4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION
The Biological Resources chapter of the EIR evaluates the biological resources that occur within the Newman Ridge Project (proposed project) area. Existing plant communities, wetlands, wildlife habitats, and potential for special-status species and communities are discussed for the project site. The information contained in this analysis is primarily based on a Biological Resources Report1 (See Appendix F) and a Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Waters of the United States2 (See Appendix G), both prepared by Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting.
The impacts already identified in the Initial Study that was prepared for the proposed project (See Appendix A) as having no impact (conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan) are not further addressed within this chapter. The impacts identified as potentially significant in the Initial Study are addressed below in this chapter. It should be noted that this chapter addresses impacts related to biological resources of the Edwin Center North Alternative as well as the proposed project. Information for the Edwin Center North Alternative analysis and discussion is primarily based on a biological resources addendum and a preliminary assessment of potential jurisdictional wetlands prepared by Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting (See Appendix P).3,4
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The following sections describe the regional setting of the site, including the Edwin Center North Alternative, as well as the existing biological resources occurring in the proposed project area.
Regional Setting
The site is located in Amador County, west of the City of Ione city limits, between State Route (SR) 88 to the south and SR 104 to the north, and project site elevation ranges from approximately 320 to 480 feet above sea level. The proposed project site consists of two main components – the Newman Ridge Quarry and the Edwin Center.
The Newman Ridge Quarry area is largely oak woodlands and grasslands, and includes seasonal wetland swales, vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, and seasonal creek channels, including a portion of Dry Creek. The Edwin Center area supports oak woodlands and grasslands with some scattered seasonal wetland swales, channels and vernal pools. The Edwin Center portion of the project site is located near numerous active and former mine sites.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 1 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
The project site is situated at the transition between two major geographic regions (the Central Valley region and the Sierra Nevada Foothills region) whose distinct characteristics are interspersed throughout the project site. The portions of the site exhibiting characteristics of the Central Valley region are characterized by flat to undulating terrain with intermixed moderate to steep hills. The geology of this area consists of alluvial (river-deposited) formations derived from granitic and volcanic sources. Most of this area supports open grasslands, blue oak savanna, or blue oak woodlands. All of the vernal pools that occur on-site are concentrated in the portions of the site exhibiting characteristics of the Central Valley region, on recent to ancient alluvial terraces with flat to gentle terrain. Geologic formations on the project site associated with the Central Valley region are the Modesto-Riverbank formations and the Valley Springs formation.
The portions of the site exhibiting characteristics of the Sierra Nevada Foothills region are characterized by generally hilly terrain cut by ephemeral to seasonal drainages, except for alluvial valleys formed along Dry Creek, which support dense oak and mixed woodlands and riparian woodlands along with some stands of chaparral.
Hydrology
The site supports several types of surface hydrological features including a seasonal creek (Dry Creek), vernal pools, portions of a large seep, seasonal wetlands, seasonal wetland swales, unvegetated channels, and active mining ponds. Dry Creek is the one larger seasonal creek on the project site. Dry Creek generally runs north to south and is present on the project site only where the creek crosses the southern portion of the haul road. In addition, smaller seasonal and ephemeral drainages exist that flow into this creek or off the site, as well as scattered vernal pools and swales, other seasonal wetlands, and various man-made ponds and ditches mostly associated with past or current mining.
Soils
The varied terrain of the site is strongly correlated with the underlying geologic formations, which in turn strongly influence soil type. A total of four different geologic formations are mapped on the site (See Table 4.3-1). It should be noted that the resources shown in Table 4.3-1 are typical resources for each of the four geologic formations; however, these resources do not necessarily occur on the proposed project site. Figure 4.3-1 shows the distribution of these formations on the site.
Open grasslands and oak savanna are concentrated on more recent river floodplains and terraces associated with Dry Creek. The site also contains some areas of the Ione geologic formation, consisting of sandstone formed from sand deposited more than 60 million years ago along the former edge of the North American continent. Geologic formations on the project site associated with the Sierra Nevada Foothills region are the Gopher Ridge Volcanics and the Ione Formation.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 2 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Table 4.3-1 Geologic Formations Mapped on the Newman Ridge Project Site
Geologic Associated Sensitive Surface Age Parent Material Origin Resources Volcanic island arc formed 170 in a mid-ocean environment Gopher Volcanic rocks million then transported and Ridge extruded as mid-ocean Oak Woodland years emplaced on the former Volcanics rises or islands (my) continental edge through tectonic plate subduction Ione Manzanita Chaparral (does not Consolidated sands and occur on-site); clays deposited in shallow potential special-status beach or lagoon 40-50 Quartz sandstone plants Ione manzanita, Ione environments along the my and consolidated clay Ione buckwheat, Irish shores of an ancient inland Hill buckwheat, sea that formerly occupied Bisbee Peak rush-rose the Central Valley region (none documented on- site); Oak Woodland Vernal pools; low- quality California tiger salamander breeding Deposited as ashfall and ponds; federally-listed Valley 20-35 Acidic rhyolitic ash and alluvium from acidic, vernal pool shrimp Springs my tuff explosive eruptions along habitat; special-status the ancestral Sierra Range VP plant pincushion navarretia habitat; Oak Woodland Vernal pools; low- Mostly granitic alluvium quality potential 0.05 - Mostly granitic deposited along major California tiger Modesto- 0.1 alluvium, some rivers; some locally derived salamander Riverbank my metamorphic alluvium metamorphic alluvium breeding ponds; along secondary creeks federally-listed vernal pool shrimp habitat Source: Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting, Biological Resources Report, May 2011.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 3 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Figure 4.3-1 Geologic Formations within the Project Site
Edwin Center North Alternative Boundary
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 4 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
In the greater project vicinity, vernal pools are primarily associated with the Valley Springs, Laguna, North Merced Gravels, and Modesto-Riverbank formations, but within the project site boundary they are restricted to the Modesto-Riverbank and Ione formations. The Modesto- Riverbank and Ione formations are all alluvial formations with areas of flat to nearly flat terrain conducive to vernal pool formation. In addition, the soils associated with these formations tend to form subsurface ‘hardpans’ which created the ‘perched’ water tables required to support vernal pool hydrology.
The Ione Formation weathers into unusual reddish to cream-colored clay soils and acidic sandy soils. The sensitive plant community Ione Manzanita Chaparral, as well as three constituent listed plant taxa, are almost exclusively associated with the clay or sand soils of this formation, and all have highly restricted ranges in the local Sierra Nevada foothills with core populations less than one mile from the project site, although they do not occur on the project site.
Stream Corridors and Riparian Habitat
The only stream corridor and riparian habitat on-site are associated with Dry Creek, which flows from northeast to southwest across a section of the Newman Ridge Quarry portion of the site (See Figure 4.3-2). Dry Creek is a seasonal creek with an established channel (bed and bank). Riparian woodlands occur in open to dense stands along Dry Creek. However, Amador County does not have local regulations protecting riparian habitat.
The Dry Creek stream corridor within the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) covers approximately 1.50 acres on the project site. The associated riparian habitat outside of the OHWM covers approximately 0.76 acres. The 100-year flood zone is also shown on Figure 4.3- 2. Dry Creek runs through the project site for approximately 459 feet. As outlined in Table 4.3-2, the riparian woodland along Dry Creek is dominated by northern California black walnut (Juglans hindsii), valley oak (Quercus lobata), and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), with associated interior live oak (Quercus wislizeni), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), Goodding’s willow (Salix gooddingii), sandbar willow (Salix exigua), and red willow (Salix laevigata). Several of the willows occur within the OHWM of Dry Creek.
Wetlands
Scattered wetlands exist within the project site, including natural vernal pools and swales, seasonal wetlands and ephemeral and intermittent streams. In addition, the project site contains various man-made features primarily associated with past or current mining operations. A map of these potential jurisdictional waters is presented in Figure 4.3-3. An additional approximately 5.81 acres of man-made active mining ponds that may not qualify for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction occur in the Edwin Center portion of the site. The active mining ponds are managed and maintained for mining operations and, therefore, are not considered regulated Waters of the U.S. However, for the purposes of this Draft EIR, the active mining ponds are assumed to be jurisdictional waters, which provides an analysis of the worst-case scenario.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 5 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Figure 4.3-2 Stream Corridor and Riparian Habitat
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 6 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Table 4.3-2 Plant Communities on the Project Site Approximate Community Characteristic Species Acreage Overstory is dominated by blue oak (Quercus douglasii), with the grassland understory dominated by similar Blue Oak – Grassland 127.2 species as the non-native annual grassland community (below). Overstory is dominated by blue oak and interior live oak, Blue Oak – Interior Live with the grassland understory dominated by similar 47.5 Oak – Grassland species as the non-native annual grassland community (below). Overstory is dominated by blue oak, interior live oak (Quercus wislizeni), and foothill pine (Pinus sabiniana), Blue Oak – Interior Live with the grassland understory dominated by similar 17.8 Oak – Foothill Pine species as the non-native annual grassland community (below). Overstory is dominated by valley oak (Quercus lobata). Valley Oak Woodland The grassland understory is dominated by similar species 4.5 as the non-native annual grassland community (below). Overstory is dominated by blue oak and foothill pine, with Blue Oak – Foothill Pine the grassland understory dominated by similar species as 2.2 – Grassland the non-native annual grassland community (below). Dominant and associated species include soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), slender wild oat (Avena barbata), Non-Native Annual medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), wand 157.1 Grassland tarweed (Holocarpha virgata ssp. virgata), rose clover (Trifolium hirtum), hairy cat’s ear (Hypochaeris radicata), and European hairgrass (Aira caryophyllea). The riparian woodland along Dry Creek is dominated by northern California black walnut (Juglans hindsii), valley oak, and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), with associated interior live oak, Himalayan blackberry (Rubus Riparian Woodland 0.8 armeniacus), white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), Goodding’s willow (Salix gooddingii), sandbar willow (S. exigua), and red willow (S. laevigata). The chaparral area is dominated by chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), with associated common Manzanita Chamise Chaparral 0.6 (Arctostaphylos manzanita ssp. manzanita) and buck brush (Ceanothus cuneatus). Includes a variety of features such as Dry Creek, Wetlands and Open ephemeral creeks, seasonal wetlands, vernal pools and 9.8 Waters active mining ponds. These are described in detail in a separate wetland delineation report. Areas largely developed or disturbed and de-vegetated by Disturbed Mining Area 23.5 recent or current mining activities. Total 391.0 Source: Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting, Biological Resources Report, May 2011.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 7 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Figure 4.3-3 Potential Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 8 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Vernal Pools
A total of approximately 0.89-acre of vernal pools occur on-site. Approximately 0.84-acre of the vernal pools appears to be isolated and is not connected or adjacent to a jurisdictional waterbody. The remaining approximately 0.05-acre appears hydrologically connected or adjacent to larger tributary creeks and is likely jurisdictional. The majority of the vernal pools occur in the northern portion of the site. The few vernal pools in the southern portion of the site are located along the seasonal wetland swales and near Dry Creek.
Seasonal Wetlands
A total of approximately 0.75-acre of seasonal wetlands occurs on the sites. Approximately 0.50- acre is identified as not isolated and potentially jurisdictional due to an apparent hydrologic connection to larger tributary creeks such as Dry Creek, and the remaining approximately 0.25- acre does not appear to have any hydrologic connection to another waterbody, nor is the 0.25- acre adjacent to any potentially jurisdictional waters and is thus likely to be considered isolated.
Seasonal wetlands occur across the site in a variety of habitats. The southeastern portion of the Edwin Center site supports these wetlands on distributary fans along the bases of hillslopes that receive water from upslope swale systems. Seasonal wetlands rarely pond, but do support hydrophytic vegetation and likely maintain near-surface soil saturation for a significant portion of the winter and early spring. Seasonal wetlands support mainly grasses, including Mediterranean barley and Italian rye, as well as a lower cover of more mesophytic plants such as toad rush (Juncus bufonius) and Tuolumne button-celery (Eryngium pinnatisectum). The seasonal wetlands in the southwestern portion of the Edwin Center site are generally smaller pools, similar to the smaller vernal pools on-site but lacking a predominance of vernal pool vegetation. Vegetation in these seasonal wetlands includes small mannagrass, Mediterranean barley, Italian rye, sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella), and slender popcornflower. The seasonal wetlands in the northern portion of the site (within the active mining area) pond against berms and railroad tracks, and therefore appear to be enhanced. Seasonal wetlands may pond for a longer duration than the natural wetlands in the southern portion of the Edwin Center site, but support similar vegetation.
Seasonal Wetland Swales
A total of approximately 0.75-acre of seasonal wetland swales was mapped on the sites. Approximately 0.55-acre was identified as potential jurisdictional waters due to adjacency or hydrologic connection to larger tributary creeks. Seasonal wetland swales often transport water off the project site. Some swales appear to be enhanced from road run-off or other disturbances. The remaining approximately 0.20-acre of seasonal wetland swales appear to be isolated and not likely jurisdictional waters. Vegetation and soils in seasonal swales on-site were recorded as being very similar to the seasonal wetlands described above. Some swales also included a small representation of vernal pool plants. Unlike the pools, seep and seasonal wetlands, the hydrology of the seasonal wetland swale includes an intermittent bed and bank system (though not as established as the channels described below). Many swales on-site averaged approximately three feet in width.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 9 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Seasonal Creek Channels
An approximately 1.5-acre seasonal creek channel was mapped on the Newman Ridge Quarry portion of the project site. The seasonal creek channel is Dry Creek, a seasonal creek with an established channel (bed and bank). The entire stretch of Dry Creek within the site is a potential jurisdictional water of the U.S., holding water for the majority of the year and draining into larger downstream rivers. The seasonal channel supports some riparian vegetation, including willows (Salix gooddingii), as well as wetland grass and herbaceous species including knotgrass (Paspalum distichum) and American brooklime (Veronica americana).
Unvegetated Channels (“Other Waters”)
Approximately 0.12-acre of unvegetated channels was mapped on the sites. Unvegetated channels are considered potential “other waters” of the U.S. Approximately 0.09-acre of the channels is likely jurisdictional, and the remaining approximately 0.02-acre appears to be isolated. Some of these channels move water from active mining features, and others move water to or from natural wetland features. Unvegetated channels have less than five percent total vegetative cover, sandy soils, and an intermittent to continuous cut bed and bank. As such, they do not qualify as wetlands but are instead considered “other waters” by the USACE.
Oak Woodlands
The following five oak woodland communities were mapped on the project site: 1) 127.2 acres of Blue Oak – Grassland; 2) 47.5 acres of Blue Oak – Interior Live Oak – Grassland; 3) 17.8 acres of Blue Oak – Interior Live Oak – Foothill Pine; 4) 4.5 acres of Valley Oak Woodland; and 5) 2.2 acres of Blue Oak – Foothill Pine – Grassland.
Figure 4.3-4 shows mapped locations of each oak woodland type within the proposed project boundary.
Special-Status Species
For the purposes of this chapter, special-status species include:
Species listed or proposed for listing under the federal or California State Endangered Species Acts (50 CFR § 17.12 and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.5, respectively); Federal Species of Concern (FSC), California state Species of Special Concern (CSSC), and species fully protected under the CDFG Code; Plant species identified by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS 2007) as rare, threatened, or endangered throughout its range or in California (Lists 1 and 2), on the review list (List 3), or the watch list (List 4);
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 10 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Figure 4.3-4 Botanical Resources on the Project Site
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 11 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Species that meet the definition of rare, threatened, or endangered under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Special-status species are subject to federal and/or State regulation depending on the listing status of the species. The highest level of regulation is typically afforded to those species that are formally listed under the federal or California Endangered Species Acts or that are listed as Fully Protected by the State.
Table 4.3-3 is an annotated list of special-status species known or with potential to occur on the project site based on documented occurrences or the presence of suitable habitat. The table also includes a column indicating whether the species was documented on-site.
Special-Status Plant Species
Plant communities present on-site, characteristic species, and approximate acreages are listed in Table 4.3-2, above. Additional land cover types include open water or wetlands and disturbed mining areas. Figure 4.3-2 shows a map of these plant communities and land cover types.
A total of 324 plant species were recorded in the survey area. One special-status species, Tuolumne button-celery (Eryngium pinnatisectum), was observed in the survey area, but outside of the project boundary. Tuolumne button-celery is a CNPS List 1B species, indicating that the species is rare or endangered throughout the species’ range. Other special-status plant species were not found in or adjacent to the project site.
Special-Status Wildlife Species
Aquatic Invertebrates
Listed Large Branchiopods
Two species of large branchiopod were documented during project site surveys – California fairy shrimp (Linderiella occidentalis) and California clam shrimp (Cyzicus californicus) (7 pools). Neither species is State- or federally-listed as threatened or endangered. Other large branchiopod species were not detected during the surveys. The most common taxa observed were predaceous diving beetle larvae (Dytiscidae) and flat worms (Microturbellaria). Other common taxa occurring included Pacific tree frog larvae (Pseudacris regilla), water fleas (Cladocera), water boatmen (Corixidae), backswimmers (Notonectidae), water beetles (Hydrophilidae), and chirinomid larvae (Chirinomidae). Uncommon taxa included seed shrimp (Ostracoda) and mosquito larvae (Culicidae).
Listed large branchiopod species were not observed on-site. Suitable habitat appears to exist for both the vernal pool fairy shrimp and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp though neither species is expected to occur.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 12
EIR
2012
ROJECT 4.3 - 13 4.3 - 13 RAFT P Surveys
D PRIL Targeted Conducted A
IDGE
R
EWMAN
N Project Site Not observed Yes Not observed Yes Not observed Yes Not observed Yes Not observed Yes Not observed Yes Not observed Yes Not observed Yes Not observed Yes Not observed Yes Occurrence on ty of) the Project Site Site ty of) the Project pools pools pools pools pools pools pools pools present present present present woodland woodland Project Site areas of chaparral or Habitat Suitability on Habitat Suitability on Suitable habitat present Not observed Yes Suitable habitat in vernal Suitable habitat Suitable habitat in vernal Suitable habitat Suitable habitat in vernal Suitable habitat Suitable habitat in vernal Suitable habitat Suitable habitat in vernal Suitable habitat Suitable habitat in bare soil Suitable habitat Ione geological formation is Ione geological Ione geological formation is Ione geological pools and seasonal wetlands Ione geological formation is Ione geological Ione geological formation is Ione geological present/suitable habitat is not Occur on (or in the Vicini ogical Resources ogical Resources Table 4.3-3 formation formation on Ione geologic geologic on Ione seasonal wetlands Preferred Habitat Vernal pools and other Chaparral, Cismontane Chaparral, primarily on Chapter 4.3 – Biol Ione geologic formation Ione geologic Ione geologic formation Ione geologic Ione geologic formation Ione geologic Vernal pools and swales woodland/often roadcuts woodland/often Thin soils over sandstone Chaparral and woodlands, openings, mine tailings on tailings on openings, mine openings, mine tailings on tailings on openings, mine Heavy clay soils in natural Heavy clay soils in natural primarily on Ione geologic geologic primarily Ione on
2 FT CE FE/CE FE/CE Large vernal pools occurrence in Low potential Not observed Yes FE/CE Status CNPS 2 Vernal pool and swales CNPS 1B CNPS 1B Vernal pools CNPS 1B CNPS 1B CNPS 1B CNPS 1B CNPS 1B CNPS 1B CNPS 1B CNPS 1B Vernal pools
. var. ssp
1 . prostratum, Special-Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially to Occur or Potentially Species Known Special-Status var Species apricum, Legenere brandegeeae Ione manzanita Parry's horkelia Parry's Horkelia parryi Ione buckwheat Ione buckwheat Orcuttia viscida Legenere limosa Dwarf downingia Downingia pusilla Clarkia biloba Clarkia biloba Brandegee’s clarkia Irish Hill buckwheat Bisbee Peak rushrose Pincushion navarretia Pincushion navarretia Gratiola heterosepala Tuolumne button-celery Tuolumne Eryngium pinnatisectum Eriogonum apricum Eriogonum apricum Arctostaphylos myrtifolia Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop E. apricum Helianthemum suffrutescens Navarretia myersii ssp. myersii Plants
EIR
2012
ROJECT Yes Yes 4.3 - 14 4.3 - 14 RAFT P Surveys
D PRIL Targeted Conducted A
IDGE
R
EWMAN
N on-site Mexican One post- Quarry site. Project Site metamorphic Not observed Yes Not observed Yes Not observed Yes Not observed Yes Not observed Yes Occurrence on exit holes observed exit holes observed elderberries without on-site, near edge of juvenile documented juvenile documented ty of) the Project Site Site ty of) the Project pools pools pools pools Project Site seasonal wetlands Habitat Suitability on Habitat Suitability on deeper vernal pools and deeper vernal pools and Suitable habitat in vernal Suitable habitat Suitable habitat in vernal Suitable habitat Suitable upland grassland Suitable upland aestivation habitat on-site Marginally suitable habitat Marginally suitable habitat elderberries present on-site Suitable habitat in Mexican Suitable habitat Suitable breeding habitat in habitat in Suitable breeding present in perennial marshes present in perennial marshes Occur on (or in the Vicini ogical Resources ogical Resources Table 4.3-3 areas marshes marshes upland areas and oak savanna Elderberry shrubs, Preferred Habitat Perennial freshwater Perennial freshwater Breeds in vernal pools, Breeds in vernal pools, perhaps in surrounding perhaps in surrounding mud of pool basins and of pool mud Chapter 4.3 – Biol perennial ponds lacking perennial ponds occasionally in seasonal typically within riparian such as vernal pools and such as vernal pools and Breeds in seasonal ponds stock ponds; aestivates in stock ponds; in surrounding grasslands seasonal stock ponds, and bullfrogs and fish; shelters bullfrogs and
2 FT FE Vernal pools FE Vernal FT FT Vernal pools FT Vernal CSSC Status CNPS 2 CNPS 1B
1 Special-Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially to Occur or Potentially Species Known Special-Status beetle
Species dimorphus dimorphus Spea hammondii Spea hammondii Western spadefoot Prairie wedge grass Sagittaria sanfordii sanfordii Sagittaria Lepidurus packardi Branchinecta lynchi Sanford’s arrowhead Sphenopholis obtusata obtusata Sphenopholis Sacramento orcutt grass CNPS 1B larger vernal pools Vernal pool fairy shrimp shrimp Vernal pool fairy Desmocerus californicus Ambystoma californiense Valley elderberry longhorn California tiger salamander Vernal pool tadpole shrimp Vernal pool tadpole Wildlife Aquatic Invertebrates Terrestrial Invertebrates Amphibians
EIR
2012
ROJECT No Yes 4.3 - 15 4.3 - 15 RAFT P Surveys
D PRIL Targeted Conducted A
IDGE
R
EWMAN
N project site Project Site Not observed No Not observed No Not observed No Not observed No nests and one Occurrence on project site/four nesting territory additional active sites not observed within one mile of within one mile One active nest and within five miles of one nesting territory one nesting territory foraging on-site/nest observed off-site but observed off-site observed off-site but observed off-site Individuals observed observed Individuals ty of) the Project Site Site ty of) the Project Project Site water bodies habitat present ground squirrel squirrel ground foraging habitat foraging habitat Valley breeding Habitat Suitability on Habitat Suitability on present, as well as open ponds and larger creeks ponds and activity/burrows on-site Suitable tree nest habitat Could potentially nest in Could potentially Could potentially nest on- Could potentially site in suitable habitat near suitable habitat near on-site Site at the edge of preferred habitat/foraging and nesting habitat/foraging and Suitable habitat in perennial Suitable habitat Limited nesting habitat, low nesting habitat, low Limited Occur on (or in the Vicini ogical Resources ogical Resources Table 4.3-3 habitats grasslands and riparian scrub fields for foraging Preferred Habitat eggs in surrounding eggs in surrounding Nests and forages in Large trees for nesting, grasslands and marshes squirrel burrows within Chapter 4.3 – Biol uplands primarily within within uplands primarily Nests in perennial marsh Nests in perennial marsh Typically nests in ground Typically nests in ground Nests in large trees/cliffs, Inhabits perennial creeks, grassland and agricultural ponds and reservoirs; lays forages in open grasslands open grassland/open scrub
2 CT CFP CSSC CSSC CSSC CSSC CSSC Status
1 Special-Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially to Occur or Potentially Species Known Special-Status Species marmorata Golden eagle
Circus cyaneus Northern harrier Buteo swainsoni Buteo swainsoni Agelaius tricolor Swainson’s hawk Swainson’s hawk Aquila chrysaetos Athene cunicularia Athene cunicularia Tricolored blackbird Tricolored blackbird
Clemmys marmorata Western burrowing owl Western burrowing owl Northwestern pond turtle Northwestern turtle pond Reptiles Birds
EIR
2012
ROJECT 4.3 - 16 4.3 - 16 RAFT P Surveys
D PRIL Targeted Conducted A
IDGE
R
EWMAN
N Project Site Not observed No Not observed No Not observed No Not observed No Not observed No Not observed No Not observed No Not observed No Not observed No Occurrence on ty of) the Project Site Site ty of) the Project site Project Site Valley breeding expected to nest open wetland areas and drainages on-site Suitable foraging and Suitable foraging and Suitable foraging and Suitable foraging and Suitable foraging and Suitable foraging and habitat present on-site habitat/some marginal habitat on-site/suitable habitat on-site/suitable habitat present on-site. roosting habitat on-site roosting habitat roosting habitat on-site roosting habitat roosting habitat on-site roosting habitat Habitat Suitability on Habitat Suitability on in rock outcrops on-site in rock outcrops on-site Valley breeding habitat. habitat/suitable foraging on-site water bodies and Marginal suitable nesting suitable nest and foraging suitable nest and foraging Site lacks suitable nesting Some suitable roost habitat No suitable nest habitat/not foraging habitat present on- Site at the edge of preferred Site at the edge of preferred riparian habitat along creeks riparian habitat Could potentially nest within Could potentially Occur on (or in the Vicini ogical Resources ogical Resources Table 4.3-3 savannas Open grasslands, woodland habitats woodland habitats riparian woodland riparian woodland Preferred Habitat Open grassland and Nests and forages in cut banks along rivers cut banks along Chapter 4.3 – Biol Grasslands, marshes and woodlands and savannas woodlands and Riparian habitats, nests in
2 CT CFP CSSC Rock outcrops/cliffs CSSC Rock CSSC CSSC Rock outcrops/cliffs CSSC Rock CSSC Rock outcrops/cliffs CSSC Rock CSSC CSSC Rock outcrops/cliffs CSSC Rock CSSC Status
1 Special-Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially to Occur or Potentially Species Known Special-Status Species Pallid bat Hoary bat Prairie falcon Bank swallow Riparia riparia Riparia riparia Yellow warbler Elanus leucurus Elanus leucurus White-tailed kite Falco mexicanus Lasiurus cinereus Loggerhead shrike Antrozous pallidus Antrozous pallidus Western mastiffbat Lanius ludovicianus Lanius ludovicianus Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorthinus townsendii Eumops perotis californicus Dendroica petechia brewsteri Mammals
EIR
2012
ROJECT 4.3 - 17 4.3 - 17 RAFT P Surveys
D PRIL Targeted Conducted A
IDGE
R S 2009), and project project and S 2009), me’s Natural Diversity me’s ornia Species of Special ornia Species of Special of Concern; CE = State- CE of Concern;
EWMAN S List 4 list, species = watch N in endangered rare or species Project Site Not observed No Occurrence on ty of) the Project Site Site ty of) the Project Project Site potential habitat potential habitat ornia Fully Protected Species; CSSC = Calif ornia Fully Protected Species; CSSC = Habitat Suitability on Habitat Suitability on Grasslands with burrows (e.g. ground squirrels) are squirrels) (e.g. ground Occur on (or in the Vicini
ogical Resources ogical Resources Table 4.3-3 eatened;Proposed FP = Federal Listing; for FSC = Federal Species and scrub habitats and scrub habitats Preferred Habitat Grasslands, woodlands Chapter 4.3 – Biol st 3which = species for additional information rarity, CNP is needed determine to
2 eatened; CR = State-Listed Rare; CFP = Calif Rare; CFP = State-Listed eatened; CR = CSSC Status
1 Special-Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially to Occur or Potentially Species Known Special-Status Species Taxidea taxus Taxidea taxus American badger Scientific and common names from CNDDB (2008); Sources used to develop this list included California Department of Fish and Ga and of Fish Department California included list this develop to used Sources (2008); CNDDB from names common and Scientific Sensitivity Status: FE = Federal Endangered; Thr FT = Federal Data Base (CNDDB 2008), California Native Plant Society’s Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNP California of Plants Endangered and Rare of Inventory Electronic Society’s Plant Native California 2008), (CNDDB Base Data botanist John Vollmar’s knowledge of regional special-status plants. Thr = State-Listed CT Listed Endangered; 2 = List CNPS range; its throughout endangered rare or = species 1B List CNPS Society, Plant Native = California CNPS Concern; CNPS Li elsewhere, common California but more future. the so in become could but or endangered rare currently not Natural Lands Consulting, Biological Resources Report, MaySource: 2011. Vollmar 1 2 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Terrestrial Invertebrates
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
The valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB) is listed as a federally-threatened species. The Mexican elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. canadensis) is the sole host plant for the federally-threatened VELB. The Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle5 prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) identifies stems in excess of one inch in diameter at ground level as potential habitat for the VELB. Although the USFWS announced in early October 2006 that the species likely would be de-listed, VELB remains protected until the formal de-listing process is completed.
One elderberry shrub was mapped adjacent to the project site (See Figure 4.3-4) in the riparian zone of Dry Creek, very close to the proposed project boundary. The plant had two stems (1.6 and 3.1 inches in diameter) and did not have exit holes. Two elderberry shrubs adjacent to each other were mapped 100 feet outside of the proposed project boundary. One had three stems (1.2, 1.2, and 3.1 inches in diameter), the other had two stems (two and 2.3 inches in diameter), and neither had exit holes.
Amphibians
California Tiger Salamander
The California tiger salamander (CTS) is a large, stocky salamander that inhabits grassland and oak savanna habitats in the valleys and low hills of central and coastal California. Adults spend most of their lives underground, typically in burrows of ground squirrels and other mammals. During winter rains between November and February, adults emerge from underground retreats to breed. Adults may travel long distances between upland sites and breeding sites. Adults have been found up to 1.2 miles from breeding sites. Males typically spend six to eight weeks at breeding ponds, while females typically spend only one to two weeks. In years of below average rainfall, or when rains occur late in the season, females may forego breeding. Vernal pool and semi-permanent, quiet waters provide sites for egg-laying. After hatching in two to three weeks, larvae are 0.4 to 0.6 inches in length. Hatchlings forage primarily on zooplankton, while larger larvae feed mostly on frog tadpoles and invertebrates. Metamorphosis into the adult form involves a process in which the gills recede, the legs become robust, the eyes become well developed, and the adult spot pattern emerges. Metamorphosis typically occurs from May through July at approximately 3.9 to 4.9 inches in length. Length and weight may vary at metamorphosis because larvae can either accelerate development rapidly in response to drying ponds or delay development to take advantage of ponds that hold water longer. Larvae will die if ponds in which they are developing dry out before metamorphosis is complete.
The number of larvae that reach metamorphosis is highly variable. In addition to a variety of ecological factors, the number of larvae that transform appears to be related to the timing and amount of rainfall during the previous winter. Immediately following
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 18 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
transformation, juvenile salamanders appear to seek the closest cover they encounter, including temporary cover such as cracks in the earth, debris or deeper refugia such as ground squirrel holes. Juveniles that survive the arid summer disperse farther from the breeding sites during summer and fall rains and do not return to the ponds until they are sexually active. Although individuals may become reproductive in two to three years, they typically do not breed until they are four to five years old and rarely live longer than 10 years in the wild. Recent research at a site in Solano County showed that 95 percent of all adult CTS captured in upland habitats were within 2,034 feet of the breeding pond.
CTS in western Amador County are part of the Central Valley Population of the Central California Distinct Population Segment of the species. In 2004, the Central California Distinct Population Segment of the species was listed as Threatened by the federal government throughout the CTS’s range. On March 3, 2010 the California Fish and Game Commission determined that listing of CTS pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act was warranted and on August 19, 2010, CTS was formally listed as Threatened.
CTS can breed in a broad range of seasonal and perennial ponds including natural or created vernal pools, natural or created seasonal wetlands, seasonal and perennial stock ponds and seasonal and perennial reservoirs. Breeding ponds must be large enough to remain continuously ponded for a minimum of 100 days, though a minimum of 125 days is preferable, to support CTS larval growth and metamorphosis to the adult.
Large vernal pools, stock ponds, mining ponds, reservoirs and seasonal wetlands may retain ponded water long enough to support bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), at least on a temporary basis. Non-native bullfrogs and fish are detrimental to CTS breeding. The presence of bullfrogs within a perennial pond otherwise providing suitable CTS breeding habitat has been strongly correlated with an absence or substantial reduction of CTS occurrence. Nonetheless, some researchers have documented low numbers of CTS within bullfrog infested ponds. Additionally, researchers have found that CTS are generally absent from ponds with centrarchids (bass, bluegill, etc.) or an abundance of mosquitofish (Gambusia sp.), which eat the larvae. In rare cases, CTS may breed in low numbers in ponds with fish if there are protected refugia (such as isolated shallow areas with vegetative cover) where CTS can successfully breed.
The proposed project site provides potential upland habitat for CTS because five known breeding ponds are situated approximately 0.3-mile to the west of the site. Several biological investigations, including aquatic sampling of nearby ponds, were conducted in 2008 and 2009 on and near the project site and presence of CTS was established within two miles of the proposed project site in 2008.
A drift fence/pitfall trap study was conducted in 2008 and 2009 on a portion of the project site in proximity to potential CTS breeding habitat. CTS were not detected during the 2008-09 upland drift fence/pitfall trap study. However, precipitation amounts for the season were well below normal and because CTS are known to forgo or curtail breeding migrations during sub-optimal environmental conditions, lack of rainfall may have
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 19 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
contributed to the negative findings at the study site in 2008-09. Subsequent aquatic sampling during the spring of 2009 detected CTS larvae at five of the six nearby ponds. Therefore, an expanded upland trapping effort was undertaken in the 2009-10 breeding season.
In 2009-10, a total of 15,440 linear feet of fencing and 304 pitfall traps were monitored as part of the expanded study and pitfall traps were monitored during all rain events (47 nights) between October 15, 2009 and March 15, 2010. CTS larvae were detected at five of the seasonal ponds (CE-02, CE06, CE022, CE023, CE30) situated to the west of the trapping area during aquatic sampling in the spring of 2009. One of the other ponds in the area (CE-31) supports non-native predatory fish, and is not currently considered suitable breeding habitat for CTS.
Twelve CTS were captured during the drift fence/pitfall trap study. The first individual was captured on December 12, 2009 and the last on February 7, 2010. Based on photographs taken of each individual, none of the CTS were recaptured during the study. Eleven of the 12 CTS that were captured were along Trap Line A, in proximity to the five known breeding ponds (See Figure 4.3-5 of this Draft EIR and Figures 9 through 17 of Appendix F of the EIR for further information regarding the drift fence/pitfall trap study). One capture was made on Trap Line B.
CTS were not captured on either Trap Line C or D. Capture frequency of CTS was not evenly distributed along Trap Line A. Seven of the 11 captures were in four traps at the northern end of the line, where the line is oriented east to west. All terrestrial age classes of CTS were captured as part of this study.
Four of the 12 captures were recently transformed juveniles, two were non-breeding subadults and six were breeding adults. Although there were relatively few captures of CTS, activity patterns were typical for the species. Dispersal and migratory activity were correlated with heavy rainfall. The three juveniles captured along Trap Line A were moving away from the ponds, as expected. Adult CTS were captured moving both towards and away from the breeding ponds. The two adult females captured were moving towards the pond in late January and early February, corresponding with the timing of the inundation of the wetlands.
The single CTS detected along Trap Line B within the western boundary of the proposed mining area was situated in proximity to the cluster of individuals captured at near the end of Trap Line A. This was a juvenile captured coming from the north towards the end of the season, which suggests that it was dispersing from a breeding locality to the north. However, the approximate origin of individuals captured near the terminus of a drift fence line is more difficult to consider, because dispersers presumably wander on the ground in search of food and cover while moving generally in the same direction.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 20
EIR
2012
ROJECT 4.3 - 21 4.3 - 21 RAFT P
D PRIL A
IDGE
R
EWMAN
N
ogical Resources ogical Resources Figure 4.3-5 Surveyed CTS Ponds Chapter 4.3 – Biol
DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Western Spadefoot Toad
The western spadefoot toad (Spea hammondii), a California Species of Special Concern, is a medium-sized toad that inhabits the Central Valley and adjacent foothills and valleys, as well as the central and south coastal region of California from Monterey Bay to Baja California. Adult forms are almost entirely terrestrial and prefer areas of open vegetation and short grasses with sandy or gravelly soils. Western spadefoot toads are found in grasslands, open chaparral and pine-oak woodland. Following a period of dormancy that can last as long as eight to nine months, western spadefoot toads become active and leave their burrows following warm rains in the late winter/spring and fall (between October and April). Vernal pools or sometimes pools within ephemeral streamcourses that last longer than three weeks are used for breeding.
Though not observed on-site, suitable breeding habitat for the western spadefoot toad occurs in deeper vernal pools and seasonal wetlands on-site.
Reptiles
Northwestern Pond Turtle
The northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata marmorata) is a California species of special concern. Northwestern pond turtles favor habitats that include streams, rivers and canals with slow-moving water, aquatic vegetation, and open basking sites. Although the turtles must live near water, they can tolerate drought by burrowing into the muddy beds of dried drainages. The species feeds mainly on invertebrates such as insects and worms, but will also consume small fish, frogs, mammals and some plants. Northwestern pond turtle predators include raccoons, coyotes, raptors, weasels, large fish, and bullfrogs. Breeding season for the northwestern pond turtle occurs from mid to late spring in adjacent open grasslands or sandy banks.
Though not observed on-site, suitable habitat for the northwestern pond turtle occurs on- site in perennial ponds and larger drainages.
Birds
Swainson’s Hawk
The Swainson’s hawk is a migratory hawk listed by the State of California as a Threatened species. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the CDFG Code protects Swainson’s hawk year-round, as well as their nests during the nesting season (March 1 through September 15). Swainson’s hawk is found in the Central Valley, primarily during the breeding season, although a population is also known to winter in the San Joaquin Valley.
Swainson's hawk prefers nesting sites that provide sweeping views of nearby foraging grounds consisting of grasslands, irrigated pasture, hay, and wheat crops. Most
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 22 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Swainson's hawk are migratory, wintering in Mexico and breeding in California and elsewhere in the western United States. This raptor generally arrives in the Central Valley in mid-March, and begins courtship and nest construction immediately upon arrival at the breeding sites. The young fledge in early July, and most Swainson's hawk leave their breeding territories by late August.
Nesting surveys were conducted within the proposed project area for Swainson’s hawk to determine the abundance and distribution of Swainson’s hawks within and adjacent to the project area. The survey area boundary included the proposed project area and habitat adjacent to the area for a distance of roughly four miles in each compass direction. Protocol-level surveys were conducted within the project area and at a distance of one- half mile adjacent to its boundary. During the time of the surveys, the proposed project area was expanded compared to the current proposed project boundary, and the protocol- level survey area reflects this former, larger boundary. In addition to protocol-level surveys conducted within the survey area boundary, additional non-protocol surveys were conducted in the surrounding area outside of the survey boundary to document additional Swainson’s hawk activity in the surrounding region and characterize land use and habitat availability.
Seven Swainson’s hawk nests and/or territories were documented during the surveys. Three of these (Dutschke, South Newman, and Cook) were within the census survey area and the other four were found outside of the census area during the regional survey (See Figure 4.3-6). Of these seven, five active nests were found, and the other two locations were considered nesting territories. Six of the seven pairs documented during the survey were associated with large oak savanna habitat in the rolling hills. While the cultivated habitats in the low-lying areas appeared to be more suitable in terms of both the availability and types of nesting and foraging habitat, only one nesting activity was documented in those areas.
Foraging observations indicated that while Swainson’s hawks nesting near alfalfa fields (e.g., within one-half mile) would fly to these areas to forage, savanna and grassland habitats were also regularly used for foraging. Savanna and grassland habitats were the primary habitat types used for foraging for all other pairs. It should be noted that the project site is not consistent with characteristic Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, which includes the following: alfalfa; fallow fields; beet, tomato, and other low-growing row or field crops; dry-land and irrigated pasture; rice land (when not flooded); and cereal grain crops (including corn after harvest).
Swainson’s hawk typically nest in open habitats on valley floors or along the edges of woodlands. Several of the pairs in the survey area established nesting territories in the rolling hill landscape and in the interior of a fairly dense oak savanna community.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 23 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Figure 4.3-6 Swainson’s Hawk Nests in the Vicinity of the Project Site
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 24 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Golden Eagle
The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), which is listed as a California Species of Special Concern and a California Fully Protected Species, belongs to the family Accipitridae, which are a family of small to large birds with strongly hooked bills and variable morphology based on diet. These birds feed on a range of prey items from insects to medium-sized mammals, with a number feeding on carrion and a few feeding on fruit. Golden eagles maintain territories that may be as large as 60 square miles and nest in high places including cliffs, trees, or man-made structures such as telephone poles. The species builds large nests to which they may return for several breeding years. Females lay from one to four eggs, and both parents incubate them for 40 to 45 days. Typically, one or two young survive to fledge in approximately three months.
According to the Biological Resources Report, suitable tree nest habitat for the golden eagle is present on-site, as well as open foraging habitat. Golden eagles were observed foraging on-site, but nesting sites were not found in the project area.
Prairie Falcon
The prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), which is listed as a California Species of Special Concern, is a medium-sized falcon of western North America. The prairie falcon is about the size of a Peregrine Falcon or a crow, with an average length of 16 inches, wingspan of 40 inches, and weight of 1.6 pounds. The prairie falcon is much less migratory than other North American falcons, but does withdraw somewhat in winter from the northernmost and highest-elevation parts of its breeding range and spreads west to the deserts and Pacific coast of California. Prairie Falcons inhabit grasslands, shrub-steppe, deserts, and other open areas of the West up to about 10,000 feet elevation.
According to the Biological Resources Report, the project site lacks suitable nesting habitat for the prairie falcon, but suitable foraging habitat is present on-site. During surveys conducted in Fall, one prairie falcon was observed west of the project site along a rock outcrop.
Northern Harrier
The northern harrier is a California species of special concern. This raptor is also protected under California Fish and Game Code §3503.5 that protects nesting raptors and their eggs/young. The northern harrier is also protected from direct take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13). Northern harriers build grass-lined nests on the ground in dense, low-lying vegetation in a variety of habitats, although they are typically found nesting in grassland or marsh habitats. This species is particularly vulnerable to ground predators such as coyotes (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and various snake species. Ground nesting birds in general are also subject to disturbance by agricultural or vegetation control practices.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 25 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Though not observed on-site, northern harrier could potentially nest on-site in suitable habitat near on-site water bodies and open wetland areas.
White-Tailed Kite
The white-tailed kite (Elanus caeruleus) is fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code. Fully protected birds may not be “taken” or possessed (i.e., kept in captivity) at any time (§3511). White-tailed kite is also protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13). The white-tailed kite is typically found foraging in grassland, marsh, or cultivated fields where there are dense-topped trees or shrubs for nesting and perching. They nest in a wide variety of trees of moderate height and sometimes in tall bushes, such as coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis). Native trees used are live and deciduous oaks (Quercus spp.), willows (Salix spp.), cottonwoods (Populus spp.), sycamores (Platanus spp.), maples (Acer spp.), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa). Although the surrounding terrain may be semiarid, kites often reside near water sources, where prey is more abundant. The particular characteristics of the nesting site do not appear to be as important as its proximity to a suitable food source. Kites primarily hunt small mammals, with California meadow voles (Microtus californicus) accounting from 50 to 100 percent of their diet.
Though not observed on-site, the project site is at the edge of preferred Valley breeding habitat and marginal suitable nesting habitat is present on-site. The project site also provides suitable foraging habitat for white-tailed kite.
Tricolored blackbird
Tricolored blackbird is a State “species of special concern.” Active nests, eggs, and young are protected pursuant to California Fish and Game Code §3503. While the tricolored blackbird has no special federal status, under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13) this bird is protected. A gregarious species, the tricolored blackbird is typically found near freshwater, particularly near marsh habitat. Nesting colonies are typically found in large stands of cattail (Typha sp.) and/or bulrush (Schoenoplectus spp.), although they are also known to utilize large stands of blackberry patches and thistle clumps (Cirsium spp. and Cynara spp.) in open areas adjacent to water. Flooded lands, margins of ponds, and grassy fields in summer and winter provide typical foraging habitat for this species.
Though not observed on-site, the tricolored blackbird could potentially nest in suitable habitat near on-site water bodies, which are discussed in detail above (see also Figure 4.3-3).
Yellow Warbler
The yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri) is a California Species of Special Concern. In the western United States the yellow warbler is most commonly found nesting in riparian woodlands, but can also nest in coniferous forests with brushy understory. The yellow warbler was once a common to locally abundant summer resident in riparian areas virtually throughout California, but today populations are much reduced
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 26 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
and even extirpated in some areas. The destruction of riparian habitat has contributed to the decline of this species, especially in the San Joaquin Valley and Colorado River Valley, but the warbler’s absence from many areas of suitable habitat and the bird’s susceptibility to nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) indicates the population explosion of the brown-headed cowbird may be the key factor.
Though not observed on-site, the yellow warbler could potentially nest within the limited riparian habitat present on-site along creeks and drainages.
Loggerhead Shrike
The loggerhead shrike, a California Species of Special Concern, is a wide-ranging species that occupies open habitats including grassland, scrub and open woodland communities. The species typically nests in densely vegetated, isolated trees and shrubs and occasionally man-made structures, and at the margins of open grasslands. Loggerhead shrike feeds on a variety of small prey including arthropods, mammals, amphibians, reptiles and birds. Because the bird lacks talons, the loggerhead shrike often impales prey on thorns or barbed wire. In California, the species does not migrate and is resident year- round. Loggerhead shrike is highly territorial, with pairs maintaining territories during the breeding season and individuals maintaining territories during the winter. Declines in numbers have been noted across a broad geographical range in the United States.
Though not observed on-site, the project site is at the edge of preferred Valley breeding habitat and some marginal suitable nesting and foraging habitat is present on-site.
Mammals
Special-Status Bat Species
According to Table 4.3-3, the project site provides suitable roosting and foraging habitat for four special-status bat species: pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, western mastiff bat, and hoary bat. These four species all occur in the region, and may use mature trees, snags, crevices, or man-made structures (such as buildings) for roosting, either for winter roosting (hibernacula) or for forming nursery colonies. Additionally, bats are generally site faithful and would not abandon an established roosting area unless disturbed. Special-status bats may roost in any of the trees or rock outcrops/cliffs present within the project site.
American Badger
The American badger (Taxidea taxus), a California Species of Special Concern, is a carnivore in the family Mustelidae (weasels). The American badger range throughout California, except for the humid forested regions in the State’s extreme northwest. The American badger is most abundant in drier areas of shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats, but could be found anywhere with friable soils and a suitable prey base.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 27 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
American badgers have decreased substantially in abundance throughout their range since historic times, particularly in the Central Valley and northern Coast Range.
American badgers spend much of the time underground, where they prey primarily upon ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.) and pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.). American badgers may also consume other rodents, reptiles, birds, eggs, insects, and carrion. The badger’s front legs bear large claws adapted for digging after their prey in underground burrows, and they may dig extensively within levees, fields, and other areas with high concentrations of fossorial rodents. American badgers are active year-round, though they tend to have smaller home ranges in winter than in other seasons. Mating takes place in late summer, and one to four young are born in spring within a burrow complex.
Though not observed on-site, the grassland areas containing ground squirrel burrows are potential habitat.
REGULATORY CONTEXT
The following is a description of federal, State, and local environmental laws and policies that are relevant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process.
Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act
The United States Congress passed the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) in 1973 to protect endangered species or species that are threatened with extinction. The FESA is intended to operate in conjunction with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to help protect the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend.
The FESA prohibits the “take” of endangered or threatened wildlife species without a permit. According to the FESA, the term “take” is defined as “[…] to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 USC 1532). The FESA and NEPA Section 404 guidelines prohibit the issuance of wetland permits for projects that would jeopardize the existence of threatened or endangered wildlife or plant species. The USACE must consult with the USFWS and National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) when threatened or endangered species may be affected by a proposed project to determine whether issuance of a Section 404 permit would jeopardize the species.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Raptors (birds of prey), migratory birds, and other avian species are protected by a number of State and federal laws. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the killing, possessing, or trading of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. Section 3503.5 of the CDFG Code states, “it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes or to take, possess, or
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 28 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.”
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) is the principal law providing regulation of all waters of the United States. The CWA (previously the Federal Water Pollution Control Act) was passed as a water pollution control statute that sought to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.” Initially, the scope was limited to only navigable waters. This scope has been expanded, primarily through judicial review, to encompass all waters of the United States, including wetlands. Recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court (SWANCC and Rapanos decisions) eliminated federal jurisdiction over ‘isolated waters’ such as isolated ponds that do not have any hydrologic connection to tributary waters serving an interstate function. The ruling concluded that such waters are to be regulated by the individual state in which the isolated water occurs rather than the federal government.
Waters of the United States are divided into three subsets – “wetlands,” “navigable waters,” and “other waters.” “Wetlands” are defined in the federal regulations as “[…] those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas” (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Wetlands are also considered to be “special aquatic sites” under 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR Part 230). In general, wetlands must exhibit positive indicators of wetland vegetation, wetland hydrology and hydric soils to be considered jurisdictional (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
“Navigable waters” of the United States are defined as “[…] those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce” (33 CFR Part 329.4). According to the regulations, navigable waters include the open ocean, tidal bays, salt marshes and some large rivers and lakes. The jurisdictional limit over navigable waters extends laterally to the entire water surface and bed of the waterbody. For non-tidal rivers or lakes, which have been designated by the USACE to be navigable waters, the limit of jurisdiction along the shoreline is defined by the OHWM. The up-stream limit of a navigable river is the head of navigation (this limit is designated by the USACE) (33 CFR Part 329.4).
“Other waters” refers to waters of the United States other than navigable waters or wetlands. Generally, these are unvegetated open watercourses or waterbodies, such as streams and ponds, distinguished by the presence of an OHWM and/or an eroded bed and bank. “Other waters” can be perennial or intermittent waterbodies and waterways. The USACE regulates “other water”’ to the outward limit of the OHWM (33 CFR Part 328.4[c][1]). The OHWM on a non-tidal water is the “[…] line on shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in the character of soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the presence of litter and debris; or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” (33 CFR Part
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 29 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
328.3[e]). Streams should exhibit a defined channel, bed, and banks to be delineated as “other waters.”
Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. The CWA grants dual regulatory authority of Section 404 to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE. The USACE is responsible for issuing and enforcing permits for activities in waters of the United States in conjunction with prior permitting authorities in navigable waters under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The EPA is responsible for providing oversight of the permit program. In this capacity, the EPA has developed guidelines for permit review (Section 404 [b][1] Guidelines) and has the authority to veto permits by designating certain sites as non-fill areas (Section 404[c] of the CWA). The EPA also has enforcement authority under Section 404. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act regulates work in or over “navigable waters.” Section 404 regulates the placement of fill material in a navigable water. The law was initially intended to protect navigation and the navigable capacity of waters but, in 1968, the policy for review of permits was revised to include a consideration of fish and wildlife values, conservation, pollution, and other factors in the general public interest.
Projects that include activities under Section 404 or Section 10 jurisdiction must obtain approval from the USACE through an individual or nationwide permit (NWP). Individual permits entail a full public interest review that includes consultation with other federal and state agencies. NWPs are designed for certain activities deemed to have minimal impact and are issued with less delay or paperwork. An activity may be authorized under a NWP only if the activity meets all of the terms and conditions specified in the NWP program, found in the Section 404/Section 10 regulations (33 CFR Part 330). Some examples of commonly applied NWPs include No. 12 (utility line activities), No. 14 (linear transportation crossings), No. 27 (stream and wetland restoration activities), No. 39 (residential, commercial, and institutional developments), and No. 42 (recreational facilities). A Section 404 permit provides a federal nexus for consultation with the USFWS regarding potential impacts to federally-listed species through Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act.
The USACE generally extends jurisdiction to all areas meeting the criteria for waters of the United States. The USACE jurisdiction over wetlands created by artificial means is decided on a case-by-case basis. The USACE generally does not assume jurisdiction over areas that are (1) artificially irrigated and would revert to upland habitat if the irrigation ceased; or, (2) artificial lakes and ponds created by excavating and/or diking of dry land to collect and retain water, used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. Other areas that are not considered jurisdictional waters of the United States include waste treatment ponds, ponds formed by construction activities including borrow pits until abandoned, and ponds created for aesthetic reasons such as reflecting or ornamental ponds (33 CFR Part 328.3).
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 30 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
State
California Endangered Species Act
In 1984, the State of California enacted the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), which is similar to the FESA but pertains to State-listed endangered and threatened species. Like FESA, CESA allows for the issuance of incidental take permits for species listed as threatened or endangered. Under CESA, authorization for incidental take can occur in several ways. First, incidental take can be authorized if the species is also listed under FESA, provided that certain conditions are met, including the issuance of an incidental take permit under FESA. Secondly, CDFG may issue its own take permit for taking of CESA-listed species that is “incidental to an otherwise lawful activity,” regardless of whether that species is also listed under ESA, if the impacts of the proposed taking would be “minimized and fully mitigated” (Fish and Game Code Section 2081(b)). Finally, incidental take may be authorized by the CDFG if an approved habitat management plan or management agreement includes an incidental take permit.
The California Endangered Species Act requires State agencies to consult with the CDFG when preparing California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents to ensure that the actions of the lead agency do not jeopardize the existence of listed species. Lead agencies are directed by CESA to consult with the CDFG on projects or actions that could affect listed species. In addition, CESA directs the CDFG to determine whether jeopardy would occur, and allows the CDFG 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 “overriding considerations” exist; however, the agencies are prohibited from approving projects that would result in the extinction of a listed species.
The California Endangered Species Act prohibits the taking of State-listed endangered or threatened plant and wildlife species. Take is defined in Section 86 of the Fish and Game Code as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill." The CDFG exercises authority over mitigation projects involving State-listed species, including those resulting from CEQA mitigation requirements. Taking may be authorized by the CDFG if an approved habitat management plan or management agreement that avoids or compensates for possible jeopardy is implemented. In addition, the CDFG requires preparation of mitigation plans in accordance with published guidelines.
Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code
The CDFG exercises jurisdiction over wetland and riparian resources associated with rivers, streams, and lakes under CDFG Code Section 1600 to 1607. The CDFG has the authority to regulate work that will do any one or more of the following:
1) Substantially divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; 2) Substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or 3) Substantially use material from a streambed.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 31 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
The CDFG asserts that the jurisdictional area along a river, stream, or creek is usually bounded by the top-of-bank or the outermost edges of riparian vegetation. Activities that could affect jurisdictional areas can be authorized through issuance of a streambed alteration agreement. Typical activities regulated by the CDFG under Section 1600-1607 authority include installing outfalls, stabilization of banks, creek restoration, implementing flood control projects, constructing river and stream crossings, diverting water, damming streams, gravel mining, logging operations, and jack-and-boring.
Careful project design, including the minimization of impacts and reduction of hard structure surface area (i.e., minimal amounts of cement or rip-rap), is critical for CDFG’s approval. The CDFG emphasizes the use of biotechnical or bioengineered creek-related components (emphasis on natural materials, sometimes in conjunction with hard materials) that minimize the need for hard structures in creeks.
CDFG Species of Special Concern
In addition to formal listing under FESA and CESA, plant and wildlife species receive additional consideration during the CEQA process. Species that may be considered for review are included on a list of “Species of Special Concern” developed by the CDFG. Species whose numbers, reproductive success, or habitat may be threatened are tracked by the CDFG in California.
CDFG Birds of Prey Protection
Birds of prey are also protected in California under provisions of the Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5, (1992), which makes it unlawful to take or possess birds of prey (hawks, eagles, vultures, and owls) or destroy their nests or eggs “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 CDFG.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and EPA 404(b)(1) guidelines, in order for a USACE federal permit applicant to conduct any activity which may result in discharge into navigable waters, they must provide a certification from the RWQCB that such discharge will comply with the State water quality standards. The RWQCB has a policy of no-net-loss of wetlands in effect and typically requires mitigation for all impacts to wetlands before the RWQCB will issue water quality certification.
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Cal. Water Code Section 13000-14920), the RWQCB is authorized to regulate the discharge of waste that could affect the quality of the State’s waters. Therefore, even if a project does not require a federal permit (i.e., a NWP from the USACE) in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the project may still require review and
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 32 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
approval of the RWQCB. In response to this, the RWQCB issued guidance for regulation of discharges to “isolated” waters.
California Native Plant Society Listing Status
The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) maintains a list of plant species native to California that have low numbers, limited distribution, or are otherwise threatened with extinction. The list is published in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Potential impacts to populations of CNPS-listed plants receive consideration under CEQA review. The following identifies the definitions of the CNPS listings:
List 1A: Plants believed extinct. List 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. List 2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere. List 3: Plants about which we need more information - a review list. List 4: Plants of limited distribution - a watch list.
Local
County of Amador General Plan
The current Amador County General Plan does not include relevant biological resources policies that are directly applicable to the proposed project.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standards of Significance
For the purposes of this EIR, the following standards of significance were adapted from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Impacts are considered significant if implementation of the proposed project would do any of the following:
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 CDFG or the USFWS; Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the CDFG or the USFWS; 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; or 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.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 33 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
An evaluation of whether an impact on biological resources would be substantial must consider both the resource itself and how that resource fits into a regional or local context. Substantial impacts would be those that would diminish or result in the loss of an important biological resource. Impacts are sometimes locally important, but not significant according to CEQA. The reason for this is that although the impacts would result in an adverse alteration of existing conditions, the impacts would not substantially diminish or result in the permanent loss of a defined important resource on a population-wide or region-wide basis.
As discussed above, the impacts already identified in the Initial Study that was prepared for the proposed project (See Appendix A) as having no impact (conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan) are not further addressed within this chapter. The impacts identified as potentially significant in the Initial Study are addressed below. Impacts related to the Edwin Center North Alternative are addressed below as well.
Method of Analysis
Sources of information used for the proposed project in this section include the results from the Biological Resources Report and the Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Waters of the United States, both prepared by Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting, as well as local, State, and federal resource agencies. Similarly, information for the Edwin Center North Alternative is based on a biological resources addendum and a preliminary assessment of potential jurisdictional wetlands prepared by Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting.
Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting
The following methods of analysis were used by the biological consultant during preparation of the Biological Resources Report and the Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Waters of the United States for the proposed project: 1) on-site stream corridors and riparian habitat, including oak woodlands, were surveyed in 2009 using Trimble GeoXT GPS units; 2) preliminary wetland mapping, surveys, and on-site field work for the wetland delineation were conducted in 2009; 3) field surveys for special-status plants were conducted during the blooming periods of special- status plants with potential to occur on-site; 4) one year of wet season protocol-level surveys for listed large branchiopods (vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp) were conducted on-site between January 6, 2010, and April 14, 2010 within a total of 25 vernal pools and seasonal wetlands; 5) two types of surveys were conducted for the CTS – two seasons of protocol-level aquatic larval surveys and two seasons of upland drift fence surveys, the latter season being more comprehensive; 6) Swainson’s hawk nesting surveys were conducted on-site within the proposed project site and habitat adjacent to the site for a distance of roughly four miles in each compass direction, and protocol-level surveys were conducted within the project site and at a distance of one-half mile adjacent to the site’s boundary; and 7) Elderberry shrub and VELB surveys were conducted concurrent with the special-status plant species surveys (See the Biological Resources Report [Appendix F] for further details regarding the methods used for all of the aforementioned surveys).
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 34 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Similar to the analysis of the proposed project site, the Edwin Center North Alternative site was evaluated by Vollmar for special-status plant and animal species as well as wetland habitats. Protocol-level surveys were conducted throughout the site for all potential special-status plant species and VELB. Protocol-level surveys were also conducted over most of the site and surrounding buffer areas for larval CTS and nesting Swainson’s hawks. Reconnaissance-level surveys were conducted for these species in the remaining buffer areas. Incidental surveys and habitat assessments were conducted for listed large branchiopod species, other special-status bird species, western spadefoot toad, and northwestern pond turtle.
Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures
4.3-1 Impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and/or waters of the State.
Biological reports were prepared for both the proposed project and the Edwin Center North Alternative, respectively. The discussion below presents the details of these documents related to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and/or waters of the State for the proposed project and the Edwin Center North Alternative separately.
Proposed Project
The project site includes vernal pools, seeps, seasonal wetlands, seasonal wetland swales, seasonal creek channels, and unvegetated channels. As discussed above, the Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Waters of the United States identified a total of approximately 4.0134 acres of wetland or waterbody features on the site (See Figure 4.3-3 and Table 4.3-4), with 2.2176 acres located on the Newman Ridge Quarry site and 1.7958 acres located on the proposed Edwin Center site. Of these, approximately 2.70 acres (1.8917 acres on the Newman Ridge Quarry site and 0.8072 acres on the proposed Edwin Center site) appear to qualify as potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S. The remaining features, totaling approximately 1.31 acres, appear to be isolated due to their position and lack of hydrologic connectivity or adjacency to a waterway. Unless these wetlands are identified as having a commerce clause, they likely do not qualify as jurisdictional. In addition to the features described above, approximately 5.81 acres of man-made active mining ponds occur in the northern portion of the site. These features are managed and maintained for mining operations and therefore are not considered regulated waters of the U.S. Although categorized as non-jurisdictional, the ponds are aquatic features that do provide function and value from a habitat perspective.
The only stream corridor and riparian habitat on-site are associated with Dry Creek, which flows across the northern portion of the Newman Ridge Quarry site from northeast to southwest. Dry Creek is a seasonal creek with an established channel (bed and bank) and riparian woodlands occur in open to dense stands along Dry Creek. A total of approximately 2.26 acres of stream corridor/riparian habitat occur on the site.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 35 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Table 4.3-4 Aquatic Features within the Proposed Newman Ridge Quarry, Edwin Center, and Edwin Center North Alternative Sites Acres on Edwin Acres on Proposed Acres on Proposed Center North Aquatic Feature Quarry Edwin Center Site Alternative Site Vernal Pool 0.0222 0.8700 0.6664 Vernal Swale - - 2.1154 Seasonal Wetland 0.1269 0.6265 0.2579 Seasonal Wetland Swale 0.5481 0.2045 0.0103 Unvegetated Channel 0.0219 0.0948 - Seasonal Creek Channel 1.4985 - - Stock Pond - - 0.4947 Active Mining Pond 0.1770 5.7040 0.2040 Total 2.3946 7.4998 3.7487
As can be seen in Figure 4.3-3, implementation of the project could result in the fill of some of the jurisdictional waters on both the Edwin Center and Quarry area of the project site. Among the project improvements that could impact potential jurisdictional waters is the proposed Dry Creek crossing. The bridge would connect the Quarry site to the haul road, thereby providing access for materials transport over the existing creek. Other improvements that could fill jurisdictional waters include development of structures at the Edwin Center.
In summary, although not all of the 9.8234 acres of on-site aquatic features are considered jurisdictional, these features are likely providing function and value from a habitat perspective, and could therefore require mitigation.
Edwin Center North Alternative
According to the biological resources addendum prepared for the Edwin Center North Alternative, stream corridors or riparian habitat were not documented on the project site. However, scattered seasonal wetlands and two man-made wetland features (a stock pond and two active mining ponds) are within the project site. Table 4.3-4 provides a comparison of acreage of aquatic features located on the Edwin Center North Alternative Site and the proposed Edwin Center site. According to the preliminary assessment of potential jurisdictional wetlands for the Edwin Center North Alternative, seven types of wetlands were identified and delineated on the site, which include: 1) ephemeral drainages; 2) vernal swales; 3) vernal pools; 4) seasonal wetlands; 5) seasonal wetland swales; 6) a perennial stock pond; and 7) active mining ponds. Figure 4.3-7 shows the extent of potential jurisdictional wetlands delineated on the site.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 36 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Figure 4.3-7 Potential Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 37 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
As shown in Table 4.3-4, approximately 3.7487 acres of aquatic features within the Edwin Center North Alternative were delineated (as compared to 7.4998 acres total for the proposed Edwin Center site), which include potential waters of the U.S., isolated waters, and active mining features. Approximately 2.1257 acres of waters and wetlands are likely waters of the U.S., activities within which would be regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under the authority of the Clean Water Act. Approximately 1.4190 acres of waters and wetlands are categorized as “isolated” from a federal perspective and therefore not federally jurisdictional. Approximately 0.204 acres of ponds occur within the project area.
The ponds now function as part of the mining operation and serve as water quality basins for the existing ISP mining operations. Therefore, the ponds are not considered to be jurisdictional waters of the United States. Although categorized as non-jurisdictional, the ponds are aquatic features that do provide function and value from a habitat perspective. Therefore, mitigation would likely be required for impacts to all 3.7487 acres of waters and wetlands within the Edwin Center North Alternative area.
Overall, because the Edwin Center North Alternative has less acreage of aquatic features, impacts related to wetlands would be fewer than the proposed project. However, mitigation would still be expected to be required.
Conclusion
Conservatively, this analysis assumes that the proposed project and Edwin Center North Alternative would fully impact all aquatic features and wetlands identified on site. Because aquatic features and wetlands exist on both the proposed project and Edwin Center North Alternative sites, as identified in Table 4.3-4 above, the proposed project or the Edwin Center North Alternative would have a potentially significant impact to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and/or waters of the State.
Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level.
Proposed Project and Edwin Center North Alternative
4.3-1(a) The project site plans shall show that the project will be designed and constructed to avoid and/or minimize the filling of waters of the United States or jurisdictional waters of the State within the project area, to the extent feasible. The project site plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Amador County Department of Transportation and Public Works.
4.3-1(b) If avoidance of filling of jurisdictional waters is not feasible, then prior to such activities, a formal wetland delineation based on the regulations of the USACE at the time of preparation of the delineation shall be submitted
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 38 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
to the USACE, verifying the extent of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. that could be affected by the project. If the determination is made that jurisdictional waters could be filled as a result of the project, a Section 404 permit for fill of jurisdictional wetlands shall be acquired, and mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional waters that cannot be avoided shall conform with the USACE “no-net-loss” policy at a minimum 1:1 ratio and the USACE Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 02-2 establishing policies and guidance on appropriate mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional waters. Mitigation for impacts to both federal and State jurisdictional waters shall be addressed using these guidelines. If a 404 permit is obtained, the permittee/operator must also obtain a water quality certification from the RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA.
4.3-1(c) Prior to the initiation of activities in jurisdictional areas under Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq., the permittee/operator shall provide appropriate notification to CDFG pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1602.
4.3-2 Impacts to oak woodlands.
Biological reports were prepared for both the proposed project and the Edwin Center North Alternative, respectively. The discussion below presents the details of these documents related to oak woodlands for the proposed project and the Edwin Center North Alternative separately.
Proposed Project
The Biological Resources Report indicates that a total of approximately 199.2 acres of oak woodlands exist on the 391-acre project site (278 acres for the Quarry with a disturbance area of 216 acres + the 113-acre Edwin Center). Figure 4.3-4 shows mapped locations of each oak woodland type within the proposed project boundary. The types of oak woodlands on the project site, and their respective acreages, are as follows:
127.2 acres of Blue Oak – Grassland; 47.5 acres of Blue Oak – Interior Live Oak – Grassland; 17.8 acres of Blue Oak – Interior Live Oak – Foothill Pine; 4.5 acres of Valley Oak Woodland; and 2.2 acres of Blue Oak – Foothill Pine – Grassland.
For conservative analysis purposes, it is assumed that all on-site oak woodlands would be removed as part of construction and operation of the proposed project. This includes the oak woodland habitats on both the Edwin Center and Quarry site. However, it is important to note that for the Quarry area, removal of oak woodlands would be phased in accordance with the phasing of the Quarry. For example, as shown in Table 4.3-5, full disturbance of the Quarry area would not occur until year 50 of the project.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 39 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Table 4.3-5 Mine Phasing Est. Avg. Annual Total Overburden Acres of Surface Mining Phase Year Production (Mtons) Removal (Mtons) Disturbance Phase I 0 to 6 1.3 1.4 26.61 Phase II 7 to 21 4.0 2.6 51.74 Phase III 22 to 29 4.7 1.1 36.68 Phase IV 30 to 50 5.0 7.6 90.05 Totals 50 N/A 12.7 204.1
Within the first six years, only approximately 27 acres of the 216-acre operational Quarry area would be disturbed. As a result, much of the oak woodland habitat on the Quarry site would remain throughout the operational time span of the Quarry. Furthermore, as part of the Quarry Reclamation Plan, the project would include revegetation of oak woodlands that would be removed during project mining operations and development of the Edwin Center. According to the Reclamation Plan, the revegetation would consist of hand planting acorns in tree “islands,” resulting in a clustered pattern. The tree “islands” would be located throughout the pit floor in a similar structure to that found on natural areas surrounding the site.
Approximately five to 10 tree “islands” with approximately 10 to 20 acorns would be planted per acre. Acorn planting would be staggered within the “islands” to prevent an artificial grid-like pattern from developing for revegetated areas. Ultimately, the clustered pattern would be similar to planting approximately 100 trees per acre. The aggressive “island” planting schedule is anticipated to experience a 50 percent survival rate, which is typical for clustered planting patterns. Irrigation is not anticipated because the project area receives approximately 22 inches of rainfall per year, and only 10 to 12 inches are necessary for successful oak regeneration.
Acorns would be gathered from lands surrounding the project site that are within 500 feet elevation of the project. Acorns would be picked in October or early November. If meat from the acorn is left on the tree when picking, then it is too early to gather acorns. Acorns from the ground are typically not adequate for regeneration because they are dried out; however, freshly fallen acorns can be used. If gathering is not possible, a seed company, such as Pacific Coast Seed, Inc., would be retained to provide an adequate mix for the site. Prior to planting, a four to six foot radius around each acorn would be cleared of weeds. A hole, four to six inches in diameter and one to two feet deep, would be created using an auger and subsequently cleared of any rock chips and filled with organic mulch or topsoil salvaged from the site. To provide for greater regeneration success, acorns shall be germinated.
Maintenance of the revegetation areas would consist of reseeding unsuccessful revegetation efforts, weed eradication to limit and control invasive noxious weeds, and repair of erosion damage. If revegetation efforts are not successful within two years following the initial seeding and planting, the revegetated areas would be reevaluated to
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 40 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
determine the necessary measures to improve revegetation success. If necessary, these areas would be revegetated with modified methods. These methods may include the use of container stock and irrigation or simple reseeding during a wet winter season. Prior to reseeding and/or planting, the revegetation specialist would evaluate previous revegetation practices and test plot results in an attempt to identify cultural methods to benefit the overall revegetation effort.
The project would include monitoring of the success of the revegetation plan by conducting regular follow-up inspections. The follow-up site visits and field studies would evaluate the progress of the revegetation effort so that any necessary remedial measures could be recommended in a timely manner. Per the Reclamation Plan, during site visits, the revegetation efforts would be examined by evaluating the following:
A. The success of stabilizing the soil so that soil erosion is controlled over the short or long term. B. The success of re-establishing favorable soil conditions will be monitored so that species suitable for cattle grazing and oak woodlands can become established. C. The success of establishing habitat conditions on the excavated areas which are favorable for the gradual invasion and establishment of the native flora to the site from the surrounding areas. D. The plants shall also be examined for pests and pest damage to make sure that potentially harmful infestations do not occur.
Edwin Center North Alternative
Figure 4.3-8 shows the mapped locations of oak woodlands (greater than or equal to 10 percent oak cover) and grassland/oak savannah (less than 10 percent oak cover) within the Edwin Center North Alternative boundary. The oak woodlands on the site are composed largely of blue oak (Quercus douglasii) woodland, with occasional interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii). Although the Edwin Center North Alternative would result in removal of the on-site oak woodlands, similar to the proposed project, revegetation of the oak woodlands on the project site to at least the current oak woodlands acreage would be included as part of the project.
Conclusion
Although implementation of the proposed project or Edwin Center North Alternative would result in removal of the on-site oak woodlands, the proposed project or Edwin Center North Alternative would include substantial post-reclamation revegetation of the oak woodlands on the project site to at least the current oak woodlands acreage. Further, the success and productivity of the revegetation efforts would be carefully monitored to ensure that reclamation goals are being achieved.
Therefore, the project’s impact to oak woodlands would be less-than-significant. Impacts related to oak woodlands under the Edwin Center North Alternative would be equal to that of the proposed project.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 41 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Figure 4.3-8 Habitat Types
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 42 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Mitigation Measure(s) None required.
4.3-3 Impacts to special-status plants.
Biological reports were prepared for both the proposed project and the Edwin Center North Alternative, respectively. The discussion below presents the details of these documents related to special-status plants for the proposed project and the Edwin Center North Alternative separately.
Proposed Project
A list of target special-status plants with potential to occur in the survey area was compiled prior to conducting field surveys. The list was compiled from a nine-quad search on the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) online “Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants” (CNPS 2009). Additionally, a map was developed to show the locations of documented California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) occurrences of special-status plants in the vicinity of the survey area. The list and map provided information pertaining to special-status plants known from the area, including preferred habitat, blooming periods and proximity to the project site. This information assisted in the development of field survey strategies for the special-status plants with potential to occur on the project site. The surveys were scheduled to coincide with the blooming periods of special-status plants with potential to occur on the site, and survey efforts focused more intensively on areas representing potential habitat for special-status plants likely to be in bloom.
Special-status plant species were not found on-site during the field surveys. One special- status species, Tuolumne button-celery (Eryngium pinnatisectum), was observed in locations outside of and to the east of the proposed project boundary. All but the two southernmost mapped locations occur downslope from the proposed Newman Ridge Quarry, and three occurrences are in drainages originating from within the proposed project boundary. Tuolumne button-celery (Eryngium pinnatisectum) is a CNPS List 1B species, indicating that the species is rare or endangered throughout the species’ range. Tuolumne button-celery is not listed under the federal or State endangered species acts, but the species is listed by the CNPS as a species that is potentially threatened to some degree.
Other special-status plant species were not found in or adjacent to the project site. In addition to Tuolumne button-celery, suitable or marginally suitable habitat exists on-site for the following special-status plant species: Brandegee’s clarkia, dwarf downingia, Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop, Parry's horkelia, legenere, pincushion navarretia, Sacramento orcutt grass, Sanford’s arrowhead, and prairie wedge grass (See Table 4.3-2). However, as described above, surveys were conducted at appropriate times for detecting these species, including Tuolumne button-celery, and none were found or are expected to occur based on the survey results. Several special-status plant species listed in Table 4.3-2 are restricted to the Ione geologic formation (Ione manzanita, Ione buckwheat, Irish Hill
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 43 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
buckwheat, and Bisbee Peak rush-rose). Although the Ione formation exists on the project site, the suitable micro-habitats of these species do not occur.
Edwin Center North Alternative
Surveys were conducted by Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting for special-status plant species with potential to occur on the project site. Special-status plant species were not observed on the site during surveys. In addition, because the Tuolumne button-celery (Eryngium pinnatisectum), as discussed above, was observed in locations outside of and to the east of the proposed project boundary, the species is not expected to occur or migrate to the Edwin Center North Alternative site.
Conclusion
Therefore, based on the survey results, the proposed project and the Edwin Center North Alternative would result in less-than-significant impacts to special-status plants.
Mitigation Measure(s) None required.
4.3-4 Impacts to listed large branchiopods.
Biological reports were prepared for both the proposed project and the Edwin Center North Alternative, respectively. The discussion below presents the details of these documents related to listed large branchiopods for the proposed project and the Edwin Center North Alternative separately.
Proposed Project
The following two species of listed large branchiopod were documented within the project site: California fairy shrimp (Linderiella occidentalis) (nine pools) and California clam shrimp (Cyzicus californicus) (seven pools). Neither species is State- or federally- listed as threatened or endangered. Other listed large branchiopod species were not detected during the surveys. Listed large branchiopod species were not observed on-site during surveys. Suitable habitat appears to exist for both the vernal pool fairy shrimp and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp, although neither species is expected to occur. It should be noted that the likelihood is low that the apparent absence of these species during the 2009-2010 season was due to weather patterns, as the biologists detected vernal pool fairy shrimp on nearby sites during the season. According to the biologists, vernal pool tadpole shrimp is not known to exist in the project vicinity and was not detected on or adjacent to the proposed project site.
As discussed in Impact 4.3-1, the Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Waters of the United States identified a total of approximately 4.0134 acres of wetland or waterbody features on the site that could potentially be affected by construction and/or mining activities on-site. Although the listed large branchiopod species were not observed during
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 44 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
surveys, these wetland features have the potential to support vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp.
Edwin Center North Alternative
Only two wetlands were surveyed in the far east area of the Edwin Center North Alternative site. Two species of large branchiopod were documented including California fairy shrimp (Linderiella occidentalis) and California clam shrimp (Cyzicus californicus). Neither species is State- or federally-listed as threatened or endangered. Other large branchiopod species were not detected during the surveys. However, twelve additional vernal pools were mapped as part of the wetland delineation for the site but have not been surveyed for listed large branchiopods.
Conclusion
Because not all of the wetland or waterbody features on the proposed project or Edwin Center North Alternative site were surveyed for listed large branchiopods, an additional season of surveys is required in order to conclude absence of listed large branchiopods from the sites. Therefore, the proposed project or the Edwin Center North Alternative would result in a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.
Proposed Project and Edwin Center North Alternative
4.3-4 Prior to the filling of vernal pools or seasonal wetlands at the Edwin Center or the Quarry, protocol-level surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to formally conclude presence or absence of listed large branchiopods based on USFWS survey requirements. Should listed large branchiopods not be found on-site, further mitigation is not required.
If listed large branchiopods are found on-site, or if the project permittee/operator prefers to proceed based on the assumed presence of listed large branchiopods on-site, the permittee/operator shall coordinate with the USACE and USFWS to provide for preservation of off-site lands that provide habitat for listed large branchiopods at a 2:1 ratio of the number of acres being provided versus the number of acres being disturbed, as well as the restoration of off-site lands that provide habitat for listed large branchiopods at a 1:1 ratio.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 45 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
4.3-5 Impacts to the western spadefoot toad.
Proposed Project and Edwin Center North Alternative
Western spadefoot toads are found in grasslands, open chaparral and pine-oak woodland, and vernal pools, or sometimes pools within ephemeral streamcourses that last longer than three weeks, are used for breeding. Given that these habitats occur on both the Newman Ridge Quarry and Edwin Center sites, the possibility exists that the western spadefoot toad could move onto the project site. However, the CTS larval seine surveys that were conducted by the biologists in 2009-2010 would have detected the presence of western spadefoot toad larvae (tadpoles), if present. Neither western spadefoot toads nor western spadefoot toad larvae were detected at any time on the proposed project site.
Because the Edwin Center North Alternative contains habitat that is similar to the Edwin Center site, impacts would be similar to that of the proposed project. Overall, because the western spadefoot toad does not exist on the project site, the proposed project or the Edwin Center North Alternative would result in less-than-significant impacts.
Mitigation Measure(s) None required.
4.3-6 Impacts to the northwestern pond turtle.
Proposed Project and Edwin Center North Alternative
Due to the presence of perennial ponds and drainages, particularly the segment of Dry Creek west of the Quarry area, the northwestern pond turtle, a California Species of Special Concern, has the potential to occur within the project site. In addition, this species has potential to nest and over-winter within the project site in upland habitats such as the grasslands habitats adjacent to aquatic habitats on the property. Construction within upland habitats associated with development of the Edwin Center and the Quarry, as well as construction a temporary ford crossing and the permanent bridge crossing over Dry Creek to provide haul truck access to the Quarry, has the potential to adversely affect the northwestern pond turtle. Because the Edwin Center North Alternative involves the same operations on the Quarry site and contains habitat suitable for the northwestern pond turtle, impacts would be equal to the proposed project under the Alternative. Therefore, the proposed project or the Edwin Center North Alternative would be considered to result in a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 46 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Proposed Project and Edwin Center North Alternative
4.3-6 Prior to initiation of ground disturbance activities for the Edwin Center and any phase of the Quarry, a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys for northwestern pond turtle in all construction and operational areas identified by said biologist as potential nesting or dispersal habitat located within 1,000 feet of aquatic habitat. The preconstruction survey shall be completed 48 hours prior to initiation of ground disturbance activities.
Any northwestern pond turtles that are found in upland areas during these surveys shall be salvaged and relocated to appropriate aquatic habitat immediately outside of the project site. Any northwestern pond turtle nests that are found during these surveys shall be fenced off until the young have hatched and relocated to an area off-site, as permitted by CDFG. All northwestern pond turtles identified would be reported to CDFG’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).
A biological monitor shall be present during all vegetation clearing and grading work within 200 feet of the on-site drainages.
4.3-7 Impacts to the California tiger salamander.
Biological reports were prepared for both the proposed project and the Edwin Center North Alternative, respectively. The discussion below presents the details of these documents related to the CTS for the proposed project and the Edwin Center North Alternative separately.
Proposed Project
As discussed in the Existing Environmental Setting section, the proposed Quarry site may include potential upland habitat for CTS. While CTS were detected during protocol-level aquatic larval surveys for CTS, all detections were off-site. Surveys were conducted within all potential CTS breeding habitat within the Newman Ridge Site as well as within a 1.3-mile buffer zone around the project site in accordance with standard USFWS survey protocols. With the 1.3 mile buffer zone the total survey area covered approximately 9,200 acres.
Out of the 113 potential CTS breeding ponds evaluated in the survey area, CTS larvae were observed in five pools. All five of these pools are located in the southern central portion of the survey area and southwest of the project site.
As also discussed in the Existing Environmental Setting section, drift fence/pitfall trap surveys were conducted on- and off-site in close proximity to CTS breeding habitat. More specifically, four drift fence/pitfall trap arrays were established in relation to the series of five known CTS breeding ponds to the west of Newman Ridge and the proposed
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 47 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
mining area (See Figure 4.3-9). Twelve CTS were captured. Eleven of the 12 CTS captured were along Trap Line A, which is located off-site to the west of the proposed Quarry area; and the remaining capture was made on Trap Line B, which is located just inside of the western Quarry area boundary. CTS were not captured on either Trap Line C or D, which are located partially on-site in the southern portion of the Quarry area boundaries (See Figure 4.3-9). Four of the 12 captures were recently transformed juveniles, two were non-breeding subadults, and six were breeding adults.
The single CTS detected along Trap Line B within the western boundary of the proposed mining area was situated in proximity to the cluster of individuals captured near the end of Trap Line A. This was a juvenile captured coming from the north towards the end of the season, which suggests that the juvenile was dispersing from a breeding locality to the north. However, the approximate origin of individuals captured near the terminus of a drift fence line is more difficult to consider, because dispersers presumably wander on the ground in search of food and cover while moving generally in the same direction. Given these observations, the project site can be considered to provide potential upland habitat for CTS.
Rainfall during the 2009-10 trapping period was 95 percent of normal for the area, with January rainfall far above normal, so environmental conditions were suitable for breeding by the CTS. The number of CTS captured was relatively low considering the level of effort. However, many examples of small breeding populations consisting of only a few to a couple dozen individuals exist. Naturally low numbers might also be expected given that the property is situated near the eastern edge of the range for the species.
Recent research at a site in Solano County showed that 95 percent of all adult CTS captured in upland habitats were within 2,034 feet of the breeding pond. Research shows that adults move as far as 1.3 miles between oversummering and breeding habitats.6 The Newman Ridge Quarry portion of the site is approximately 1,000 feet from a known breeding pond and one juvenile CTS was trapped at the western edge of the Quarry area in 2010. Despite the low sample size, the overall distribution of captures in 2009-10 suggests that CTS may be using the low-lying grassland areas of Dry Creek Valley preferentially for over-summering habitat.
Edwin Center North Alternative
Two seasons of protocol-level aquatic larval surveys for the federal and state threatened CTS (2009 and 2010) were conducted for the proposed project, which included all potential CTS breeding habitat within the proposed project site as well as within a 1.3- mile buffer zone around the site in accordance with standard USFWS survey protocols. Figure 4.3-10 shows the 1.3-mile buffer zone around the Edwin Center North Alternative site. A total of 76 wetlands that provide potential suitable habitat for CTS are located within the Edwin Center North Alternative site and 1.3-mile buffer zone, 54 of which were included in the 2009 and 2010 protocol-level aquatic larval surveys for the proposed project.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 48 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Figure 4.3-9 CTS Drift Fence Array Locations
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 49
EIR
2012
ROJECT 4.3 - 50 4.3 - 50 RAFT P
D PRIL A
IDGE
R
EWMAN
N
ogical Resources ogical Resources Figure 4.3-10 Surveyed CTS Ponds Chapter 4.3 – Biol
DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Twenty-two of the wetlands were not included in the protocol-level surveys, but were each surveyed twice during 2009 (April and May). The individual survey efforts followed protocol-level methods, but protocol-level surveys require three visits to each wetland. CTS were not documented in any pools within the 1.3-mile buffer zone around the Edwin Center North Alternative site boundary. However, four known CTS breeding ponds are located approximately 1.4 miles northwest of the site (compared to approximately 0.3 miles to the west of the proposed Edwin Center site). Because the potential of affecting a known breeding pond is less under the Edwin Center North Alternative, impacts to the CTS would be considered to be fewer than that of the proposed project.
Conclusion
In conclusion, mining operations in the Newman Ridge Quarry area could result in impacts to CTS if individual salamanders are utilizing the project site for upland habitat at the time ground disturbance occurs. It should be noted that the proposed project site does not include any breeding habitat for CTS.
Because the Edwin Center North Alternative would involve the same operations on the Newman Ridge Quarry site, the overall impacts would be similar to that of the proposed project and mitigation would still be required. Therefore, the proposed project or the Edwin Center North Alternative would have a potentially significant impact to CTS.
Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level.
Proposed Project and Edwin Center North Alternative
4.3-7 The following measures shall be implemented, at a minimum, in addition to any measures identified through consultation with USFWS, pursuant to ESA, and CDFG, pursuant to CESA:
No later than thirty (30) days prior to commencement of any construction activities between October 15 and May 15, including land clearing, in that portion of the site identified in Impact 4.3-7, above, as potential CTS dispersal habitat, exclusion fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of that portion of the project site identified as dispersal habitat. One-way escape funnels shall be installed at ground level every 50 feet within the exclusion fencing to allow any migrating CTS within the project area to pass through the exclusion fencing. If construction activities occur between October 15 and May 15, the exclusion fencing shall be maintained intact through May 15. No exclusion fencing is required if no construction activities occur between October 15 and May 15 within that portion of the project site identified as potential CTS dispersal habitat.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 51 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey prior to commencement of construction activities, including land clearing, within that portion of the project site identified as potential dispersal habitat. If any CTS is identified on-site, work in the vicinity of the individual shall not commence until the individual has been removed from the project site by a qualified biologist and released near a suitable burrow at least 300 feet from the project site. Any aestivation burrows (defined as two or more small mammal burrows greater than 1 inch in diameter within a 10-foot- diameter area within the identified dispersal habitat) shall be excavated by hand and individual animals released near a suitable burrow at least 300 feet from the project site.
A qualified biologist shall conduct a survey weekly during initial construction and landclearing activities in that portion of the project site identified as potential dispersal habitat. If CTS is found, the biologist will implement the same removal methods identified in the above paragraph.
A worker training program that includes the CTS will be conducted for construction personnel before groundbreaking within the portion of the project site identified as dispersal habitat.
From October 15 to May 31 within the potential dispersal habitat identified on the project site, minimize operation of project vehicles and equipment at night off established roads during rain events and within 24 hours following rain events, and check under vehicles parked overnight off established roads before operation.
4.3-8 Impacts to the Swainson’s hawk.
Biological reports were prepared for both the proposed project and the Edwin Center North Alternative, respectively. The discussion below presents the details of these documents related to Swainson’s hawk for the proposed project and the Edwin Center North Alternative separately.
Proposed Project
Habitat suitability and availability for Swainson’s hawk within the survey area is diverse and, in general, of good quality. An abundance of mature valley oak trees occur along the floodplain lowland areas of the creeks (e.g. Dry Creek, Willow Creek), in riparian areas, and along roads within these areas. Outside of the floodplain margins, many mature oaks also occur but are typically not as tall as those within the floodplains. Other tree species (e.g. Eucalyptus) suitable for nesting are present and associated with existing or abandoned ranch and farm homes and buildings. Most of the survey area is open rangeland consisting of vernal pool terrain, oak savanna, and oak woodlands. In only a few locations (e.g. upper end of Dry Creek floodplain) areas are cultivated for agriculture crops (e.g. pasture, alfalfa). These areas, and those that are more open (vernal pool
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 52 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
terrain, oak savanna), are more suitable for foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk. Areas with greater tree density, such as the oak woodlands, are less suitable for foraging habitat. Areas that are currently being mined do not provide foraging habitat at all. In general, the project site is not consistent with characteristic Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, as discussed in the Existing Environmental Setting section, above.
As discussed in the Existing Environmental Setting section above, seven off-site Swainson’s hawk nests and/or territories were documented during the nesting surveys that were conducted within the project area for Swainson’s hawk. Three of these were within the census survey area and the other four were found outside of the census area during the regional survey (See Figure 4.3-6). Of these seven, five active nests were found, and the other two locations were considered nesting territories. Overall, one active nest and one nesting territory were observed within one mile of the project site, and four additional active nests and one nesting territory were observed within five miles of the project site.
Edwin Center North Alternative
Swainson’s hawk nesting surveys were conducted for the proposed project in order to identify active nests within and adjacent to the proposed project area. Protocol-level surveys were conducted within the project area and at a distance of one-half mile adjacent to project boundaries. Additional surveys were conducted in the surrounding areas including the Edwin Center North Alternative site and areas bordering SR 104 to the west. The western portion of the Edwin Center North Alternative site lies outside of the protocol-level Swainson’s hawk survey area, but the entire Edwin Center North Alternative site is within the area covered by the regional survey.
Similar to the proposed Edwin Center site, one active Swainson’s hawk nest site was observed within one mile of the Edwin Center North Alternative site. However, the nesting site is located further away from the Edwin Center North Alternative site than the proposed Edwin Center site.
Conclusion
The nesting site observed in the vicinity of the Edwin Center is located further from the Edwin Center North Alternative site than the proposed Edwin Center site, which would result in fewer impacts under the Edwin Center North Alternative than the proposed project. However, mitigation would still be required, therefore, the severity of the impact would be equal under the Alternative as the proposed project. Because nesting Swainson’s hawks were observed within the proposed project area, the impact to Swainson’s hawk would be potentially significant under the proposed project or Edwin Center North Alternative.
Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level. It should be noted that between the project’s proposed mining
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 53 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
phases, Swainson’s hawks could become attuned to on-site construction- and mining- related disturbances and still establish nests and/or forage on-site.
Proposed Project and Edwin Center North Alternative
4.3-8 No earlier than thirty (30) days prior to commencement of construction activities, including land clearing, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey within a 1/2-mile radius around the project site. If active nests are not found within a 1/2-mile radius of the project site during the surveys, further mitigation is not required.
If active nests are found on or within a 1/2-mile radius of the project site, construction activities that may cause nest abandonment or forced fledging shall not take place within 0.25-mile (buffer zone) of the active nest(s) between March 1 and September 15 (breeding season).
If construction or other project related activities which may cause nest abandonment or forced fledging are necessary in the buffer zone during the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall monitor the nest(s) on a daily basis for signs of stress or erratic behavior in the adults until the biologist confirms that the young have fledged and the nest(s) is/are no longer occupied. If the biologist observes stress or erratic behavior in the adults, construction or other project related activities in the buffer zone shall cease until the young have fledged.
Nest trees on the project site shall not be removed unless there is no feasible way to avoid removal. Removal of a nest tree should occur only during the timeframe of October 1 and the last day of February, and shall occur only after a qualified biologist confirms the nest is no longer active.
4.3-9 Impacts to raptors and other migratory birds.
Proposed Project and Edwin Center North Alternative
As discussed in the Existing Environmental Setting section above, several raptors have the potential to nest or forage within the oak woodland and grassland habitats on the project site. Birds of prey are protected in California under the provisions of the CDFG Code, Section 3503.5, (1992), which states, “it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds 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.”
Other migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and in some cases, the California Department of Fish and Game (i.e., Species of Special Concern), have the potential to nest or forage within the oak woodland, wetland, riparian, and grassland habitats on-site, including but not limited to loggerhead shrike, tri-colored blackbird, and
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 54 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
yellow warbler. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13) prohibits “take” (i.e., direct or indirect activities that cause avian mortality including their eggs and young) of any species listed under this Act. Similarly, nests, eggs, and/or young of all nesting birds are protected under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503.
The construction of the Edwin Center and the implementation of the four Quarry phases would involve removal of existing natural habitats that currently provide potential nesting habitat for raptors and other migratory birds. Should any of these protected birds be found nesting on-site prior to initiation of construction, the proposed project 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 CDFG. Because the Edwin Center North Alternative would involve the removal of existing natural habitats that currently provide potential nesting habitat for raptors and other migratory birds, the impact would be equal under the Alternative as the proposed project. Therefore, the impacts to raptors and other migratory birds would be potentially significant under the proposed project or Edwin Center North Alternative.
Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.
Proposed Project and Edwin Center North Alternative
4.3-9 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the Edwin Center or Edwin Center North Alternative and prior to initiation of any ground disturbance activities for each phase of the Quarry, if construction is expected to occur during the raptor nesting season (February 1 to August 31), a pre- construction raptor survey shall be performed to determine if active raptor nests are present within the boundaries of the site or within 500 feet of said boundaries. The survey shall be conducted on-site as well as in any off-site improvement areas. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist not more than 30 days prior to the onset of construction activities for each phase. If active raptor nests are not found on or within 500 feet of the phase area, further mitigation is not necessary. In addition, if construction activities are proposed to occur during the non-breeding season (September 1 to January 31), a survey is not required and further studies are not necessary. However, if active raptor nests are found on or within 500 feet of the phase area, construction activities shall not occur within 500 feet of any active raptor nests until the young have fledged or until the biologist has determined that the nest is not active any longer
It should be noted that extensive buffers, such as those recommended for nesting raptors, are not necessary for nesting avian species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Depending on the bird species, site conditions, and the proposed construction activities near an active nest, a smaller buffer could be prescribed, as determined by the biologist.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 55 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Alternatively, vegetation removal could be scheduled to avoid all potential impacts. Vegetation removal conducted between September 1 and January 31 will prevent impacts to nesting birds or unfledged young.
4.3-10 Impacts to the valley elderberry longhorn beetle.
Biological reports were prepared for both the proposed project and the Edwin Center North Alternative, respectively. The discussion below presents the details of these documents related to VELB for the proposed project and the Edwin Center North Alternative separately.
Proposed Project
The elderberry shrub is the host plant for the VELB. One elderberry shrub was mapped on the Newman Ridge Quarry portion of the project site in the riparian zone of Dry Creek, very close to the proposed project boundary (See Figure 4.3-4). This is the location of the proposed bridge over Dry Creek, which would provide haul truck access to the Quarry area. This plant had two stems (1.6 and 3.1 inches in diameter) and did not have exit holes. In addition, two elderberry shrubs adjacent to each other were mapped within 100 feet of the proposed project boundary. One had three stems (1.2, 1.2, and 3.1 inches in diameter), the other had two stems (two and 2.3 inches in diameter), and neither had exit holes.
Edwin Center North Alternative
Surveys for Mexican elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. canadensis) shrubs and the federally threatened VELB were conducted concurrent with the special-status plant species surveys. Elderberry shrubs were not documented on or within 100 feet of the Edwin Center North Alternative site boundary. Therefore, the potential of VELB being impacted on the Edwin Center portion of the Edwin Center North Alternative would be less than that of the proposed project. However, the proposed bridge over Dry Creek would still be included as part of the Edwin Center North Alternative.
Conclusion
Construction of the proposed bridge over Dry Creek could potentially impact VELB because the bridge construction could damage the single on-site elderberry shrub. Therefore, the proposed project or Edwin Center North Alternative could have a potentially significant impact to VELB.
It should be noted that although the USFWS announced in early October 2006 that the VELB would likely be de-listed, the species remains protected until the formal de-listing process is completed, the duration of which is not known.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 56 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less- than-significant level.
Proposed Project and Edwin Center North Alternative
4.3-10 If the formal de-listing process for VELB has been completed prior to initiation of ground disturbance activities for construction of the Dry Creek crossing, mitigation is not required. However, if the formal de- listing process for VELB has not been completed prior to the initiation of ground disturbance activities for the crossing, the project site plans shall demonstrate avoidance by not allowing ground disturbance activities within 20 feet of the drip line of the elderberry shrub. The 20-foot exclusion zone shall be marked by orange construction fencing. The project site plans shall be submitted for the review and approval by the County Planning Department.
4.3-11 Impacts to special-status bat species.
Proposed Project and Edwin Center North Alternative
Four special-status bat species have at least some potential to occur on-site. These include the pallid bat (Antrozus pallidus), Townsend’s western big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii), western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus). These species all occur in the region and may use mature trees, snags, rock crevices, or man-made structures (such as buildings) for roosting, either for winter roosting (hibernacula) or for forming nursery colonies. Bats are generally site faithful and will not abandon an established roosting area unless disturbed.
Because existing rock outcrops/cliffs and mature trees are located within the study area, the proposed project may provide potential roosting habitat for several special-status bat species that have a low potential to occur on-site. Similarly, because the Edwin Center North Alternative would include existing rock outcrops/cliffs and mature trees that may provide potential roosting habitat for several special-status bat species, impacts under the Alternative would be equal to that of the proposed project. Therefore, if special-status bats are found roosting on the proposed project or Edwin Center North Alternative site, the project could have a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.
Proposed Project and Edwin Center North Alternative
4.3-11(a) A pre-construction survey for roosting bats shall be performed by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to any removal of trees, rock
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 57 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
outcroppings, or structures on the site. If no active roosts are found, then no further action would be warranted. If either a maternity roost or hibernacula (structures used by bats for hibernation) is present, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented.
4.3-11(b) If active maternity roosts or hibernacula are found in trees, rock outcroppings, or structures which will be removed as part of project construction, the project shall be redesigned to avoid the loss of the tree, rock outcropping, or structure occupied by the roost to the extent feasible as determined by the County. If an active maternity roost is located and the project cannot be redesigned to avoid removal of the occupied tree, rock outcropping, or structure, demolition shall commence before maternity colonies form (i.e., prior to March 1) or after young are Volant (flying) (i.e., after July 31). Disturbance-free buffer zones, as determined by a qualified biologist, shall be observed during the maternity roost season (March 1 - July 31).
4.3-11(c) If a non-breeding bat hibernacula is found in a tree, rock outcropping, or structure scheduled for removal, the individuals shall be safely evicted, under the direction of a qualified biologist (as determined by a Memorandum of Understanding with CDFG), by opening the roosting area to allow airflow through the cavity. Demolition shall then follow at least one night after initial disturbance for airflow. This action should allow bats to leave during darkness, thus increasing their chance of finding new roosts with a minimum of potential predation during daylight. Trees, rock outcroppings, or structures with roosts that need to be removed shall first be disturbed at dusk, just prior to removal that same evening, to allow bats to escape during the darker hours.
4.3-12 Impacts to the American badger.
Proposed Project and Edwin Center North Alternative
The American badger, a California Species of Special Concern, has a low potential to occur on-site. Though not observed on-site, the grassland areas containing ground squirrel burrows are potential habitat for American badger. Removal of grassland areas as part of the development of the Edwin Center, Quarry, or Edwin Center North Alternative could result in impacts to American badger should they be occupying burrows in these areas prior to construction. The potential loss of individuals of this species if present within construction areas could have a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 58 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
Proposed Project and Edwin Center North Alternative
4.3-12(a) A qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for American badger in all construction areas identified as potential habitat located within the project area two weeks prior to initiation of ground disturbance activities for the Edwin Center or Edwin Center North Alternative and each phase of the Quarry. If an American badger or active burrow, indicated by the presence of badger sign (i.e. suitable shape and burrow- size, scat) is found within the construction area during pre-construction surveys, the CDFG shall be consulted to obtain permission for animal relocation.
4.3-12(b) If the qualified biologist determines that potential dens are inactive, the biologist shall excavate these dens by hand with a shovel to prevent badgers from re-using them during construction.
4.3-12(c) If the qualified biologist determines that potential dens may be active, the entrances of the dens shall be blocked with soil, sticks, and debris for three to five days to discourage use of these dens prior to project disturbance. The den entrances shall be blocked to an incrementally greater degree over the three to five day period. After the qualified biologist determines that badgers have stopped using active dens within the project boundary, the dens shall be hand-excavated with a shovel to prevent re-use during construction.
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
4.3-13 Cumulative loss of biological resources in Amador County and the effects of ongoing development in the region.
Proposed Project and Edwin Center North Alternative
The proposed project site and the Edwin Center North Alternative site includes biological communities that could provide habitat and foraging areas for endangered, threatened, and special-status animal species. Many of the sensitive habitats and species found on- site are a concern in Amador County. Population growth and large amounts of clearing for new roads and urban development within the next 20 years could likely be experienced regionally in Amador County as well. Therefore, the cumulative impact on the environment must consider not only development within the project site, but also those developments occurring elsewhere in the County.
It is important to note that the area surrounding the project site is partially disturbed. While land uses immediately surrounding the proposed project area are predominantly agricultural with several scattered residences, land uses to the north and west of the site including mining and industrial uses similar to those proposed for the project. The existing ISP Mine/Ione Quarry and associated ISP Plant are located immediately west of
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 59 DRAFT EIR NEWMAN RIDGE PROJECT APRIL 2012
the proposed Edwin Center and immediately southeast of the Edwin Center North Alternative site. In addition, a large industrial complex is located north of the Edwin Center, across State Route 104. Land uses to the south include mining, annual crop production and cattle grazing.
Impacts that could occur as a result from the implementation of the proposed project or Edwin Center North Alternative include disturbance to special-status plant and wildlife species as well as removal of oak woodland and aquatic habitats. While additional impacts may result from the implementation of other projects within Amador County and surrounding areas, mitigation would be required of any discretionary projects impacting natural resources. The impacts would be adequately addressed by the establishment of mitigation measures, such as those required in this document to fully mitigate potential impacts to on-site biological resources. With these measures in place, the proposed project’s or the Edwin Center North Alternative’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impact to biological resources would not be cumulatively considerable, and a less-than-significant cumulative impact would result.
Mitigation Measure(s) None required.
Endnotes
1Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting. Proposed Newman Ridge Project, Biological Resources Report. May 2011. 2Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting. Proposed Newman Ridge Project, Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Waters of the United States. May 2011. 3Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting. Edwin Center North Alternative Biological Resources Addendum. October 2011. 4Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting. Memorandum: “Preliminary Assessment of Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands on the North Alternative of the Proposed Edwin Center Project, Western Amador County, California.” October 14, 2011. 5United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. 1999. 6 Personal communication with John Vollmar, Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting. January 3, 2012.
Chapter 4.3 – Biological Resources 4.3 - 60