DOCSLIB.ORG

City of Santa Cruz Operations and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
City of Santa Cruz Operations and Maintenance Habitat Conservation Plan CITY OF SANTA CRUZ OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN for the ISSUANCE OF AN INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 10(a)(1)(B) OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Prepared for: City of Santa Cruz 715 Graham Hill Rd. Building A Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Prepared by: Ebbin, Moser + Skaggs LLP Hagar Environmental Science Dana Bland & Associates Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. Kittleson Environmental Consulting Services Biotic Resources Group DRAFT Administrative Draft City of Santa Cruz O&M HCP Executive Summary The City of Santa Cruz (City or Applicant) has applied for an incidental take permit (ITP) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) to incidentally take the federally endangered Ohlone tiger beetle (Cicindela ohlone); the federally endangered Mount Hermon June beetle (Polyphylla barbata); the federally endangered tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi); the Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata)(a species not currently listed under the ESA); the federally threatened California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii); and the western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), a federal species of concern. Additionally, the City is proposing to include four plant species in the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP or Plan) and permit because of the benefits provided to such species as a result of the Plan’s conservation strategy and to receive the “No Surprises” regulatory assurances. The four plant species are the federally endangered Ben Lomond spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegiana); the federally endangered Robust spineflower (Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta); the federally threatened Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia); and the State endangered San Francisco popcornflower (Plagiobothrys diffuses). The Plan refers to the plant and wildlife species proposed for coverage under the plan as Covered Species. Any reference in this Plan to incidental take of Covered Species under the Plan shall, for the purpose of covered plant species, refer to loss or impacts to covered plant species identified in the Permit. The potential taking of the covered wildlife species would occur as a result of activities permitted under the ITP (Covered Activities) and described in the Plan and include operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of the City’s water supply and water system facilities; operation and maintenance of the City’s municipal facilities; and management of City lands. The area covered by the HCP (Plan Area) is located in Santa Cruz County on the Central Coast of California, approximately 70 miles south of San Francisco. The total watershed and water service/urban areas comprising the general Plan Area are approximately 176 square miles and include three geographically distinct areas: the North Coast watersheds, the San Lorenzo River watershed, and the Santa Cruz urban center. The Plan discusses in detail the impacts to Covered Species and their habitats that are expected as a result of Covered Activities. As a result of these anticipated impacts, the Applicant has applied for a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit and proposes to implement the HCP as described herein, which provides measures for minimizing and mitigating adverse effects on the Covered Species. The Applicant requests that the permit be issued for a period of 30 years. The HCP summarizes the Covered Activities and identifies the responsibilities of the City and the role of the Service under the Plan. The HCP describes measures that will be implemented by the Applicant to minimize and mitigate impacts of the project on the Covered Species and their habitats and to further the conservation of these species. The conservation strategy in the Plan includes measures to mitigate impacts to Covered Species and their habitats that are not avoided Administrative Draft - i - through minimization measures. The City commits to fully fund the Plan and the Plan includes descriptions of costs for implementing the Plan and sources of funding to cover those costs. Administrative Draft -ii- Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. iii List of Tables and Figures .............................................................................................. vii List of Appendices ........................................................................................................... vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose and Background ................................................................................. 1 1.2 Plan Area ........................................................................................................... 2 1.3 HCP Planning Process ...................................................................................... 4 1.4 Regulatory Framework .................................................................................... 4 1.4.1 Endangered Species Act ............................................................................... 4 1.4.2 National Environmental Policy Act ............................................................. 5 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ......................................................................... 6 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Climate ............................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Geology............................................................................................................... 6 2.3.1 North Coast Unit ........................................................................................... 7 2.3.2 San Lorenzo River Watershed Unit ............................................................ 7 2.3.3 City Urban Center Unit ................................................................................ 8 2.4 Soils..................................................................................................................... 9 2.4.1 Ben Lomond-Felton-Lompico Soils ............................................................. 9 2.4.2 Aptos-Los Osos-Fagan Soils ......................................................................... 9 2.4.3 Watsonville-Elkhorn-Pinto Soils ............................................................... 10 2.4.4 Zayante Soils................................................................................................ 10 2.5 Hydrology ........................................................................................................ 10 2.5.1 North Coast Unit ......................................................................................... 10 2.6 Terrestrial Habitat Types............................................................................... 14 2.6.1 North Coast Unit, San Lorenzo River Watershed Unit and Urban City Center Unit ....................................................................................................................... 14 2.7 Covered Species ............................................................................................... 19 2.7.1 Ben Lomond Spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegiana) ...... 19 2.7.2 Robust Spineflower (Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta) .......................... 20 2.7.3 Santa Cruz Tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia) ....................................... 22 2.7.4 San Francisco Popcornflower (Plagiobothrys diffusus) ........................... 24 2.7.5 Ohlone Tiger Beetle (Cicindela ohlone) ..................................................... 25 2.7.6 Mount Hermon June Beetle (Polyphylla barbata) .................................... 27 2.7.7 Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) ............................................. 29 2.7.8 Pacific Lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) ...................................................... 32 2.7.9 California Red-legged Frog (Rana draytonii) ........................................... 34 2.7.10 Western Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata) .......................................... 41 3.0 COVERED ACTIVITIES .................................................................................. 46 3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 46 3.2 Construction of the North Coast Pipeline and Rehabilitation of Diversion Structures......................................................................................................................... 46 3.2.1 General Construction Actions ................................................................... 47 Administrative Draft -iii- 3.2.2 Construction Staging Areas ....................................................................... 50 3.2.3 Construction Schedule ................................................................................ 50 3.3 Water Supply Operations............................................................................... 50 3.3.1 Water Diversions ......................................................................................... 50 3.3.2 Reservoir Operations .................................................................................. 55 3.4 Water
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hicks Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan – 2017
    DRAFT HICKS LAKE INTEGRATED AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2017 Prepared for City of Lacey Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Note: Some pages in this document have been purposely skipped or blank pages inserted so that this document will copy correctly when duplexed. HICKS LAKE INTEGRATED AQUATIC VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN – 2017 Prepared for City of Lacey 420 College Street Southeast Lacey, Washington 98503 Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone: 206-441-9080 Funded by Washington State Department of Ecology Aquatic Weeds Management Fund Grant Number WQAIP-2017-LacePW-00001 DRAFT November 15, 2016 CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... iii 1. Problem Statement ............................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Plant Management Goals .................................................................................................................................... 3 3. Lake and Watershed Characteristics ............................................................................................................... 5 4. Beneficial Uses of Hicks Lake ........................................................................................................................... 11 5. Aquatic Plant Community ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • D.W. ALLEY & Associates Aquatic Biology
    D.W. ALLEY & Associates Aquatic Biology -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2006 Juvenile Steelhead Densities in the San Lorenzo, Soquel, Aptos and Corralitos Watersheds, Santa Cruz County, California Coastrange Sculpin Photographed by Jessica Wheeler D.W. ALLEY & Associates, Aquatic Biology Don Alley, Chad Steiner and Jerry Smith, Fishery Biologists With Field Assistance from Kristen Kittleson, Dawn Reis and Jessica Wheeler Prepared For the Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Department Government Center, 701 Ocean Street, Room 312, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Funding From the San Lorenzo Valley Water District, Soquel Creek Water District, Lompico County Water District, Cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville and the County of Santa Cruz May 2007 Project # 200-04 340 Old River Lane • P.O. Box 200 • Brookdale, California 95007 • (831) 338-7971 TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORT SUMMARY...................................................................................10 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................31 I-1. Steelhead and Coho Salmon Ecology...................................................... 31 I-3. Project Purpose and General Study Approach ........................................ 34 METHODS ....................................................................................................35 M-1. Choice of Reaches and Vicinity of Sites to be Sampled- Methods........... 35 M-2. Classification of Habitat Types and Measurement of Habitat Characteristics.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
    San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 2019 Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 1: Governance ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Governance Team and Structure ...................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee ......................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types ....................... 1-4 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District ............................. 1-6 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments ................. 1-6 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ................................................................. 1-8 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .................................. 1-8 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District .................................. 1-9 1.2.3.7
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study Appendix B
    Uvas Road at Little Uvas Creek Bridge Replacement Project Biological Assessment Biological Assessment Uvas Road over Little Uvas Creek Bridge Replacement Project (37C-0095/37C-0601 [new]) Near Morgan Hill, Santa Clara County, California 04-SCL-0-CR Federal Project Number BRLO 5937(124) Caltrans District 04 November 2015 Biological Assessment Uvas Road over Little Uvas Creek Bridge Replacement Project (37C-0095/37C-0601 [new]) Near Morgan Hill, Santa Clara County, California 04-SCL-0-CR Federal Project Number BRLO 5937(124) Caltrans District 04 November 2015 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation and Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department Prepared By: ___________________________________ Date: ____________ Patrick Boursier, Principal (408) 458-3204 H. T. Harvey & Associates Los Gatos, California Approved By: ___________________________________ Date: ____________ Solomon Tegegne, Associate Civil Engineer Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department Highway and Bridge Design 408-573-2495 Concurred By: ___________________________________ Date: ____________ Tom Holstein Environmental Branch Chief Office of Local Assistance Caltrans, District 4 Oakland, California 510-286-5250 For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in Braille, large print, on audiocassette, or computer disk. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please call or write to the Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department: Solomon Tegegne Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department 101 Skyport Drive San Jose, CA 95110 408-573-2495 Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Determinations Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Determinations The Uvas Road at Little Uvas Creek Bridge Replacement Project (proposed project) is proposed by the County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department in cooperation with the Office of Local Assistance of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and this Biological Assessment (BA) has been prepared following Caltrans’ procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • San Lorenzo Urban River Plan
    San Lorenzo Urban River Plan A Plan for the San Lorenzo River, Branciforte Creek and Jessie Street Marsh Prepared by: City of Santa Cruz San Lorenzo Urban River Plan Task Force with assistance from Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program of the National Park Service Adopted June 24, 2003 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 3 Executive Summary 5 Chapter 19 Purpose, Context and Goals 1.1 Purpose of the San Lorenzo Urban River Plan 9 1.2 Goals and Benefits of the Plan 10 1.3 The Planning Area and River Reach Descriptions 10 1.4 Relationship to Existing City Plans 13 1.5 Plan Organization 13 Chapter 2 15 Plan Setting and Background 2.1 Physical Setting 15 2.2 Social Setting: Development of the City of Santa Cruz 17 2.3 The History of Flooding in Santa Cruz 18 2.4 Current Planning and the San Lorenzo Urban River Plan Task Force 19 Chapter 3 21 Riverwide Concepts and Programs 3.1 The San Lorenzo Riverway 21 3.2 Defining the Riverway: System-wide Recommendations 22 Chapter 4 23 Reach Specific Recommendations 4.1 Design Improvements 25 4.2 Site Specific Recommendations in River Reaches 29 Estuarine Reach 29 Transitional Reach 39 Riverine Reach 49 Chapter 5 55 Branciforte Creek 5.1 Area Description and Current Conditions 55 5.2 Reach Specific Recommendations for Branciforte Creek 58 Chapter 6 61 Significant Riverfront Areas 6.1 Front Street Riverfront Area 61 6.2 Salz Tannery to 64 Sycamore Grove Riverfront Area 6.3 Beach Flats Riverfront Area 71 Chapter 7 73 Plan Implementation 7.1 San Lorenzo River Committee 73 Recommendations 74 7.2 Project Phasing and Projected Costs 75 7.3 Funding Opportunities 75 Chapter 8 79 References Appendix A Lower San Lorenzo River and Lagoon Enhancement Plan Appendix B Jessie Street Marsh Management Plan PB SAN LORENZO URBAN RIVER PLAN The San Lorenzo Urban River Plan could Acknowledgements not have been developed without the dedication of the San Lorenzo Urban River Plan Task Force, City staff and the community.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Coast
    Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Consultation History......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Action Area ..................................................................................................................... 32 2. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ......................................................................................................... 34 2.1 Analytical Approach ....................................................................................................... 34 2.2 Life History and Range-wide Status of the Species and Critical Habitat ...................... 35 2.3 Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................. 48 2.4 Effects of the Action ........................................................................................................ 62 2.5 Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................................... 76 2.6 Integration and Synthesis ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Utility Honorees Utility of the Future Today
    2016 Utility Honorees Utility of the Future Today 1 The partners of the Utility of the Future Today are pleased to present the inaugural program’s 61 public and private utilities from across the U.S., Canada, and Denmark selected by a peer committee of utility leaders from an impressive number of first year entries. The recipients were recognized and honored during a September 27 ceremony held in conjunction with WEFTEC 2016 in New OrleansWEF’s 89th annual technical exhibition and conferenceas well as a number of commensurate events sponsored by the partners. The recipients received a display flag and a special certificate to further identify and promote their outstanding achievement as a Utility of the Future Today. The following 61 utilities have met the criteria for Utility of the Future Today by meeting the Organizational Culture requirement plus at least one of the Activities identified above. Recognized Activities are indicated for each utility as identified by a and are listed in alphabetical order. 2 Table of Contents Background 6 Program Purpose 7 Aarhus Vand, Denmark 8 Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, NM 17 Alexandria Renew Enterprises, VA 23 Avon Lake Regional Water, OH 34 Baltimore City Department of Public Works, MD 38 Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority, NJ 50 Charlotte Water, NC 61 City of Cedar Rapids, IA 71 City of Fayetteville, AR 76 City of Fond du Lac, WI 80 City of Grand Rapids, MI 86 City of Gresham, OR 94 City of Los Angeles – LA Sanitation, CA 99 City of Roseville, CA 108 City of San
    [Show full text]
  • Birding Northern California by Jean Richmond
    BIRDING NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Site Guides to 72 of the Best Birding Spots by Jean Richmond Written for Mt. Diablo Audubon Society 1985 Dedicated to my husband, Rich Cover drawing by Harry Adamson Sketches by Marv Reif Graphics by dk graphics © 1985, 2008 Mt. Diablo Audubon Society All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means without prior permission of MDAS. P.O. Box 53 Walnut Creek, California 94596 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . How To Use This Guide .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Birding Etiquette .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Terminology. Park Information .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 One Last Word. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 Map Symbols Used. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6 Acknowledgements .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6 Map With Numerical Index To Guides .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 The Guides. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 Where The Birds Are. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 158 Recommended References .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 165 Index Of Birding Locations. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 166 5 6 Birding Northern California This book is a guide to many birding areas in northern California, primarily within 100 miles of the San Francisco Bay Area and easily birded on a one-day outing. Also included are several favorite spots which local birders
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Pesticide Application Plan for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project
    Aquatic Pesticide Application Plan for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project This plan addresses herbicide application activities undertaken by the coalition of ISP partner agencies in the effort to eradicate non-native, invasive Spartina from the San Francisco Estuary. Annual update prepared by Drew Kerr 2612-A 8th Street Berkeley, CA 94710 [email protected] Under contract to Olofson Environmental, Inc. Berkeley, California for the State Coastal Conservancy 1330 Broadway, 13th floor Oakland, Ca 94612-2530 June 2013 Current funding for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project comes from the California State Coastal Conservancy and grants from the California Wildlife Conservation Board. Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................... i List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... ii List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... ii Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ ii 1. BACKGROUND......................................................................................................... 1 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND NEED ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Site Assessemnt (PDF)
    Site Assessment Report Scotts Valley Hotel SCOTTS VALLEY, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA December 29, 2014 Prepared by: On behalf of: Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC City Ventures, LLC Cameron Johnson Mr. Jason Bernstein 88 North Hill Drive, Suite C 444 Spear Street, Suite 200 Brisbane, California 94005 San Francisco, California 94105 1 Table Of Contents SECTION 1: Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 4 A. Project Location ........................................................................................................................... 4 B. Surrounding Land Use ................................................................................................................ 4 C. Study Area Topography and Hydrology ............................................................................... 4 D. Study Area Soil .............................................................................................................................. 5 E. Vegetation Types .......................................................................................................................... 5 SECTION 2: Methods ............................................................................................................... 7 A. Site Visit .......................................................................................................................................... 7 B. Study Limits ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Castle Rock State Park 15000 Skyline Boulevard Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 867-2952
    Our Mission The mission of California State Parks is to provide for the health, inspiration and xquisite sandstone Castle Rock education of the people of California by helping E to preserve the state’s extraordinary biological State Park diversity, protecting its most valued natural and formations and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation. sculpted caves are among the treasured features within this California State Parks supports equal access. park’s vast wilderness. Prior to arrival, visitors with disabilities who need assistance should contact the park at (408) 867-2952. If you need this publication in an alternate format, contact [email protected]. CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 For information call: (800) 777-0369 (916) 653-6995, outside the U.S. 711, TTY relay service www.parks.ca.gov SaveTheRedwoods.org/csp Castle Rock State Park 15000 Skyline Boulevard Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 867-2952 © 2011 California State Parks (Rev. 2017) C astle Rock State Park is a place of The Smead and Partridge farms were abundant solitude, wilderness, high cliffs, the largest operations on the ridge, with and sweeping vistas. Unique patterns on orchards of apples, pears, walnuts, and weathered sandstone, lush forests, and grapes. Near the park’s interpretive shelter, stream-fed canyons make up the park’s heritage trees planted in the early 1900s diverse features. still bear fruit. From one of the highest ridges in the Creation of the Park Santa Cruz Mountains, visitors enjoy Judge Joseph Welch of Santa Clara Valley panoramic views of Monterey Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Ohlone Culture by Robert Cartier
    An Overview of Ohlone Culture By Robert Cartier In the 16th century, (prior to the arrival of the Spaniards), over 10,000 Indians lived in the central California coastal areas between Big Sur and the Golden Gate of San Francisco Bay. This group of Indians consisted of approximately forty different tribelets ranging in size from 100–250 members, and was scattered throughout the various ecological regions of the greater Bay Area (Kroeber, 1953). They did not consider themselves to be a part of a larger tribe, as did well- known Native American groups such as the Hopi, Navaho, or Cheyenne, but instead functioned independently of one another. Each group had a separate, distinctive name and its own leader, territory, and customs. Some tribelets were affiliated with neighbors, but only through common boundaries, inter-tribal marriage, trade, and general linguistic affinities. (Margolin, 1978). When the Spaniards and other explorers arrived, they were amazed at the variety and diversity of the tribes and languages that covered such a small area. In an attempt to classify these Indians into a large, encompassing group, they referred to the Bay Area Indians as "Costenos," meaning "coastal people." The name eventually changed to "Coastanoan" (Margolin, 1978). The Native American Indians of this area were referred to by this name for hundreds of years until descendants chose to call themselves Ohlones (origination uncertain). Utilizing hunting and gathering technology, the Ohlone relied on the relatively substantial supply of natural plant and animal life in the local environment. With the exception of the dog, we know of no plants or animals domesticated by the Ohlone.
    [Show full text]