. Frequently, the only exterior evidence of the elderberry’s use by the beetle is an exit hole created by the larva just prior to the pupal stage. The life cycle takes one or two years to complete. The animal spends most of its life in the larval stage, living within the stems of an elderberry plant. Adult emergence is from late March through June, about the same time the elderberry produces flowers. The adult stage is short-lived. According to the USFWS (Gerson, VELB meeting, 2004), VELB habitat is primarily in communities of clustered Elderberry plants located within riparian habitat. The USFWS stated that VELB habitat does not include every Elderberry plant in the Central Valley such as isolated, individual plants, plants with stems that are less than one inch is basal diameter or plants located in upland habitat. Further information on the life history, ecology, behavior, and distribution of the beetle can be found in a report by Barr (1991) and the recovery plan for the beetle (USFWS 1984).

6.0 BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION

The biological survey was conducted on a currently “naturalized”, “developed” and reclaimed property consisting of several parcels located downstream (west) of the Highway 41 Bridge across the San Joaquin River. The site majorly follows the bluff line along the northern boundary and the current river channel contour of the San Joaquin River to the south. The western boundary aligns along neighboring property lines and the interception point back to the river and includes approximately 795 acres.

The site has undergone several transformations since the 1950’s, including use for ranching and agricultural purposes (i.e. cattle, sheep, watermelons, fish, and crawfish etc.), and in 1963 the land was developed for sand and gravel mining operations. The site has been highly disturbed by mining during the historical use as a sand and gravel extraction location. Reclamation of the area has been successfully accomplished in a significant portion of the property with the creation of several water features that support a variety of associated habitats.

In addition to the created basins, the site also includes an interlinking system of berms, open fields, access roads and paths. However, little natural habitat remains when compared to other “native” portions of the San Joaquin River. There only small bands of habitat that is relatively “native” on the subject property. The areas that are somewhat undisturbed are along the immediate edges and limited fringe of the San Joaquin River, near the entrance to the northeastern portion of the property, and somewhat at the toe of the bluff along the northern border of property but even these areas exhibit influences

58 and alterations from the previous development and are not considered in a “native” wetland, riparian, woodland, or mixed chaparral state.

The wetland areas are primarily associated with the created water features. The fragmented riparian area adjacent to the river traverses from the eastern portion of the subject property to the west along the southern edge of the project location. The fragmented woodlands are comprised primarily of separate valley oak, cottonwood, sycamore, and eucalyptus dominated assemblages. There is a short zone of intergradations between the various habitats. Due to the influence of storm events and upstream releases, the dynamics and characteristics of the habitat can vary through the year, as experienced during the early part of the year when the storm flows raised the water level in the river five or six feet in places causing certain near stream areas to become temporarily inundated.

The surveyed habitats were classified as Annual Grassland, Valley Foothill Riparian, Riverine, Lake, Freshwater Pond, Mixed Willow, Mixed Chaparral, Freshwater Emergent Wetland, Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland, Sycamore Woodland, Fremont Cottonwood Woodland, Eucalyptus Woodland, Barren and Urban.

Based on the U.S.G.S. Fresno North and Lanes Bridge 7.5-minute quadrangle (40-foot topographic contours) the site is relatively flat other than where the San Joaquin River traverses the site along the southern boundary, the bluff form the northern boundary, and where the site has been contoured as part of the reclamation plan to form basins, lakes, and ponds. Overall, there is a gentle sloping of the project site toward the San Joaquin River and toward the southwest in some areas.

Storm water runoff readily infiltrates the soils, but when field absorption capacity has been reached, the storm water traverses via sheet flow across the site to the San Joaquin River or collects in the created wetland features. The primary biotic habitats identified within the project area as presented in Figure 4 - River West Habitat Classification - Western Portion and Figure 5 - River West Habitat Classification - Eastern Portion, included disturbed grasslands (i.e., areas dominated by annual and perennial grasses) and habitat associated with wet features such as lakes, freshwater ponds, riverine, wetlands and riparian classifications located around the site. The most extensive habitat of the project area was identified as disturbed grassland, although reclamation efforts have improved the conditions of the grasslands. It should be noted that due to the previous partial development of the site that there are approximately 37 acres of the site that are currently built out with commercial facilities, parking and

59 landscaping or are barren due to the influences of the river where the majority of the vegetation has been removed.

6.1 Disturbed Grassland

The term “disturbed grassland” refers to areas periodically impacted by unnatural disturbance regimes (i.e., mechanical or chemical de-vegetation, off-road vehicles, etc.). Disturbed grassland areas encompass approximately 30.6% of the site. Such areas are periodically disturbed from recreational usage from on and off road vehicles accessing the river and the freshwater water features, wood gathering, or other impacting uses. Generally the only plants occurring in such areas are “weedy” or ruderal species such as Ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), Tarplant (Holocarpha hermannii), Medusa-head grass (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), Doveweed (Eremocarpus setigerus), Annual bluegrass (Poa annua), etc. With the exception of Doveweed and Tarplant, these species are classified as non-native or exotic species. Disturbed grassland habitats can provide limited cover and foraging habitat for various terrestrial vertebrate and avian species. Raptors such as American kestrels (Falco sparvarius), Sharpshinned hawks (Accipiter striatus) and Red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) could potentially use the disturbed grassland habitats as a foraging site, specifically those areas adjacent to riparian or oak woodlands. Birds such Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), Western bluebird (Sialia mexicana) and Savannah sparrows (Passerculus sandwichensis) could somewhat forage within this habitat type. In addition to the avian species associated with the project area, mammals potentially occurring within the disturbed grassland habitats include Western gray squirrels (Sciurus griseus), Black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) and Coyotes (Canis latrans). Like the floral species, the highly degrading disturbance associated with this habitat does somewhat degrade the habitat’s value (i.e., importance, desirability, benefit, etc.) to most native wildlife species.

6.2 Riparian/Riverine/Wetland Habitats

These wetland, riparian, and riverine habitats support a diversity of wildlife species. The riparian habitat series provides cover and nesting habitat for bird species such as Morning dove, California quail (Callipepla californica), Western meadowlark, and Western bluebird. A variety of birds including American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), Scrub jays (Aphelocoma coerulescens), Brewer’s blackbirds (Euphagus cyanocephalus) and House finches (Carpodacus mexicanus)

60 could potentially forage, roost, and/or nest within this series. Raptors such as American kestrels, Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Sharp shinned hawks, and Red-tailed hawks could potentially forage, roost, and/or nest within the riparian oak woodland areas. Small mammals occurring within the riparian series include Western gray squirrels, Black-tailed hare (Lepus californicus), Raccoons (Procyon lotor), and Black-tailed Deer. Mammalian predators such as Coyotes (Canis latrans) and Wild dogs (Canis sp.) are attracted to such habitats by the small mammals that potentially occur in them. Disturbance associated with the existing land practices, including the placement of rock armored erosion control, and drainage culverts collecting sheet flow from the some areas and conveying them to the river system appear to have impacted the riparian/riverine series; therefore, the habitat value rating would be lower for the project area’s native wildlife species as compared to an undisturbed native riparian and river system. However, the reclamation of the previous mining activities continues to contribute to the health of the locations habitat by providing several trophic levels for biological diversity.

6.3 Drainages

The drainages and seasonal wetlands (wetlands) are dominated by “hydrophytic vegetation” or vegetation that is typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands were dominated by Rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), Cattails (Typha latifolia), Spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya), Annual bluegrass (Poa annua) and Curly dock (Rumex crispus). Wetland habitats can offer cover and foraging habitat for various terrestrial vertebrate and avian species. Raptors such as American kestrels, Red-shouldered hawks, Red-tailed hawks, and Osprey could potentially forage within these wetland habitats, specifically the seasonal wetland areas. In addition, birds such as Mourning doves, Western meadowlarks, and Western bluebirds could potentially occur within the project area’s wetlands. In addition, various small mammals including Black-tailed hare and Western gray squirrels could inhabit wetlands associated with the project area. Other small mammals likely to use wetland vegetation as shelter/cover include the Deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) and California vole (Microtus californicus). Unlike the floral species, disturbance associated with the existing land practices does not appear to impact the wetlands with regard to wildlife. Therefore, this habitat would most likely possess a higher value rating for the project area’s native wildlife species.

61 6.4 Existing Level of Disturbance

As noted above, the biotic assessment consists primarily of disturbed grassland (244.61 acres excluding woodland understory) with a variety of willow series, cottonwood series, Sycamore series, and Valley oak woodlands associated with the Valley foothill riparian habitats. In addition to the existing commercially developed portions of the project site the remaining area was subject to moderate to adverse amounts of disturbance in the form of access roads, turnouts, paths, brushing, and public use activities that appeared to have impacted the associated flora and fauna.

6.4.1 Special Status Species Likely to Occur in the Project Area No special status species protected under the state or federal endangered species legislation, or otherwise listed by state and federal agencies as sensitive were indicated by the CNDDB as occurring directly within the bounds of the project area.

The site is within the CNDDB radius polygon buffer for the San Joaquin pocket mouse, Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB), Molestan blister beetle, Antioch efferian robberfly and Orcutt grass.

6.4.2 Important Natural Communities

Several of the habitats of the project area would be considered important natural communities (i.e. natural communities defined by their rarity of their constituent plant and animal species). The San Joaquin River complex with the associated riparian habitat has been significantly impacted by previous man-made intrusions and placement of flood control features such as culverts, berms, and rock armoring (rip-rap) that it is not now considered to be a “natural community” in this stretch of the reach.

6.4.3 Birds of Prey

Potential nesting habitat for birds of prey was present at the project site. The only active nest was being utilized by a pair of Osprey in a power pole located in a small grassland area surrounded by the access roadway. Due to the timing of the survey, active raptor

62 nests, other than the above referenced Osprey nest, would have been occupied or in use by the nesting raptors. One unoccupied and neglected large stick nest was also observed along the eastern entry roadway but no observable evidence of recent usage was detected. Other than these two locations, no additional evidence of past usage by raptors was observed during the surveys. If the site becomes occupied by birds of prey in the period prior to the improvement to the site, construction activities or removal of trees containing nests during the nesting period may destroy fertile eggs or nestlings or lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment or loss of reproductive effort is considered a violation of federal law.

7.0 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT CEQA COMPONENT

The following sections provide a brief description of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definitions of impact, the current level impact and the perceived impact from enacting the Madera County Master Plan.

7.1 Definition of Significant Impact

The biotic resources of a given site may be adversely affected by its use or development. Some or all of the vegetation may be removed in certain locations. Animals associated with this vegetation could be destroyed or displaced. Animals adapted to humans, roads, buildings, pets, etc. may replace those species formerly occurring on a site. Activities resulting in such impacts are generally regulated according to provisions of state and federal laws discussed above in Section 2.0. Most projects in the state, including general plans, area plans, and specific projects are also subject to the provisions of CEQA. The purpose of CEQA is to assess the impacts of proposed projects on the environment before they are constructed. Impacts may or may not be considered significant. According to CEQA, Statutes and Guidelines, “Significant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient, noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic interest” (Remy et. al, 1999). Impacts may be considered significant if they:

• have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services;

63 • have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; • have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; • interfere substantially with the movement of any 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 (Gorsen, 1998).

7.2 Department of Water Resources Restoration Plan

The Planning Department of Madera County met with Mr. Dave Encinas and Mr. Paul Romero from the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to discuss the potential impacts of the San Joaquin River Restoration Program upon the River West-Madera Master Plan. Also discussed were issues of concern regarding river restoration relating to the development of the Master Plan’s recreational and restoration aspects. According to the DWR, the River West-Madera is located within Reach 1A of the River Restoration Program, which is the reach designated for salmon spawning. Restoration activities within reach 1A are not planned until 2016, at the earliest.

The main objectives of river restoration within the project area are the following:

• Fill or isolate existing gravel pits to reduce the influence of warm water upon the main river channel. • Screen diversions on the river, including siphons, irrigation pumps, and other diversions. • Preserve stretches where the river is in its natural state or is well-defined. • Preserve areas with ripples (a gradient in the river usually with gravel) that are conducive to salmon spawning. • Preserve and enhance valuable side channels as important habitat.

In discussing these objectives in relation to the development of the Master Plan, some important planning items were highlighted:

• Do not plan major recreation or restoration activities (including replanting, trails, and other activities) in areas where the existing river channel is not well defined

64 or is interrupted by gravel pits or in-river pit mining. These areas may be subject to major alterations as result of river restoration. • Do not allow direct access to areas in the river with ripples to keep the public from interfering with spawning activity. • Public access to the river should be directed to stretches of river with pools. • Allow trails to be preserved that allow vehicular access for future restoration activities. • River separation from existing ponds will not necessarily involve hydraulic connection through berms or levees. However, berms will be designed to allow high water to crest over the berms during flood events. • Except for existing diversions in place, the river restoration does not at this time include any requirements to connect isolated pits via hydraulic or other means to river water. • No plans are currently in place for invasive species control, such as scarlet wisteria. • Higher and un-utilized areas of ground near the river channel may be utilized in the future for restoration activities. Higher areas may be used to create or augment river channel. Within the project area, many of these un-utilized areas are located on the Fresno side of the river.

All areas within the project footprint, including all commercial buildings, parking lots and associated landscaping and access roadways, except those outside the limit of grading within designated non-development areas (i.e. along the riparian corridor adjacent to the San Joaquin River) were considered to be potentially impacted by the proposed project, that is, resulting in potential loss or disturbance of habitat. Based on the fact that the primary roadways are already in place it has been estimated that the improvement of the road system by leveling and paving would likely stay within or around the acres of land already impacted. Although final orientation of any improvements including buildings, parking lots and landscaping has not been finalized, the estimated impact is based on the generalized approach to development following building footprints. It is estimated that impacts from the roadways and the commercial building pads will primarily impact currently disturbed annual grasslands. Some of the riparian habitat, riverine habitat or the woodland habitats could be impacted if berms are placed to segregate some of the lakes from the river. The level of development of the site as currently being discussed will leave the riparian habitat in for the most part its current environmental condition and the disturbed grassland area in the upland habitats will be preferentially developed.

65 7.3 Department of Fish and Game Restoration Discussions

The Planning Department of Madera County met with Ms. Julie Vance – 1602 Program Manager, Mr. Brian Erlandson – Water Rights, Ms. Lisa Gymer – 2081 Species Specialist, and Mr. Gerald Hatler – Environmental Program Manager of the California Department of Fish and Game to discuss the River West Master Plan and get input from the DFG for the development of the plan. According to the DFG representatives, their agency would like to have the ponds physically and potentially hydraulically isolated from the river. This request is to reduce the potential for an increase in water temperature from the outflow of the lakes. A temperature increase exacerbated by the outflow from the lakes could potentially affect the DFG’s effort to restore the river to cold water flows which thereby enhance the recovery of sensitive fish species (i.e. Spring-run Chinook). Additionally, they would prefer to see restoration of the riparian habitat along the river as an additional method of providing optimal conditions for the target anadromous species. In an effort to minimize adverse impact to the riparian areas, the DFG would also like to see viewing areas included in the River West - Master Plan and the use of the isolated ponds as areas for recreational fishing.

7.4 Impacts to Waters of the US

The San Joaquin River with the directly connected lakes, the non-connected freshwater ponds, and the other water features and wetland areas are considered jurisdictional Waters of the US based on the interpretation of the SWANNC and Rapanos decision related to wetlands. These wetland features would be subject to the provisions of the Clean Water Act 404 permitting requirements if any of the features were to be impacted.

The project applicant shall, if required, submit a Streambed Alteration Agreement to the California Department of Fish and Game in accordance with the requirements of Sections 1600 - 1616 of the California Fish and Game Code; however, the need for this permit may not be required if there is no impact to the San Joaquin River system. The level of disturbance will be better delineated during subsequent phases of developing the River West - Madera Master Plan. A Streambed Alteration Agreement typically should include, but not be limited to definition of a limited time period for construction, provisions for notification and cleanup of any accidental spills, stream bank revegetation requirements, construction debris and materials removal, and inspection procedures.

66 7.5 Impacts to Special Status Animal Species

Results from the CNDDB, USFWS, and CNPS search indicated that no special status animal species occur directly within the bounds of the project. Further review of the USFWS “Federal Endangered and Threatened Species List” (“List”) that may be affected by projects in the Fresno North and Lanes Bridge Lake 7 ½ minute quad did not indicate species that are currently present on the property. ESR, Inc. biologists identified wildlife species in the vicinity of the project area that are protected by state and/or federal agencies, yet are not classified as threatened or endangered, such as Burrowing owls and Spadefoot toads.

7.6 Impacts to Special Status Plant Species

Results from the CNDDB, USFWS, and CNPS search indicated that no special status plant species other than individual and clustered blue elderberry plants that have stems greater than 1” in diameter occur within the bounds of the project area. ESR, Inc. biologists did not identify any special status plant species during the 2010-2011 reconnaissance level field surveys. Due to the timing of the floral surveys, the flowering season was not observed for the majority of the floral species.

7.7 Disturbance to Nesting Raptors

The riparian, riverine system and wetland habitats support stands of individual and clustered Valley oak, Sycamore, Cottonwood, and Eucalyptus oak trees that may be used by the nesting of raptors. Removal of these trees or nearby construction activities during the nesting period may destroy nests or, at a minimum, disturb nestlings, if present. Disturbance to nesting adults may result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a violation of federal law and would constitute a potentially significant effect. The mitigation measures presented in Section 7.10 suggest methods to minimize potential impacts.

7.8 Interference with Wildlife Movement

No detailed studies of wildlife movement were conducted within the project area. Portions of the site are separated by fences but the fencing is not considered a

67 restrictive boundary for wildlife migration. The use of the site for wildlife foraging, or refugia habitat is considered moderate. The quality of the habitat is fairly good which encourages the use of the site by the wildlife but the existing and surrounding development and influences of usage by humans tends to somewhat degrade the biological value. The winter and spring river flows can result in a temporary barrier for some terrestrial species.

Those species that were observed during the field level reconnaissance survey listed in Table 4 - River West Fauna List. A number of terrestrial vertebrate species, primarily birds, use this site. Some migratory species pass through from time to time. Home range and dispersal movements of some species may be expected within the project area. Portions of the project area may function as a “movement corridor” to some wildlife species. Corridors are characterized by the regular movements of one or more species through relatively well defined areas and are often associated with ridgelines, wetland complexes and well-developed riparian habitats of major rivers and creeks. Furthermore, the diversity of wildlife using the project area does not appear to be limited by the current land use practices. The proposed project may alter, in both positive and negative fashion, the home ranges and dispersal movements of wildlife species associated with the project area’s current disturbed grasslands, riparian, riverine, and jurisdictional wetlands.

7.9 Cumulative Effects

Project implementation is anticipated to not affect most of the high diversity habitats (i.e., riparian, riverine, woodland, and jurisdictional wetlands) due to the development of the River West Master Plan. Depending on the level of disturbance as proposed by the Department of Water Resources and the Department of Fish and Game, some areas such as wetlands may be impacted. In addition, enactment of certain portions of the Master Plan may enhance habitats for wildlife species (i.e., migratory birds, small mammals, amphibians, etc.) by providing supplemental foraging, roosting, and nesting/bedding sites.

68 7.10 Mitigation Measures

The following sections provide the suggested mitigations measures to help reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

7.10.1 Impacts to Special Status Animal Species

There are no anticipated impacts to special status animal species potentially occurring within the bounds of the project area if the following measures are implemented:

• Preconstruction surveys:

Prior to construction within this habitat, a qualified biologist should conduct a preconstruction survey for special-status species in areas slated for development. Only if special-status species are identified during the preconstruction survey will an addendum to this report be prepared addressing the species. A protocol level VELB survey may be warranted if the required avoidance buffer of 100 feet from canopy drip line cannot be maintained.

• Avoidance:

If special-status species are found in areas slated for removal, construction should be delayed until further consultations with the appropriate agencies are completed.

7.10.2 Impacts to Special Status Plant Species

There are no anticipated impacts to special status plant species potentially occurring within the bounds of the project area if the following measures are implemented:

• Preconstruction surveys:

Preconstruction surveys for special status plant species should be conducted in all areas where development is slated to occur. These surveys should be conducted by a qualified botanist pursuant to “Guidelines for Conducting and

69 Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants” (USFWS, 1996a). Only if special-status species are identified during the survey will an addendum to this report be prepared addressing the species.

• Development of a Mitigation Plan:

In the event that special status plant species are identified, a mitigation measures should be conducted in accordance with the California Native Plant Society’s “Policy on Mitigation Regarding Impacts to Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants” (CNPS, 1991).

7.10.3 Disturbance to Nesting Raptors

Portions of the project area provide suitable nesting habitat for various species of raptors. Raptors typically breed and rear their young between the months of February through early August. Implementation of one or both of the following measures will likely reduce impacts to nesting raptors to a less than significant level if project construction were to occur during this period.

• Preconstruction Surveys:

During the raptor nesting season the applicant should have a qualified biologist survey construction areas and their immediate vicinity for active raptor nests. The surveys should be conducted according to a protocol developed in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game. Only if special- status species are identified during the survey will an addendum to this report be prepared addressing the species.

• Avoidance:

Active raptor nests discovered during the preconstruction survey should be marked on a map. A construction-free setback or buffer should be established around each active nest by means of fencing or stakes with conspicuous flagging. No construction activities should be permitted within the buffer area until the young have fledged or the species are no longer attempting to nest.

70 7.10.4 Interference with Wildlife Movement

The project area may contain “movement corridors” for native wildlife; with species inhabiting vegetation associated with the riparian, riverine system and wetlands. The majority of the native wildlife species occurring on the site (with the possible exception of some avian species) are not necessarily migratory. Many of the species have the potential to use the site for foraging, transit, and holdover purposes. It is likely that some of the wildlife has the ability to use the site for breeding purposes but this was not directly observed during the surveys. Impacts attributable to the development of River West Master Plan are anticipated to be less than significant to movement corridors for native wildlife.

71 8.0 LITERATURE CITED Anderson, Erin. 1999. Osprey nest site selection in managed and unmanaged areas. Eagle Lake Field Biology 2(1): 47-55. University of California, Davis, CA.

Bent, A. C. 1940. Life histories of North American cuckoos, goatsuckers, hummingbirds, and their allies. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 176. 506pp.

California Department of Fish and Game. Natural Diversity Database Special Plants List. Biannual Publication, Mimeo., November 2007.

California Department of Fish and Game. Natural Diversity Database Special Animals List. Biannual Publication, Mimeo., May 2007.

California Department of Fish and Game. Annual Report on the Status of California State Listed Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants. The Resources Agency: Sacramento, California, 2006.

California Department of Fish and Game. California Fish and Game Code. Gould Publications: Binghamton, New York, 1995.

California Department of Fish and Game. California Natural Diversity Data Base. The Resources Agency: Sacramento, California, 2007.

California Native Plant Society. 1991. Policy on Mitigation for Impacts to Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants.

California Native Plant Society Rare Plan Scientific Advisory Committee. February 2006.

Gorsen, Maureen F. The New and Improved CEQA Guidelines Revisions: Important Guidance for Controversial Issues. 1998.

Hickman, James C. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1993.

Holland, R.F. Preliminary Description of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Sacramento, California: Resources Agency, 1986.

72 Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. Final report to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, CA, under Contract (8023).

Mayer, Kenneth E. and William F. Laudenslayer, Jr. Ed. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Sacramento, California, 1988.

Remy, Michael H., Tina A. Thomas, James G. Moose and Whitman F. Manley. Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act. Point Arena, California: Solano Press Books, 1999.

Skinner, Mark W., and Bruce M. Pavlik. California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. CNPS, 1994.

Storer, Tracy and Robert Usinger. Sierra Nevada Natural History. University of California Press: Berkeley, California, 1963.

Swiecki, T. J., and E. Bernhardt. 1998. Understanding blue oak regeneration. Fremontia 26(1): 19-26.

University of California, Davis. Summary of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Report. Center for Water and Wildland Resources, 1996.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Corps of Engineers. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army, 1987.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 1996. Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines. October 25, 1996. Available On line: http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/cespk- co/regulatory/habmitmon.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Marinas and Recreational Boating, EPA 841-B-01-005 Available on line: http://epa.gov/owow/nps/mmsp/

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Programmatic Formal Endangered Species Act Consultation on Issuance of 404 Permits for Projects with Relatively Small Effects on Listed Vernal Pool Crustaceans Within the Jurisdiction of the Sacramento Field Office, California. February 28, 1996. 12 pages.

73

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 50 CFR 17.11 & 17.12., August 20, 1994.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996a. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants. September 23, 1996.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Roberta Gerson, Supervisor Endangered Species Branch, Sacramento, CA, VELB habitat meeting, personal communication, March 2004.

Wetland Training Institute, Inc. Federal Wetland Regulation Reference Manual. B.N. Goode and R. J. Pierces (eds.) WTI 90-1, 1991.

Zeiner, David C., William F Laudenslayer, Kenneth Mayer and Marshal White. California’s Wildlife Volume I, Birds. Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California,1990.

Zeiner, David C., William F Laudenslayer, Kenneth Mayer and Marshal White. California’s Wildlife Volume II, Birds. Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California, 1990.

Whittaker, R. H. 1975. Communities and Ecosystems. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan.

74

Table 3 - River West Plant List

Common Name Name Family American Vetch +Vicia americana4 Fabaceae Annual Bluegrass Poa annua Poaceae +Ambrosia Annual Burweed Asteraceae acanthicarpa Arroyo Willow +Salix lasiolepis Salicaceae Beard Grass Polypogon interruptus Poaceae Bent-Flowered Fiddleneck +Amsinckia lunaris Boraginaceae Bermuda Grass Cynodon dactylon Poaceae Bird’s-Foot Trefoil Lotus corniculatus Fabaceae Black Medic Medicago lupulina Fabaceae Black Mustard Brassica niger Brassicaceae Black Willow +Salix goodingii Salicaceae +Dichelostemma Blue Dicks capitata = Brodiaea Liliaceae pulchella Blue Elderberry +Sambucus mexicana Caprifoliaceae Blue Gum Eucalyptus globulus Myrtaceae Blue Oak +Quercus douglasii Fagaceae Blue-Eyed Grass +Sisyrinchium bellum Liliaceae Bristly Ox-Tongue Picris echioides Asteraceae +Arctostaphylos Brittle-Leaf Manzanita tomentosa ssp. Ericaceae crustacea +Ceanothus cuneatus Buck Brush Rhamnaceae var. cuneatus Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare Asteraceae Bur Chervil Anthriscus caucalis Apiaceae Bur-Clover Medicago polymorpha Fabaceae

4 + indicates native species

75 Table 3 - River West Plant List

Common Name Name Family California Bedstraw +Galium californicum Rubiaceae +Scrophularia California Bee Plant Scrophulariaceae californica California Blackberry +Rubus ursinus Rosaceae California Brome +Bromus carinatus Poaceae California Buckeye +Aesculus californica Hippocastanaceae +Ranunculus California Buttercup Ranunculaceae californicus +Rafinesquia California Chicory Asteraceae californica +Gnaphalium California Cudweed Asteraceae californicum California Dandelion +Agoseris grandiflora Asteraceae California Fescue +Festuca californica Poaceae California Filago +Filago californica Asteraceae California Gilia +Gilia achilleifolia Polemoniaceae +Chenopodium California Goosefoot Chenopodiaceae californicum California Maidenhair Fern +Adiantum jordanii Pteridaceae California Melica +Melica californica Poaceae California Milkweed +Asclepias californica Asclepiadaceae +Guillenia California Mustard (Thelypodium) Brassicaceae lasiophylla California Plantain +Plantago erecta Plantaginaceae +Polypodium California Polypody Polypodiaceae californicum +Plagiobothrys collinus California Popcorn Flower Boraginaceae var. fulvescens +Eschscholzia California Poppy Papaveraceae californica California Saxifrage +Saxifraga californica Saxifragaceae

76 Table 3 - River West Plant List

Common Name Name Family California Sycamore +Platanus racemosa Platanaceae California Water Starwort +Callitriche marginata Callitrichaceae California Wild Rose +Rosa californica Rosaceae California Willow-Herb +Epilobium ciliatum Onagraceae Campion Silene antirrhina Caryophyllaceae Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacae Poaceae CaterpillarPhacelia +Phacelia cicutaria Hydrophyllaceae Cattail +Typha latifolia Typhaceae +Ceanothus Chapparal Whitethorn Rhamnaceae leucodermis Cheat Grass Bromus tectorum Poaceae Cheeseweed Malva parviflora Malvaceae Chess Bromus secalinus Poaceae Climbing Bedstraw +Galium porrigens Rubiaceae Common Chickweed Stellaria media Caryophyllaceae Common Cocklebur Xanthium strumartium Asteraceae Common Dandelion Taraxacum officinale Asteraceae +Amsinckia menziesii Common Fiddleneck Boraginaceae var. intermedia Common Groundsel Senecio vulgaris Asteraceae Polygonum Common Knotweed Polygonaceae arenastrum Common Mallow Malva neglecta Malvaceae Common Monkeyflower +Mimulus guttatus Scrophulariaceae Common Pepper-Grass Lepidium densiflorum Brassicaceae +Lepidium nitidum var. Common Pepper-Grass Brassicaceae nitidum Common Rush +Juncus patens Juncaceae Common Soliva Soliva sessilis Asteraceae Common Sow-Thistle Sonchus oleraceus Asteraceae

77 Table 3 - River West Plant List

Common Name Name Family Common Toad Rush +Juncus bufonius Juncaceae Common Yarrow +Achillea millefolium Asteraceae Coyote Brush +Baccharis pilularis Asteraceae Creeping oxalis Oxalis corniculata Oxalidaceae Curly Dock Rumex crispus Polygonaceae Cut-Leaved Geranium Geranium dissectum Geraniaceae Cut-Leaved Plantain Plantago coronopus Plantaginaceae +Ceanothus Deer Brush Rhamnaceae intergerrimus Deerweed +Lotus scoparius Fabaceae Douglas’ Mugwort +Artemisia douglasiana Asteraceae Dove’s-Foot Geranium Geranium molle Geraniaceae Elegant Brodiea Brodiaea elegans Lilaceae English Plantain Plantago lanceolata Plantaginaceae Farewell to Spring +Clarkia arvensis Onagraceae Hordeum murinum Farmer’s Foxtail Poaceae ssp. leporinum Field Bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Convolvulaceae +Fremontodendron Flannel Bush Sterculiaceae californicum +Clarkia purpurea ssp. Four-Spot Clarkia Onagraceae quadrivulnera Bromus madritensis Foxtail Chess Poaceae ssp. rubens Giant Reed Arundo donax Poaceae +Pentagramma Goldback Fern Pteridaceae triangularis Golden Stars +Bloomeria crocea Liliaceae +Eriophyllum Golden Yarrow Asteraceae confertiflorum Goldfields +Lasthenia californica Asteraceae

78 Table 3 - River West Plant List

Common Name Name Family Goose Grass, Cleavers Galium aparine Rubiaceae Grass Poly Lythrum hyssopifolium Lythraceae Gray Mule-Ears +Wyethia helenioides Asteraceae Horsetail Equisetum sp. Equisetaceae Conyza floribunda (= Horseweed; Narrowleaf flax C. sumatrensis, C. Asteraceae bonariensis) Interior Live Oak +Quercus wislizenii Fagaceae Italian Ryegrass Lolium multiflorum Poaceae Carduus Italian Thistle Asteraceae pycnocephalus +Viola pedunculata ssp Johnny Jump-Up Violaceae tenuifolia June Grass +Koeleria macrantha Poaceae Lamb’s Quarters Chenopodium album Chenopodiaceae Lance-Leaved Dudleya +Dudleya lanceolata Crassulaceae +Amsinckia menziesii Large Fiddleneck Boraginaceae var. menziesii Leafy Bent Grass +Agrostis pallens Poaceae Long-Beaked Filaree Erodium botrys Geraniaceae Mannagrass +Glyceria occidentalis Poaceae +Hordeum Meadow Barley Poaceae brachyantherum Hordeum marinum Mediterranean Barley ssp. gussoneanum (H. Poaceae hystrix) Taeniatherum caput- Medusa Head Poaceae medusae Milk Thistle Silybum marianum Asteraceae Milkweed +Asclepias fascicularis Asclepiadaceae Miner’s Lettuce +Claytonia perfoliata Portulacaceae

79 Table 3 - River West Plant List

Common Name Name Family Minor Quake Grass Briza minor Poaceae +Cryptantha Minute Flowered Cryptantha Boraginaceae micromeres Cerastium Mouse-Ear Chickweed Caryophyllaceae glomeratum Mustard Brassica tournefortii Brassicaceae +Eriogonum nudum Naked; Nude Buckwheat Polygonaceae var. auriculatum Narrow-leaf Cattail +Typha angustiflora Typhaceae Narrowleaf Mule-Ears +Wyethia augustifolia Asteraceae Needle and Thread +Nassella cernua Poaceae +Vulpia microstachys Pacific Fescue Poaceae var. pauciflora +Juncus effusus Pacific Rush Juncaceae pacificus Perennial Ryegrass Lolium perenne Poaceae Pickleweed Salicornia sp. Chenopodiaceae Chamomilla Pineapple Weed Asteraceae suaveolens Poison Hemlock Conium maculatum Apiaceae +Toxicodendron Poison Oak Anacardiaceae diversilobum +Plagiobothrys Popcorn Flower Boraginaceae nothofulvus Prickly Cryptantha +Cryptantha muricata Boraginaceae Prickly Lettuce Lactuca serriola Asteraceae Prickly Sow-Thistle Sonchus asper Asteraceae Puncture Vine Tribulus terrestris Zygophilyceae +Gnaphalium Purple Cudweed Asteraceae purpureum Purple Sanicle +Sanicula bipinnatifida Apiaceae Quake Grass Briza maxima Poaceae

80 Table 3 - River West Plant List

Common Name Name Family Polypogon Rabbitfoot Grass Poaceae monspeliensis Rat-Tail Fescue Vulpia myuros Poaceae Red Maids +Calandrinia ciliata Portulacaceae Red-Stemmed Filaree Erodium cicutarium Geraniaceae Ripgut Brome Bromus rigidus Poaceae Ripgut Grass Bromus diandrus Poaceae Salt Grass +Distichlis spicata Poaceae Scarlet Pimpernel Anagallis arvensis Primulaceae Scarlet Wisteria Sesbania punicea Papilionaceae Sheep Sorrel Rumex acetosella Polygonaceae Capsella bursa- Shepherd’s Purse Brassicaceae pastoris Silver Bush Lupine +Lupinus albifrons Fabaceae Silver Hairgrass Aira caryophyllea Poaceae Six-Week Fescue Vulpia bromoides Poaceae Sky Lupine +Lupinus nanus Fabaceae Slender Fescue +Vulpia octoflora Poaceae Slender Tarweed +Madia gracilis Asteraceae Slender Wild Oat Avena barbata Poaceae Small Tarweed +Madia exigua Asteraceae Small-Flowered Linanthus +Linanthus parviflorus Polemoniaceae Smooth Cat’s Ear Hypochaeris glabra Asteraceae Smooth Mule-Ears +Wyethia glabra Asteraceae Sneezeweed +Helenium puberulum Asteraceae +Chlorogalum Soap Plant Liliaceae pomeridianum Soft Chess Bromus hordeaceus Poaceae Bromus madritensis Spanish Brome Poaceae ssp. madritensis

81 Table 3 - River West Plant List

Common Name Name Family Spanish Cockle Vaccaria hispanica Caryophyllaceae +Elymus elymoides or Squirreltail Grass Poaceae E. multisetus +Antirrhinum Sticky Snapdragon Scrophulariaceae multiflorum +Urtica dioica ssp Stinging Nettle Urticaceae holosericea Hirschfeldia incana Summer Mustard Brassicaceae (=Brassica geniculata) +Eleocharis Tall Spike-Rush Cyperaceae macrostachya Tomcat Clover +Trifolium willdenovii Fabaceae Tricolor Gilia +Gilia tricolor Polemoniaceae +Eremocarpus Turkey Mullein, Dove Weed Euphorbiaceae setigerus Umbrella Sedge Cyperus eragrostis Cyperaceae Valley Oak +Quercus lobata Fagaceae +Trichostema Vinegar Weed Lamiaceae lanceolatum +Rorippa nasturtium- Watercress Brassicaceae aquaticum +Agrostis exarata var. Western Bentgrass Poaceae pacifica Western Melica +Melica imperfecta Poaceae Western Nettle +Hesperocnide tenella Urticaceae Western Ryegrass +Elymus glaucus Poaceae White-Stemmed Filaree, Musk Filaree Erodium moschatum Geraniaceae +Trifolium variegatum White-Tipped Clover Fabaceae var.variegatum Wicker Buckwheat +Eriogonum vimineum Polygonaceae +Apiastrum Wild Celery Apiaceae angustifolium

82 Table 3 - River West Plant List

Common Name Name Family Wild Cucumber +Marah fabaceus Cucurbitaceae Wild Heliotrope +Phacelia distans Hydrophyllaceae Wild Mustard Brassica rapar Brassicaceae Wild Oat Avena fatua Poaceae Wild Radish Raphanus sativus Brassicaceae Willow Dock +Rumex salicifolius Polygonaceae Willow-Herb Godetia +Clarkia epilobioides Onagraceae Windmill Pink Silene gallica Caryophyllaceae Wire Rush, Baltic Rush +Juncus balticus Juncaceae Woolly Vetch; Winter Vetch Vicia villosa Fabaceae Yellow Sweet Clover Melilotus indica Fabaceae Yellow Star Thistle Centaurea solstitialis Asteraceae Yellow tarweed Hemizonia congesta Asteraceae

83

Table 4 - River West Fauna List

OBSERVED SPECIES CLASS ORDER FAMILY SPECIES

HYLIDAE Pacific Tree Frog SALIENTIA (Tree Frogs) (Hyla regilla)

AMPHIBIA Bullfrog ANURA RANIDAE (Rana catesbeiana)

Western Fence Lizard IGUANIDAE SQUAMATA (Sceloporus (Lizards/Snakes) (Iguanids) occidentalis)

Southern Alligator SUBORDER SAURIA ANGUIDAE REPTILIA Lizard (Gerrhonotus (Lizards) (Alligator Lizards) multicarinatus) California King Snake SERPENTES COLUBRIDAE (Lampropeltis getulus (Snakes) (Colubrids) californiae) Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)

Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola)

ANSERIFORMES ANATIDAE Northern Shoveler (Dabblers) (Ducks) (Anas clypeata)

Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) AVES Canada Goose (Branta canadensis)

CICONIFORMES CATHARTIDAE (American Turkey Vulture Herons, Storks, Ibises, Vultures) (Cathartes aura) New World Vultures)

FALCONIFORMES ACCIPITRIDAE (Hawks, Red-tailed Hawk (Hawks/Falcons Harriers) (Buteo jamaicensis)

84 Table 4 - River West Fauna List

OBSERVED SPECIES CLASS ORDER FAMILY SPECIES

Coopers Hawk (Accipiter cooperii)

Black Shoulder Kite (Elanus axillaris)

Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni)

Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus)

Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus)

American Kestrel FALCONIDAE (Falco sparverius) (Caracaras, Falcons) Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) Osprey PANDIONIDAE (Pandion haliaetus) GALLIFORMES (Megapodes, PHASIANIDAE California Quail Currassows, (Quails, Pheasants) (Callipepla californica) Pheasants) Coot GRUIFORMES RALLIDAE (Fulica sp.) CHARADRIIDAE Killdeer (Plovers) (Charadrius vociferus) CHARADRIIFORMES Black Necked Stilt (Shorebirds/Gulls) RECURVIRINDAE (Himantopus mexicanus) COLUMBIFORMES COLUMBIDAE Mourning Dove (Pigeons/Doves) (Pigeons/Doves) (Zenaida macroura)

85 Table 4 - River West Fauna List

OBSERVED SPECIES CLASS ORDER FAMILY SPECIES

Acorn Woodpecker PICIFORMES PICIDAE (Melanerpes (Woodpeckers) (Woodpeckers, Wrynecks) formicivorus)

Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis)

ARDEIDAE

Great White Egret PELECANIFORMES (Ardea alba)

PHALACROCORACIDAE Cormorant (Cormorants, Shags) (Phalacrocorax sp.)

Black Phoebe (Sayornis nigricans) Say's Phoebe TYRANNIDAE (Sayornis saya) (Tyrant Flycatchers) PASSERIFORMES (Perching Birds) Western Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis)

Western Scrub-Jay CORVIDAE (Aphelocoma (Jays, Magpies, Crows) californica)

86 Table 4 - River West Fauna List

OBSERVED SPECIES CLASS ORDER FAMILY SPECIES

Common Raven (Corvus corax)

PARIDAE Oak Titmouse (Titmice) (Baeolophus inornatus)

AEGITHALIDAE Bushtit (Bushtit) (Psaltriparus minimus)

Western Bluebird TURDIDAE (Sialia mexicana) (Thrushes, Robins, American Robin Bluebirds) (Turdus migratorius)

STURNIDAE European Starling (Starlings) (Sturnus vulgaris)

Barn Swallow HIRUNDINIDAE (Hirundo rustica)

EMBERIZIDAE Dark-eyed Junco (Towhees, Sparrows, (Junco hyemalis) Longspurs)

Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) Western Meadowlark ICTERIDAE (Blackbirds, Orioles) (Sturnella neglecta) Brewer's Blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus)

House Finch FRINGILLIDAE (Carpodacus (Finches) mexicanus)

PASSERIDAE House Sparrow (Weaver Finches) (Passer domesticus)

87 Table 4 - River West Fauna List

OBSERVED SPECIES CLASS ORDER FAMILY SPECIES MARSUPIALIA DIDELPHIDAE Virginia Opossum (Opossums) (Opossums) (Didelphis virginiana)

LAGOMORPHA LEPORTIDAE Black-tailed Hare (Rabbits, Hares, Pikas) (Rabbits/Hares) (Lepus californicus) Deer Mouse CRICETIDAE (Peromyscus (Deer Mice) maniculatus) RODENTIA California ground SCIURIDAE (Squirrels, Rats, Mice) squirrel (Ground Squirrel) Spermophilus beecheyi MAMMALIA GEOMYIDAE Pocket Gopher (Gopher) (Thomomys bottae) Coyote (Canis latrans) CANIDAE Domestic Dog (canis (Foxes, Wolves) domestica) CARNIVORA MUSTALOIDAE Striped Skunk (Carnivores) (Skunks) (Mephitis mephitis) PROCYONIDA Racoon (Racoons) (Procyon lotor) CERVIDAE Black-tailed Deer ARTIODACTYLA (Deer) (Odocoileus hemionus)

88 Table 5 - USFWS Species

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: 110323035032 Database Last Updated: April 29, 2010

Listed Species Invertebrates

• Branchinecta conservatio o Conservancy fairy shrimp (E)

• Branchinecta lynchi o Critical habitat, vernal pool fairy shrimp (X) o vernal pool fairy shrimp (T)

• Desmocerus californicus dimorphus o valley elderberry longhorn beetle (T)

Fish

• Hypomesus transpacificus o delta smelt (T)

• Oncorhynchus mykiss o Central Valley steelhead (T) (NMFS)

Amphibians

• Ambystoma californiense o California tiger salamander, central population (T) o Critical habitat, CA tiger salamander, central population (X)

• Rana draytonii o California red-legged frog (T)

89 Reptiles

• Gambelia (=Crotaphytus) sila o blunt-nosed leopard lizard (E)

• Thamnophis gigas o giant garter snake (T)

Mammals

• Dipodomys nitratoides exilis o Fresno kangaroo rat (E)

• Vulpes macrotis mutica o San Joaquin kit fox (E)

Plants

• Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta o Critical habitat, succulent (=fleshy) owl's-clover (X) o succulent (=fleshy) owl's-clover (T)

• Caulanthus californicus o California jewelflower (E)

• Orcuttia inaequalis o Critical habitat, San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (X) o San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (T)

• Orcuttia pilosa o Critical habitat, hairy Orcutt grass (X) o hairy Orcutt grass (E)

90 Quads Containing Listed, Proposed or Candidate Species:

LANES BRIDGE (379A)

FRESNO NORTH (379D)

County Lists

Listed Species Invertebrates • Branchinecta longiantenna o longhorn fairy shrimp (E) • Branchinecta lynchi o Critical habitat, vernal pool fairy shrimp (X) o vernal pool fairy shrimp (T) • Desmocerus californicus dimorphus o valley elderberry longhorn beetle (T) • Lepidurus packardi o Critical habitat, vernal pool tadpole shrimp (X) o vernal pool tadpole shrimp (E)

Fish • Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) clarki henshawi o Lahontan cutthroat trout (T) • Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) clarki seleniris o Paiute cutthroat trout (T) • Oncorhynchus mykiss o Central Valley steelhead (T) (NMFS)

Amphibians • Ambystoma californiense o California tiger salamander, central population (T) o Critical habitat, CA tiger salamander, central population (X) • Rana draytonii o California red-legged frog (T)

Reptiles • Gambelia (=Crotaphytus) sila o blunt-nosed leopard lizard (E) • Thamnophis gigas o giant garter snake (T)

Mammals • Dipodomys nitratoides exilis 91 o Fresno kangaroo rat (E) • Vulpes macrotis mutica o San Joaquin kit fox (E)

Plants • Calyptridium pulchellum o Mariposa pussy-paws (T) • Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta o Critical habitat, succulent (=fleshy) owl's-clover (X) o succulent (=fleshy) owl's-clover (T) • Cordylanthus palmatus o palmate-bracted bird's-beak (E) • Orcuttia inaequalis o Critical habitat, San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (X) o San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (T) • Orcuttia pilosa o Critical habitat, hairy Orcutt grass (X) o hairy Orcutt grass (E) • Pseudobahia bahiifolia o Hartweg's golden sunburst (E) • Tuctoria greenei o Critical habitat, Greene's tuctoria (=Orcutt grass) (X)

Candidate Species

Amphibians • Bufo canorus o Yosemite toad (C)

• Rana muscosa o mountain yellow-legged frog (C)

Mammals • Martes pennanti o fisher (C)

92

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

93 Table 6 - CNDDB Species

Fresno North & Lanes Bridge U.S.G.S. 7 1/2 Minute Quad Database Last Updated: March 2011

94

95 Table 7 - CNPS Species

SCINAME COM_NAME FAMILY LIFE_FORM CNPS_LIST SRANK GRANK STATE_STAT FED_STAT blooming_orig Castilleja succulent owl's- annual herb campestris ssp. Orobanchaceae List 1B.2 S2.2 G4?T2 Endangered Threatened Apr-May clover hemiparasitic succulenta Caulanthus California jewel- Brassicaceae annual herb List 1B.1 S1.1 G1 Endangered Endangered Feb-May californicus flower Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia Campanulaceae annual herb List 2.2 S2 G2 Mar-May Eryngium spiny-sepaled annual/perennial Apiaceae List 1B.2 S2.2 G2 Apr-May spinosepalum button-celery herb perennial Imperata brevifolia California satintail Poaceae List 2.1 S2.1 G2 Sep-May rhizomatous herb Leptosiphon Madera Polemoniaceae annual herb List 1B.2 S1? G1? Apr-May serrulatus leptosiphon San Joaquin Orcuttia inaequalis Valley Orcutt Poaceae annual herb List 1B.1 S2.1 G2 Endangered Threatened Apr-Sep grass Orcuttia pilosa hairy Orcutt grass Poaceae annual herb List 1B.1 S2.1 G2 Endangered Endangered May-Sep Pseudobahia Hartweg's golden Asteraceae annual shrub List 1B.1 S2.1 G2 Endangered Endangered Mar-Apr bahiifolia sunburst perennial Sanford's Sagittaria sanfordii Alismataceae rhizomatous herb List 1B.2 S3 G3 May-Oct arrowhead emergent Tropidocarpum caper-fruited Brassicaceae annual herb List 1B.1 S1.1 G1 Mar-Apr capparideum tropidocarpum Tuctoria greenei Greene's tuctoria Poaceae annual herb List 1B.1 S2.2 G2 Rare Endangered May-Jul(Sep),

96 Ranking Definitions

Determining which plants and animals are thriving and which are rare or declining is crucial for targeting conservation towards those species and habitats in greatest need. NatureServe and its natural heritage member programs have developed a consistent method for evaluating the relative imperilment of both species and ecological communities. These assessments lead to the designation of a conservation status rank. For plant and animal species these ranks provide an estimate of extinction risk, while for ecological communities they provide an estimate of the risk of elimination. There is currently no conservation status ranks determined for Ecological Systems.

Conservation status ranks are based on a one to five scale, ranging from critically imperiled (G1) to demonstrably secure (G5). Status is assessed and documented at three distinct geographic scales-global (G), national (N), and state/province (S). These status assessments are based on the best available information, and consider a variety of factors such as abundance, distribution, population trends, and threats.

Interpreting NatureServe Conservation Status Ranks

The conservation status of a species or community is designated by a number from 1 to 5, preceded by a letter reflecting the appropriate geographic scale of the assessment (G = Global), N = National, and S = Subnational). The numbers have the following meaning:

1 = critically imperiled 2 = imperiled 3 = vulnerable to extirpation or extinction 4 = apparently secure 5 = demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure.

For example, G1 would indicate that a species is critically imperiled across its entire range (i.e., globally). In this sense the species as a whole is regarded as being at very high risk of extinction. A rank of S3 would indicate the species is vulnerable and at moderate risk within a particular state or province, even though it may be more secure elsewhere.

Extinct or missing species and ecological communities are designated with either an "X" (presumed extinct or extirpated) if there is no expectation that they still survive, or an "H" (possibly extinct or extirpated) if they are known only from historical records but there is a chance they may still exist. Other variants and qualifiers are used to add information or indicate any range of uncertainty. See the following conservation status rank definitions for complete descriptions of ranks and qualifiers.

97 Global, National, and Subnational Assessments

The overall status of a species or ecological community is regarded as its "global" status; this range-wide assessment of condition is referred to as its global conservation status rank (G-rank). Because the G-rank refers to the species or community as a whole, each species or community can have just a single global conservation status rank. The condition of a species or community can vary from one country to another, and national conservation status ranks (N-rank) document its condition in a particular country. A species or community can have as many N-ranks as countries in which it occurs. Similarly, status can vary by state or province, and thus subnational conservation status ranks (S-rank) document the condition of the species or community within a particular state or province. Again, there may be as many subnational conservation status ranks as the number of states or provinces in which the species or community occurs.

National and subnational status ranks must always be equal to or lower than the global rank for a particular species or community (in this sense a "lower" number indicates greater risk). On the other hand, it is possible for a species or community to be more imperiled in a given nation or state/province than it is range-wide. As an example, a species may be common and secure globally (G5), vulnerable in the United States as a whole (N3), yet critically imperiled in Florida (S1). In the United States and Canada, the combination of global and subnational ranks (e.g., G3S1) are widely used to place local priorities within a broader conservation context.

Global conservation status assessments generally are carried out by NatureServe scientists with input from relevant natural heritage member programs and experts on particular taxonomic groups. NatureServe scientists similarly take the lead on national-level status assessments in the United States and Canada, while state and provincial member programs assess the subnational conservation status for species found in their respective jurisdictions.

Status assessments ideally should reflect current conditions and understanding, and NatureServe and its member programs strive to update these assessments with new information from field surveys, monitoring activities, consultation, and scientific publications. NatureServe Explorer users with significant new or additional information are encouraged to contact NatureServe or the relevant natural heritage program.

To ensure that NatureServe's central databases represent the most current knowledge from across our network of member programs, data exchanges are carried out with each natural heritage program at least once a year. The subnational conservation status ranks (S-ranks) presented in NatureServe Explorer are therefore only as current as the last data exchange with each local natural heritage program, coupled with the latest web site update (shown in the "small print" at the bottom of each NatureServe Explorer report). Although most subnational conservation status ranks do not change frequently, the most current S-ranks can be obtained directly from the relevant local natural heritage.

98 Status Assessment Criteria

Use of standard criteria and rank definitions makes NatureServe conservation status ranks comparable across organism types and political boundaries. Thus, G1 has the same basic meaning whether applied to a salamander, a moss species, or a forest community. Similarly, an S1 has the same meaning whether applied to a species or community in Manitoba, Minnesota, or Mississippi. This standardization in turn allows NatureServe scientists to use the subnational ranks assigned by local natural heritage programs to help determine and refine global conservation status ranks.

Status assessments are based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative information. Criteria for assigning ranks serve as guidelines, however, rather than arithmetic rules. The assessor's overall knowledge of the species or community allows them to weigh each factor in relation to the others, and to consider all pertinent information. The general factors considered in assessing species and ecological communities are similar, but the relative weight given to each factor differs.

For species, the following factors are considered in assessing conservation status:

o total number and condition of occurrences (e.g., populations) o population size o range extent and area of occupancy o short- and long-term trends in the above factors o scope, severity, and immediacy of threats o number of protected and managed occurrences o intrinsic vulnerability o environmental specificity

For ecological communities, the association level generally is the classification unit assessed and. Only global conservation status ranks are currently available for ecological communities on NatureServe Explorer. The primary factors for assessing community status are:

Species known in an area only from historical records are ranked as either H (possibly extirpated/possibly extinct) or X (presumed extirpated/presumed extinct). Other codes, rank variants, and qualifiers are also allowed in order to add information about the element or indicate uncertainty. See the lists of conservation status rank definitions for complete descriptions of ranks and qualifiers.

o total number of occurrences (e.g., forest stands); and, o total acreage occupied by the community.

Secondary factors include the geographic range over which the community occurs, threats, and integrity of the occurrences. Because detailed information on these factors may not be available, especially for poorly understood or inventoried communities, preliminary assessments are often based on the following:

99 o geographic range over which the community occurs o long-term trends across this range o short-term trend (i.e., threats) o degree of site/environmental specificity exhibited by the community; and, o imperilment or rarity across the range as indicated by subnational ranks assigned by local natural heritage programs.

Relationship to Other Status Designations

NatureServe conservation status ranks are a valuable complement to legal status designations assigned by government agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service in administering the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Canadian Wildlife Service in administering the Species at Risk Act (SARA). NatureServe status ranks, and the documentation that support them, are often used by such agencies in making official determinations, particularly in the identification of candidates for legal protection. Because NatureServe assessment procedures-and subsequent lists of imperiled and vulnerable species- have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes, and taxonomic coverage than official lists of endangered and threatened species, they do not necessarily coincide.

The IUCN Red List of threatened species is similar in concept to NatureServe's global conservation status assessments. Due to the independent development of these two systems, however, minor differences exist in their respective criteria and implementation. Recent studies indicate that when applied by experienced assessors using comparable information, the outputs from the two systems are generally concordant. NatureServe is an active participant in the IUCN Red List Programme, and in the region covered by NatureServe Explorer, NatureServe status ranks and their underlying documentation often form a basis for Red List threat assessments.

Global Conservation Status Definitions

Listed below are definitions for interpreting NatureServe global conservation status ranks (G- ranks). These ranks reflect an assessment of the condition of the species or ecological community across its entire range. Where indicated, definitions differ for species and ecological communities.

100 NatureServe Global Conservation Status Ranks

Basic Ranks

Rank Definition

GX Presumed Extinct (species) — Not located despite intensive searches and virtually no likelihood of rediscovery.

Eliminated (ecological communities)—Eliminated throughout its range, with no restoration potential due to extinction of dominant or characteristic species.

GH Possibly Extinct (species) — Missing; known from only historical occurrences but still some hope of rediscovery.

Presumed Eliminated — (Historic, ecological communities)-Presumed eliminated throughout its range, with no or virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered, but with the potential for restoration, for example, American Chestnut Forest.

G1 Critically Imperiled — At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors.

G2 Imperiled — At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors.

G3 Vulnerable — At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors.

G4 Apparently Secure — Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.

G5 Secure — Common; widespread and abundant.

Variant Ranks

Rank Definition

G#G# Range Rank — A numeric range rank (e.g., G2G3) is used to indicate the range of uncertainty in the status of a species or community. A G2G3 rank would indicate that there is a roughly equal chance of G2 or G3 and other ranks are much less likely. Ranges cannot skip more than one rank (e.g., GU should be used rather than G1G4).

101 Rank Definition

GU Unrankable —- Currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends. Whenever possible, the most likely rank is assigned and a question mark qualifier may be added (e.g., G2?) to express minor uncertainty, or a range rank (e.g., G2G3) may be used to delineate the limits (range) of uncertainty.

GNR Unranked — Global rank not yet assessed.

GNA Not Applicable — A conservation status rank is not applicable because the species is not a suitable target for conservation activities.

Rank Qualifiers

Rank Definition

? Inexact Numeric Rank — Denotes some uncertainty about the numeric rank (e.g. G3? - Believed most likely a G3, but some chance of either G2 or G4).

Q Questionable taxonomy — Taxonomic distinctiveness of this entity at the current level is questionable; resolution of this uncertainty may result in change from a species to a subspecies or hybrid, or the inclusion of this taxon in another taxon, with the resulting taxon having a lower-priority conservation priority.

C Captive or Cultivated Only — At present extant only in captivity or cultivation, or as a reintroduced population not yet established.

102 Infraspecific Taxon Conservation Status Ranks

Infraspecific taxa refer to subspecies, varieties and other designations below the level of the species. Infraspecific taxon status ranks (T-ranks) apply to plants and animal species only; these T-ranks do not apply to ecological communities.

Rank Definition

T# Infraspecific Taxon (trinomial) — The status of infraspecific taxa (subspecies or varieties) are indicated by a "T-rank" following the species' global rank. Rules for assigning T-ranks follow the same principles outlined above for global conservation status ranks. For example, the global rank of a critically imperiled subspecies of an otherwise widespread and common species would be G5T1. A T-rank cannot imply the subspecies or variety is more abundant than the species as a whole-for example, a G1T2 cannot occur. A vertebrate animal population, such as those listed as distinct population segments under under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, may be considered an infraspecific taxon and assigned a T-rank; in such cases a Q is used after the T-rank to denote the taxon's informal taxonomic status. At this time, the T rank is not used for ecological communities.

National and Subnational Conservation Status Definitions

Listed below are definitions for interpreting NatureServe conservation status ranks at the national (N- rank) and subnational (S-rank) levels. The term "subnational" refers to state or province-level jurisdictions (e.g., California, Ontario).

Assigning national and subnational conservation status ranks for species and ecological communities follows the same general principles as used in assigning global status ranks. A subnational rank, however, cannot imply that the species or community is more secure at the state/province level than it is nationally or globally (i.e., a rank of G1S3 cannot occur), and similarly, a national rank cannot exceed the global rank. Subnational ranks are assigned and maintained by state or provincial natural heritage programs and conservation data centers.

103 National (N) and Subnational (S) Conservation Status Ranks

Status Definition

NX Presumed Extirpated — Species or community is believed to be extirpated from the nation or state/province. Not located despite intensive searches of historical sites and SX other appropriate habitat, and virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered.

NH Possibly Extirpated (Historical) — Species or community occurred historically in the nation or state/province, and there is some possibility that it may be rediscovered. Its SH presence may not have been verified in the past 20-40 years. A species or community could become NH or SH without such a 20-40 year delay if the only known occurrences in a nation or state/province were destroyed or if it had been extensively and unsuccessfully looked for. The NH or SH rank is reserved for species or communities for which some effort has been made to relocate occurrences, rather than simply using this status for all elements not known from verified extant occurrences.

N1 Critically Imperiled — Critically imperiled in the nation or state/province because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or because of some factor(s) such as S1 very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state/province.

N2 Imperiled — Imperiled in the nation or state/province because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other S2 factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or state/province.

N3 Vulnerable — Vulnerable in the nation or state/province due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other S3 factors making it vulnerable to extirpation.

N4 Apparently Secure — Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. S4

N5 Secure — Common, widespread, and abundant in the nation or state/province.

S5

NNR Unranked — Nation or state/province conservation status not yet assessed.

SNR

NU Unrankable — Currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends. SU

104 Status Definition

NNA Not Applicable — A conservation status rank is not applicable because the species is not a suitable target for conservation activities. SNA

N#N# Range Rank — A numeric range rank (e.g., S2S3) is used to indicate any range of uncertainty about the status of the species or community. Ranges cannot skip more S#S# than one rank (e.g., SU is used rather than S1S4).

Not Species is known to occur in this nation or state/province. Contact the relevant natural Provided heritage program for assigned conservation status.

Breeding Status Qualifiers

Qualifier Definition

B Breeding — Conservation status refers to the breeding population of the species in the nation or state/province.

N Nonbreeding — Conservation status refers to the non-breeding population of the species in the nation or state/province.

M Migrant — Migrant species occurring regularly on migration at particular staging areas or concentration spots where the species might warrant conservation attention. Conservation status refers to the aggregating transient population of the species in the nation or state/province.

Note: A breeding status is only used for species that have distinct breeding and/or non-breeding populations in the nation or state/province. A breeding-status S-rank can be coupled with its complementary non-breeding-status S-rank if the species also winters in the nation or state/province, and/or a migrant-status S-rank if the species occurs regularly on migration at particular staging areas or concentration spots where the species might warrant conservation attention. The two (or rarely, three) status ranks are separated by a comma (e.g., "S2B,S3N" or "SHN,S4B,S1M").

Other Qualifiers

Rank Definition

? Inexact or Uncertain — Denotes inexact or uncertain numeric rank. (The ? qualifies the character immediately preceding it in the S-rank.)

105 New Modifications to the CNPS Ranking System

The CNPS Ranking Working Group was formed to review the ranking system in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (Inventory) and discuss needed modifications. This group decided to discontinue the use of the R-E-D (Rarity-Endangerment-Distribution) Code and to instead convey this information in a clearer way through modifying the CNPS List and including other information in the Inventory. This decision and the associated modifications were approved by the CNPS Board of Directors at their August 2005 meeting. The following information is intended to provide an explanation of and rationale for this new change to the CNPS ranking system.

Background

The R-E-D Code contains information on Rarity, Endangerment, and Distribution, ranked as a 1, 2, or 3 for each value (as below). This code was originally known as the R-E-V-D Code (through the 3rd edition 1980), and the V (Vigor) was removed in the 4th edition (1984).

R - Rarity

1 – Rare, but found in sufficient numbers and distributed widely enough that the potential for extinction is low at this time

2 – Distributed in a limited number of occurrences, occasionally more if each occurrence is small

3 – Distributed in one to several highly restricted occurrences, or present in such small numbers that it is seldom reported

E - Endangerment

1 – Not very endangered in California 2 – Fairly endangered in California 3 – Seriously endangered in California

D - Distribution

1 – More or less widespread outside California 2 – Rare outside California 3 – Endemic to California

106 Modifications Associated with R-E-D Code Discontinuation The information contained in the R-E-D Code remains in the Inventory, but the following new modifications express it more clearly:

• A new Threat Code extension has been added following the CNPS List (e.g. 1B.1, 2.2 etc.). This extension replaces the E (Endangerment) value from the R-E-D Code. The main difference is that the number coding is now reversed to reduce confusion and represent this information in parallel with the threat rankings that the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) uses. Therefore the logic is reversed so that the lower the number, the higher the corresponding threat level. • New Threat Code extensions and their meanings: .1 - Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)

.2 – Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened)

.3 – Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known)

Note that all List 1A (presumed extinct in California) and some List 3 (need more information- a review list) plants lacking any threat information receive no threat code extension. Also, these Threat Code guidelines represent a starting point in the assessment of threat level. Other factors, such as habitat vulnerability and specificity, distribution, and condition of occurrences, are also considered in setting the Threat Code.

107

APPENDIX A - River West Habitat Maps 250' Scale

108

O

Property Legend River West Project Boundary (~795 ac.) River West Habitat Types Habitat Class (~acres and %) Annual Grassland (~244.59 30.6%) Barren (~7.61 ac. 1.0%) Eucalyptus (~02.88 ac. 0.4%) Fremont Cottonwood (~43.35 ac. 5.4%) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (~40.92 ac. 5.1%) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (~36.70 ac. 4.6%) Freshwater Pond (~105.48 ac. 13.2%) Lake (~112.51 ac. 14.1%) Mixed Chaparral (~13.75 ac. 1.7%) Mixed Willow (~74.40 ac. 9.3%) Riverine (~46.55 ac. 5.8%) Sycamore (~12.49 ac. 1.6%) Urban (~29.34 ac. 3.7%) Valley Foothill Riparian (~28.17 ac. 3.5%) 1 inch = 250 feet

Figure 6 - River West Habitat Map 1 250' Scale 109 O

Property Legend River West Project Boundary (~795 ac.) River West Habitat Types Habitat Class (~acres and %) Annual Grassland (~244.59 30.6%) Barren (~7.61 ac. 1.0%) Eucalyptus (~02.88 ac. 0.4%) Fremont Cottonwood (~43.35 ac. 5.4%) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (~40.92 ac. 5.1%) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (~36.70 ac. 4.6%) Freshwater Pond (~105.48 ac. 13.2%) Lake (~112.51 ac. 14.1%) Mixed Chaparral (~13.75 ac. 1.7%) Mixed Willow (~74.40 ac. 9.3%) Riverine (~46.55 ac. 5.8%) Sycamore (~12.49 ac. 1.6%) Urban (~29.34 ac. 3.7%) Valley Foothill Riparian (~28.17 ac. 3.5%) 1 inch = 250 feet

Figure 7 - River West Habitat Map 2 250' Scale

110 O

Property Legend River West Project Boundary (~795 ac.) River West Habitat Types Habitat Class (~acres and %) Annual Grassland (~244.59 30.6%) Barren (~7.61 ac. 1.0%) Eucalyptus (~2.88 ac. 0.4%) Fremont Cottonwood (~43.35 ac. 5.4%) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (~40.92 ac. 5.1%) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (~36.70 ac. 4.6%) Freshwater Pond (~105.48 ac. 13.2%) Lake (~112.51 ac. 14.1%) Mixed Chaparral (~13.75 ac. 1.7%) Mixed Willow (~74.40 ac. 9.3%) Riverine (~46.55 ac. 5.8%) Sycamore (~12.49 ac. 1.6%) Urban (~29.34 ac. 3.7%) Valley Foothill Riparian (~28.17 ac. 3.5%) 1 inch = 250 feet

Figure 8 - River West Habitat Map 3 250' Scale 111 O

Property Legend River West Project Boundary (~795 ac.) River West Habitat Types Habitat Class (~acres and %) Annual Grassland (~244.59 30.6%) Barren (~7.61 ac. 1.0%) Eucalyptus (~2.88 ac. 0.4%) Fremont Cottonwood (~43.35 ac. 5.4%) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (~40.92 ac. 5.1%) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (~36.70 ac. 4.6%) Freshwater Pond (~105.48 ac. 13.2%) Lake (~112.51 ac. 14.1) Mixed Chaparral (~13.75 ac. 1.7%) Mixed Willow (~74.40 ac. 9.3%) Riverine (~46.55 ac. 5.8%) Sycamore (~12.49 ac. 1.6%) Urban (~29.34 ac. 3.7%) Valley Foothill Riparian (~28.17 ac. 3.5%) 1 inch = 250 feet

Figure 9 - River West Habitat Map 4 250' Scale

112 O

Property Legend River West Project Boundary (~795 ac.) River West Habitat Types Habitat Class (~acres and %) Annual Grassland (~244.59 30.6%) Barren (~7.61 ac. 1.0%) Eucalyptus (~2.88 ac. 0.4%) Fremont Cottonwood (~43.35 ac. 5.4%) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (~40.92 ac. 5.1%) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (~36.70 ac. 4.6%) Freshwater Pond (~105.48 ac. 13.2%) Lake (~112.51 ac. 14.1%) Mixed Chaparral (~13.75 ac. 1.7%) Mixed Willow (~74.40 ac. 9.3%) Riverine (~46.55 ac. 5.8%) Sycamore (~12.49 ac. 1.6%) Urban (~29.34 ac. 3.7%) Valley Foothill Riparian (~28.17 ac. 3.5%) 1 inch = 250 feet

Figure 10 - River West Habitat Map 5 250' Scale

113 O

Property Legend River West Project Boundary (~795 ac.) River West Habitat Types Habitat Class (~acres and %) Annual Grassland (~244.59 30.6%) Barren (~7.61 ac. 1.0%) Eucalyptus (~2.88 ac. 0.4%) Fremont Cottonwood (~43.35 ac. 5.4%) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (~40.92 ac. 5.1%) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (~36.70 ac. 4.6%) Freshwater Pond (~105.48 ac. 13.2%) Lake (~112.51 ac. 14.1%) Mixed Chaparral (~13.75 ac. 1.7%) Mixed Willow (~74.40 ac. 9.3%) Riverine (~46.55 ac. 5.8%) Sycamore (~12.49 ac. 1.6%) Urban (~29.34 ac. 3.7%) Valley Foothill Riparian (~28.17 ac. 3.5%) 1 inch = 250 feet

Figure 11 - River West Habitat Map 6 250' Scale

114 O

Property Legend River West Project Boundary (~795 ac.) River West Habitat Types Habitat Class (~acres and %) Annual Grassland (~244.59 30.6%) Barren (~7.61 ac. 1.0%) Eucalyptus (~2.88 ac. 0.4%) Fremont Cottonwood (~43.35 ac. 5.4%) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (~40.92 ac. 5.1%) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (~36.70 ac. 4.6%) Freshwater Pond (~105.48 ac. 13.2%) Lake (~112.51 ac. 14.1%) Mixed Chaparral (~13.75 ac. 1.7%) Mixed Willow (~74.40 ac. 9.3%) Riverine (~46.55 ac. 5.8%) Sycamore (~12.49 ac. 1.6%) Urban (~29.34 ac. 3.7%) Valley Foothill Riparian (~28.17 ac. 3.5%) 1 inch = 250 feet

Figure 12 - River West Habitat Map 7 250' Scale

115 O

Property Legend River West Project Boundary (~795 ac.) River West Habitat Types Habitat Class (~acres and %) Annual Grassland (~244.59 30.6%) Barren (~7.61 ac. 1.0%) Eucalyptus (~2.88 ac. 0.4%) Fremont Cottonwood (~43.35 ac. 5.4%) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (~40.92 ac. 5.1%) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (~36.70 ac. 4.6%) Freshwater Pond (~105.48 ac. 13.2%) Lake (~112.51 ac. 14.1%) Mixed Chaparral (~13.75 ac. 1.7%) Mixed Willow (~74.40 ac. 9.3%) Riverine (~46.55 ac. 5.8%) Sycamore (~12.49 ac. 1.6%) Urban (~29.34 ac. 3.7%) Valley Foothill Riparian (~28.17 ac. 3.5%) 1 inch = 250 feet

Figure 13 - River West Habitat Map 8 250' Scale

116 O

Property Legend River West Project Boundary (~795 ac.) River West Habitat Types Habitat Class (~acres and %) Annual Grassland (~244.59 30.6%) Barren (~7.61 ac. 1.0%) Eucalyptus (~2.88 ac. 0.4%) Fremont Cottonwood (~43.35 ac. 5.4%) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (~40.92 ac. 5.1%) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (~36.70 ac. 4.6%) Freshwater Pond (~105.48 ac. 13.2%) Lake (~112.51 ac. 14.1%) Mixed Chaparral (~13.75 ac. 1.7%) Mixed Willow (~74.40 ac. 9.3%) Riverine (~46.55 ac. 5.8%) Sycamore (~12.49 ac. 1.6%) Urban (~29.34 ac. 3.7%) Valley Foothill Riparian (~28.17 ac. 3.5%) 1 inch = 250 feet

Figure 14 - River West Habitat Map 9 250' Scale

117 O

Property Legend River West Project Boundary (~795 ac.) River West Habitat Types Habitat Class (~acres and %) Annual Grassland (~244.59 30.6%) Barren (~7.61 ac. 1.0%) Eucalyptus (~2.88 ac. 0.4%) Fremont Cottonwood (~43.35 ac. 5.4%) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (~40.92 ac. 5.1%) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (~36.70 ac. 4.6%) Freshwater Pond (~105.48 ac. 13.2%) Lake (~112.51 ac. 14.1%) Mixed Chaparral (~13.75 ac. 1.7%) Mixed Willow (~74.40 ac. 9.3%) Riverine (~46.55 ac. 5.8%) Sycamore (~12.49 ac. 1.6%) Urban (~29.34 ac. 3.7%) Valley Foothill Riparian (~28.17 ac. 3.5%) 1 inch = 250 feet

Figure 15 - River West Habitat Map 10 250' Scale

118 O

Property Legend River West Project Boundary (~795 ac.) River West Habitat Types Habitat Class (~acres and %) Annual Grassland (~244.59 30.6%) Barren (~7.61 ac. 1.0%) Eucalyptus (~2.88 ac. 0.4%) Fremont Cottonwood (~43.35 ac. 5.4%) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (~40.92 ac. 5.1%) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (~36.70 ac. 4.6%) Freshwater Pond (~105.48 ac. 13.2%) Lake (~112.51 ac. 14.1%) Mixed Chaparral (~13.75 ac. 1.7%) Mixed Willow (~74.40 ac. 9.3%) Riverine (~46.55 ac. 5.8%) Sycamore (~12.49 ac. 1.6%) Urban (~29.34 ac. 3.7%) Valley Foothill Riparian (~28.17 ac. 3.5%) 1 inch = 250 feet

Figure 16 - River West Habitat Map 11 250' Scale

119 O

Property Legend River West Project Boundary (~795 ac.) River West Habitat Types Habitat Class (~acres and %) Annual Grassland (~244.59 30.6%) Barren (~7.61 ac. 1.0%) Eucalyptus (~2.88 ac. 0.4%) Fremont Cottonwood (~43.35 ac. 5.4%) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (~40.92 ac. 5.1%) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (~36.70 ac. 4.6%) Freshwater Pond (~105.48 ac. 13.2%) Lake (~112.51 ac. 14.1%) Mixed Chaparral (~13.75 ac. 1.7%) Mixed Willow (~74.40 ac. 9.3%) Riverine (~46.55 ac. 5.8%) Sycamore (~12.49 ac. 1.6%) Urban (~29.34 ac. 3.7%) Valley Foothill Riparian (~28.17 ac. 3.5%) 1 inch = 250 feet

Figure 17 - River West Habitat Map 12 250' Scale

120 O

Property Legend River West Project Boundary (~795 ac.) River West Habitat Types Habitat Class (~acres and %) Annual Grassland (~244.59 30.6%) Barren (~7.61 ac. 1.0%) Eucalyptus (~2.88 ac. 0.4%) Fremont Cottonwood (~43.35 ac. 5.4%) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (~40.92 ac. 5.1%) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (~36.70 ac. 4.6%) Freshwater Pond (~105.48 ac. 13.2%) Lake (~112.51 ac. 14.1%) Mixed Chaparral (~13.75 ac. 1.7%) Mixed Willow (~74.40 ac. 9.3%) Riverine (~46.55 ac. 5.8%) Sycamore (~12.49 ac. 1.6%) Urban (~29.34 ac. 3.7%) Valley Foothill Riparian (~28.17 ac. 3.5%) 1 inch = 250 feet

Figure 18 - River West Habitat Map 13 250' Scale

121 O

Property Legend River West Project Boundary (~795 ac.) River West Habitat Types Habitat Class (~acres and %) Annual Grassland (~244.59 30.6%) Barren (~7.61 ac. 1.0%) Eucalyptus (~2.88 ac. 0.4%) Fremont Cottonwood (~43.35 ac. 5.4%) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (~40.92 ac. 5.1%) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (~36.70 ac. 4.6%) Freshwater Pond (~74.33 ac. 9.3%) Lake (~143.67 ac. 18%) Mixed Chaparral (~13.75 ac. 1.7%) Mixed Willow (~74.40 ac. 9.3%) Riverine (~46.55 ac. 5.8%) Sycamore (~12.49 ac. 1.6%) Urban (~29.34 ac. 3.7%) Valley Foothill Riparian (~28.17 ac. 3.5%) 1 inch = 250 feet

Figure 19 - River West Habitat Map 14 250' Scale

122 O

Property Legend River West Project Boundary (~795 ac.) River West Habitat Types Habitat Class (~acres and %) Annual Grassland (~244.59 30.6%) Barren (~7.61 ac. 1.0%) Eucalyptus (~2.88 ac. 0.4%) Fremont Cottonwood (~43.35 ac. 5.4%) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (~40.92 ac. 5.1%) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (~36.70 ac. 4.6%) Freshwater Pond (~105.48 ac. 13.2%) Lake (~112.51 ac. 14.1%) Mixed Chaparral (~13.75 ac. 1.7%) Mixed Willow (~74.40 ac. 9.3%) Riverine (~46.55 ac. 5.8%) Sycamore (~12.49 ac. 1.6%) Urban (~29.34 ac. 3.7%) Valley Foothill Riparian (~28.17 ac. 3.5%) 1 inch = 250 feet

Figure 20 - River West Habitat Map 15 250' Scale

123 O

Property Legend River West Project Boundary (~795 ac.) River West Habitat Types Habitat Class (~acres and %) Annual Grassland (~244.59 30.6%) Barren (~7.61 ac. 1.0%) Eucalyptus (~2.88 ac. 0.4%) Fremont Cottonwood (~43.35 ac. 5.4%) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (~40.92 ac. 5.1%) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (~36.70 ac. 4.6%) Freshwater Pond (~105.48 ac. 13.2%) Lake (~112.51 ac. 14.1%) Mixed Chaparral (~13.75 ac. 1.7%) Mixed Willow (~74.40 ac. 9.3%) Riverine (~46.55 ac. 5.8%) Sycamore (~12.49 ac. 1.6%) Urban (~29.34 ac. 3.7%) Valley Foothill Riparian (~28.17 ac. 3.5%) 1 inch = 250 feet

Figure 21 - River West Habitat Map 16 250' Scale

124

Appendix D – Draft River West-Madera Master Plan Document

Madera County San Joaquin River Conservancy Page | 189