BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 8225 MARIPOSA AVENUE PROPERTY, CITRUS HEIGHTS, CA

February 12, 2016

Prepared for:

US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District Regulatory Division 1325 J Street, Room 1350 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 557-6865

Prepared by:

Natural Investigations Company 6124 Shadow Lane, Citrus Heights, CA 95621

8225 Mariposa Ave. Bio. Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 2 1.1. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ...... 2 1.2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT...... 2 1.3. Listed Species and Critical Habitat ...... 2 1.4. Consultation to Date ...... 2 2. METHODS ...... 3 2.1. PRELIMINARY DATA GATHERING AND RESEARCH ...... 3 2.2. FIELD SURVEY ...... 3 2.3. MAPPING AND OTHER ANALYSES ...... 3 3. RESULTS OF FIELD SURVEYS ...... 4 3.1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 4 3.2. INVENTORY OF FLORA AND FAUNA FROM FIELD SURVEY ...... 4 3.3. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE HABITAT TYPES ...... 7 4. SPECIES ACCOUNTS ...... 7 4.1.1. Historical Occurrences of Listed Species ...... 7 4.1.2. Vernal Pool Species ...... 7 4.1.3. Reptiles and Amphibians ...... 7 4.1.4. Other Species ...... 8 5. EFFECTS ...... 8 5.1. Potential Impacts to Federally-listed Species ...... 8 5.2. Potential Impacts to Oak Woodland Habitat ...... 8 5.3. Potential Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters and Aquatic Habitat ...... 8 6. SUMMARY AND DETERMINATION ...... 9 7. REFERENCES ...... 10 8. QUALIFICATIONS OF BIOLOGIST ...... 10 9. EXHIBITS ...... 11

Page 1 8225 Mariposa Ave. Bio. Assessment

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A biological assessment was performed on a parcel of approximately 0.75 acres at 8225 Mariposa Avenue in Citrus Heights, California (“Project Area”).

The proposed action is a lot line division and the construction of a second single-family residence and an access road. An existing drainage swale would be re-routed. 1.2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT In support of the environmental review process, Natural Investigations Co. has prepared this assessment to provide information on biological resources within the Project Area. This assessment identifies the biological resources within the Project Area, the regulatory environment affecting such resources, any potential Project-related impacts upon these resources, and identifies mitigation measures to reduce these impacts.

This field survey conformed to survey standards specified by California Department of Fish and Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, including compliance with the California Endangered Species Act and the U.S. Endangered Species Act and state and federal laws protecting migratory birds and nesting birds. This technical memo documents the findings of the special-status species surveys for state-listed and federally listed species and other special-status species (including nesting birds) and an analysis of potential adverse effects upon listed species or designated critical habitat. 1.3. Listed Species and Critical Habitat

A USFWS species list was generated online using the USFWS’ IPaC Trust Resource Report System (see Exhibits). The following protected resources were identified:  Amphibians o California Red-legged Frog (Rana draytonii) o California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense)  Crustaceans o Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) o Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp (Lepidurus packardi)  Fishes o Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) o Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)  Insects o Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus)  Reptiles o Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas)  Migratory Birds

Critical Habitats

There is no critical habitat within this project area 1.4. Consultation to Date No consultation with wildlife agencies has occurred to date.

Page 2 8225 Mariposa Ave. Bio. Assessment

Ramon Aberasturi (Project Manager, California Delta Branch, USACE) conducted a field verification on January 21, 2016. The following delineation report was revised with information obtained from the field verification and was submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for verification:  Final Aquatic Resource Delineation Report for the Property at 8225 Mariposa Avenue, Citrus Heights, CA. February 11, 2016. Prepared for Regulatory Division, US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District. Prepared by Natural Investigations Company. 2. METHODS

2.1. PRELIMINARY DATA GATHERING AND RESEARCH Prior to conducting the field survey the following information sources were reviewed:  Any readily-available previous biological resource studies pertaining to the Project Area or vicinity  United States Geologic Service (USGS) 7.5 degree-minute topographic quadrangles of the Project Area and vicinity  Aerial photography of the Project Area  California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), electronically updated monthly by subscription to CDFG.  USFWS Species List 2.2. FIELD SURVEY Biologists Dr. G.O. Graening and Christopher Gray performed the first special-status species survey on the afternoon of April 3, 2015. Dr. Graening performed additonal special-status species surveys on September 15, 2015, January 21, 2016, and February 5, 2016. A complete coverage, pedestrian survey was performed. All visible fauna and flora observed were recorded in a field notebook, and identified to the lowest possible taxon. Survey efforts emphasized the search for any listed species that had documented occurrences in the CNDDB within the vicinity of the Project Area. When a specimen could not be identified in the field, a photograph or voucher specimen (depending upon permit requirements) was taken and identified in the laboratory using a dissecting scope where necessary. Dr. Graening holds the following scientific collection permits: CDFG Scientific Collecting Permit No. SC-006802; and CDFG Plant Voucher Specimen Permit 09004. Taxonomic determinations were facilitated by referencing museum specimens or by various texts, including the following: Powell and Hogue (1979); Pavlik (1991); (1993); Brenzel (2001); Stuart and Sawyer (2001); Lanner (2002); Sibley (2003); Baldwin et al. (2012); Calflora (2015); CDFG (2007b,c); NatureServe 2015; and University of California at Berkeley (2015a,b). The locations of any listed species sighted were marked on aerial photographs and/or georeferenced with a geographic positioning system (GPS) receiver. Habitat types occurring in the Project Area were mapped on aerial photographs, and information on habitat conditions and the suitability of the habitats to support listed species was also recorded. The Project Area was also formally assessed for the presence of potentially-jurisdictional water features, including riparian zones, isolated wetlands and vernal pools, and other biologically-sensitive aquatic habitats. 2.3. MAPPING AND OTHER ANALYSES Locations of species’ occurrences and habitat boundaries within the Project Area were recorded on color aerial photographs, and then digitized to produce the final habitat maps. The boundaries of potentially jurisdictional water resources within the Project Area were identified and measured in the field, and similarly digitized to calculate acreage and to produce informal delineation maps. Geographic analyses were performed using geographical information system software (ArcGIS 9.3, ESRI, Inc.). Vegetation communities (assemblages of plant species growing in an area of similar biological and environmental factors), were classified by Vegetation Series (distinctive associations of plants, described by dominant species and particular environmental setting) using the CNPS Vegetation Classification system (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 1995). Wetlands and other aquatic habitats were classified using USFWS National

Page 3 8225 Mariposa Ave. Bio. Assessment

Wetlands Inventory Classification System for Wetland and Deepwater Habitats, or “Cowardin class” (Cowardin et al., 1979; USFWS 2007). Informal wetland delineation methods consisted of an abbreviated, visual assessment of the three requisite wetland parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, hydrologic regime) defined in the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Wildlife habitats were classified according to the CDFG’s California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System (CDFG, 2007c). Species’ habitat requirements and life histories were identified using the following sources: Hickman (1993); CNPS (2009), Calflora (2009); CDFG (2009a,b,c); and University of California at Berkeley (2009a,b). 3. RESULTS OF FIELD SURVEYS

3.1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Project Area is located within the San Joaquin Valley geographic subregion, which is contained within the Great Central Valley geographic subdivision of the larger California Floristic Province (Baldwin et al. 2013). This region has a Mediterranean-type climate, characterized by distinct seasons of hot, dry summers and wet, moderately-cold winters. The Project Area and vicinity is in climate Zone 9, with a thermal belt protecting from frosts, and is unique in having “tule” fogs in winter (Brenzel 2007). The Project Area has a house under construction in the front half of the lot. In some areas, the landform has been altered by the addition of fill dirt and by grading. The soils are sandy and clayey but there were no vernal pools. Low areas contain greater concentrations of clay, and the soils are sandy where the pipe culvert ends. The topography of the Project Area is very flat but the general direction of surface runoff in the Study Area is to the south (see Exhibits). Drainage from this region flows to Cripple Creek.

A drainage pipe culvert and earthen swale running through the middle of the Project Area and it continues south and then drains into Cripple Creek. The drainage channel apparently experiences local flooding which affects downstream properties. As part of City drainage improvements, the drainage channel has apparently been disconnected from the city storm drain system at Twin Oaks. The drainage channel still receives local drainage from two upstream lots (estimated at 0.5 acre) and the western half of the Study Area. The drainage channel is still a feature of a City stormwater easement. 3.2. INVENTORY OF FLORA AND FAUNA FROM FIELD SURVEY Flora sighted within the Study Area during the field survey are listed in the following table. No federally- listed or special-status plant species were detected.

The following animals were detected during the survey: Mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), a black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), a Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), Western Scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), and ants (Formicidae). No federally-listed or special-status animal species were detected during this field survey. No active nests were present on site. There are two abandoned stick nests high up in the oak trees.

Page 4 8225 Mariposa Ave. Bio. Assessment

Aerial photo of the Project Area (purple line)

Page 5 8225 Mariposa Ave. Bio. Assessment

Table 1. List of All Plants Identified During the Field Surveys in 2016 Scientific Name Common Name Anagallis arvensis Scarlet Pimpernel Geranium dissectum Split Leaf Geranium Prunus sp. Wild Cherry Prunus cerasifera Purple Plum Trifolium spp. covers Hordeum marinum Barley Vinca Periwinkle Capsella bursa-pastorius Shepherd’s Purse Erodium botrys Long Beak Filaree Taraxacum officinale Dandelion Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Iris Iris (ornamental) Ligustrum Privet Eschscholzia californica California Poppy Lactuca serriola Prickly Lettuce Galium parisiense Bedstraw Hedera helix English Ivy Xanthium spp. Cocklebur Raphanus sativus Radish Narcissus Daffodil Geranium spp. Geranium Rubus armeniacus Himalayan Black Berry Plantago major Broad Leaf Plantain Plantago lanceolata Narrow Leaf Plantain Rumex crispus Curly Dock Mentha sp. mint Convolvulus arvensis Bindweed Festuca Fescue Robinia pseudoacacia Black Locust Catalpa Catalpa Calocedrus Incense Cedar Quercus wislizeni Interior Live Oak Quercus lobata Valley Oak Quercus douglasii Blue Oak Sequoia sempervirens Coastal Redwood Carya spp. Hickory spp. Acer saccharinum Silver Maple Platanus racemosa Sycamore Eriobotrya japonica Loquat

Page 6 8225 Mariposa Ave. Bio. Assessment

3.3. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE HABITAT TYPES The Study Area currently contains 2 terrestrial natural communities/habitat types, listed in descending areal preponderance: urbanized/ruderal; and annual grassland. Remnants of oak woodland habitat are present. No special-status habitats were detected within the Project Area, other than the drainage swale. No riparian habitat exists. Within a 5-mile radius of the Project Area, the nearest special-status habitat reported by CNDDB (CDFG 2016) are northern hardpan vernal pool and northern volcanic mud flow vernal pool. Based upon the field verification by USACE, 1 feature within the Study Area was determined to be subject to USACE jurisdiction:

Pipe culvert and drainage swale. The pipe culvert is a pre-cast concrete pipe with outer diameter of 24 inches and an inner diameter of 18 inches, approximately 44 feet long and 0.0020 acres (= 44 feet x 2 feet = 88 sq. ft.). The earthen swale is approximately 110 feet long. The OHWM ranges from 19 to 40 inches wide, with an average width of 30 inches. The top of bank ranges from 37 to 76 inches wide, with an average width of 60 inches. The total area, determined from top of bank to bank, is 0.0126 acre (= 110 feet x 5 feet = 550 sq. ft.). In an email dated February 2, 2016, Mr. Aberasturi recommended “taking jurisdiction bank to bank, as is typically applied to flooding drainage channels in the area.” This feature totals 154 linear feet, 0.0146 acres. The Cowardin Class is R4SB, Riverine, Intermittent, Streambed.

No in-channel wetlands were detected within the Study Area. No vernal pools or other isolated wetlands were detected within the Study Area. 4. SPECIES ACCOUNTS

4.1.1. Historical Occurrences of Listed Species A list of listed plant and animal species that historically occurred within the Project Area and vicinity was compiled based upon the following:  Any previous and readily-available biological resource studies pertaining to the Project Area;  Informal consultation with USFWS by generating an electronic Species List (available on the applicable Field Office website); and  A spatial query of the CNDDB.

The CNDDB was queried and any reported occurrences of listed species were plotted in relation to the Project Area boundary using GIS software (see Exhibits). The CNDDB reported no federally-listed species’ occurrences within the Project Area.

4.1.2. Vernal Pool Species The following regionally-occurring crustaceans and plants are vernal-pool obligate species: Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi); Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp (Lepidurus packardi); Sacramento Orcutt Grass (Orcuttia viscida); and Slender Orcutt Grass (Orcuttia tenuis). No vernal pools are present within the Project Area, and these species were not detected during field surveys. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action will have no effect upon vernal-pool obligate species.

4.1.3. Reptiles and Amphibians The following listed herpetofauna have been reported in the vicinity: California Red-legged Frog (Rana draytonii); California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense); and Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas). Breeding habitat consists of ponds, streams, and vernal pool complexes. There are no perennial or intermittent water resources within the Project Area, and thus no breeding habitat is present. The nearest breeding habitat might be Cripple Creek. Connectivity for wildlife movement is limited because

Page 7 8225 Mariposa Ave. Bio. Assessment there are channelizations and pipe culverts between the Project Area and Cripple Creek. Upland foraging, basking, and estivating habitat consists of upland areas near water resources with mammal burrows or other subterranean structures. There is no suitable foraging, basking, or estivating habitat within the Project Area, but higher-quality habitat is present in the vicinity. The Project Area contains no mammal burrows.

4.1.4. Other Species There are no perennial streams or fisheries resources within the Project Area or immediate vicinity. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action will have no adverse affect on listed fishes, such as Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) and Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

There are no elderberry shrubs within the Project Area or immediate vicinity. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action will have no effect on Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus). 5. EFFECTS This section analyzes potential Project-related impacts upon the known biological resources within the Project Area, and then suggests mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The Project’s development footprint was designed to avoid all sensitive features within the Project Area (the drainage swales and vernal pools) (see Exhibits). The following discussion evaluates the potential for Project-related activities to adversely affect specific biological resources.

5.1. Potential Impacts to Federally-listed Species No federally-listed species were detected in the 4 field surveys performed in 2015 and 2016. No federally- listed species are likely to occur within the Project Area because the Project Area is surrounded by developments and habitats within the Project Area are urbanized. Implementation of the Project would result in the loss of urbanized/ruderal habitat, but this is not considered to be a significant impact upon sensitive natural communities or the movement of wildlife species. The Project will have No Effect upon federally-listed species or designated critical habitat. 5.2. Potential Impacts to Oak Woodland Habitat The road will be constructed on areas that are barren or contain ruderal vegetation. The road design was aligned so that no native oak trees need to be removed. Geotextiles will be used on road sections under or near oak trees, which allows for a shallower road base, and thus shallower excavations of roadbed. This will help protect tree roots. A Citrus Heights Tree Permit will be obtained to trim branches and work within the driplines of oak trees. The Tree Permit requires construction best management practices to protect tree roots. With implementation of these best management practices, and by incorporating mitigation by design, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon oak woodlands.

Recommended Mitigation Measures

No additional mitigation measures are needed. 5.3. Potential Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters and Aquatic Habitat Implementation of the proposed project would result in the removal of the pipe culvert (44 linear feet, 0.0020 acres) and most of the drainage swale (80 linear feet, 0.0092 acre). This would result in the loss of 124 linear feet, 0.0112 acre of jurisdictional channel before mitigation. The primary ecological impact, before mitigation, is the loss of loss of hydrological functions: conveyance of stormwater and groundwater infiltration. The drainage swale provides no aquatic habitat because there is insufficient water flow to sustain aquatic breeding or foraging habitat. Furthermore, there are downstream urbanization features,

Page 8 8225 Mariposa Ave. Bio. Assessment such as channelization and pipe culverts, that have degraded channel habitat and that impede aquatic life movements.

Construction of the residence and road requires grading, excavation, and stockpiling. Such soil disturbances can increase erosion by both water and wind, creating a potentially significant impact upon receiving waterbodies. If the construction footprint is larger than one acre in area, such construction is regulated by the Clean Water Act under the SWRCB’s California General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ). In conjunction with enrollment under this Permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Erosion Control Plan, and a Hazardous Materials Management/Spill Response Plan must be created and implemented during construction to avoid or minimize the potential for erosion, sedimentation, or accidental release of hazardous materials. Construction Best Management Practices are also required. Implementation of these measures would reduce potential construction-related impacts to water quality to a less than significant level. Because these actions are required by law, no mitigation is necessary. Recommended Mitigation Measures

A Pre-construction Notification will be sent to USACE and a Nationwide Permit 43 will be obtained before the culvert is removed and the swale filled. A new swale will be created along the perimeter of the Project Area that will result in no net loss in waters of the U.S. The proposed bioswale is 472 feet in length and 10 feet wide (4,720 square feet or 0.1084 acres). The ratio of created to impacted channel is 12:1 (= 0.1084 acre / 0.0092 acre). The proposed bioswale is designed to maximize groundwater recharge and pollutant removal. Because there is a net gain in channel and ecological functions with this compensatory mitigation implemented, there will be a less than significant impact upon jurisdictional waters with project implementation. 6. SUMMARY AND DETERMINATION The proposed project has incorporating avoidance mitigation in the design to protect oak woodlands. The proposed project will mitigate for loss of an existing drainage swale by the creation of a larger, perimeter drainage swale. No federally-listed species or other special-status species were detected during focused surveys. It is highly unlikely that any federally-listed species would occupy the project area or will migrate onto and utilize this Project Area. This is due to the small size of the project area and due to the fact that it is surrounded by developments (roads and residences). Implementation of the proposed project will have No Adverse Effect upon federally-listed species or designated critical habitat.

Page 9 8225 Mariposa Ave. Bio. Assessment

7. REFERENCES Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, and T.J. Rosatti, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition, thoroughly revised and expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1,600 pp.

Brenzel, K.N. 2001. Sunset Western Garden Book. Sunset Publishing Corporation, Menlo Park, California. 768 pp.

Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing owl survey protocol and mitigation guidelines. Available electronically at www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/stds_gdl/bird_sg/boconsortium.pdf.

Calflora. 2015. Calflora, the on-line gateway to information about native and introduced wild plants in California. Internet database available at http://calflora.org/. California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. November 8, 1994 Memorandum. 14 pp. California Department of Fish and Game. 2009a. RareFind 3.1.1, California Natural Diversity Data Base. Sacramento, California. (updated monthly by subscription service) California Department of Fish and Game, 2009b. California’s Plants and Animals. Habitat Conservation Planning Branch, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/search_species.shtml. California Department of Fish and Game. 2009c. California’s Wildlife. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, Biogeographic Data Branch, California Department of Fish and Game. Internet database available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/html/cawildlife.html. California Native Plant Society. 2007. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, 7th edition. Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, convening editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California. Internet database available at http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi. Council of Science Editors. 2006. Scientific style and format: the CSE manual for authors, editors, and publishers, 7th edition. Rockefeller University Press, Reston, Virginia. 658 pp. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, District of Columbia. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. 92 pp. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Nongame Heritage Program, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 156 pp. Lanner, R. M. 2002. Conifers of California. Cachuma Press, Los Olivos, California. 274 pp. NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life, Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Internet database available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Pavlik, B. M., P. C. Muick, S. G. Johnson, and M. Popper. 1991. Oaks of California. Cachuma Press and the California Oak Foundation. Los Olivos, California. 184 pp. Powell, J. A., and C. L. Hogue, 1979. California Insects. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 388 pp. Sawyer, J. O., and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A manual of California vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Available electronically at http://davisherb.ucdavis.edu/cnpsActiveServer/index.html. Sibley, D. A. 2003. The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, New York. Stuart, J. D., and J. O. Sawyer. 2001. Trees and Shrubs of California. California Natural History Guides. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 467 pp. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. National Wetlands Inventory Program, Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation. Internet site at http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/.

University of California at Berkeley. 2015a. Jepson Online Interchange for California Floristics. Jepson Flora Project, University Herbarium and Jepson Herbarium, University of California at Berkeley. Internet database available at http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange.html.

University of California at Berkeley. 2015b. CalPhotos. Biodiversity Sciences Technology Group, University of California at Berkeley. Internet database available at http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/. 8. QUALIFICATIONS OF BIOLOGIST G. O. Graening holds a PhD in Biological Sciences and a Master of Science in Biological and Agricultural Engineering. Dr. Graening is an adjunct Professor at California State University at Sacramento, and is an active researcher in the area of conservation biology and groundwater ecology, and has published 16 journal articles and 5 conference proceedings. Dr. Graening is also a Certified Arborist (ISA # WE-6725A) and a Registered Environmental Assessor I (DTSC # 08060). Dr. Graening has 11 years of experience in environmental assessment, including independent contractual work as well as previous employment with The Nature Conservancy, Tetra Tech Inc., and CH2M Hill, Inc.

Page 10 8225 Mariposa Ave. Bio. Assessment

9. EXHIBITS

Page 11 Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

Study area 8225 Mariposa Ave. Bio. Assessment

Special-status Species Reported in CNDDB in the Project Vicinity

Page 13 121°16'56"W 121°16'55"W 121°16'54"W 121°16'53"W

Aquatic Resource Name Aquatic Resources Classification Aquatic Resource Size Cowardin Location (lat/long) (acre) (linear feet) Channels pipe culvert & drainage swale R4SB 38.715499, 0.0146 154 38°42'57"N -121.282062 38°42'57"N Totals 0.0146 154 Wetlands n/a 0 0 Totals 0 0

Manhole !.

Pipe Culvert

1-Wet 1-UP !. !. Earthen Swale Mariposa Avenue 38°42'56"N 38°42'56"N

2-UP Bend !. !. 2-WET !. End !.

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

121°16'56"W 121°16'55"W 121°16'54"W 121°16'53"W

Aquatic Resources Delineation Map Parcel Boundary 0 12.5 25 50 for 8225 Mariposa Ave., Citrus Heights !. Data Points Feet Delineator: Dr. G.O. Graening 1 in = 44 ft ± Drainage Culvert & Swale February 11, 2016 Channel Not Impacted Channel Impacted Channel Created 8225 Mariposa Ave. Bio. Assessment

View of site facing west from the road.

View of swale facing northwest.

Page 17