Biological Resources Report

Home , Mowry Slough

APPENDIX A

Residence Inn and Event Center Biological Resources Report

Project #3660-01

Prepared for:

David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 San José , CA 95126

Prepared by:

H. T. Harvey & Associates

December 2015 Rev. January 2016

983 University Avenue, Building D  Los Gatos, CA 95032  Ph: 408.458.3200  F: 408.458.3210

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ...... i Section 1.0 Introduction ...... 3 1.1 Project Description ...... 3 Section 2.0 Methods ...... 6 Section 3.0 Environmental Setting ...... 7 3.1 General Project Area Description ...... 7 3.2 Biotic Habitats ...... 8 3.2.1 Ruderal Grassland ...... 8 3.2.2 Developed ...... 10 Section 4.0 Regulatory Setting ...... 11 4.1 Federal ...... 11 4.1.1 Clean Water Act...... 11 4.1.2 Federal Endangered Species Act ...... 12 4.1.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ...... 12 4.1.4 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act ...... 13 4.2 State ...... 13 4.2.1 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act ...... 13 4.2.2 California Endangered Species Act ...... 14 4.2.3 California Environmental Quality Act ...... 14 4.2.4 California Fish and Game Code ...... 16 4.3 Local ...... 17 4.3.1 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission ...... 17 4.3.1 City of San José Tree Ordinance ...... 19 4.3.2 City of San José Riparian Policy ...... 19 4.3.3 Envision San José 2040 ...... 20 4.3.4 City of San José Bird-Safe Building Design Standards ...... 21 Section 5.0 Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitats ...... 22 5.1 Special-status Plant Species ...... 22 5.1.1 California Native Plant Society Ranked Plant Species ...... 25 5.2 Special-status Animal Species ...... 26 5.3 Sensitive Natural Communities, Habitats, and Vegetation Alliances ...... 35 5.4 Non-Native and Invasive Species ...... 36 Section 6.0 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 37 6.1 Impacts Found to be Less than Significant ...... 38 6.1.1 Impacts on Upland Habitats and Associated Common Plant and Wildlife Species ...... 38 6.1.2 Impacts on Western Pond Turtles ...... 38 6.1.3 Impacts on the California Ridgway’s Rail and California Black Rail ...... 39 6.1.4 Impacts on the Loggerhead Shrike and White-tailed Kite ...... 40 6.1.5 Impacts on the Alameda Song Sparrow and San Francisco Common Yellowthroat ...... 40 6.1.6 Impacts on Non-Special-Status Birds ...... 41 6.1.7 Impacts on the Pallid Bat ...... 43 6.1.8 Impacts on Wildlife Movement Corridors ...... 43 6.1.9 Impacts from Modifications within the Riparian Setback ...... 44 6.1.10 Impacts from Invasive Weeds ...... 46 6.2 Impacts Found to be Less than Significant with Mitigation ...... 47

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates i Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

6.2.1 Impacts on Jurisdictional Habitats (Wetland, Aquatic, and Riparian) ...... 47 6.2.2 Impacts on Green Sturgeon, Steelhead, Longfin Smelt, and EFH ...... 49 6.2.3 Impacts on Burrowing Owls ...... 49 6.3 Cumulative Impacts ...... 52 Section 7.0 Compliance with Additional Laws and Regulations Applicable to Biotic Resources of the Project Site ...... 54 7.1 Regulatory Overview for Nesting Birds ...... 54 Section 8.0 References ...... 55 Appendix A. Special-Status Plants Considered for Potential Occurrence but Rejected ...... 1 Appendix B. Plants Identified on the Project Site ...... 1 Appendix C. Detailed descriptions of Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring On or Adjacent to the Project Site ...... 1

Figures

Figure 1. Vicinity Map ...... 4 Figure 2. Biotic Habitats ...... 5 Figure 3. BCDC Jurisdiction ...... 18 Figure 4. CNDDB Plant Occurrences Map ...... 23 Figure 5. CNDDB Animal Occurrences Map ...... 24

Tables

Table 1. Special-status Animal Species, Their Status, and Potential Occurrence on the Project Site ...... 27

Preparers

Steve Rottenborn, Ph.D., Principal Pat Boursier, Ph.D., Senior Plant/Wetland Ecologist Ginger Bolen, Ph.D., Project Manager Maya Goklany, M.S., Plant Ecologist

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates ii Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Section 1.0 Introduction

This report describes the biological resources present in the area of the proposed Residence Inn and Event Center (Project), as well as the potential impacts of the proposed Project and measures necessary to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

1.1 Project Description

The proposed Project includes the construction of a four-story, 261-room, co-branded hotel (Residence Inn by Marriot & Fairfield Inn and Suites by Marriot), and a 238-stall parking lot on a 6.72-acre (ac) site (APN 015- 45-013 and APN 015-45-024) in San José, California. The Project site is located in the City of San José, north of Highway 237 in the Milpitas, California 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle (Figure 1). It is bordered by Alviso Slough to the north, Union Pacific Railroad to the east, commercial development to the south (e.g., America Center), and America Center Open Space to the west (Figure 2). Pond A8 of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is present not far to the west and northwest of the site.

Access to the site is provided from a roadway that extends north from the terminus of Great America Parkway. A 12-foot (ft) wide gravel access road runs along the bank of Alviso Slough on the northern perimeter of the site, in a 25-ft wide public access easement shared by, among others, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the State Lands Commission, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The Project’s proposed enhancements of this access road would provide important linkages to the community’s open space network. The access road is part of the proposed Bay Trail that would integrate with the neighboring Guadalupe Trail and connect to the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail. The Project would enhance and realign the existing access road to facilitate its incorporation into the Bay Trail and its use as a fire vehicle emergency access route. The road alignment would be moved farther east to reduce the potential impacts of its use as a recreational trail on sensitive bay habitats, and would be designed to accommodate a connection to the future pedestrian bridge that is proposed to span the Alviso Slough as part of the Bay Trail. The total width of the access road would be increased to 26 ft to accommodate fire vehicle access and would include a 12-ft paved trail and an additional 14 ft of decomposed granite and grasscell pavers (i.e., a porous paving system used to prevent turf damage in traffic applications such as access lanes, while allowing water to percolate through the surface to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff).

The Project site is designated Commercial/Industrial in the Envision San José 2040 General Plan (City of San José 2012) and is part of a larger Planned Development zoning that includes the America Center, an office and hotel project, and designated open space. In 2006, City Council approved a Planned Development rezoning (PDC 03-024) to construct up to 88,233 square feet (ft2) of retail, commercial, and recreational building space, and 300 parking stalls on the Project site. The Project will require a Planned Development rezoning to allow for the construction of the 261-room hotel and modification in land use in the existing zoning.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 3 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

YOLO Detail NAPA Sacramento

Napa California SONOMA Fairfield

SOLANO

Martinez San Rafael Stockton

CONTRA COSTA San Francisco SAN JOAQUIN Oakland SAN FRANCISCO ALAMEDA

Redwood City Project Vicinity SA N M AT E O STANISLAUS

San Jose

SANTA CLARA

SA N TA C R U Z Santa Cruz MERCED 0 20 Hollister Miles

Project Site

N 1ST ST

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., 1 0.5 0 1 NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Miles Community N:\Projects3600\3660-01\Reports\Biological Resources Report\Fig 1Vicinity Map.mxd mlagarde

Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map Residence Inn and Event Center Biological Resources Report (3660-01) August 2015

d t

a a S

r d

l l

i i

a a

R G

i f

Top of Bank f i

c a

(Edge of Riparian) A a A P

lv P i n is n

o o

o o i Sl i

l n o n

oug g U

h U

Legend

Project Site (6.72 ac)

Riparian Setback (100 ft)

Riparian Area

Top of Bank

Habitats Ruderal Grassland (6.27 ac)

Developed (0.45 ac)

200 100 0 200 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Feet Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community N:\Projects3600\3660-01\Reports\Biological Resources Report\Fig 2 Biotic Habitatsand Riparian Setback.mxdcfu

Figure 2: Biotic Habitats and Riparian Setback Residence Inn and Event Center Biological Resources Report (3660-01) August 2015

Section 2.0 Methods

Prior to conducting field work, H. T. Harvey & Associates ecologists reviewed Project plans; aerial images (Google Inc. 2015); topographic maps; a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) species list for the Milpitas, California 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle; the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2015); the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory (CNPS 2015); and other relevant scientific literature, including technical databases and resource agency reports in order to assess the current distribution of special-status plants and animals in the Project vicinity. For the purposes of this report, the general vicinity of the Project site is defined as the area within a 5-mile (mi) radius.

A reconnaissance-level field survey of the Project site was conducted by H. T. Harvey & Associates wildlife ecologist Ginger Bolen, Ph.D., and plant ecologist Maya Goklany, M.S., on 10 February 2015. The survey boundary on the north side of the Project site was expanded beyond the Project footprint to include the adjacent Alviso Slough for the purpose of identifying the limits of regulatory agency jurisdiction and riparian setbacks. The purpose of these surveys was to provide a Project-specific impact assessment for development of the proposed activities as described above. Specifically, surveys were conducted to: (1) assess existing biotic habitats and general wildlife communities on the site, (2) assess the site for its potential to support special-status species and their habitats, (3) identify potential jurisdictional habitats, such as Waters of the U.S./State and riparian habitat, and (4) determine whether street trees or heritage trees, as defined in Chapter 13.28.220 of the City Municipal Code, are present on the site. In addition, focused surveys were conducted throughout the Project site for Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii), burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) and suitable burrowing owl roosting and nesting habitat (i.e., burrows of suitable size in low vegetation), and evidence of active or old raptor nests.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 6 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Section 3.0 Environmental Setting

3.1 General Project Area Description

Located within the Guadalupe River watershed, the 6.72-ac Project site lies at the southern end of the San Francisco Bay (Figure 2). Along the northern perimeter of the site, a 12-ft wide gravel access road/trail runs along the top of the Alviso Slough levee in a 25-ft wide public access easement (Photo 1). The access road continues along the eastern perimeter of the Project site adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad tracks (Photo 2). Commercial development (e.g., America Center) is located to the south, along America Center Drive, and America Center Open Space and Pond A8 to the west. Pond A8, part of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay NWR, is a former salt pond west/northwest of the site that was breached in 2012 and is now subject to managed tidal influence. Photo 1. Public access easement along northern edge of The portion of Alviso Slough adjacent the Project site. to the Project site represents the lower, tidal portions of the Guadalupe River system.

The Project area was once largely covered by alluvial floodplains and tidal marshlands, but has since been raised using fill material. At the Project site, approximately 15 to 20 ft of fill materials were placed on the natural ground surface during previous periods of industrial activity. Fill materials underlying the site are primarily earthen fill, shell material, and demolition debris consisting of wood, concrete, and asphalt. The fill is highly compacted, Photo 2. Union Pacific Railroad track adjacent to eastern which inhibits plant growth to some boundary of Project site.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 7 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

degree. The Project site was used for light industrial and commercial purposes starting around 1940. The first known industrial use of the site was for a shell processing plant (Bay Shell Company), located on the northeastern portion of the site along the bank of the Alviso Slough. From the 1960s to the early 1990s, the portion of the site that fronts Alviso Slough was used for a marina, with a boat dock at the former location of the Bay Shell Company. The remainder of the parcel was used for a variety of other light industrial purposes, including sandblasting operations; automobile and boat repair; truck maintenance; and storage of boats, trucks, and machinery. As of 1992, structures at the site included a warehouse building, a barge, and a number of small wooden shacks. In 1993, the site was cleared of boats, vehicles, structures, and storage-yard debris. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped, but is subject to disturbance by vehicular and pedestrian traffic associated with the access road/trail along the levee, train passage, and other developments near the parcel. The reach of Alviso Slough adjacent to the Project site is subject to periodic maintenance activities by the SCVWD during which some of the vegetation in the channel is removed for flood conveyance purposes.

Climate normals from 1981–2010 indicate annual temperature in the Project vicinity ranges from 50 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF) and the annual precipitation is 14.68 inches (PRISM 2015). Beneath the fill material, the site is underlain by one soil type: Aquic Xerorthents, bay mud substratum, 2 to 5 percent slopes (Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS] 2015). This soil type occurs in marshes, its’ profile is comprised of gravelly sandy loam, and it is moderately to strongly saline (NRCS 2015).

3.2 Biotic Habitats

Reconnaissance-level surveys identified two habitat types/land uses on the Project site, ruderal grassland and developed land. These habitats are described in detail below. Plant species observed on the Project site during the reconnaissance survey are listed in Appendix B.

3.2.1 Ruderal Grassland

Vegetation. The Project site includes 6.27 ac of ruderal grassland with scattered coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) shrubs Photo 3. Ruderal grassland. (Figure 2, Photo 3). Ruderal habitat most closely resembles the wild oats grasslands/Avena ssp. Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance described in the California Manual of Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009). The site is dominated by non-native grasses and forbs that are characteristic of disturbed areas, such as meadow barley (Hordeum murinum), several species of filaree (e.g., Erodium moschatum), and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare). Horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), a plant species native to California, is also dominant on the site.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 8 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Ruderal grassland on the Project site is of little biological value, as many non-native plants species ranked as “moderately or highly invasive” are common throughout the area (California Invasive Plant Council [Cal-IPC] 2015). For instance, fennel and broadleaved pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) are highly invasive and have severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Moderately invasive species, such as wild oats and ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) are also present and have substantial and apparent ecological impacts (Cal IPC 2015).

Wetlands and woody riparian habitats dominated by mature trees and shrubs are not present on the Project site, and ruderal habitat on the site extends below the top of bank along Alviso Slough. Figure 2 depicts some of this ruderal habitat as “riparian” because it is within the banks of the slough, but this is solely for the purpose of depicting the riparian buffer necessary in accordance with the City of San José’s riparian corridor policy. The stream buffer policy and its applicability to the Project is described in greater detail below under Section 4.3.2, City of San José Riparian Policy.

Wildlife. Wildlife use of the ruderal grassland habitat on the Project site is limited by the simple structure of the vegetation and the high levels of human disturbance that occur both on the Project site and in nearby areas. As a result, wildlife species associated with more extensive grassland habitats in the region, such as the grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), are absent from this small patch of habitat, and many of the species that occur on the site are species that occur in adjacent urban areas and use the site for foraging. Such species include the American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus). Likewise, a few species nesting on nearby bridges and overpasses, such as the cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), rock pigeon (Columba livia), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), also forage on or over the ruderal habitat on the site. The ruderal grassland provides nesting habitat for only a few species, such as the western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), due to its limited extent and structural simplicity. During winter and migration, common nonbreeding species such as the white-crowed sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), golden-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla), Lincoln's sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii), American pipit (Anthus rubescens), lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), and American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) forage on the ground or in herbaceous vegetation, primarily for seeds.

Few species of reptiles and amphibians occur on the Project site due to its disturbed nature and low habitat heterogeneity. Nevertheless, the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), and common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) occur in this type of ruderal habitat. Small mammals expected to be present on the site include the western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis), house mouse (Mus musculus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), and black rat (Rattus rattus). Small burrowing mammals, such as the Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), may also be present; however, very few small mammal burrows, including only one ground squirrel burrow, were observed on the site during a focused survey for burrowing owl habitat. Larger mammals, such as the striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), black-tailed hare (Lepus californicus), and red fox (Vulpes vulpes) are also likely to occur here.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 9 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

3.2.2 Developed

Vegetation. The Project site includes 0.45 ac of developed land that is devoid of vegetation. This area is comprised of a gravel access road/trail that runs along the northern and eastern perimeter of the Project site, situated atop the Alviso Slough levee in a public access easement (Photo 1).

Wildlife. Gravel areas do not provide high-quality wildlife habitat; however, snakes and lizards may bask on these surfaces, and a wide variety of wildlife cross or move along the road en route to other habitats.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 10 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Section 4.0 Regulatory Setting

Biological resources on the Project site are regulated by a number of federal, state, and local laws and ordinances, as described below.

4.1 Federal

4.1.1 Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act (CWA) functions to maintain and restore the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of Waters of the U.S., which include, but are not limited to, tributaries to traditionally navigable waters currently or historically used for interstate or foreign commerce, and adjacent wetlands. Historically, in non-tidal waters, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction extends to the ordinary high-water (OHW) mark, which is defined in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 328.3 In tidal waters, USACE jurisdiction extends to the landward extent of vegetation associated with salt or brackish water or the high tide line (HTL) (see 33 CFR, Parts 328.3 and 328.4). If there are wetlands adjacent to channelized features, the limits of USACE jurisdiction extend beyond the OHW mark to the outer edges of the wetlands. Wetlands that are not adjacent to Waters of the U.S. are termed “isolated wetlands” and, depending on the circumstances, may also be subject to USACE jurisdiction.

Project Applicability: The Project site does not support wetland or aquatic habitats, and no work is proposed within Waters of the U.S. However, coastal brackish marsh habitat is present adjacent to the site on the southern bank of Alviso Slough, which flows directly to the San Francisco Bay (Bay). The wetland habitat adjacent to the Project site is dominated by tidal marsh vegetation, including California tule (Schoenoplectus californicus) and saltmarsh bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus), and is associated with a perennial section of tidal aquatic habitat in the riverbed Photo 4. Marsh habitat along Alviso Slough adjacent to the Project site. (Photo 4). Cattails (Typha sp.), which are indicative of freshwater input to the area, are also present.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 11 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

4.1.2 Federal Endangered Species Act

The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects federally listed wildlife species from harm or “take”, which is broadly defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Take can also include habitat modification or degradation that directly results in death or injury of a listed wildlife species. An activity can be defined as “take” even if it is unintentional or accidental. Listed plant species are provided less protection than listed wildlife species. Listed plant species are legally protected from take under the FESA only if they occur on federal lands.

The USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have jurisdiction over federally listed, threatened, and endangered species under the FESA. The USFWS also maintains lists of proposed and candidate species. Species on these lists are not legally protected under the FESA, but may become listed in the near future and are often included in their review of a project.

Project Applicability: No suitable habitat for any federally listed plant species occurs on the Project site, and no federally listed plants are reasonably expected to occur on or adjacent to the Project site. No suitable habitat for any federally listed animal species is present on the Project site. However, suitable habitat for three federally listed animals (i.e., green sturgeon [Acipenser medirostris], Central California coast steelhead [Oncorhynchus mykiss], and California Ridgway’s rail [Rallus obsoletus obsoletus]) and one candidate for federal listing (longfin smelt [Spirinchus thaleichthys]), occurs in the adjacent reach of Alviso Slough. Incidental take approval from the USFWS or NMFS would be needed if take of these species were to occur.

4.1.3 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act governs all fishery management activities that occur in federal waters within the United States’ 200-nautical-mile limit. The Act establishes eight Regional Fishery Management Councils responsible for the preparation of fishery management plans (FMPs) to achieve the optimum yield from U.S. fisheries in their regions. These councils, with assistance from the NMFS, establish Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) in FMPs for all managed species. Federal agencies that fund, permit, or implement activities that may adversely affect EFH are required to consult with the NMFS regarding potential adverse effects of their actions on EFH, and respond in writing to recommendations by the NMFS.

San Francisco Bay is officially listed as EFH related to the Pacific Coast Salmon FMP, and in the South Bay, the Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) represents this FMP (Pacific Fisheries Management Council 1999). However, Chinook are not known to spawn in any creeks flowing into the Project site, and although occasional strays may occur in these creeks, they are expected to occur irregularly at best.

A number of fish species regulated by the Coastal Pelagics and Pacific Groundfish FMPs, such as the leopard shark (Triakis semifasciata), English sole (Parophrys vetulus), starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus), and big skate (Raja binoculata), occur in the tidal habitats of South San Francisco Bay and are expected to occasionally disperse upstream into the reaches of Alviso Slough adjacent to the Project site. Species such as the northern anchovy

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 12 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

(Engraulis mordax), Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), and jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus) also occur in the South Bay; these species are less likely to occur in the uppermost tidal reaches of Alviso Slough, but small numbers could potentially occur there. Thus, the NMFS would likely consider these tidal waters to be EFH related to all three of the aforementioned FMPs.

Project Applicability: No EFH is present on the Project site. However, EFH related to the Pacific Coast Salmon, Coastal Pelagics, and Pacific Groundfish FMPs is present in the reach of Alviso Slough adjacent to the Project site.

4.1.4 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. §703, prohibits killing, possessing, or trading of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The MBTA protects whole birds, parts of birds, and bird eggs and nests; and prohibits the possession of all nests of protected bird species whether they are active or inactive. An active nest is defined as having eggs or young, as described by the Department of the Interior in its 16 April 2003 Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum. Nest starts (nests that are under construction and do not yet contain eggs) are not protected from destruction.

Project Applicability: All native bird species that occur on the Project site are protected under the MBTA.

4.2 State

4.2.1 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

The State Water Board works in coordination with the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality. Each RWQCB makes decisions related to water quality for its region, and may approve, with or without conditions, or deny projects that could affect Waters of the State. Their authority comes from the CWA and the State’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter- Cologne). Porter-Cologne broadly defines Waters of the State as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” Because Porter-Cologne applies to any water, whereas the CWA applies only to certain waters, California’s jurisdictional reach overlaps and may exceed the boundaries of Waters of the U.S. For example, Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ states that “shallow” waters of the State include headwaters, wetlands, and riparian areas. Moreover, the San Francisco Bay Region RWQCB’s Assistant Executive Director, has stated that, in practice, the RWQCBs claim jurisdiction over riparian areas. Where riparian habitat is not present, such as may be the case at headwaters, jurisdiction is taken to the top of bank.

Project Applicability: As described above, there are no wetland or aquatic habitats on the Project site that would fall under jurisdiction of the San Francisco RWQCB, although coastal brackish marsh associated with the Alviso Slough is adjacent to the site. Moreover, there is no mature tree/shrub-dominated riparian habitat

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 13 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

within the Project site, although the slough banks support grassland habitat situated below the top of bank that is technically “riparian” by virtue of being situated within the banks of the slough.

4.2.2 California Endangered Species Act

The California Endangered Species Act (CESA; California Fish and Game Code, Chapter 1.5, §§2050-2116) prohibits the take of any plant or animal listed or proposed for listing as rare (plants only), threatened, or endangered. In accordance with the CESA, the CDFW has jurisdiction over state-listed species (Fish and Game Code 2070). The CDFW regulates activities that may result in “take” of individuals (i.e., “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”). Habitat degradation or modification is not expressly included in the definition of “take” under the California Fish and Game Code. The CDFW, however, has interpreted “take” to include the “killing of a member of a species which is the proximate result of habitat modification.”

Project Applicability: No suitable habitat for any state-listed plant species occurs on the Project site, and no state-listed plants are reasonably expected to occur on the Project site. No suitable habitat for any state listed animal species is present on the Project site. Suitable non-breeding habitat for two state listed animals (i.e., California Ridgway’s rail and California black rail [Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus]) occurs adjacent to the Project site along Alviso Slough. However, take of these species is not expected to occur, as no activities are proposed within suitable habitat, and the species are not expected to occur close enough to the Project site for Project activities to result in the direct injury or mortality of individuals or in habitat modification sufficient to result in the mortality of individuals. Furthermore, both of these species are listed as fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code, and therefore no take of either species would be permitted by the CDFW. One state- listed fish, the longfin smelt, occurs in the adjacent reach of Alviso Slough. Incidental take approval from the CDFW would be needed if take of longfin smelt were to occur.

4.2.3 California Environmental Quality Act

The CEQA is a state law that requires state and local agencies to document and consider the environmental implications of their actions and to refrain from approving projects with significant environmental effects if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that can substantially lessen or avoid those effects. The CEQA requires the full disclosure of the environmental effects of agency actions, such as approval of a general plan update or the projects covered by that plan, on resources such as air quality, water quality, cultural resources, and biological resources. The State Resources Agency promulgated guidelines for implementing CEQA known as the State CEQA Guidelines.

Section 15380(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that a species not listed on the federal or state lists of protected species may be considered rare if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definitions in the FESA and the CESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants and animals. This section was included in the guidelines primarily to deal with situations in which a public agency is reviewing a project that may have a

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 14 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

significant effect on a species that has not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFW or species that are locally or regionally rare.

The CDFW has produced three lists (amphibians and reptiles, birds, and mammals) of “species of special concern” that serve as “watch lists”. Species on these lists are of limited distribution or the extent of their habitats has been reduced substantially, such that threat to their populations may be imminent. Thus, their populations should be monitored. They may receive special attention during environmental review as potential rare species, but do not have specific statutory protection. All potentially rare or sensitive species, or habitats capable of supporting rare species, are considered for environmental review per the CEQA §15380(b).

In addition to tracking sensitive plant communities, the CDFW ranks sensitive vegetation alliances based on their global and state rankings analogous to those provided in the CNDDB. These are ranked G1-G5 using NatureServe’s standard heritage program methodology (NatureServe 2015). If an alliance is marked as a G1- G3, all of the associations within it will also be of high priority. The CDFW provides the Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program’s currently accepted list of vegetation alliances and associations (CDFW 2010).

The CNPS, a non-governmental conservation organization, has developed a California rare plant ranking (CRPR) system for species of concern. Vascular plants included on these lists are defined as follows:

Rank 1A: Plants considered extinct. Rank 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. Rank 2A: Plants considered extinct in California and elsewhere. Rank 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. Rank 3: Plants about which more information is needed - review list. Rank 4: Plants of limited distribution - watch list.

These rankings are further described by the following threat code extensions:

1: seriously endangered in California. 2: fairly endangered in California. 3: not very endangered in California

Although the CNPS is not a regulatory agency and plants in these ranks have no formal regulatory protection, Plants appearing in Rank 1B or Rank 2 are, in general, considered to meet the CEQA’s §15380 criteria, and adverse effects on these species may be considered significant. Impacts on plants that are ranked by the CNPS as Rank 3 or 4 are also considered during CEQA review, although because these species are typically not as rare as those in Rank 1B or Rank 2, impacts on them are less frequently considered significant.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 15 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Project Applicability: All potential impacts on biological resources will be considered during CEQA review of the Project in the context of this Biological Resources Report. Wild oats grasslands do not have a global or state rank; therefore, no sensitive series or alliances are present on the Project site. Suitable habitat for one special-status plant species, Congdon’s tarplant (Rank 1B.1), is present on the Project site, but a focused survey determined the species was absent. With implementation of the mitigation measures proposed under Section 6.0, the proposed Project is not expected to result in a significant impact under CEQA on any biological resources.

4.2.4 California Fish and Game Code

Ephemeral and intermittent streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue line streams on USGS maps, and watercourses with subsurface flows fall under CDFW jurisdiction. Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance may also be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife. A stream is defined in Title 14, California Code of Regulations §1.72, as “a body of water that follows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and that supports fish and other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation.” Using this definition, CDFW extends its jurisdiction to encompass riparian habitats that function as a part of a watercourse. California Fish and Game Code §2786 defines riparian habitat as “lands which contain habitat which grows close to and which depends upon soil moisture from a nearby freshwater source.” The lateral extent of a stream and associated riparian habitat that would fall under the jurisdiction of CDFW can be measured in several ways, depending on the particular situation and the type of fish or wildlife at risk. At minimum, CDFW would claim jurisdiction over a stream’s bed and bank. In areas that lack a vegetated riparian corridor, CDFW jurisdiction would be the same as USACE jurisdiction. Where riparian habitat is present, the outer edge of riparian vegetation is generally used as the line of demarcation between riparian and upland habitats.

Pursuant to California Fish and Game Code §1603, CDFW regulates any project proposed by any person that will “substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the department, or use any material from the streambeds.” California Fish and Game Code §1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW of any proposed activity that may modify a river, stream, or lake. If CDFW determines that proposed activities may substantially adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) must be prepared. The LSAA sets reasonable conditions necessary to protect fish and wildlife, and must comply with CEQA. The applicant may then proceed with the activity in accordance with the final LSAA.

Certain sections of the California Fish and Game Code describe regulations pertaining to protection of certain wildlife species. For example, Code §2000 prohibits take of any bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or amphibian except as provided by other sections of the code.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 16 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

The California Fish and Game Code §§3503, 3513, and 3800 (and other sections and subsections) protect native birds, including their nests and eggs, from all forms of take. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “take” by the CDFW. Raptors (i.e., eagles, hawks, and owls) and their nests are specifically protected in California under Code §3503.5. Section 3503.5 states that 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.”

Bats and other non-game mammals are protected by California Fish and Game Code §4150, which states that all non-game mammals or parts thereof may not be taken or possessed except as provided otherwise in the code or in accordance with regulations adopted by the commission. Activities resulting in mortality of non- game mammals (e.g., destruction of an occupied nonbreeding bat roost, resulting in the death of bats), or disturbance that causes the loss of a maternity colony of bats (resulting in the death of young), may be considered “take” by the CDFW.

Project Applicability: No wetland, aquatic, or riparian habitats are present within the Project site boundaries. In addition, the site is above the top of the southern bank of the Alviso Slough. Thus, an LSAA will not be required. Most native bird, mammal, and other wildlife species that occur on the Project site and in the immediate vicinity are protected by the California Fish and Game Code.

4.3 Local

4.3.1 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission

In response to uncoordinated and indiscriminate filling of the Bay, the California legislature passed the McAteer-Petris Act in 1965, establishing the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) as the management and regulatory agency for the San Francisco Bay and Delta. A permit must be obtained from the BCDC for shoreline projects; dredge and fill activities in the Bay or certain tributaries, salt ponds, or managed wetlands; and Suisun Marsh projects. The limits of BCDC jurisdiction are defined in the Bay Plan (BCDC 2012), and include a 100-ft wide band along the shoreline of the Bay. The “shoreline” is defined as all areas that are subject to tidal action from the south end of the Bay to the Golden Gate (Point Bonita-Point Lobos), and to the Sacramento River line (a line between Stake Point and Simmons Point, extended northeasterly to the mouth of Marshall Cut). The BCDC will claim all sloughs, and specifically, the marshlands lying between mean high tide and up to 5 ft above mean sea level (MSL), where marsh vegetation is present; tidelands (land lying between mean high tide and mean low tide); and submerged lands (land lying below mean low tide) in this region.

Project Applicability: The BCDC would claim the 100-ft wide shoreline band along the northern edge of the Project site (Figure 3). The band runs parallel to Alviso Slough, and because marshlands extend landward from

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 17 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

d t

a a S

r d

r d l l

Bay Shoreline l l

i i

a a

(Mean Sea Level +5 ft) R G R

c a

A a A P

lv P i n is n

o o

o o i Sl i

l n o n

oug g U

h U

Legend

Project Site (6.72 ac)

BCDC Shoreline Band (1.08 ac)

Upper Limits of BCDC Bay Jurisdiction

Figure 3: BCDC Jurisdiction Residence Inn and Event Center Biological Resources Report (3660-01) August 2015

5 ft above MSL, this elevation line was used to demarcate the limit of BCDC jurisdiction. An MSL elevation of 0.3 ft National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29) was obtained from the nearest National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) tidal benchmark station at Gold Street Bridge, Alviso Slough (Station #9414551)1, and thus, the shoreward limit of BCDC jurisdiction is approximately 5.3 ft NGVD29. Approximately 1.08 ac of the Project site falls within BCDC jurisdiction (Figure 3), and BCDC permit approval would be necessary for any Project impacts to this shoreline band.

4.3.1 City of San José Tree Ordinance

According to the City Municipal Code, Chapter 13.28.220, no person is allowed to unlawfully prune or remove street trees or heritage trees without obtaining a permit. Any tree planted on a street is protected by this ordinance. In addition, any tree which, because of factors including but not limited to its history, girth, height, species, or unique quality, has been found by the City Council to have special significance to the community may be designated as a heritage tree (also see Chapter 13.28.220 of the City Municipal Code). Property owners can contact the City Arborist’s Office to nominate a tree for heritage status, and the arborist has the authority to accept or deny requests to add trees to the Heritage Tree List. The list is available on the City’s official website (http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=1913) and includes the unique identification number, species, girth, and location for each tree.

Permits to prune or remove street trees are issued by the Department of Transportation, whereas permits to impact heritage trees can be obtained from the Department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. Both types of permits will define protection measures that will be required during development and construction activities to limit adverse environmental effects. For instance, heritage tree work must be performed by a certified arborist and must remain in compliance with the trimming, cutting, or pruning standards adopted by the American National Standards Institute. Moreover, trees in or near creek corridors within the boundaries of the City also fall under the jurisdiction of the SCVWD and CDFW, and additional permits from these agencies would be required should proposed construction activities have the potential to adversely affect riparian trees.

Project Applicability: There are no street trees or heritage trees on the Project site.

4.3.2 City of San José Riparian Policy

The City has a riparian buffer policy that is in neither the Municipal Code nor the General Plan. The riparian buffer policy is administered through use of a Riparian Corridor Policy Study (Policy Study) document that describes suggested buffer widths (City of San José 1999). The Policy Study defines a riparian corridor as any defined stream channel, including the area up to the bank full-flow line, as well as all riparian (streamside)

1Benchmark MSL data for the Gold Street Bridge, Alviso Slough (NOAA 2004) is relative to the mean lower low water (MLLW) at the monitoring station (5.0 ft). The difference between MLLW and the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) datum were calculated using the guidance provided by Foxgrover et al. (2005). An orthometric height conversion was then performed to calculate the datum shift from NAVD88 to NGVD29 (NOAA n.d.). Finally, the MSL elevation was determined to be approximately 0.3 ft.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 19 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

vegetation in contiguous adjacent uplands. Characteristic woody vegetation could include (but is not limited to) willow (Salix ssp.), alder (Alnus ssp.), box elder (Acer negundo), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and oaks (Quercus ssp.). Stream channels include all perennial and intermittent streams shown as a solid or blue line on USGS topographic maps, and ephemeral streams or “arroyos” with well-defined channels and some evidence of scour or deposition. The Policy Study states that riparian setbacks should be measured 100 ft from the outside edges of riparian habitat or the top of bank, whichever is greater. However, the Policy Study also states that setback distances for individual sites may vary if consultation with the City and a qualified biologist, or other appropriate means, indicates that a smaller or larger setback is more appropriate for consistency with riparian preservation objectives (City of San José 1999).

The Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative Guidelines and Standards for Land-Use Near Streams (Guidelines and Standards) document was also reviewed (Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative [SCVWRP Collaborative] 2007). This document defines the top of bank line as the stream boundary where a majority of normal discharges and channel forming events take place; containing the active channel, active floodplain, and their associated banks. The top of bank along streams with levees should be delineated on the inner edge of the levee (see Chapter 11, SCVWRP Collaborative 2007).

Project Applicability: The Guidelines and Standards, prepared by the SCVWRP Collaborative (2007) and adopted by the City, recommend a protective buffer be established along streams, creeks, and freshwater marshes so that these resources are not impacted by development. For the purposes of this Project, the riparian setback extends 100 ft landward from the top of bank of Alviso Slough, as measured from the bank-full flow line. Enhancement and realignment of the existing access road, which is part of the proposed Bay Trail, would encroach into the 100-ft setback. However, the Riparian Corridor Policy Study (City of San José 1999) recognizes trails as an allowed use within the 100-ft riparian setback. Further, the Project would enhance and realign the existing access road to facilitate its incorporation into the Bay Trail and its use as a fire vehicle emergency access route. The road alignment would be moved farther east to reduce the potential impacts of its use as a recreational trail on sensitive bay habitats, increasing the minimum distance between the top of bank and development. In addition to the trail improvements, a small area (<0.02 ac) of the proposed sidewalks around the hotel would encroach on the outermost portion of the riparian setback. This area of encroachment has been minimized to the greatest extent feasible while meeting the goals and objectives of the Project. The Project will implement measures to mitigate for the encroachment of the sidewalks into the riparian setback.

4.3.3 Envision San José 2040

The Envision San José 2040 General Plan (City of San José 2012) includes the following policies related to bird-safe design:

• Environmental Resource-7.1: In the area north of Highway 237 design and construct buildings and structures using bird-friendly design and practices to reduce the potential for bird strikes for species associated with the baylands or the riparian habitats of lower Coyote Creek.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 20 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

• Environmental Resource-7.6: Update the Riparian Corridor Policy Study and City design guidelines based on guidance from Responsible Agencies and other interested organizations on best practices for avoiding and minimizing bird strikes at new tall buildings.

Project Applicability: The Project is located within the General Plan area designated as requiring buildings and structures to be designed and constructed using bird-friendly design and practices.

4.3.4 City of San José Bird-Safe Building Design Standards

In March 2015, the City of San José adopted voluntary bird friendly design standards. These voluntary measures can be used in new construction and renovations as well in existing buildings as operating practices. They include but are not limited to the following: • Reduce large areas of transparent or reflective glass. • Locate water features and other bird habitat away from building exteriors to reduce reflection. • Reduce or eliminate the visibility of landscaped areas behind glass. • Reduce or eliminate spotlights on buildings. • Turn non-emergency lighting off at night, especially during bird migration season (February-May and August-November).

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 21 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Section 5.0 Special-Status Species and Sensitive Habitats

CEQA requires assessment of the effects of a project on species that are protected by state, federal, or local governments as “threatened, rare, or endangered”; such species are typically described as “special-status species”. For the purpose of the environmental review of the Project, special-status species have been defined as described below. Impacts to these species are regulated by some of the federal, state, and local laws and ordinances described in Section 4.0 above.

For purposes of this analysis, “special-status” plants are considered plant species that are:

• Listed under FESA as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or a candidate species. • Listed under CESA as threatened, endangered, rare, or a candidate species. • Ranked by the CNPS as rare or endangered in Ranks 1A, 1B, 2, 3, or 4.

For purposes of this analysis, “special-status” animals are considered animal species that are: • Listed under FESA as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or a candidate species. • Listed under CESA as threatened, endangered, or a candidate threatened or endangered species. • Designated by the CDFW as a California species of special concern. • Listed in the California Fish and Game Code as fully protected species (fully protected birds are provided in §3511, mammals in §4700, reptiles and amphibians in §5050, and fish in §5515).

Information concerning threatened, endangered, and other special-status species that may occur on the Project site and surrounding vicinity was collected from several sources and reviewed by H. T. Harvey & Associates biologists as described under Methods above. The specific habitat requirements and the locations of known occurrences of each special-status species were the principal criteria used to determine which species potentially occur on the Project site. Figure 4 depicts CNDDB records of special-status plant species in the general vicinity of the Project site and Figure 5 depicts CNDDB records of special-status animal species. These generalized maps show areas where special-status species are known to occur or have occurred previously.

5.1 Special-status Plant Species

The CNPS (2015) and CNDDB (2015) identify 71 special-status plant species as potentially occurring in at least one of the nine USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles containing or surrounding the Project site for species in Ranks 1-3, or in Santa Clara County for Rank 4 species. The majority of potentially occurring special-status plant species were determined to be absent from the Project site for at least one of the following reasons: (1) absence

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 22 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

most beautiful jewelflower (26 ) LEGEND most beautiful jewelflower (21 )

San Joaquin spearscale (65 ) Project Site prostrate vernal pool navarretia (27 ) Hoover's button-celery (7 ) Congdon's tarplant (56 )Contra Costa goldfields (29 ) 5-mile Radius alkali milk-vetch (7 ) Congdon's tarplant (16 ) Contra Costa goldfields (30 ) San Joaquin spearscale (54 ) Congdon's tarplant (54 ) brittlescale (67 )lesserlesser saltscalesaltscale (43(43 )) most beautiful jewelflower (56 ) saline clover (45 ) CNDDB Records prostrate vernal pool navarretia (26 ) Hoover's button-celery (15 ) most beautiful jewelflower (56 ) Plants Point Reyes salty bird's-beak (17 )

Specific Location California seablite (14 ) Approximate Location Northern Coastal Salt Marsh (16 )

General Area California seablite (8 ) Point Reyes salty Terrestrial Communities bird's-beak (19 )

General Area slender-leavedlostlost thistlethistle pondweed (1(1 )) (3 ) Northern Coastal Salt Marsh ( 15 )

Hoover's button-celery (5 ) alkali milk-vetch (11 )

Hoover's button-celery (8 ) San Francisco collinsia (9 ) saline clover (26 ) Hoover's button-celery (6 ) Congdon's tarplant (53 ) alkali milk-vetch (68 ) alkali milk-vetch (6 ) Point Reyes salty bird's-beak (22 ) Congdon's tarplant (41 ) Congdon's tarplant (17 ) Hall's bush-mallow (32 ) Santa Clara red ribbons (12 ) Franciscan onion (2 )

Congdon's tarplant (18 )

arcuate bush-mallow (8 ) Hoover's button-celery (9 ) fragrant fritillary (33 )

maple-leaved checkerbloom (5 )

robust spineflower (19 ) Santa Clara red ribbons (10 )

Congdon's tarplant (40 )

Hall's bush-mallow (9 )

arcuate bush-mallow (23 ) 1.2 0.6 0 1.2 hairless popcornflower (4 ) saline clover (25 ) Contra Costa goldfields (14 ) Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community hairless popcornflower (3 ) N:\Projects3600\3660-01\Reports\Biological ResourcesReport\Fig 4 CNDDB Plant Occurrences Map.mxd western leatherwood (4 ) Figure 4: CNDDB Plant Occurrences Map Residence Inn and Event Center Biological Resources Report (3660-01) August 2015 salt-marsh harvest mouse (88) burrowing owl (452) salt-marsh wandering shrew (13)California clapper rail (36) California clapper rail (38) LEGEND California clapper rail (38) burrowing owl (481) burrowing owl (634) foothill yellow-legged frog (201) Alameda song sparrow (30) salt-marsh harvest mouse (78)northern harrier (2) Alameda song sparrow (36) CRLF (210) CTS (397) CRLF (210) western snowy ploverProject (137) Site salt-marsh harvest mouse (76) Townsend's big-eared bat (419) Townsend's big-eared bat (125) California clapper rail (37) burrowing owl (680)burrowing owl (1227) tricolored blackbird (257) salt-marsh wandering shrew (6) vernal pool tadpole shrimp (60) 5-mile Radius vernal pool tadpole shrimp (60) CTS (446) CTS (271) tricolored blackbird (258) Santa Cruz kangaroo rat (11) vernal pool tadpole shrimp (60) CNDDBsalt-marsh Records harvest mouse (135) tricolored blackbird (26) CTS (1150) Alameda song sparrow (17) salt-marsh harvest mouse (80) CTS (447) salt-marsh harvest mouse (81) CTS (1153) Animals western snowy plover (138) salt-marsh harvest mouse (131) longfinlongfin smeltsmelt (22)(22) salt-marsh harvest mouse (110) saltmarsh common yellowthroat (77) CTS (1159) Specific Location salt-marsh harvest mouse (148) California black rail (132) Berkeley kangaroo rat (3) northern harrier (4) California clapper rail (45) CTS (523) golden eagle (50) Alameda song sparrow (6) salt-marsh harvest mouse (93) Approximate Location California clapper rail (35) burrowing owl (27)salt-marsh harvest mouse (7) California clapper rail (35) salt-marsh harvest mouse (159) salt-marsh harvest mouse (92) western snowy plover (128)Alameda song sparrow (7) salt-marsh harvest mouse (97) salt-marsh harvest mouse (147) General AreaCalifornia clapper rail (60) mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail) (32) saltmarsh common yellowthroat (10) salt-marsh harvest mouse (91) California clapper rail (42) salt-marsh harvest mouse (160) burrowing owl (24) salt-marsh harvest mouse (26) salt-marsh harvest mouse (116) CTS (1154) burrowing owl (21) CTS (1155) CTS (416) Alameda song sparrow (24) burrowing owl (215) California clapper rail (20) great blue heron (38) salt-marsh harvest mouse (151)California least tern (67) great blue heron (38) salt-marsh harvest mouse (132) Yuma myotis (38) saltmarsh common yellowthroat (54) salt-marsh harvest mouse (132) Yuma myotis (38) Alameda song sparrow (1) CRLF (179) California least tern (68) California least tern (68)California clapper rail (41) salt-marsh harvest mouse (115) Alameda song sparrow (26) Alameda song sparrow (26) western snowy plover (127)western snowy plover (127) saltmarsh common yellowthroat (55)California clapper rail (84) mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail) (36) burrowing owl (1032) salt-marsh harvest mouse (133) salt-marsh wandering shrew (1) hoary bat (97) burrowing owl (1031)salt-marsh harvest mouse (129) salt-marsh harvest mouse (133) western yellow-billed cuckoo (196) burrowing owl (669) burrowing owl (1033) burrowing owl (669)burrowing owl (392) burrowing owl (25) burrowing owl (392) saltmarsh common yellowthroat (46) burrowing owl (392) burrowing owl (749) burrowing owl (392) burrowing owl (26) white-tailed kite (1) western snowy plover (127) burrowing owl (176)burrowing owl (687) CTS (621) saltmarsh common yellowthroat (45) western snowy plover (127) burrowing owl (176)burrowing owl (687) burrowing owl (647) burrowing owl (23) burrowing owl (1035) burrowing owl (555) burrowing owl (360)burrowing owl (359) burrowing owl (340)burrowing owl (480) burrowing owl (1228) burrowing owl (466) burrowing owl (340)burrowing owl (491) burrowing owl (22)salt-marsh wandering shrew (10)Alameda song sparrow (25) burrowing owl (340) CRLF (230) burrowing owl (784) burrowing owl (345) great blue heron (86)

burrowing owl (1036) obscure bumble bee (134) burrowing owl (212) Townsend's big-eared bat (428) hoary bat (95) pallid bat (253)

western pond turtle (302) burrowing owl (552) burrowing owl (132) burrowing owl (428) CTS (41) burrowing owl (184) obscure bumble bee (133)

western pond turtle (176) burrowing owl (341)

Swainson's hawk (2570) hoary bat (99) 1.2 0.6 0 1.2 burrowing owl (20) pallid bat (255) Miles Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS UserTownsend's Community big-eared bat (418) N:\Projects3600\3660-01\Reports\Biological ResourcesReport\Fig 5 CNDDB Animal Occurrences Map.mxd CTS (417) Figure 5: CNDDB Animal Occurrences Map Residence Inn and Event Center Biological Resources Report (3660-01) August 2015

of suitable habitat types; (2) lack of specific microhabitat or edaphic requirements, such as serpentine soils; (3) the elevation range of the species is outside of the range on the Project site; and/or (4) the species is presumed extirpated. Appendix A lists these plants along with the basis for the determination. Suitable habitat, edaphic requirements, and elevation range were present on the Project site for one plant species, Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii, Rank 1B.1). Congdon’s tarplant has been documented by the CNDDB in the Project vicinity (Figure 4) and can persist in disturbed grasslands. An expanded discussion on this species is provided below.

5.1.1 California Native Plant Society Ranked Plant Species

Congdon’s Tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: None; CNPS: 1B.1. Congdon’s tarplant is an annual herb in the composite family (Asteraceae) that is endemic to California. It has a variable blooming period extending from May through November. Congdon’s tarplant occurs in valley and foothill grassland habitat, floodplains, and swales, particularly those with alkaline substrates; and in disturbed areas with non-native grasses such as wild oats, ripgut brome, Italian ryegrass (Festuca perenne), and seaside barley (Hordeum marinum) (CNDDB 2015, CNPS 2015, Baldwin et al. 2012, and SCVWD 2011). Congdon’s tarplant occurs in Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Solano counties (CNDDB 2015). Five extant populations have been recorded in the CNDDB (2015) as occurring in the Project vicinity. To the north of the Project site in Alameda County, west of Cushing Parkway, populations are located within the boundaries of the Don Edwards NWR in the Pacific Commons Preserve, near a complex of vernal pools that were created circa 1998; and in an urban area surrounded by commercial development. Additional populations in the Project vicinity occur in Santa Clara County. Two are located in Sunnyvale, situated on the eastern edge of a hard packed gravel road atop a levee that runs alongside Stevens Creek, and in California annual grassland and seasonal wetland habitats within Sunnyvale Baylands Park. Another population is located in Alviso, to the north of Highway 237 and east of North First Street in annually disked ruderal grassland.

A focused survey for Congdon’s tarplant was conducted on 10 February 2015 by H. T. Harvey & Associates plant ecologist Maya Goklany, M.S., on the 6.72-ac Project site (Figure 2). Within a week of surveying the site, a known reference population of Congdon’s tarplant was visited to ensure that detection outside of the bloom period (May through November) for the plant species would be possible. The CNDDB record at Sunnyvale Baylands Park, northeast of the junction of Highway 237 and Lawrence Expressway (37.41057° North, 121.99697° West), served as the reference population. Much of the Congdon’s tarplant population was in- bloom and flowering during a September 2014 visit to the park, and the plants were positively identified to subspecies at this time. The plant species has an annual growth habit, and the reference population had senesced by the time of the second visit in February 2015. However, dead plant stalks and flower heads were still present and intact, and therefore easily detectable, in the reference population. Therefore, if Congdon’s tarplant were present on the Project site, it would have been detectable during our February survey.

To ensure thorough coverage of the Project site during the Congdon’s tarplant survey, the site was divided into transects spaced at 30-ft intervals, and the surveyor walked along each transect, searching for the target plant

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 25 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

species. No Congdon’s tarplant was detected on the Project site. Although the surveyor was limited to searching for dead stalks and flower heads, the phyllaries of Congdon’s tarplant are distinctly prickly and were persistent on the plants during the February 2015 visit to Sunnyvale Baylands Park. No plants with this unique characteristic were found on the Project site, and Congdon’s tarplant was determined to be absent.

5.2 Special-status Animal Species

The legal status and likelihood of occurrence on the Project site of special-status animal species known to occur, or potentially occurring, in the Project region are presented in Table 2. Most of the special-status species listed in Table 2 are not expected to occur on the Project site because the site lacks suitable habitat, is outside the known range of the species, and/or is isolated from the nearest known extant populations by development or otherwise unsuitable habitat. Animal species not expected to occur on the Project site for these reasons include the green sturgeon, longfin smelt, Central California coast steelhead, Central Valley fall-run Chinook salmon, California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), foothill yellow- legged frog (Rana boylii), California horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum frontale), long-eared owl (Asio otus), short- eared owl (Asio flammeus), bank swallow (Riparia riparia), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus), California Ridgway’s rail, California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni), yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens), Alameda song sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), salt marsh wandering shrew (Sorex vagrans halicoetes), American badger (Taxidea taxus), San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), ringtail (Bassariscus astutus), western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), and Townsend’s big- eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii).

Although not present on the Project site, marsh and aquatic habitat is present immediately adjacent to the Project site along Alviso Slough. Thus, several special-status marsh and aquatic species that are not expected to occur on the Project site may be present immediately adjacent to the site. These species include the green sturgeon, longfin smelt, Central California coast steelhead, Central Valley fall-run Chinook salmon, California Ridgway’s rail, California black rail, California least tern, San Francisco common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), and Alameda song sparrow.

Several other special-status species have some potential to occur on the Project site only as visitors, migrants, or transients, but are not expected to reside or breed on the site, to occur in large numbers, or otherwise to make substantial use of the site. These include the western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), San Francisco common yellowthroat, Bryant’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus).

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 26 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Table 1. Special-status Animal Species, Their Status, and Potential Occurrence on the Project Site

Name *Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence on Project Site Federal or State Endangered, Rare, or Threatened Species Green sturgeon FT, CSSC Spawns in large river systems such Absent. No aquatic habitat is present on the Project site. Green (Acipenser medirostris) as the Sacramento River; forages in sturgeon may forage infrequently, and in low numbers, in Alviso nearshore oceanic waters, bays, Slough adjacent to the Project site and the open Bay and estuaries. downstream from the site; however, the reach of Alviso Slough adjacent to the Project site does not provide suitable spawning habitat. Longfin smelt FC, ST Spawns in fresh water in the upper Absent. No aquatic habitat is present on the Project site and the (Spirinchus thaleichthys) end of the Bay; occurs year-round species is not known to spawn in aquatic habitat in the Project in the South Bay. vicinity. However, pre-spawning adults and yearling juveniles may be present in tidal reaches of Alviso Slough adjacent to the Project site and individuals have been collected in Alviso Slough downstream of the Project site (EDAW Inc. 2007). Fish sampling in Coyote Slough and the Island Ponds has detected the species only in January and March, suggesting that it may be absent during the summer (Hobbs et al. 2012). 27

Central California Coast FT Cool streams with suitable Absent. No aquatic habitat is present on the Project site. steelhead spawning habitat and conditions However, steelhead occur in Alviso Slough during upstream (Oncorhynchus mykiss) allowing migration between migration of adults to spawning areas and downstream spawning and marine habitats. migration of both adults and smolts.

California tiger salamander FT, ST Vernal or temporary pools in annual Absent. Populations located on the Valley floor have been (Ambystoma californiense) grasslands or open woodlands. extirpated due to habitat loss, and the species is now considered absent from the majority of the valley floor, including the Project site (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1999a, 2012; SCVWD 2011). No recent records of California tiger salamanders are located anywhere in the Project vicinity (CNDDB 2015) and the species is determined to be absent from the Project site and vicinity.

Name *Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence on Project Site

California red-legged frog FT, CSSC Streams, freshwater pools, and Absent. This species has been extirpated from the majority of (Rana draytonii) ponds with emergent or the Project region, including the entire urbanized Valley floor, overhanging vegetation. due to development, the alteration of hydrology of its aquatic habitats, and the introduction of non-native predators such as non-native fishes and bullfrogs (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1997; SCVWD 2011). Thus, California red-legged frogs are determined to be absent from the Project site.

Bank swallow ST Colonial nester on vertical banks or Absent. No recent nesting records from Santa Clara County (Riparia riparia) cliffs with fine-textured soils near (CNDDB 2015), and no suitable nesting habitat occurs in or near water. the Project site. Bald eagle SE, SP Occurs mainly along seacoasts, Absent. This species has been recorded nesting in the Project (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) rivers, and lakes; nests in tall trees or region only at inland reservoirs; very rare along the Bay edge. in cliffs, occasionally on electrical No suitable nesting or foraging habitat on the Project site. towers. Feeds mostly on fish. Swainson’s hawk ST Nests in trees surrounded by Absent. Apparently historically nested in small numbers in Santa (Buteo swainsoni) extensive marshland or agricultural Clara County, and there is an 1894 nest record from the foraging habitat. Berryessa area (eastern San José) (Bousman 2007e). Currently, 28 the species is known to nest in Santa Clara County only in one location in Coyote Valley; otherwise, it occurs in the Project region only as a very infrequent transient during migration, and neither suitable nesting nor foraging habitat is present on the Project site. Thus, the species is determined to be absent. California Ridgway’s rail FE, SE, SP Salt marsh habitat dominated by Absent. No marsh habitat is present on the Project site. Further, (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus) pickleweed and cordgrass. although California Ridgway’s rails are known to be present in the downstream reaches of Alviso Slough, where the tidal marsh is dominated by salt-marsh plant species, they are not expected to nest in marsh habitat adjacent to the Project site, which is more representative of freshwater than saltwater marsh. Only rarely may Ridgway’s rails wander upstream from their typical salt marsh habitats into tidal brackish/freshwater marsh habitats as far upstream as the reach immediately adjacent to the Project site.

Name *Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence on Project Site

California black rail ST, SP Breeds in fresh, brackish, and tidal Absent. No suitable nesting or foraging habitat for the California (Laterallus jamaicensis salt marsh. black rail is present on the Project site. This species occurs in the coturniculus) South Bay primarily as a scarce winter visitor. However, the species has recently been recorded during the breeding season in Triangle Marsh along Coyote Slough (Hall pers. comm.), and along lower and mid-Alviso Slough (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/south-bay-birds), indicating that black rails may nest in some areas in the South Bay. Although the marsh habitat along Alviso Slough adjacent to the Project site provides potentially suitable nonbreeding habitat, this species has not been recorded in upper Alviso Slough or the Guadalupe River, and few individuals, if any, are expected to forage in the marsh habitat adjacent to the Project site at any given time. Western snowy plover FT, CSSC Sandy beaches on marine and Absent. Suitable habitat is not present on or adjacent to the (Charadrius alexandrinus estuarine shores and salt pans in Project site. Although snowy plovers previously nested on dry nivosus) Bay saline managed ponds. berms within Pond A8 prior to its conversion from a seasonal pond to a tidally-influenced open water pond (CNDDB 2015; 29 Figure 3), water levels in Pond A8 are now managed high

enough that suitable nesting habitat for this species is absent. California least tern FE, SE, SP Nests along the coast on bare or Absent. Suitable habitat for the California least tern is not (Sterna antillarum browni) sparsely vegetated, flat substrates. present on the Project site. Least terns could forage in the In the South Bay, nests in salt pans nearby Alviso Slough and Pond A8, particularly during the post- and on an old airport runway. breeding season when they are known to stage in the area. Forages for fish in open waters. However, Alviso Slough does not contain optimal foraging habitat due to the species’ preference for broader expanses of open waters (as opposed to relatively narrow sloughs), and least terns have not been recorded in these areas (e.g., by birders, western snowy plover surveyors, or others). Salt marsh harvest mouse FE, SE, SP Salt marsh habitat dominated by Absent. Suitable pickleweed/alkali bulrush-dominated salt (Reithrodontomys raviventris) common pickleweed or alkali marsh habitat is not present on the Project site or along the bulrush. adjacent reach of Alviso Slough.

California Species of Special Concern

Name *Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence on Project Site

Central Valley fall-run Chinook CSSC Cool rivers and large streams that Absent. No habitat for this species is present on the Project site. salmon reach the ocean and that have Small numbers of Chinook are known to be present in Alviso (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) shallow, partly shaded pools, riffles, Slough adjacent to the Project site, but are not expected to and runs. spawn there and do not represent a native run.

Foothill yellow-legged frog CSSC Partially shaded shallow streams Absent. Although this species occurs in less urbanized areas of (Rana boylii) and riffles with a rocky substrate. Santa Clara County, it has disappeared from farmed and Occurs in a variety of habitats in urbanized areas as well as many of the perennial streams below coast ranges. major reservoirs (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1999b). Suitable habitat for foothill yellow-legged frogs is absent from the Project site. Thus, this species is determined to be absent. Western pond turtle CSSC Permanent or nearly permanent Absent as Breeder. Although breeding populations have been (Actinemys marmorata) water in a variety of habitats. extirpated from most agricultural and urbanized areas in the Project region, individuals of this long-lived species still occur in urban streams and ponds in the Santa Clara Valley. Although no suitable aquatic habitat is present on the Project site, individuals have occasionally been recorded along the lower reaches of the Guadalupe River in the Project vicinity. The

30 species is not expected to breed on the Project site due to a

lack of suitable habitat.

California horned lizard CSSC Open habitats with sandy, loosely Absent. Suitable habitat is not present on the Project site. (Phrynosoma coronatum textured soils, such as chaparral, Determined to be absent. frontale) coastal scrub, annual grassland, and clearings in riparian woodlands with the presence of native harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex barbatus). Northern harrier CSSC Nests in marshes and moist fields, Absent as Breeder. Northern harriers are not expected to nest (Circus cyaneus) (nesting) forages over open areas. on the Project site due to a lack of suitable habitat. However, harriers may nest in nearby marsh habitats and forage on the site. Long-eared owl CSSC Riparian bottomlands with tall, Absent. Rare resident and occasional winter visitor in Santa (Asio otus) (nesting) dense willows and cottonwood Clara County (Bousman 2007f). Suitable nesting and foraging stands (also dense live oak and habitat for long-eared owls is not present on the Project site. California Bay along upland Thus, this species is determined to be absent. streams); forages primarily in adjacent open areas.

Name *Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence on Project Site

Short-eared owl CSSC Nests in marshes and moist fields, Absent. Has been recorded nesting in the Project region only in (Asio flammeus) (nesting) forages over open areas. the Palo Alto Flood Control Basin, though it has not been confirmed nesting there since the 1970s. Determined to be absent.

Burrowing owl CSSC Nests and roosts in open grasslands May be Present. The ruderal grassland habitat on the Project site (Athene cunicularia) and ruderal habitats with suitable provides suitable foraging habitat for the burrowing owl, but burrows, usually those made by only marginally suitable nesting and roosting habitat, as only California ground squirrels. one suitable burrow was observed on the site during a focused survey. Loggerhead shrike CSSC Nests in tall shrubs and dense trees; May be Present. Suitable nesting and foraging habitat is present (Lanius ludovicianus) (nesting) forages in grasslands, marshes, and on the Project site. ruderal habitats. Yellow warbler CSSC Nests in riparian woodlands. Absent as Breeder. Suitable riparian nesting habitat is not (Setophaga petechia) (nesting) present on or immediately adjacent to the Project site. May occur on the site only as a migrant. 31 San Francisco common CSSC Nests in herbaceous vegetation, Absent as Breeder. Suitable breeding habitat is not present on yellowthroat usually in wetlands or moist the Project site. However, the species breeds commonly in the (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa) floodplains. marshes along Alviso Slough adjacent to the Project site and the species may forage on the Project site.

Yellow-breasted chat CSSC Nests in dense stands of willow and Absent. This species is a rare breeder, and only slightly more (Icteria virens) (nesting) other riparian habitat. regular transient, in willow-dominated riparian habitats in the Project region. However, suitably large, dense stands of riparian habitat are not present on or adjacent to the Project site. Determined to be absent.

Alameda song sparrow CSSC Nests in salt marsh, primarily in Absent. Suitable nesting habitat for the Alameda song sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula) marsh gumplant and cordgrass is not present on the Project site. However, song sparrows breed along channels. commonly in the marshes along Alviso Slough adjacent to the Project site. Song sparrows in this location may be intergrades between the pusillula subspecies typically found in tidal marsh habitats and the gouldii subspecies typically found in upland habitats (San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory 2012).

Name *Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence on Project Site

Grasshopper sparrow CSSC Nests and forages in grasslands, Absent. Known to occur in the Project region primarily in (Ammodramus savannarum) (nesting) meadows, fallow fields, and grasslands and less frequently disturbed agricultural habitats, pastures. mostly in the foothills. Suitably extensive grasslands are not present on or adjacent to the Project site. Determined to be absent.

Bryant’s savannah sparrow CSSC Nests in pickleweed dominant salt Absent as Breeder. Suitable pickleweed dominated salt marsh (Passerculus sandwichensis marsh and adjacent ruderal habitat is not present on the Project site or along the reach of alaudinus) habitat. Alviso Slough adjacent to the Project site. Small numbers of this subspecies may forage on the site during the nonbreeding season. Tricolored blackbird CSSC Nests near fresh water in dense Absent as Breeder. Typically nests in extensive stands of tall (Agelaius tricolor) (nesting emergent vegetation. emergent herbaceous vegetation in non-tidal freshwater colony) marshes and ponds, which are not present on the Project site. Not known to nest in tidal habitats in the South Bay, and has not been recorded nesting in the Project vicinity. However, the species is known to forage in the Project vicinity during the nonbreeding season, and may occur on the Project site as an

32 uncommon nonbreeding visitor.

Salt marsh wandering shrew CSSC Medium to high marsh 6 to 8 ft Absent. Suitable pickleweed -dominated salt marsh habitat is (Sorex vagrans halicoetes) above sea level with abundant not present on the Project site or along the adjacent Alviso driftwood and common Slough. pickleweed. Pallid bat CSSC Forages over many habitats; roosts Absent as Breeder. Historically, pallid bats were likely present in (Antrozous pallidus) in caves, rock outcrops, buildings, a number of locations throughout the Project region, but their and hollow trees. populations have declined in recent decades. No suitable roosting habitat is present on the Project site and no known maternity colonies are present on or adjacent to the Project site. This species has been extirpated as a breeder from urban areas close to the Bay, as is the case at the Project site. There is a low probability that the species occurs in the Project vicinity at all due to urbanization; however, individuals from more remote colonies could potentially forage on the Project site over open habitats on rare occasions.

Name *Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence on Project Site

Townsend’s big-eared bat CSSC Roosts in caves and mine tunnels, Absent. No known extant populations occur on the Santa Clara (Corynorhinus townsendii) and occasionally in deep crevices Valley floor, and no breeding sites are known from the Project in trees such as redwoods or in area. Suitable breeding habitat is not present on the Project site. abandoned buildings, in a variety of habitats.

Western red bat CSSC Roosts in foliage in forest or Absent. Does not breed in the Project vicinity and suitable (Lasiurus blossevillii) woodlands, especially in or near roosting habitat (i.e., riparian trees) are not present on the riparian habitat. Project site.

San Francisco dusky-footed CSSC Nests in a variety of habitats Absent. Currently, with the exception of records along Coyote woodrat including riparian areas, oak Creek and along the edges of the Valley, San Francisco dusky- (Neotoma fuscipes woodlands, and scrub. footed woodrats are not know to occur in the more urbanized annectens) portions of Santa Clara County (H. T. Harvey & Associates 2010). Further, no suitable habitat is present on or immediately adjacent to the Project site. Thus, this species is determined to be absent from the Project site.

33 American badger CSSC Burrows in grasslands and Absent. Known to occur in the Project region primarily in

(Taxidea taxus) occasionally in infrequently disked extensive grasslands and less frequently disturbed agricultural agricultural areas. habitats, mostly in the foothills. Suitably extensive grasslands are not present on the Project site. State Fully Protected Species California brown pelican SP Undisturbed islands near estuarine, Absent. No suitable nesting or foraging habitat is present on the (Pelecanus occidentalis (nesting marine, subtidal, and marine Project site. The brown pelican has been recorded in the californicus) colony pelagic waters. nearby open-water habitat of Pond A8 (Cornell Lab of and Ornithology 2015), which it uses for foraging and likely for communal bathing and loafing; however, the species would not forage on roosts) the Project site or in the adjacent reach of Alviso Slough.

American peregrine falcon SP Forages in many habitats; nests on Absent as Breeder. Peregrine falcons are known to nest on (Falco peregrinus anatum) cliffs and tall bridges and buildings. electrical transmission towers within managed ponds near the Mountain View/Alviso area, but are not known or expected to nest on the transmission tower on the Project site. Nevertheless, the peregrine falcon may occur on the Project site as an occasional forager, primarily during migration and winter.

Name *Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence on Project Site

Golden eagle SP Breeds on cliffs or in large trees Absent as Breeder. Suitable breeding habitat is not present on, (Aquila chrysaetos) (rarely on electrical towers), forages or immediately adjacent to, the Project site. This species is in open areas. expected to forage in the open habitats of the Project site only infrequently, if at all, based on the limited number of recorded occurrences in the Project vicinity by birders.

White-tailed kite SP Nests in tall shrubs and trees, Absent as Breeder. Suitable breeding habitat is not present on (Elanus leucurus) forages in grasslands, marshes, and the Project site. However, the species may nest in trees ~120 ft ruderal habitats. east of the Project site and forage on the site. Ringtail SP Cavities in rock outcrops and talus Absent. This species occurs in less urbanized settings in the South (Bassariscus astutus) slopes, as well as hollows in trees, Bay; however, there are no records from the Project site. logs, and snags that occur in Suitable riparian and dense woodland habitats are absent from riparian habitats and dense the Project site, and the species is not expected to occur. woodlands, usually in close proximity to water.

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES CODE DESIGNATIONS

34 FE = Federally listed Endangered FT = Federally listed Threatened FC = Federal Candidate for listing SE = State listed Endangered ST = State listed Threatened SC = State Candidate for listing CSSC = California Species of Special Concern SP = State Fully Protected Species

Only one special-status wildlife species, the loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), is known or expected to breed on the Project site. Expanded descriptions are provided in Appendix C for those species for which potentially suitable breeding habitat occurs on or immediately adjacent to the Project site, as well as species for which resource agencies have expressed particular concern and for which expanded discussion is required.

5.3 Sensitive Natural Communities, Habitats, and Vegetation Alliances

Natural communities have been considered part of the Natural Heritage Conservation triad, along with plants and animals of conservation significance, since the state inception of the Natural Heritage Program in 1979. The CDFW determines the level of rarity and imperilment of vegetation types, and tracks sensitive communities in its Rarefind database (CNDDB 2015). Global rankings (G) of natural communities reflect the overall condition (rarity and endangerment) of a habitat throughout its range, whereas state (S) rankings are a reflection of the condition of a habitat within California. Natural communities are defined using NatureServe’s standard heritage program methodology as follows (California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG 2007]):

G1/S1: Less than 6 viable occurrences or less than 2000 ac. G2/S2: Between 6 and 20 occurrences or 2000 to 10,000 ac. G3/S3: Between 21 and 100 occurrences or 10,000 to 50,000 ac. G4/S4: The community is apparently secure, but factors and threats exist to cause some concern. G5/S4: The community is demonstrably secure to ineradicable due to being common throughout the world (for global rank) or the state of California (for state rank).

State rankings are further described by the following threat code extensions:

S1.1: Very threatened S1.2: Threatened S1.3: No current threats known

In addition to tracking sensitive natural communities, the CDFW also ranks vegetation alliances, defined by repeating patterns of plants across a landscape that reflect climate, soil, water, disturbance, and other environmental factors (Sawyer et al. 2009). These alliances are also ranked according to NatureServe’s standard methodology (CDFG 2007). If an alliance is marked G1-G3, all of the vegetation associations within it will also be of high priority. The CDFW provides the Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program’s (VegCAMP) currently accepted list of vegetation alliances and associations (CDFW 2010).

Impacts to CDFW sensitive natural communities, vegetation alliances/associations, or any such community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, must be considered and evaluated under CEQA (Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Appendix G of the California Code of Regulations). Furthermore, aquatic, wetland and riparian habitats are also protected under applicable federal, state, or local regulations, and are

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 35 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

generally subject to regulation, protection, or consideration by the USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, and/or the USFWS.

CDFW Sensitive Habitats. A query of sensitive habitats in Rarefind (CNDDB 2015) identified two sensitive habitats as occurring within the nine 7.5-minute USGS quadrangles containing or surrounding the Project site: (1) sycamore alluvial woodland (Rank G1/S1.1) and (2) northern coastal salt marsh (Rank G3/S3.2). Sycamore alluvial woodland is dominated by western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) which does not occur on the Project site. Northern coastal salt marsh is characterized by Holland (1986) as occurring along sheltered inland margins of bays, often co-dominated by pickleweed (Salicornia spp.), cordgrass (Spartina spp.), and sometimes saltgrass (Distichlis spicata); none of these species were noted within the Project site itself. Furthermore, no stream corridors with attendant riparian habitat, as defined by the CDFW, were identified on the site.

During the reconnaissance survey, wetland habitat was identified just north of the Project site. This feature was, however, dominated by saltmarsh bulrush and California tule, which are not typical of northern coastal salt marshes. Pickleweed may have once been more common in this area, as dead, scattered plants were observed across the area, covered by the dominant vegetation, and a small patch (approximately 0.06 ac) was found 95 ft to the north of the Project boundary. Although the wetland habitat most closely resembles the Saltmarsh Bulrush Alliance (Rank G4/S3) or California Tule Alliance (Rank G5/S4), associations with both species have not yet been described by VegCAMP (CDFW 2010).

Waters of the U.S./State. The Project site does not support aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitats that would be considered Waters of the U.S. under the CWA and Waters of the State under the Porter-Cologne.

5.4 Non-Native and Invasive Species

Several non-native, invasive species occur on the Project site. Of these, broadleaved pepperweed and fennel are the most abundant, and are rated as having severe ecological impacts by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal IPC 2015). Moderately invasive species have substantial and apparent ecological impacts; on the Project site these species include wild oats and ripgut brome (Cal IPC 2015).

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 36 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Section 6.0 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines provide guidance in evaluating impacts of projects on biological resources and determining which impacts will be significant. The Act defines “significant effect on the environment” as “a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed project.” Under State CEQA Guidelines section 15065, a project's effects on biotic resources are deemed significant where the project would:

A. “substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species” B. “cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels” C. “threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community” D. “reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal”

In addition to the section 15065 criteria that trigger mandatory findings of significance, Appendix G of State CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of other potential impacts to consider when analyzing the significance of project effects. The impacts listed in Appendix G may or may not be significant, depending on the level of the impact. For biological resources, these impacts include whether the project would:

E. “have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” F. “have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” G. “have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act” H. “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” I. “conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance” J. “conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan”

The Project will not conflict the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Although the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan pertains to most of the City of San Jose, including some areas on the east side of the Guadalupe River/Alviso Slough not far to the east of the Project site, the Project is outside of the Habitat Plan boundaries, and therefore the Habitat Plan does not pertain to the Project.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 37 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

6.1 Impacts Found to be Less than Significant

6.1.1 Impacts on Upland Habitats and Associated Common Plant and Wildlife Species

The proposed Project would result in the permanent loss of up to 5.53 ac of ruderal grassland habitat. Ruderal grassland is relatively abundant and widespread regionally, and is not particularly sensitive or valuable (from the perspective of providing important plant or wildlife habitat). Impacts on this habitat would result in impacts on the common (non-special-status) plant and animal species that occur there. These species would experience a direct loss of habitat due to the Project, and the Project could potentially result in the mortality, injury, disturbance, and displacement of individuals of some of these species. Additionally, loss of habitat and displacement of individuals could have indirect effects on populations and habitats outside of the Project site by increasing concentrations of individuals, leading to increases in intra- and interspecific competition and increased pressure on available resources.

However, the common wildlife species that occur on the Project site are regionally abundant, are present in widely available habitats in the region, and may continue to be present on some portions of the site following construction. Additionally, the proposed Project would impact only a small proportion of their regional populations, and the number of individuals likely to be displaced by habitat disturbance and loss would be quite small with respect to the amount of suitable habitat available in the area. Thus, impacts on these common species and their habitats resulting from Project activities would not meet the threshold of having a substantial adverse effect, and would not be considered significant under CEQA. The analysis of the potential for the Project to impact special-status plants and animals found in the upland habitats is discussed separately below.

The plant species observed on the Project site during the reconnaissance and focused survey for Congdon’s tarplant (Appendix B) are not regulated under state or federal laws and are not listed as rare by the CNPS. All native plant species found on the site are regionally abundant and common in California. Because Congdon’s tarplant was determined to be absent from the Project site, this impact does not meet the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect, and would not be considered significant under CEQA.

6.1.2 Impacts on Western Pond Turtles

Suitable habitat for the western pond turtle, a California species of special concern, consists of ponds or instream pools (i.e., slack water environments) with available basking sites, nearby upland areas with clay or silty soils for nesting, and shallow aquatic habitat with emergent vegetation and invertebrate prey for juveniles (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Although Alviso Slough adjacent to the Project site provides suitable aquatic habitat for western pond turtles, which have occasionally been recorded along the lower reaches of the Guadalupe River in the Project vicinity, no suitable aquatic habitat is present on the Project site, and pond turtles are not expected to nest on the Project site due to a lack of suitable habitat. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of aquatic foraging or dispersal habitat or upland nesting habitat and it is unlikely that dispersing individuals would be present on the site during Project construction. Thus, Project impacts do not meet the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect and would not be considered significant under CEQA.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 38 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

6.1.3 Impacts on the California Ridgway’s Rail and California Black Rail

The California Ridgway’s rail (a federally and state endangered species and a state fully protected species) and the California black rail (a state threatened species and a state fully protected species) are both associated with salt marsh habitats in the San Francisco Bay area. Thus, these species are assessed together because potential Project-related impacts on these species would be similar.

Suitable nesting habitat for California Ridgway’s rails and black rails is not present on the Project site or close enough to Project activities that nesting Ridgway’s or black rails would be disturbed by construction activities. Therefore, Project activities would not affect nesting habitat or nesting individuals of either species. Further, Project activities would not occur within foraging habitat for Ridgway’s rails or black rails. Although Ridgway’s rails and black rails may occasionally wander upstream from their typical salt marsh habitats into tidal brackish/freshwater marsh habitats in upper Alviso Slough immediately adjacent to the Project site, they are expected to do so only very rarely and in low numbers and are not expected to occur within the Project boundaries. Thus, rails are not expected to be killed or injured by Project activities.

Heavy ground disturbance, noise, and vibrations caused by Project construction could potentially disturb foraging Ridgway’s rails or black rails and cause them to move away from work areas. In addition, human- related disturbance during construction may increase the rails’ vulnerability to predators, if rails are present. Ridgway’s rail mortality is greatest during the winter, primarily because of predation during extreme winter high tides (Eddleman 1989, Albertson 1995). During high tides, rails and other wildlife hide within any available cover in the transition zone and high marsh, but as people approach, the birds may flush and attract predators. In addition, the presence of people in or near the high marsh plain or upland areas during marsh inundation may prevent rails from leaving the lower marsh plain to seek cover, which also leaves them vulnerable to predation (Evens and Page 1983, Evens and Page 1986). However, the Project site does not provide suitable habitat for rails, and the only area nearby with any potential for use by California Ridgway’s rails or black rails is the marsh habitat along Alviso Slough. Occurrence by either rail species at this location is extremely unlikely given the marginal quality of habitat, and would be limited to nonbreeding individuals. Moreover, existing disturbance occurs between Alviso Slough and the Project construction footprint in the form of a public access easement (i.e., gravel access road/recreational trail) along the levee top, which further reduces the likelihood that rails would occur in this area. Therefore, there is no reasonable expectation that California Ridgway’s rails and California black rails will be present in areas where they could be disturbed by construction.

Project effects on water quality potentially could adversely affect foraging habitat for these species in the Project area, but given the infrequency with which either species will occur near the Project site, there is little potential for the Project to adversely affect the health of a California Ridgway’s rail or California black rail, even in the absence of best management practices (BMPs). Further, the Project proponent would implement BMPs (see Impact 6.2.1 and Mitigation Measure 1 below) to reduce impacts on water quality (e.g., erosion and sediment control and spill prevention), further minimizing the potential for any adverse effects. Thus, impacts on the California Ridgway’s rail and California black rail are determined to be less than significant.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 39 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

6.1.4 Impacts on the Loggerhead Shrike and White-tailed Kite

The loggerhead shrike (a California species of special concern) and white-tailed kite (a state fully protected species) are known to forage year-round in grassland habitats in and around the Project site. In addition, the loggerhead shrike may nest in shrubs on or adjacent to the Project site and the white-tailed kite may nest in trees adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, the loggerhead shrike and white-tailed kite were assessed together because the potential impacts of the proposed Project on these species would be similar.

Heavy ground disturbance, noise, and vibrations caused by proposed construction could potentially disturb foraging or roosting individual loggerhead shrikes and white-tailed kites and cause them to move away from work areas. Project grading may result in the removal of active nests of the loggerhead shrike, which may nest within the Project boundaries, and could result in the disturbance of nesting adult loggerhead shrikes and white- tailed kites nesting adjacent to the site, possibly to the point of abandonment of active nests with eggs or nestlings. However, based on our site observations, the areal extent of the Project site, and known breeding densities of these species, no more than one pair each of loggerhead shrikes and white-tailed kites are expected to nest on or adjacent to the Project site, if these species are present at all. Therefore, the loss of individuals potentially resulting from Project activities would represent a very small fraction of the regional populations of these species. Additionally, the upland habitats within the Project site that provide suitable nesting habitat for the loggerhead shrike represent a small proportion of the habitats that support this species regionally.

Project activities would also result in the loss of foraging habitat for loggerhead shrikes and white-tailed kites. Development of the Project site would permanently remove 5.73 ac of foraging habitat for these species. However, the loss of 5.73 ac of foraging habitat is not expected to result in a substantial effect on populations of these species given the local and regional abundance of suitable foraging habitat, and the very small proportion of suitable habitat that will be impacted.

Therefore, neither the potential loss of individual loggerhead shrikes or white-tailed kites nor the loss of potential nesting or foraging habitat for these species would rise to the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect, and these impacts would thus not constitute a significant impact to these species or their habitats under the CEQA. However, all native bird species, including white-tailed kites and loggerhead shrikes, are protected from direct take by federal and state statutes (see Section 7.1, Regulatory Overview for Nesting Birds).

6.1.5 Impacts on the Alameda Song Sparrow and San Francisco Common Yellowthroat

Suitable breeding habitat for the Alameda song sparrow and San Francisco common yellowthroat (both California species of special concern) is not present on the Project site. However, both species occur year- round in the marsh habitat along Alviso Slough and may forage in the ruderal grasslands on the Project site. These species are assessed together because the potential impacts of the proposed Project on these species would be alike.

Similar to the impacts described for the white-tailed kite above, ground disturbance, noise, and vibrations caused by proposed construction could potentially disturb foraging or roosting individual Alameda song

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 40 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

sparrows and San Francisco common yellowthroats and cause them to move away from work areas. In addition, if these species are present in the marsh adjacent to the Project site, Project activities in the northern portion of the Project site could result in the disturbance of nesting Alameda song sparrow’s and San Francisco common yellowthroats, possibly to the point of abandonment of active nests with eggs or nestlings.

Project activities would not result in the loss of any foraging or nesting habitat for Alameda song sparrows and San Francisco common yellowthroats. However, Project grading may result in the disturbance of Alameda song sparrows and San Francisco common yellowthroats nesting adjacent to the site, possibly to the point of abandonment of active nests with eggs or nestlings. Based on the extent of suitable habitat adjacent to the Project site and typical territory sizes of these species, no more than 2-3 pairs of each species are expected to nest adjacent to the Project site, if these species are present at all. Therefore, the loss of individuals potentially resulting from Project activities would represent a very small fraction of the regional populations of these species. Further, the Project would not result in the loss of any nesting or foraging habitat for the Alameda song sparrow or San Francisco common yellowthroat. Thus, Project impacts would not rise to the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect, and these impacts would not constitute a significant impact on these species or their habitats under the CEQA. However, all native bird species, including Alameda song sparrows and San Francisco common yellowthroats, are protected from direct take by federal and state statutes (see Section 7.1, Regulatory Overview for Nesting Birds).

6.1.6 Impacts on Non-Special-Status Birds

The ruderal grasslands on the Project site provide suitable nesting habitat for relatively few bird species due to the lack of structural complexity of the vegetation. Nevertheless, birds nesting in more heavily vegetated areas outside the Project site use the ruderal grasslands on the site for foraging (see Section 3.2). In addition, several species of birds use the ruderal habitat on the site during the nonbreeding season. Thus, implementation of the Project has the potential to result in the injury or mortality of common birds, especially eggs or young in nests. Such impacts may occur because of vegetation removal or the disturbance of individuals nesting within or immediately adjacent to the Project footprint, as described for the loggerhead shrike and white-tailed kite above.

Implementation of the Project would result in a small loss of nesting and foraging habitat for common native birds that are abundant to fairly common in the region. However, the habitats at the Project site represent a very small proportion of the habitats that support these species regionally. In addition, many birds are expected to continue to nest and forage on the Project site after Project construction is completed as they are habituated to disturbance along the levee access road/trail, adjacent train tracks, and nearby commercial development. Although fewer pairs of birds are expected to nest and forage on the Project site following Project construction, the decline in bird abundance resulting from habitat loss is expected to be very low, as the incorporation of native trees, shrubs, grasses, and forbs into the landscape design will provide some food and structural resources for the common, urban-adapted birds of the Project area, as well as for migrants that may use the area during spring and fall migration and winter residents. Therefore, Project impacts would not rise to the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect, and these impacts would not constitute a significant impact on these

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 41 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

species or their habitats under the CEQA. However, all native bird species are protected from direct take by federal and state statutes (see Section 7.1, Regulatory Overview for Nesting Birds).

Once the buildings are constructed, they will increase the risk of avian mortality due to collisions. Glassy facades that reflect the sky or surrounding vegetation may not be detectable as collision hazards by birds, and birds will occasionally fly into buildings, potentially resulting in injury or mortality. The number of bird collisions is expected to increase as a result of the Project as compared to the baseline level of bird collisions with no buildings on the site. The species that would be affected would consist primarily of the common, urban-adapted species that currently use the site, as these are the species that would spend the most time in the vicinity of the new buildings. Although numerous waterbirds are known to congregate at the Don Edwards NWR to the west and northwest of the Project site, because the area surrounding the site to the east, northeast, and south is heavily urbanized and contains no habitats of value to estuarine birds using the Don Edwards NWR, we do not expect large numbers of waterbirds to be flying in an east-west or north-south direction over the Project site at altitudes low enough for bird-strike mortality to occur.

The majority of avian collisions with buildings occur within the first 60 ft of the ground (City of San Francisco 2011), where birds spend the majority of their time engaged in foraging, territorial defense, nesting, and roosting activities, and where vegetation is most likely to be reflected in glazed surfaces. However, very tall buildings (e.g., buildings 500 ft or more high) may pose a threat to birds that are migrating through the area, particularly to nocturnal migrants that may not see the buildings or that may be attracted to lights on the buildings.

On the Project site, the maximum building height would be 60 ft 5 inches, much lower than the heights at which most bird migration occurs. Thus, they will not pose a substantial collision hazard to migrants flying high through the area. By necessity, the buildings are within the “Bird Collision Zone”, within the first 60 ft above the ground. However, the Project has incorporated the following measures, consistent with the City of San José Bird-Safe Building Design Standards, to minimize the potential for such collisions:

• Large areas of transparent or reflective glass have been avoided (only approximately 14.1 percent of the total building façade is proposed to be glass, the majority of which is composed of single story, individual room windows rather than multistory glass facades). • No vegetated, glass-walled atria are proposed.

Proposed landscaping is also relevant to the Project’s potential impacts on birds in two ways. First, the provision of plant species that provide particular resources to birds, such as food (seeds, fruits, nectar, or foliage that supports insect prey), nesting sites, roosting sites, and cover from predators can enhance the ecological value of the development to birds, thus helping to increase populations of the species that tolerate urban areas. The incorporation of native trees, shrubs, grasses, and forbs will provide some food and structural resources for common, urban-adapted birds of the Project area, as well as for migrants that may use the area during spring and fall migration and for winter residents.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 42 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Second, the placement of vegetation that attracts birds relative to hazards such as glass surfaces and powerlines is important to reduce the potential for collisions. A high powerline currently crosses the southern portion of the Project site, aligned northeast to southwest. No trees capable of growing to heights even approaching the height of these powerline, would be planted in the immediate vicinity of the powerline. As a result, the potential for bird collisions with the powerline will not increase as a result of the Project.

Therefore, Project impacts would not rise to the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect, and these impacts would not constitute a significant impact on these species or their habitats under the CEQA.

6.1.7 Impacts on the Pallid Bat

The pallid bat (a California species of special concern) may be present on the Project site as an occasional forager, but is not expected to breed on the Project site due to a lack of suitable habitat, and there are no known maternity colonies on or adjacent to the site. Nevertheless, individuals from more remote colonies could potentially forage over the open grasslands on the site on rare occasions.

Project construction would permanently alter the extent of foraging habitat for pallid bats on the Project site. However, the loss or conversion of 5.73 ac of ruderal grassland habitat in an urban area well away from known colonies would affect only a very small proportion of regionally available foraging habitat for this species. This loss of potential foraging habitat would not rise to the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect, and this impact would not constitute a significant impact on this species or its habitat under the CEQA.

6.1.8 Impacts on Wildlife Movement Corridors

For many species, the landscape is a mosaic of suitable and unsuitable habitat types. Environmental corridors are segments of land that provide a link between these different habitats while also providing cover. Development that fragments natural habitats (i.e., breaks them into smaller, disjunct pieces) can have a twofold impact on wildlife: first, as habitat patches become smaller they are unable to support as many individuals (patch size); and second, the area between habitat patches may be unsuitable for wildlife species to traverse (connectivity).

Alviso Slough and the associated marsh corridor provide the most important movement pathway through the Project area for both aquatic and terrestrial species, connecting the Guadalupe River to the San Francisco Bay. The Project would not result in any loss of aquatic or marsh habitat, and aquatic species would continue to be able to move north to south along Alviso Slough following development of the site. In addition, the existing access road alignment would be moved farther east, increasing the distance between Alviso Slough and developed habitat, facilitating the movement of terrestrial species along the banks of Alviso Slough. Further, terrestrial species would continue to be able to move north to south through the Project area along the banks of Pond A8. Therefore, the Project would not 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, and this impact is determined to be less than significant.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 43 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

6.1.9 Impacts from Modifications within the Riparian Setback

The Guidelines and Standards, prepared by the SCVWRP Collaborative (2007) and adopted by the City, recommend that a protective buffer be established along streams, creeks, and freshwater marshes so that these resources are not impacted by development. For the purposes of this Project, the proposed riparian setback extends 100 ft landward from the top of bank of Alviso Slough. Implementation of the proposed development would result in indirect disturbance and degradation of ruderal grassland riparian and aquatic habitat due to encroachment into the riparian setback (Figure 6). In addition, implementation of the proposed development could result in indirect disturbance and degradation of tidal waters near the Project site due to encroachment into the BCDC jurisdictional shoreline band (Figure 6). A BCDC permit would be needed for impacts in the shoreline band.

Natural habitats within Alviso Slough and its associated riparian setback collectively provide foraging, breeding, and dispersal habitat for several common and special-status animal species that are present or may be present on, or immediately adjacent to, the Project site. Some of the more sensitive species include the Central California Coast steelhead, green sturgeon, longfin smelt, California Ridgway’s rail, California black rail, western pond turtle, San Francisco common yellowthroat, and Alameda song sparrow. Project activities in these areas would result in impacts on animal species as a result of increased lighting and noise disturbance resulting both from construction and from operation and use of the Project site following construction. In addition, encroachment into the riparian setback may impact aquatic habitats through deterioration of water quality, as described above.

The Project proposes to realign and widen the existing access road located along the bank of Alviso Slough on the northern perimeter of the site. Although the enhancement and realignment of the existing access road, which is part of an approved portion of the Bay Trail, would encroach into the 100-ft setback, the Riparian Corridor Policy Study (City of San José 1999) recognizes trails as an allowed use within riparian setbacks. Further, the Project would enhance and realign the existing access road to facilitate its incorporation into the Bay Trail and its use as a fire vehicle emergency access route. The road alignment would be moved farther east to reduce the potential impacts of its use as a recreational trail on sensitive bay habitats, increasing the minimum distance between the top of bank and development.

In addition to the trail improvements, a small area (<0.02 ac) of the proposed sidewalks around the hotel would encroach on the outermost portion of the riparian setback. In the absence of conservation measures, and because of the ecological importance of wetland and riparian habitats that occur adjacent to the Project site and their relatively limited regional extent, Project activities within the buffer around these habitats during both construction and hotel occupancy would be a significant impact (Significance Criterion F). However, the Project includes conservation measures (summarized below) to avoid and minimize the impact of the Project on wetland and riparian habitats. With implementation of these conservation measures, impacts resulting from Project modification of the riparian setback would be less than significant.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 44 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

d t

a a S

r d

l l

i i

a a

R G

c i

Top of Bank i

c (Edge of Riparian) a

A a A P

lv P i n is n

o o

o o i Sl i

l n o n

oug g U

h U

Legend

Project Site (6.72 ac)

Permanent Impact (5.95 ac)

BCDC Shoreline Band

Riparian Setback

Riparian Area

Habitat Impacts Ruderal Grassland (5.53 ac)

Developed (0.42 ac)

Figure 6: Impacts Map Residence Inn and Event Center Biological Resources Report (3660-01) August 2015

Revegetation. The Project includes planting or seeding of natives throughout all portions of the setback that are not developed, in accordance with the approved Bay Trail segment and the City of San Jose’s Riparian Corridor Policy. Following construction, revegetation areas will be graded and native soil will be spread across disturbed areas. Revegetation will be accomplished using plantings and/or seeds of tree, shrub, and herbaceous plant species that are native to California and/or are beneficial to native wildlife (e.g. providing habitat or a food source). Revegetation will benefit the adjacent wetland and riparian habitats, and the associated wildlife species using them by increasing the quality of the riparian setback area, and buffering the adjacent sensitive habitats from future disturbance.

Prior to implementation of these plantings, a Revegetation Plan will be developed that provides details on plant species, proportions of plantings and/or seeds, and source(s) of plant material to be used; as well as installation methodology and on-going maintenance activities. The Revegetation Plan will include a monitoring component that details the success criteria and monitoring of the revegetation planting (including final and performance criteria, monitoring methods, data analysis, reporting requirements, monitoring schedule, etc.). Success criteria will include quantifiable measurements of vegetation type (e.g., dominance by natives) and extent appropriate for the restoration location, and provision of ecological functions and values equal to or exceeding those in the habitat affected by trail and sidewalk modifications within the 100 ft setback. At a minimum, success criteria will include achievement of 50 percent cover by the target plant species within the revegetation area within 5 years following implementation.

Minimized Night Lighting. During and after Project construction, the spillover of lighting into natural areas outside developed areas will be minimized by the use of low-intensity lighting or other appropriate low- dispersion lighting technology; orientation of lights so that they are placed on the perimeter of the Project site and directed inward (rather than directing any lighting toward the riparian corridor adjacent to site) and downward toward the ground; and shielding of lights from behind. Low-intensity lighting, downcast lighting, or other appropriate lighting technology will be incorporated into the Project design where permanent lighting is to be placed within 200 ft of the riparian corridor to reduce potential adverse effects on animals within Alviso Slough marshes and within the riparian setback area.

6.1.10 Impacts from Invasive Weeds

Invasive weeds can occur in all habitat types and can be difficult to eradicate. One of the characteristics of some invasive species that make them successful is that many non-native, invasive plant species produce seeds that germinate readily following disturbance. In addition, newly disturbed areas are highly susceptible to colonization by non-native, invasive species that occur locally, or whose propagules are brought in by personnel, vehicles, and other equipment. While the proposed Project is unlikely to introduce new weeds several non-native, invasive species occur on the Project site, including broadleaved pepperweed, fennel, wild oats, and ripgut brome. As a result of the proposed Project, the majority of the upland habitats within the study area would be subject to soil disturbance because of access route installation and building construction. In addition, portions of the Project site not permanently impacted may be subject to temporary disturbance. Activities such as trampling, equipment staging, and understory vegetation removal are all factors that contribute to disturbance.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 46 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Thus, areas of temporary ground disturbance associated with Project activities could serve as areas promoting the spread of these non-native species, which could degrade habitat values for, and threaten special-status species and sensitive habitats. In the absence of conservation measures, such impacts would be significant (Significance Criteria E). However, the Project includes conservation measures (summarized below) to avoid and minimize the impact of invasive weeds. With implementation of these conservation measures, impacts resulting from invasive weeds would be less than significant.

Invasive Weed Control. Prior to Project implementation, the ruderal grassland habitat will be surveyed for the presence of broadleaved pepperweed, fennel, and other “highly” invasive plant species. Any invasive plants found within the area will be removed and disposed of in a sanitary landfill, incinerated off-site, or disposed in a high-temperature composting facility that can compost using methods known to kill weed seeds, taking care to prevent any seed dispersal during the process by bagging material or covering trucks transporting such material from the site.

Construction vehicles and all equipment shall be washed (including wheels, undercarriages, and bumpers) before entering the Project work areas. The Project proponent shall document all vehicles have been washed prior to commencing work. In addition, tools such as chainsaws, hand clippers, and pruners shall be washed before entering the work areas. All washing shall take place where rinse water is collected and disposed of in either a sanitary sewer or landfill.

Following Project construction, the Revegetation Plan (described above under Impacts from Modifications within the Riparian Setback) will be implemented within areas of the riparian setback to minimize the potential for the germination of the majority of seeds from non-native, invasive plant species on the adjacent wetland and riparian habitats.

6.2 Impacts Found to be Less than Significant with Mitigation

6.2.1 Impacts on Jurisdictional Habitats (Wetland, Aquatic, and Riparian)

The proposed construction would not result in the permanent disturbance or loss of wetland, aquatic, or riparian habitats that fall under the jurisdiction of federal, state, or local agencies, such as the USACE, San Francisco RWQCB, and CDFW. Because none of these habitats occur within the boundaries of the Project site, only indirect impacts on jurisdictional areas adjacent to the site have the potential to occur. Coastal brackish marsh is present to the north of the Project site on the southern bank of Alviso Slough, which flows directly to the Bay. These aquatic and wetland habitats contribute to watershed drainage and water quality function within the surrounding region. Furthermore, they provide substantial habitat value for wildlife, supplying foraging and dispersal opportunities. There is no riparian tree or shrub canopy along the reach of Alviso Slough adjacent to the Project site; rather, the slough banks support grassland habitat that is similar in structure to the ruderal grassland identified on the site, and is of relatively low biological value compared to woody riparian vegetation present on many other sites in the region.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 47 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Indirect impacts on wetland and aquatic habitats as a result of the Project could arise from erosion or sedimentation, potentially compromising water quality. This would in turn, also result in indirect impacts on the plant and animal species that occur in these habitats. Although these species would not experience a direct loss of habitat due to the Project, the proposed activities could potentially result in the disturbance and displacement of individuals of some of these species. Therefore, Project activities could result in potentially significant impacts on jurisdictional habitats (Significance Criterion G). Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 will reduce the Project’s impact on water quality to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure 1. Minimize Potential Project Effects on Water Quality • In compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the project will comply with the State Water Board Construction General Permit, which requires preparation of a site- specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will include specific and detailed BMPs designed to mitigate construction-related pollutants. These controls will include methods to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies with stormwater within the creek. Additional control measures identified in this SWPPP will mitigate the release of construction-related pollutants from the main site during the various construction phases. • Unless otherwise authorized by the San Francisco Bay Region Water Board and in compliance with the NPDES permit issued for the Project, the following conditions shall apply: o Grading in areas within 100 ft of, or in areas directly draining to, the marsh along Alviso Slough will occur only during days when rain is not occurring and is not predicted to occur (i.e., less than 30 percent chance) during the work period. o No woody debris, vegetation, soil, silt, sand, slash, sawdust, cement, concrete, washings, petroleum products, road treatment chemicals, or other organic or earthen material will be allowed to enter into or be placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff below the top of the banks of Alviso Slough. Any loose soil or materials stockpiles left in an area where these materials could potentially wash into the creek will be protected by silt fence or other measures. o Vegetation that is removed from the Project site will be contained immediately and hauled off-site. o No equipment will be operated within wetland habitat, or below the top of the banks of Alviso Slough. o Machinery will be refueled at least 60 ft from the top of bank, and a spill prevention and response plan will be implemented. o No holes will be left open and uncovered overnight. o Standard erosion control and slope stabilization measures, such as fiber rolls, erosion control blankets, silt fences, and others will be required for work performed in any area where erosion could lead to sedimentation of a body of water.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 48 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

6.2.2 Impacts on Green Sturgeon, Steelhead, Longfin Smelt, and EFH

Longfin smelt (state listed as threatened), green sturgeon (federally listed as threatened and a California species of special concern), and Central California Coast steelhead (federally listed as threatened) could potentially occur in the reach of Alviso Slough adjacent to the Project site. None of these species is expected to spawn in Alviso Slough. However, foraging juvenile and adult green sturgeon may be present infrequently and in low numbers, and small numbers of longfin smelt may occasionally stray into this reach of Alviso Slough. Steelhead occur in the reach of Alviso Slough adjacent to the Project site during upstream migration of adults (January- April) to spawning areas and downstream migration of both adults and smolts (February–May, but peaking in February-April). In addition, EFH related to the Pacific Coast Salmon, Coastal Pelagics, and Pacific Groundfish FMPs is present in the reach of Alviso Slough adjacent to the Project site.

Construction of the Project would not result in activities occurring within the bed and banks of Alviso Slough. However, Project activities in proximity to the slough could result in vegetation removal and mobilization of sediment that in combination could lead to erosion of sediment into the slough. Increases in turbidity and sediment input may cause stress to fish because of feeding difficulties or displacement. Further, minor spills of petrochemicals, hydraulic fluids, and solvents may occur during vehicle and equipment refueling or as a result of leaks, adversely affecting water quality and potentially killing or injuring fish. Therefore, Project activities could result in potentially significant impacts on green sturgeon, steelhead, longfin smelt, and EFH through impacts on water quality and impairment of health of individuals (Significance Criterion E). Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 will reduce the Project’s impact on special-status fish to a less-than-significant level.

6.2.3 Impacts on Burrowing Owls

The ruderal grasslands within the Project site provide ostensibly suitable nesting, foraging, and roosting habitat for the burrowing owl, a California species of special concern. However, there are no records of burrowing owls on the Project site (CNDDB 2015), and protocol-level surveys conducted on the site on May 3, 8, 10, and 13, 1998; May 24, 25, 26, and 27, 1999 (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1999a); and 14, 20, 21, and 24 September, 2000 (H. T. Harvey & Associate 2000a) failed to find any burrowing owls or evidence of their presence (e.g., whitewash, cast pellets, or feathers). In addition, only one ground squirrel burrow (i.e., potential burrowing owl nest/roost burrow) was observed within the Project site during a focused survey conducted on 10 February 2015, and no evidence of burrowing owl use of the burrow was observed. Thus, there is a very low probability that burrowing owls would nest or roost on the Project site. Historically, several pairs of burrowing owls are known to have nested in the vicinity of the site, including the grasslands to the southwest of the site and in former grasslands to the south and northwest of the site (Figure 5) (CNDDB 2015, H. T. Harvey & Associates 1999a), and some of these nesting areas are sufficiently close that burrowing owls nesting at these locations might forage on the Project site on occasion. However, in recent years, many of the closest breeding pairs have been displaced by development (CNDDB 2015). Currently, the nearest known active breeding site is located in the buffer lands of the San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility approximately 0.8 mi to the northeast.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 49 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Thus, although burrowing owls could forage on the site occasionally, they are not expected to do so frequently or in large numbers, if at all.

Construction of the Project would result in the loss of 5.53 ac of suitable foraging habitat for burrowing owls. However, because no evidence exists that the Project site provides important burrowing owl foraging habitat (i.e., used regularly or by a sizeable proportion of the South San Francisco Bay population), the Project is not expected to result in a substantial impact on burrowing owl foraging habitat. Further, mitigation for impacts on burrowing owl foraging habitat within the Project boundaries was provided previously as part of the America Center project. In 2002, as mitigation for impacts on burrowing owl habitat resulting from construction of the approximately 70-ac America Center, the boundaries of which included the current Project site, Legacy Partners set aside a burrowing owl mitigation area. The mitigation area, located approximately 650 ft southwest of the current Project site, is part of a 25.3-ac open space preserve that also provides suitable foraging habitat for burrowing owls. The open space preserve abuts the current Project site along its western boundary. The burrowing owl mitigation area is composed of 6.5 ac of potential burrowing owl breeding habitat. In addition, twenty-six artificial burrows were constructed in the burrowing owl mitigation area. Maintenance of artificial burrows occurs on an annual basis, and the mitigation site was monitored annually for burrowing owls from 2002 to 2010 (WRA 2011), per the requirements of the Draft Legacy America Center Burrowing Owl Habitat Management Plan (H. T. Harvey & Associates 2000b).

Because only one California ground squirrel burrow was observed on the Project site, few burrows are likely to be present on the site during construction, and we do not expect the Project to result in any impacts on occupied burrows or individual burrowing owls. Nevertheless, although this probability is low, ground squirrels could move onto the site at any time, and the potential for owls to nest or roost on the site in the future cannot be ruled out. Due to the rarity of the burrowing owl in the region and the effects on burrowing owl populations of the loss of any individuals, the loss of individual burrowing owls or active burrowing owl burrows would be significant under CEQA (Significance Criterion E). Implementation of the following measures would reduce potential impacts on nesting and roosting burrowing owls during Project construction to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure 3a: Conduct Pre-construction Surveys for Burrowing Owls. Pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls will be conducted prior to the initiation of all Project activities within suitable burrowing owl nesting and roosting habitat (i.e., ruderal grassland habitat with burrows of California ground squirrels). Pre-construction surveys will be completed in conformance with the CDFW’s 2012 guidelines (CDFG 2012). An initial habitat assessment will be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if suitable burrowing owl habitat is present. During the initial site visit, a qualified biologist will survey the entire activity area and (to the extent that access allows) the area within 250 ft of the site for suitable burrows that could be used by burrowing owls for nesting or roosting. If no suitable burrowing owl habitat (i.e., ruderal grasslands with burrows of California ground squirrels) is present, no additional surveys will be required. If suitable burrows are determined to be present within 250 ft of work areas, a qualified biologist will conduct three additional surveys to investigate each burrow within the survey area for signs of owl use and to determine

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 50 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

whether owls are present in areas where they could be affected by proposed activities. The final survey will be conducted within the 24-hour period prior to the initiation of Project activities in any given area.

Mitigation Measure 3b: Implement Buffer Zones for Burrowing Owls. If burrowing owls are present during the nonbreeding season (generally 1 September to 31 January), a 150-ft buffer zone will be maintained around the occupied burrow(s), if feasible. If maintaining such a buffer is not feasible, then the buffer must be great enough to avoid injury or mortality of individual owls, or else the owls should be passively relocated as described in Mitigation Measure 3d below. During the breeding season (generally 1 February to 31 August), a 250-ft buffer, within which no new Project-related activities will be permissible, will be maintained between Project activities and occupied burrows. Owls present between 1 February and 31 August will be assumed to be nesting, and the 250-ft protected area will remain in effect until 31 August. If monitoring evidence indicates that the owls are no longer nesting or the young owls are foraging independently, the buffer may be reduced or the owls may be relocated prior to 31 August, in consultation with the CDFW.

Mitigation Measure 3c: Monitor Owls during Construction. Any owls occupying the Project site are likely habituated to frequent human disturbances. As a result, they may exhibit a tolerance of greater levels of human disturbance than owls in more natural settings, and work within the standard 250-ft buffer during the nesting season may be able to proceed without disturbing the owls. Therefore, if nesting owls are determined to be present on the site, and Project activities cannot feasibly avoid disturbance of the area within 250 ft of the occupied burrow during the nesting season (i.e., 1 February through 31 August) due to other seasonal constraints, a qualified biologist will be present during all activities within 250 ft of the nest to monitor the owls’ behavior. If in the opinion of the qualified biologist, the owls are unduly disturbed (i.e., disturbed to the point of harm or reduced reproductive success), all work within 250 ft of the occupied burrow will cease, and Mitigation Measure 3d shall be implemented.

Mitigation Measure 3d: Passively Relocate Burrowing Owls. If construction will directly impact occupied burrows, a qualified biologist will passively evict owls from burrows during the nonbreeding season (1 September to 31 January). No burrowing owls will be evicted during the nesting season (1 February through 31 August) except with the CDFW’s concurrence that evidence demonstrates that nesting is not actively occurring (e.g., because the owls have not yet begun nesting early in the season, or because young have already fledged late in the season). Eviction will occur using one-way doors inserted into the occupied burrow and all burrows in impact areas that are within 250 ft of the occupied burrow (to prevent occupation of other burrows that will be impacted). One-way doors will be installed by a qualified biologist and left in place for at least 48 hours before they are removed. The burrows will then be back-filled to prevent re-occupation.

Although relocation of owls to avoid direct injury or mortality during construction may suffer predation, competition with other owls, or reduced health or reproductive success as a result of being relegated to more marginal habitat, the benefits of such relocation, in terms of avoiding direct injury or mortality, would outweigh any adverse effects.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 51 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

6.3 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts arise due to the linking of impacts from past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the region. The proposed Project, in combination with other projects in the area and other activities that impact the species that are affected by this Project, could contribute to cumulative effects on special-status species. Other projects in the area include both development and maintenance projects that could adversely affect these species and restoration projects that will benefit these species.

Locally, within Alviso Slough, the recently constructed boat launch in the Alviso Marina County Park impacted 1050 ft3 (0.02 ac) of brackish marsh and mudflat (USFWS 2009), representing a loss of potential foraging habitat for the California Ridgway’s rail; loss of refugia, cover, shading, and temperature regulation for juvenile steelhead; loss of habitat for steelhead prey; and loss of habitat that supports important life stages of FMP species. Mitigation for long-term impacts on habitat for the California Ridgeway’s rail was provided through the development of a predator management plan and seasonal closure of the boardwalk during the Ridgway’s rail breeding season in years when the species is detected during annual breeding season surveys. Mitigation for impacts on steelhead was provided through measures limiting boat launch construction and maintenance dredging to the non-migratory season for steelhead and the use of a coffer dam, suction dredge, and desilting ponds during construction and maintenance dredging. Further, the loss of brackish water marsh vegetation was mitigated through the removal of 18,000 square feet of existing marina floats and discontinuation of use of the existing boat ramp.

The SCVWD’s Stream Maintenance Program (SMP) involves maintenance activities in SCVWD flood control channels, creeks, and canals within jurisdictional waters of the U.S. The maintenance activities include, bank stabilization, sediment removal, minor in-channel maintenance activities, and mitigation projects. The SMP is expected to result in a temporary loss of upland transitional habitat and disturbance of foraging California Ridgway’s rails; permanent and temporary loss of primary habitat and upland transitional habitat for salt marsh harvest mice; temporary loss of use of foraging or roosting habitat and disturbance of foraging California least terns; and temporary loss of use of foraging habitat and disturbance of foraging western snowy plovers. The SMP will result in both short-term and long-term effects on individual Central California Coast steelhead and on spawning, rearing, holding, and migration habitat for that species. SMP activities may also result in short- term effects, and very limited long-term effects, on individual green sturgeon and their foraging habitat, if present in the SMP Action Area. Implementation of BMPs will avoid or minimize impacts on these species, and mitigation for impacts to California Ridgway’s rail and green sturgeon habitat was provided via tidal restoration at the “Island Ponds” (i.e., Ponds A19, A20, A21) on the north side of Coyote Creek. Mitigation for impacts to Central California Coast steelhead spawning habitat includes gravel augmentation projects at steelhead spawning streams and other measures.

Most of the other foreseeable projects in the San Francisco Bay area that will affect tidal marsh habitat are tidal restoration projects such as the South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project and the Suisun Marsh Restoration Project. These projects are expected to result in the restoration of thousands of acres of much higher-quality

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 52 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

habitat for species like the California Ridgway’s rail, Central California Coast steelhead, and green sturgeon than will be impacted by the Project.

Other projects in the region will impact suitable habitat for the burrowing owl; however, the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (VHP) will require the implementation of conservation measures for this species. Moreover, the VHP will help to ensure the conservation of the burrowing owl and its habitat throughout the Project region. Many projects in the region that impact resources similar to those impacted by the proposed Project will be covered activities under the VHP and will mitigate impacts on sensitive habitats and many special-status species through that program, which will require payment of fees for habitat restoration and conservation. In addition, the City of Sunnyvale is proposing burrowing owl enhancement measures at Sunnyvale Baylands Park and/or its landfills, which would benefit burrowing owls.

In addition to the impacts described in Section 6.1 above, climate change may also have cumulative effects on species that utilize tidal marshes. The global average temperature has risen by approximately 0.6 degrees Centigrade during the 20th Century (IPCC 2007, Adger et al. 2007). There is an international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed has been caused by human activities (IPCC 2001 2007, Adger et al. 2007), and that it is "very likely" that it is largely due to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (Adger et al. 2007). Ongoing climate change (Inkley et al. 2004, Adger et al. 2007, Kanter 2007) likely imperils species like the Ridgway’s rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and the resources necessary for their survival, since climate change threatens to disrupt annual weather patterns, it may result in a loss of their habitats and/or prey, and/or increased numbers of their predators, parasites, and diseases. Where populations are isolated, increasing tide height as a result of changing climate may result in local extinction, with range shifts precluded by lack of suitable habitat at higher elevations. However, the Project would not result in the loss of any tidal marsh habitat.

Further, the Project would implement a number of BMPs and mitigation measures to reduce impacts on sensitive habitats and to both common and special-status species, as described above. Thus, provided that this Project successfully incorporates the mitigation measures described in this biological resources report, the Project will not contribute to substantial cumulative effects on biological resources.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 53 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Section 7.0 Compliance with Additional Laws and Regulations Applicable to Biotic Resources of the Project Site

7.1 Regulatory Overview for Nesting Birds

Construction disturbance during the breeding season (1 February through 31 August, for most species) could result in the incidental loss of eggs or nestlings, either directly through the destruction or disturbance of active nests or indirectly by causing the abandonment of nests. This type of impact would not be significant under CEQA for the species that could potentially nest on the Project site due to the local and regional abundances of these species and/or the low magnitude of the potential impact of the Project on these species (i.e., the Project is only expected to impact one or two individual pairs of these species, which is not a significant impact on their regional populations). However, we recommend that the following measures be implemented to ensure that Project activities comply with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code:

Measure 1. Avoidance. To the extent feasible, construction activities should be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all impacts on nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in Santa Clara County extends from 1 February through 31 August.

Measure 2. Pre-construction/Pre-disturbance Surveys. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between 1 September and 31 January then pre-construction surveys for nesting birds should be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during Project implementation. We recommend that these surveys be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of construction activities. During this survey, the ornithologist will inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, ruderal grasslands, buildings) in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 ft for raptors and 100 ft for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed during Project implementation.

Measure 3. Inhibition of Nesting. If construction activities will not be initiated until after the start of the nesting season, we recommend that all potential nesting substrates (e.g., bushes, trees, grasses, and other vegetation) that are scheduled to be removed by the Project be removed prior to the start of the nesting season (e.g., prior to 1 February). This will preclude the initiation of nests in this vegetation, and prevent the potential delay of the Project due to the presence of active nests in these substrates.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 54 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Section 8.0 References

Adams, P. B., C. Grimes, J. E. Hightower, S. T. Lindley, M. L. Moser, and M. J. Parsley. 2007. Population status of North American green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris. Environmental Biology of Fishes 79:339-356.

Adger, N., P. Aggarwal, S. Agrawala, J. Alcamo, A. Allali, O. Anisimov, N. Arnell, M. Boko, O. Canziani, T. Carter, G. Casassa, U. Confalonieri, R. V. Cruz, E. de Alba Alcaraz, W. Easterling, C. Field, A. Fischlin, B. B. Fitzharris, C. G. García, C. Hanson, H. Harasawa, K. Hennessy, S. Huq, R. Jones, L. K. Bogataj, D. Karoly, R. Klein, Z. Kundzewicz, M. Lal, R. Lasco, G. Love, X. Lu, G. Magrín, L. J. Mata, R. McLean, B. Menne, G. Midgley, N. M., M. Q. Mirza, J. Moreno, L. Mortsch, I. Niang-Diop, R. Nicholls, B. Nováky, L. Nurse, A. Nyong, M. Oppenheimer, J. Palutikof, M. Parry, A. Patwardhan, P. R. Lankao, C. Rosenzweig, S. Schneider, S. Semenov, J. Smith, J. Stone, J. van Ypersele, D. Vaughan, C. Vogel, T. Wilbanks, P. P. Wong, S. Wu, and G. Yohe. 2007. Working Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Brussels, Belgium.

Albertson, J. D. 1995. Ecology of the California Clapper Rail in South San Francisco Bay. Master’s thesis. San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California.

Baldwin, B. G.; D. H. Goldman; D. J. Keil; R. Patterson; T. J. Rosatti; and D. H. Wilken (editors). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.

Barbour, R. W. and W. H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, Kentucky.

Baron, T. and J. Takegawa. 1994. California least tern Sterna antillarum browni. Pages 184-187 in C.G. Thelander, D. C. Pearson, and G. E. Olson, editors. Life on the edge: A Guide to California's Endangered Natural Resources.

Basham, M. P. and L. R. Mewaldt. 1987. Salt water tolerance and the distribution of South San Francisco Bay song sparrows. Condor 89:697-709.

Beamesderfer, R. C. P. and M. A. H. Webb. 2002. Green Sturgeon Status Review Information. S. P. Cramer and Associates, Gresham, OR.

Beamesderfer, R. C. P., M. L. Simpson, and G. J. Kopp. 2007. Use of life history information in a population model for Sacramento green sturgeon. Environmental Biology of Fishes 79:315-337.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 55 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Bias, M. A. 1994. Ecology of the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse in San Pablo Bay. Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California. Berkeley, California. 243 p.

Bousman, W. G. 2007a. Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus. Pp 200-201 in W.G. Bousman, editor. Breeding Bird Atlas of Santa Clara County. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Cupertino, California.

Bousman, W. G. 2007b. Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia. Pages 376-377 in W.G. Bousman, editor. Breeding Bird Atlas of Santa Clara County. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Cupertino, California.

Bousman, W. G. 2007c. Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos. Pp 184-185 in W.G. Bousman, editor. Breeding Bird Atlas of Santa Clara County. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Cupertino, California.

Bousman, W. G. 2007d. White-tailed Kite Elanus leucurus. Pp 172-173 in Bousman, W.G., editor. Breeding Bird Atlas of Santa Clara County. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Cupertino, California.

Bousman, W. G. 2007e. Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni. Pages 506-507 in W. G. Bousman, editor. Breeding bird atlas of Santa Clara County. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Cupertino, California.

Bousman, W. G. 2007f. Long-eared owl Asio otus. Pages 238-239 in W. G. Bousman, editor. Breeding bird atlas of Santa Clara County. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Cupertino, California.

Bousman, W. G. 2007g. Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus. Pages 288-289 in W. G. Bousman, editor. Breeding bird atlas of Santa Clara County. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Cupertino, California.

Bury, R. B. and D. J. Germano. 2008. Actinemys marmorata (Baird and Girard 1852) - western pond turtle, Pacific pond turtle in G. J. Rhodin, C. H. Pritchard, P. P. van Dijk, R. A. Saumure, K. A. Buhlmann, and J. B. Iverson, editors. Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises: A Compilation Project of the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. Chelonian Research Monographs.

Cade, T. J. and C. P. Woods. 1997. Changes in distribution and abundance of the loggerhead shrike. Conservation Biology 11:21-31.

Cain, J. W., M. L. Morrison, and H. L. Bombay. 2003. Predator activity and nest success of willow flycatchers and yellow warblers. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:600-610.

[Cal-IPC] California Invasive Plant Council. 2015. California Invasive Plant Inventory Database. Accessed February 2015 from http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/

[CDFG] California Department of Fish and Game. 2007. How to Read Rarefind 3 Reports. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database. Accessed February 2015 from

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 56 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/RF3_Reports.pdf.

[CDFG] California Department of Fish and Game. 2008. CWHR version 8.2 personal computer program in California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group.

[CDFG] California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. March 7, 2012.

[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program: Natural Communities List. Accessed February 2015 from http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/natural_communities.asp

[CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Database. 2015. Rarefind 5.0. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed February 2015 from http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/ mapsanddata.asp

[CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2015. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, Versions 7.0 and 9.0). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California. Accessed February 2015 from http://www.cnps.org/inventory

Chan, Y. and H. Spautz. 2008. Alameda song sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula) in W. D. Shuford and T. Gardali, editors. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A Ranked Assessment of Species, Subspecies, and Distinct Populations of Birds of Immediate Conservation Concern in California. Western Field Ornithologists and California Department of Fish and Game, Camarillo, California.

City of San Francisco. 2011. Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings. San Francisco Planning Department. Adopted 14 July 2011.

City of San José. 1999. Riparian Corridor Policy Study. Prepared with The Habitat Restoration Group and Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. Approved by the City Council.

City of San José. 2012. Envision San José 2040: General Plan.

Coulombe, H. N. 1971. Behavior and population ecology of the burrowing owl, Speotyto cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. Condor 73:162-176.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2015. eBird. http://www.ebird.org/. Accessed through March 2015.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 57 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Dunk, J. R. 1995. White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/178

Dunk, J. R. and R. J. Cooper. 1994. Territory-size regulation in black-shouldered kites. Auk 111:588-595.

EDAW, Inc. 2007. Draft Alviso Slough Restoration Project Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Technical Report.

Eddleman, W. R. 1989. Biology of the Yuma Clapper Rail in the Southwestern U.S. and Northwestern Mexico - Final Report. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California.

Erichsen, E. L., K S. Smallwood, A. M. Commandatore, B. W. Wilson, and M. D. Fry. 1996. White-tailed kite movement and nesting patterns in an agricultural landscape in D. Bird, D. Varland, and J. Negro, editors. Raptors in Human Landscapes. Academic Press, San Diego, California.

Errington, P. L. and L. J. Bennett. 1935. Food habits of burrowing owls in northwestern Iowa. Wilson Bulletin 47:125-128.

Evens, J. and G. Page. 1983. The Ecology of Clapper Rail Populations at Corte Madera Ecological Preserve with Recommendations for Management. Marin Audubon Society.

Evens, J. and G. Page. 1986. Predation on black clapper rails during high tides in salt marshes. Condor 88:107- 109.

Evens, J. G., G. W. Page, S. A. Laymon, and R. W. Stallcup. 1991. Distribution, relative abundance, and status of the California black rail in western North America. Condor 93:952-966.

Feeney, L. R. and W. A. Maffei. 1991. Snowy Plovers and their Habitat at the Baumberg Area and Oliver Salt Ponds Hayward, California March 1989 through May 1990. Report prepared for the City of Hayward.

Ferguson, H. and J. M. Azerrad. 2004. Management recommendations for Washington's priority species: Volume V. Mammals, pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). Washington Department of Fish and Game.

Foin, T. C, E. J. Garcia, R. E. Gill, S. D. Culberson, and J. N. Collins. 1997. Recovery strategies for the California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) in the heavily-urbanized San Francisco estuarine ecosystem. Landscape and Urban Planning 38(3):229-243. Foxgrover, A. C., B. E. Jaffe. G. T. Hovis, C. A. Martin, J. R. Hubbard, M. R. Samant, and S. M. Sullivan. 2005. Hydrographic Survey of South San Francisco Bay, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2007-1169.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 58 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Garcia-Rossi, D. and D. Hedgecock. 2002. Provenance Analysis of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Santa Clara Valley Watershed. Unpublished report prepared by Bodega Marine Laboratory, University of California, Davis. Bodega Bay, California. 25 pp.

Gardali, T. and J.G. Evens. 2008. San Francisco common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa) in W.D. Shuford and T. Gardali, editors. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A Ranked Assessment of Species, Subspecies, and Distinct Populations of Birds of Immediate Conservation Concern in California. Western Field Ornithologists and California Department of Fish and Game, Camarillo and Sacramento, California.

Geissel, W., H. Shellhammer, and H. T. Harvey. 1988. The ecology of the salt-marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) in a diked salt marsh. Journal of Mammalogy 69(4):696-703.

Gleason, R. L. and T. H. Craig. 1979. Food habits of burrowing owls in southeastern Idaho. Great Basin Naturalist 39:274-276.

Goals Project. 1999. Baylands ecosystem habitat goals. A report of habitat recommendations prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Google Inc. 2015. Google Earth (Version 7.0.3.8542) [Software]. Available from earth.google.com

Good, R E., R.M. Nielson, H. Sawyer, and L.L. McDonald. 2007. A population estimate for golden eagles in the western United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:395-402.

Gorman, L. R., D. K. Rosenberg, N.A. Ronan, K.L. Haley, J. A. Gervais, and V. Franke. 2003. Estimation of reproductive rates of burrowing owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:493-500.

Green, G. A., R. E. Fitzner, R. G. Anthony, and L. E. Rogers. 1993. Comparative diets of burrowing owls in Oregon and Washington. Northwest Science 67:88-93.

Guzy, M. J. and G. Ritchison. 1999. Common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia.

H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1997. Santa Clara Valley Water District California Red-legged Frog Distribution and status – 1997. June.

H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1999a. Cargill Collishaw Properties Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources Section. 4 June 1999 (revised 17 June 1999).

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 59 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1999b. Santa Clara Valley Water District Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Distribution and status – 1999. December.

H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2000a. Legacy Terrace 2000 Burrowing Owl Pre-construction Survey. 25 September 2000.

H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2000b. Draft Legacy Terrace Development Burrowing Owl Habitat Management Plan.

H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2007. Marsh Studies in South San Francisco Bay: 2005-2008. California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Survey Report, 2006. Prepared for the City of San José, San José, California.

H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2010. Santa Clara Valley Water District San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat Distribution and Status - 2010. Prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Water District.

H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2012. San Francisco Bay Estuary Invasive Spartina Project: Spartina Control Program and Habitat Restoration for 2012 - Biological Assessment for the California Clapper Rail, Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and Soft Bird’s Beak. Prepared for California Coastal Conservancy. Report No. 3352-01.

H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2013. Santa Clara Valley Water District Alviso Slough Project Biological Assessment for the California Clapper Rail, Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, California Least Tern, West Snowy Plover, California Central Coast Steelhead, and Green Sturgeon, and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment. Prepared for Santa Clara Valley Water District.

Harding-Smith, E. K. 1993. Summary of California Clapper Rail Winter Populations in the San Francisco Bay, 1989 to 1993. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Harvey, T. E. 1980. A Breeding Season Survey of the California Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) in South San Francisco Bay, California. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

Haug, E. A. and L. W. Oliphant. 1990. Movements, activity patterns, and habitat use of burrowing owls in Saskatchewan. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:27-35.

Heath, S. K. 2008. Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia) in W. D. Shuford and T. Gardali, editors. California Bird Species of Special concern: A Ranked Assessment of Species, Subspecies, and Distinct Populations of Birds of Immediate Conservation Concern in California. Western Field Ornithologists and California Department of Fish and Game, Camarillo and Sacramento, California.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 60 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Hobbs, J. A., P. Moyle, and N. Buckmaster. 2012. Monitoring the Response of Fish Communities to Salt Pond Restoration: Final report. Prepared for the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Program and Resource Legacy Fund. University of California, Davis, California. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Unpublished report. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, CA.

Humple, D. 2008. Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) (mainland populations) in W. D. Shuford and T. Gardali, editors. California bird species of special concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Western Field Ornithologists and California Department of Fish and Game, Camarillo and Sacramento, California

IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Watson, R.T. and the Core Writing Team (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA, 398 pp.

IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Alley, R., T. Berntsen, N. L. Bindoff, Z. Chen, A. Chidthaisong, P. Friedlingstein, J. Gregory, G. Hegerl, M. Heimann, B. Hewitson, B. Hoskins, F. Joos, J. Jouzel, V. Kattsov, U. Lohmann, M. Manning, T. Matsumo, M. Molina, N. Nicholls, J. Overpeck, D. Qin, G. Raga, V. Ramaswamy, J. Ren, M. Rusticucci, S. Solomon, R. Somerville, T. F. Stocker, P. Stott, R.F. Stouffer, P. Whetton, R. A. Wood, D. Wratt. 21 pp. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/.

Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division.

Johnston, D. S., B. Hepburn, J. Krauel, T. Stewart, and D. Rambaldini. 2006. Winter roosting and foraging ecology of pallid bats in Central Coastal California. Bat Research News 47:115.

Johnston, R. F. 1954. Variation in breeding season and clutch size in song sparrows of the Pacific Coast. Condor 56:268-273.

Johnston, R. F. 1956. Population structure in salt marsh song sparrows. Part I. Environment and annual cycle. Condor 56:268-273.

Inkley, D. B., M. G. Anderson, A. R. Blaustein, V. R. Burkett, B. Felzer, B. Griffin, J. Price, and T. L. Root. 2004. Global climate change and wildlife in North America. Wildlife Society Technical Report 04-2.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 61 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Kanter, J. 2007. Scientists detail climate changes, Poles to Tropics. New York Times. April 10, 2007.

Kelly, J. T., A. P. Klimley, and C. E. Crocker. 2007. Movements of green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris, in the San Francisco Bay Estuary, California. Environmental Biology of Fishes 79:281-295.

Kimmerer, W. J., E. S. Gross, and M. L. MacWilliams. 2009. Is the response of estuarine nekton to freshwater flow in the San Francisco Estuary explained by variation in habitat volume? Estuaries and Coasts 32:375-389.

Kochert, M. N., K. Steenhof, C. L. Mcintyre, and E. H. Craig. 2002. Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia.

Leidy, R. A., G. S. Becker, and B. N. Harvey. 2003. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Unpubl. report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Leidy, R. A., G. S. Becker, and B. N. Harvey. 2005. Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Coho Salmon (O. kisutch), and Chinook Salmon (O. tshawytscha) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, California.

Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership. 2007. Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead - Proposed Plan. National Marine Fisheries Service.

Lowther, P. E., C. Celada, N. K. Klein, C. C. Rimmer, and D. A. Spector. 1999. Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia) in A. Poole, and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Lutz, R. S. and D. L. Plumpton. 1999. Philopatry and nest site reuse by burrowing owls: Implications for productivity. J. Raptor Research 33:149-153.

Marriott, M. A. 2003. Microhabitat characteristics predictive of snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) nest site selection in South San Francisco Bay. Master’s thesis, Humboldt State University.

Marschalek, D. A. 2006. California Least Tern Breeding Survey, 2005 Season. California Department of Fish and Game, South Coast Region, San Diego, California. Species Conservation and Recovery Program Report, 2006-01.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 62 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Marschalek, D. A. 2008. California least tern breeding survey, 2007 season. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Branch, Nongame Wildlife Program Report 2008-01.

Martin, D. J. 1973. Selected aspects of burrowing owl ecology and behavior. Condor 75:446-456.

Melnychuck, M. C., D. W. Welch, C. J. Walters, and V. Christensen. 2007. Riverine and early ocean migration and mortality patterns of juvenile steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) from the Cheakamus River, British Columbia. Hydrobiologia 582:55-65.

Menges, T. 1998. Common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) in The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan: A Strategy for Reversing the Decline of Riparian-associated Birds in California. California Partners in Flight.

Miner, K. L. and D. C. Stokes. 2005. Bats in the South Coast Ecoregion: Status, conservation, issues, and research needs. USDA Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep.

Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.

Moyle, P. B., R. M. Yoshiyama, J. E. Williams, and E. D. Wikramanayake. 1995. Fish Species of Special Concern in California. 2nd ed. California Department of Fish and Game, Rancho Cordova, California. Final Report for Contract No. 21281F.

NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer. Accessed February 2015 from http://explorer.natureserve.org/ranking.htm

[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Endangered and threatened species: Threatened status for two ESUs of steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and California; Final rule. Federal Register 63:13347- 13371.

[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List North American Green Sturgeon as a Threatened or Endangered Species. Federal Register 68:4433-4441.

[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. Endangered and threatened species: Designation of critical habitat for seven evolutionarily significant units of Pacific steelhead and salmon in California. Final rule. Federal Register 70:52488-52626.

[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Threatened status for southern Distinct Population Segment of North American green sturgeon; Final Rule. Federal Register 71:17757-17766.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 63 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Final rulemaking to designate critical habitat for the threatened southern Distinct Population Segment of the North American green sturgeon; Final rule. Federal Register 74:52301-52350.

[NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. No date Orthometric Height Conversion. Accessed February 2015 from http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/VERTCON/vert_con.prl

[NRCS] Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2015. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed February 2015 from: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov

Neuman, K. K., G. W. Page, L. E. Stenzel, J. C. Warriner, and S. Warriner. 2004. Effect of mammalian predator management on snowy plover breeding success. Waterbirds 27:257-263.

Null, R. E., K. S. Niemela, and S. F. Hamelberg. 2012. Post-spawn migrations of hatchery-origin Oncorhynchus mykiss kelts in the Central Valley of California. Environmental Biology of Fishes DOI 10.1007/s10641- 012-0075-5.

Nur, N., S. Zack, J. Evans, and T. Gardali. 1997. Tidal Marsh Birds of the San Francisco Bay Region: Status Distribution, and Conservation of Five Category 2 Taxa. PRBO Conservation Science final draft report to the United States Geological Survey.

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1999. Fishery Management Plan for Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries off the Coasts of Washington, Oregon and California as Revised through Amendment 14. Portland, Oregon.

Page, G. W., C. M. Hickey, and L. E. Stenzel. 2000. Western snowy plover. Pages 281-283 in P. R. Olofson, editor. Goals Project. Baylands Ecosystem Species and Community Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Key Plants, Fish and Wildlife. San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, California.

Plumpton, D. L. and R. S. Lutz. 1993a. Nesting habitat use by burrowing owls in Colorado. Journal of Raptor Research 27:175-179.

Plumpton, D. L. and R. S. Lutz. 1993b. Prey selection and food habits of burrowing owls in Colorado. Great Basin Naturalist 53:299-304.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 64 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Polite, C. 1990. Black-shouldered Kite Elanus caeruleus. In California’s Wildlife, Vol II: Birds. D. C. Zeiner, W. F. Laudenslayer Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White, Eds. California Department of Fish and Game, California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Pp 120-121.

PRISM Climate Group. 2015. Online PRISM Data Explorer. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Accessed through March 2015 from http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu.

Rich, T. 1984. Monitoring burrowing owl populations: implications of burrow re-use. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:178-180.

Rigney, M., and S.L. Granholm. 1990. Least tern Sterna antillarum in D.C. Zeiner, W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K E. Mayer, and M. White, editors. California’s Wildlife. Vol. II: Birds. California Department of Fish and Game, California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System.

Robinson, A. and B. K. Greenfield. 2011. LTMS Longfin Smelt Literature Review and Study Plan. San Francisco Estuary Institute. Prepared for the Long-term Management Strategy for Dredged Materials in San Francisco Bay.

Robinson-Nilsen, C., J. B. Demers, and C. Strong. 2009. Western Snowy Plover Numbers, Nesting Success, Fledgling Success, and Avian Predator Surveys in the San Francisco Bay, 2009. San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory, Milpitas, California and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newark, California.

Rosenfield, J. A. and R. D. Baxter. 2007. Population dynamics and distribution patterns of longfin smelt in the San Francisco estuary. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:1577-1592.

Rosier, J. R., N. A. Ronan, and D. K. Rosenberg. 2006. Post-breeding dispersal of burrowing owls in an extensive California grassland. American Midland Naturalist 155:162-167.

Rottenborn, S. C. 2007. Song sparrow Melospiza melodia. Pages 244-245 in W. G. Bousman, editor. Breeding Bird Atlas of Santa Clara County, California. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society.

Saiki, M. K. and F. H. Mejia. 2009. Utilization by fishes of the Alviso Island Ponds and adjacent waters in South San Francisco Bay following restoration to tidal influence. California Fish and Game 95:38-52

San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory. 2012. Determining the Breeding Extent of the San Francisco Common Yellowthroat and the Alameda Song Sparrow in Santa Clara County, California. Final Report. 17 December 2012.

[BCDC] San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 2012. San Francisco Bay Plan.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 65 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf and J. M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation [online]. Second Edition. California Native Plant Society. Accessed February 2015 from http://vegetation.cnps.org/

[SCVWRP Collaborative] Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative. 2007. Guidelines & Standards for Land Use Near Streams. A Manual of Tools, Standards and Procedures to Protect Streams and Streamside Resources in Santa Clara County. Revised July 2006.

[SCVWD] Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2011. Stream Maintenance Program Update 2011-2022. Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report.

[SCVWRP Collaborative] Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative. 2007. A Manual of Tools, Standards, and Procedures to Protect Streams and Streamside Resources in Santa Clara County.

Shellhammer, H. S. 1982. Reithrodontomys raviventris. Mammalian Species 169(1-3).

Shellhammer, H. S. and R. Duke. 2004. Salt marsh harvest mouse habitat of the South San Francisco Bay: An analysis of habitat fragmentation and escape cover. San Francisco Estuarine Institute.

Skonieczny, M. F. and J. R. Dunk. 1997. Hunting synchrony in white-tailed kites. Journal of Raptor Research 31(1): 79-81.

Spenst, R., T. Keegan, and M. Carbiener. 2012. Tracking fisheries use of newly restored salt ponds in San Francisco Estuary, California. Presentation at the 2012 Restore America’s Estuaries conference (http://www.estuaries.org/pdf/2012conference/room21/session9/Spenst_RAE_2012_pres.pdf).

Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Boston, Massachusetts.

Thomsen, L. 1971. Behavior and ecology of burrowing owls on the Oakland Municipal Airport. Condor 73:177- 192.

Truelove, N. K. 2005. Effects of Estuarine Circulation Patterns and Stress on Migratory Behavior of Juvenile Salmonids (Oncorhynchus sp.). Master’s thesis. Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR.

Trulio, L. A. 2007. Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia. Pages 236-237 in W. G. Bousman, editor. Breeding Bird Atlas of Santa Clara County. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Cupertino, California.

Trulio, L. A. and J. G. Evens. 2000. California black rail. Pages 342-345 in P. R. Olofson, editor. Goals Project. Baylands Ecosystem Species and Community Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Key Plants, Fish and Wildlife. San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, California.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 66 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1970. Conservation of endangered species and other fish or wildlife: Appendix D. United States list of endangered native fish and wildlife. Federal Register 35:16047-16048.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and Clapper Rail Recovery Plan.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Final rule to remove the American peregrine falcon from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife, and to remove the similarity of appearance provision for free-flying peregrines in the conterminus United States; Final rule. Federal Register 64:46542-46558.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast population of the western snowy plover; Final rule. Federal Register 64:68508-68544.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. Recovery plan for the Pacific Coast population of the western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus).

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. Reporting requirement of non-compliance for South San Francisco Bay low salinity salt ponds Order No. R2-2004-0018, WDID No. 2 019438001. Transmittal to Mr. Bruce Wolfe, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, California.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Petition to list the San Francisco-Bay Delta population of the longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) as endangered; Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status review. Federal Register 73:24911-24915.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion for the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Long-term Plan and the Project-level Phase 1 Actions (Corps File Numbers 07-27703S and 08-00103S).

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion for the Alviso Marina County Park Boat Launching Facility Project (Corps File Number 22824S).

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California.

Van Eenennaam, J. P., J. Linares-Casenave, X. Deng, and S. I. Doroshov. 2005. Effect of incubation temperature on green sturgeon embryos, Acipenser medirostris. Environmental Biology of Fishes 72:145-154.

Wheelock, I. G. 1916. Birds of California. A. C. McClurg & Co., Chicago, Illinois.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 67 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Wilson, D. E. and S. Ruff. 1999. The Smithsonian Book of North American Mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.

WRA Environmental Consultants. 2011. Burrowing Owl Mitigation Monitoring Year 9 Annual Report Legacy America Center Open Space Preserve San José, Santa Clara County California. December 2010

Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/231.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White, editors. 1990a. California’s Wildlife. Volume II: Birds. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White, editors. 1990b. California’s Wildlife. Volume III: Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Personal Communications

Hall L. 2013. pers. comm. to Scott Demers. 22 January 2013.

Hurt, R. 2004. (USFWS) email message to S. Rottenborn and L. Henkel, dated 6 August 2004.

Krause J. 2005. (CDFW) pers. comm. to S. Rottenborn at a meeting of the South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project Team, 10 January 2005.

Whyte, Dyan. (California Regional Water Quality Board) email message to P. Boursier, dated 13 January 2015.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates 68 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Appendix A. Special-Status Plants Considered for Potential Occurrence but Rejected

Outside Suitable Lack of Elevation Presumed habitat Edaphic Range for Extirpated absent Requirements Species Scientific Name Common Name Acanthomintha lanceolata Santa Clara thorn-mint x Androsace elongata ssp. acuta California androsace x Arctostaphylos andersonii Anderson's manzanita x Astragalus tener var. tener alkali milk-vetch Atriplex depressa brittlescale Atriplex minuscula lesser saltscale x Azolla microphylla Mexican mosquito fern x Balsamorhiza macrolepis big-scale balsamroot x Calandrinia breweri Brewer's calandrinia x California macrophylla round-leaved filaree x Calochortus umbellatus Oakland star-tulip x x South Coast Range Calystegia collina ssp. venusta morning-glory x x Campanula exigua chaparral harebell x x x Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre Point Reyes bird's-beak x Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta robust spineflower x Cirsium fontinale var. Mt. Hamilton fountain campylon thistle x Clarkia breweri Brewer's clarkia x x x Clarkia concinna ssp. automixa Santa Clara red ribbons x x Clarkia lewisii Lewis' clarkia x Collinsia multicolor San Francisco collinsia x Cypripedium fasciculatum clustered lady's-slipper x Delphinium californicum ssp. Hospital Canyon interius larkspur x Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood x x Dudleya abramsii ssp. Santa Clara Valley setchellii dudleya x x Eriastrum tracyi Tracy's eriastrum x x Eriogonum argillosum clay buckwheat x x x Eriogonum umbellatum var. bahiiforme bay buckwheat x x x Jepson's woolly Eriophyllum jepsonii sunflower x Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri Hoover's button-celery x

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates A-1 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Outside Suitable Lack of Elevation Presumed habitat Edaphic Range for Extirpated absent Requirements Species Scientific Name Common Name San Francisco Erysimum franciscanum wallflower x x Extriplex joaquinana San Joaquin spearscale x Fritillaria agrestis stinkbells x x Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary x phlox-leaf serpentine Galium andrewsii ssp. gatense bedstraw x x x Helianthella castanea Diablo helianthella x Helianthus exilis serpentine sunflower x x x Hoita strobilina Loma Prieta hoita x x x Iris longipetala coast iris x Isocoma menziesii var. diabolica Satan's goldenbush x x Lasthenia conjugens Contra Costa goldfields Leptosiphon acicularis bristly leptosiphon x Leptosiphon ambiguus serpentine leptosiphon x x large-flowered Leptosiphon grandiflorus leptosiphon x x Lessingia hololeuca woolly-headed lessingia x Lessingia micradenia var. glabrata smooth lessingia x x Lessingia tenuis spring lessingia x x Indian Valley bush- Malacothamnus aboriginum mallow x x Malacothamnus arcuatus arcuate bush-mallow x x Malacothamnus hallii Hall's bush-mallow x dusky-fruited Malacothrix phaeocarpa malacothrix x Micropus amphibolus Mt. Diablo cottonweed x Microseris sylvatica sylvan microseris x x Monardella antonina ssp. San Antonio Hills antonina monardella x woodland Monolopia gracilens woolythreads x Navarretia cotulifolia cotula navarretia x prostrate vernal pool Navarretia prostrata navarretia x Perideridia gairdneri ssp. gairdneri Gairdner's yampah x narrow-petaled rein Piperia leptopetala orchid x x Piperia michaelii Michael's rein orchid x x Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. Hickman's popcorn- hickmanii flower x Plagiobothrys glaber hairless popcorn-flower x Psilocarphus brevissimus var. multiflorus Delta woolly-marbles x

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates A-2 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Outside Suitable Lack of Elevation Presumed habitat Edaphic Range for Extirpated absent Requirements Species Scientific Name Common Name Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort x x maple-leaved Sidalcea malachroides checkerbloom x Streptanthus albidus ssp. Metcalf Canyon jewel- albidus flower x x Streptanthus albidus ssp. most beautiful jewel- peramoenus flower x slender-leaved Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina pondweed x Suaeda californica California seablite x Trifolium hydrophilum saline clover x caper-fruited Tropidocarpum capparideum tropidocarpum x

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates A-3 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Appendix B. Plants Identified on the Project Site

Family Scientific Name Common Name Apiaceae Foeniculum vulgare fennel Asteraceae Baccharis pilularis coyote brush Asteraceae Erigeron canadensis horseweed Asteraceae Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce Helminthotheca Asteraceae echioides bristly ox-tongue Asteraceae Silybum marinum milk thistle Brassicaceae Brassica sp. mustard Brassicaceae Lepidium latifolium broadleaved pepperweed Chenopodiaceae Salsola tragus Russian thistle Fabaceae Trifolium sp. clover Fabaceae Vicia americana American vetch Geraniaceae Erodium moschatum musky stork's bill Geraniaceae Erodium sp. filaree Geraniaceae Geranium dissectum cutleaf geranium Malvaceae Malva nicaeensis bull mallow Malvaceae Malva parviflora cheeseweed Onagraceae Epilobium sp. willow herb Plantaginaceae Veronica persica birdeye speedwell Poaceae Avena sp. wild oats Poaceae Bromus diandrus ripgut brome Poaceae Hordeum murinum meadow barley Poaceae Stipa miliacea smilo grass Polygonaceae Rumex sp. willow dock

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates C-1 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Appendix C. Detailed descriptions of Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring On or Adjacent to the Project Site

Federal or State Threatened or Endangered Species

Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris). Federal Listing Status: Threatened; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern. The NMFS listed the southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the green sturgeon as threatened on 7 April 2006 (NMFS 2006). Critical habitat for the southern DPS of the green sturgeon was designated on 9 October 2009 (NMFS 2009). All tidally influenced areas of San Francisco Bay, up to the elevation of mean higher high water, including all tidal portions of the Alviso Slough, have been designated as critical habitat.

The range of the green sturgeon extends from Ensenada, Mexico, to the Bering Sea; the species occurs in coastal waters from the San Francisco Bay to Canada. Green sturgeon occur widely in accessible estuarine habitat, and in summer and fall the species is found in estuaries not associated with known spawning activity and where there are no records of their occurrence farther up the river system (Adams et al. 2007). Spawning within the southern DPS occurs predominantly in the upper Sacramento River (Adams et al. 2007).

Green sturgeon are long-lived, slow-growing fish and the most marine-oriented of the sturgeon species. They have delayed sexual maturity, somewhere between 13 and 20 years, and likely live to a maximum age of 60-70 years (Moyle 2002). Juveniles reside in fresh water, with adults returning to freshwater to spawn when they are more than 15 years of age and more than 4 ft in size. Spawning is believed to occur every 2-5 years (Moyle 2002). In the Sacramento River, they spawn in late spring and early summer (NMFS 2003). Adults typically migrate into fresh water beginning in late February; spawning occurs March-July, with peak activity in April- June (Moyle et al. 1995). Juveniles spend 1-4 years in fresh and estuarine waters before migrating to the ocean (Beamesderfer and Webb 2002).

Green sturgeon are believed to spend the majority of their lives in nearshore oceanic waters, bays, and estuaries. In summer and fall, they commonly occur in estuaries where there has been no known spawning activity and where there are no records of their occurrence farther up the river system (Adams et al. 2007), suggesting that the species may wander widely in accessible estuarine habitat.

Green sturgeon spawn in deep pools or “holes” in large, turbulent, freshwater rivers (Moyle et al. 1995). Specific spawning habitat preferences are unclear, but it is likely that cold, clean water and suitable substrate (large cobble, but also clean sand and bedrock) are important for spawning and embryonic development (Moyle et al. 1995). In the lab, temperatures ranging from 51.8-62.6 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF) were optimal for hatching and

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates C-1 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

developing embryos (Van Eenennaam et al. 2005). Because of these habitat preferences, it is unlikely that South Bay tributaries provide suitable habitat for freshwater-dependent life stages.

There is no evidence that the green sturgeon has ever spawned in any creeks in the Project vicinity or anywhere else in the South Bay. Based on this species’ preferences for streams having strong flow over large cobbles in deep pools, it is unlikely that South Bay tributaries historically provided suitable spawning habitat, and such habitat is certainly absent now.

Green sturgeon juveniles are found throughout the Sacramento/San Joaquin River delta and San Francisco Bay (Beamesderfer et al. 2007, Kelly et al. 2007). Little is known about green sturgeon in the South San Francisco Bay, and the species is currently known to spawn in San Francisco Bay tributaries only in the upper reaches of the Sacramento River. Green sturgeon forage in the South Bay, albeit apparently in low numbers. We are aware of only one definitive record here, that of a radio-tagged individual tracked to a telemetry receiver on the Dumbarton Railroad Bridge (Spenst et al. 2012), and they likely occur in the South Bay only rarely.

There is no suitable spawning habitat for the green sturgeon in Alviso Slough; however, given that green sturgeon are known to wander in estuaries away from spawning streams, they could forage infrequently, and in low numbers, in the reach of Alviso Slough adjacent to the Project site.

Longfin Smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys). Federal Listing Status: Candidate; State Listing Status: Threatened. This southernmost population of longfin smelt is found as far north as Prince William Sound, Alaska, and occurs in the San Francisco Bay. The longfin smelt was declared a threatened species under the CESA in March 2009 and has been petitioned for listing as endangered under the FESA (USFWS 2008a).

Longfin smelt are anadromous, spawning in fresher water and dispersing to more saline estuarine and marine waters to mature (Moyle 2002). Although little is known about the breeding biology of the longfin smelt in San Francisco Bay, the species is thought to spawn at the interface between fresh and brackish water in tidal portions of San Francisco Bay tributaries (Robinson and Greenfield 2011). Spawning may occur from November to June, with the peak of spawning activity likely occurring from February to April (Moyle 2002).

The species occurs in waters having a broad salinity range. Larvae apparently have low salinity tolerance, and Kimmerer et al. (2009) documented that larvae and young juveniles were most numerous in water with a salinity of 2 parts per thousand (ppt), decreasing in abundance as salinity approached 15 ppt. Juveniles migrate to higher-salinity water as they mature. For much of the species’ life cycle, individuals occur in more brackish water with salinities up to 30 ppt, and longfin smelt have been recorded outside the Golden Gate in marine waters where salinity approaches 35 ppt. The species is not very tolerant of warmer water (exceeding 68-72 °F), and during summer, longfin smelt generally move to deeper water (including marine areas), possibly to avoid warmer water in shallower areas. In nearshore waters, longfin smelt are thought to occur primarily in deeper channels (Rosenfeld and Baxter 2007).

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates C-2 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

In the South Bay, longfin smelt have been collected in the Alviso area, including Alviso Slough, Coyote Slough, and inside the Island Ponds (EDAW Inc. 2007, Robinson and Greenfield 2011, Hobbs et al. 2012). Surveys found adults, followed by larvae, in Coyote Slough in 1982 and 1983 (Robinson and Greenfield 2011). Fish surveys conducted for the South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project by Hobbs et al. (2012), which included otter trawls in sloughs and Bay waters around the Eden Landing, Ravenswood, and Alviso pond complexes, detected longfin smelt only in the Alviso pond complex. Here, longfin smelt were captured in December 2010, February 2011, and from October 2011 to March 2012. The species was not detected during other surveys, which were conducted at least monthly from 2010 through 2012, indicating absence between the months of May and October, inclusively. Gravid adult smelt were captured, but larval fish surveys detected no successful spawning in those years.

As a result of this species’ life history and habitat use, as well as the results of recent sampling in the Alviso area by Hobbs et al. (2012), this species is most likely to occur in the South Bay, including the vicinity of the Alviso Slough, from late fall into early spring. It is least likely to occur in this area, and may be absent, from late spring to early fall.

Central California Coast Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Federal Listing Status: Threatened; State Listing Status: None. The steelhead is an anadromous form of rainbow trout that migrates upstream from the ocean to spawn in late fall or early winter, when flows are sufficient to allow them to reach suitable habitat in far upstream areas. In the South San Francisco Bay, adults typically migrate to spawning areas from late December through early April, and both adults and smolts migrate downstream from February through May. Steelhead typically spawn in gravel substrates located in clear, cool, perennial sections of relatively undisturbed streams, with dense canopy cover that provides shade, woody debris, and organic matter. Steelhead usually cannot survive long in pools or streams with water temperatures above 70 °F; however, they can use warmer habitats if adequate food is available. Steelhead populations have declined due to degradation of spawning and rearing habitat, introduction of barriers to upstream migration, over-harvesting by recreational fisheries, and reduction in winter flows due to damming and spring flows due to water diversion.

The NMFS has categorized steelhead into DPSs. The Central California Coast DPS consists of all runs from the Russian River in Sonoma County south to Aptos Creek in Santa Cruz County, including all steelhead spawning in streams that flow into the San Francisco Bay. In 1998, the NMFS published a final rule to list the Central California Coast DPS as threatened under the FESA (NMFS 1998). Critical habitat for this DPS was designated on 2 September 2005 (NMFS 2005). Critical habitat for this species within the Project Area includes the lower Guadalupe River and Alviso Slough.

Steelhead are known to occur in several stream systems in the south San Francisco Bay, and could potentially spawn in virtually any stream reach with suitable spawning habitat that lacks downstream barriers to dispersal. Within Santa Clara County, Central California Coast steelhead are known to occur in, and suitable spawning habitat is present in, San Francisquito Creek, Los Trancos Creek, Stevens Creek, Guadalupe River, Los Gatos Creek, Guadalupe Creek, Alamitos Creek, Calero Creek, Coyote Creek, Upper Penitencia Creek, and Arroyo

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates C-3 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Aguague (Leidy et al. 2005, NMFS 2005). Little is known about how juvenile steelhead use San Francisco Bay and its estuarine habitats; however, studies of juvenile salmon and steelhead estuary use suggest that in general, juvenile steelhead are more likely to use surface current flow, move through estuarine habitats rapidly (thereby having low residence times), and are more likely to occur in deeper channels (Truelove 2005, Melnychuck et al. 2007, Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership 2007). Post-spawning kelts move downstream to the ocean rapidly from spawning tributaries in the Sacramento River (Null et al. 2012).

Alviso Slough represents the lower, tidal portions of the Guadalupe River system, and steelhead are known to migrate through Alviso Slough between spawning areas far upstream and San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean downstream. Suitable spawning habitat is absent from Alviso Slough and the lowermost portion of the Guadalupe River adjacent to the Project site. However, steelhead occur in these stretches during upstream migration of adults (January–April) to spawning areas and downstream migration of both adults and smolts (February–May, but peaking in February-April).

California Ridgway’s Rail (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus). Federal Listing Status: Endangered; State Listing Status: Endangered and Fully Protected. The California Ridgway’s rail (formerly the California clapper rail) is a secretive marsh bird that is currently endemic to marshes of the San Francisco Bay. It formerly nested at several other locations, including Humboldt Bay (Humboldt County), Elkhorn Slough (Monterey County), and Morro Bay (San Luis Obispo County), but is now extirpated from all sites outside of the San Francisco Bay (Harding-Smith 1993). California Ridgway’s rails nest in salt and brackish marshes along the edge of the Bay, and are most abundant in extensive salt marshes and brackish marshes dominated by Pacific cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), pickleweed, and marsh gumplant (Grindelia stricta) and that contain complex networks of tidal channels (Harvey 1980). Shrubby areas adjacent to or within these marshes are also important for predator avoidance at high tides.

Since the mid-1800s, about 90 percent of the San Francisco Bay’s marshlands have been eliminated through filling, diking, or conversion to salt evaporation ponds (Goals Project 1999). As a result, the California Ridgway’s rail lost most of its former habitat, and its population declined severely. The subspecies was listed as endangered by the USFWS in 1970 (USFWS 1970) and by the State of California in 1971. The USFWS approved a joint recovery plan for the salt marsh harvest mouse and the California clapper rail in 1984 (USFWS 1984), and an updated recovery plan n 2014 (USFWS 2014). Critical habitat has not been proposed for the California Ridgway’s rail.

Breeding-season surveys of South Bay marshes for Ridgway’s rails through the early 1990s, summarized by Foin et al. (1997), indicated that the most substantial populations of Ridgway’s rails in the South Bay were, predictably, in the largest sections of tidal salt marsh at Mowry Marsh and Dumbarton Marsh (in the East Bay between the Dumbarton Bridge and Mowry Slough), the Faber/Laumeister Tracts and other marshes in the Palo Alto/East Palo Alto area, and Greco Island in Redwood City. Ridgway’s rails occurred in many other marshes as well, including Ideal Marsh (adjacent to Cargill pond N5), Calaveras Marsh (adjacent to Cargill Ponds M2 and M3), and Triangle Marsh in Alviso. Surveys by H. T. Harvey & Associates and others since the

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates C-4 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

early 1990s, as well as observation by birders, have documented Ridgway’s rails in a number of areas in the Project region, including lower San Francisquito Creek; the Palo Alto Baylands; Hook’s Isle; the mouth of Charleston Slough; lower Permanente and Stevens creeks; Guadalupe Slough (primarily from its confluence with Moffett Channel downstream); Alviso Slough; a number of locations along Coyote Slough, extending upstream through the reach of the slough between Newby Island Landfill and the San José -Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (known as South Coyote Slough or the lower Coyote Creek Bypass); and in the Warm Springs marshes. Although site-specific surveys have not been conducted in all suitable habitat for Ridgway’s rails in the South Bay, this species is likely to occur in tidal salt marsh habitats in a number of additional areas as well.

Few surveys for California Ridgway’s rails have been conducted along the upper reaches of Alviso Slough near the Project site. Although Ridgway’s rails are known to be present in the downstream reaches of Alviso Slough, where the tidal marsh is dominated by salt-marsh plant species, they are not expected to nest in the upstream reaches of Alviso Slough, which are dominated by freshwater vegetation. In 2007, PRBO conducted surveys for California Ridgway’s rails along the middle and lower reaches of Guadalupe and Alviso sloughs (L. Liu, pers. comm. as cited in H. T. Harvey & Associates 2013). Single rails were detected near the mouths of these sloughs (i.e., along Guadalupe Slough near the A5/A6 levee and along Alviso Slough east of Pond A6), but none were heard farther upstream. More recently, Ridgway’s rail surveys for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project detected rails at the mouth of Alviso Slough in areas with cordgrass and other salt marsh vegetation (H. T. Harvey & Associates 2012). On one occasion, a Ridgway’s rail was recorded in brackish/freshwater transition marsh along upper Alviso Slough, as far as the Alviso marina and the Gold Street bridge (14 February 1997; Scott B. Terrill, pers. obs.); this is the only record of the species in the portion of Alviso Slough adjacent to the Project site. Earlier (approximately 1989) an individual was detected in the Alviso Marina (Ron Duke, pers. obs) downstream of the Project site. Such individuals are likely wandering, foraging individuals, and their occurrence in these areas is expected to be sporadic. For example, surveys conducted by the San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory at the Alviso marina found no rails during early spring 2003 and 2004 (C. Strong, pers. comm. as cited in H. T. Harvey & Associates 2013). In addition, pre- construction Ridgway’s rail surveys conducted by the USFWS prior to Pond A8 notch construction in 2010 were negative (C. Strong, pers. comm.). Therefore, any occurrence by Ridgway’s rails in Alviso Slough in the vicinity of the Project site would be by occasional nonbreeding birds.

California Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Threatened and Fully Protected. The California black rail is a small rail that inhabits a variety of marsh types. California black rails are most abundant in extensive tidal marshes with some freshwater input (Evens et al. 1991). They nest primarily in pickleweed-dominated marshes with patches or borders of bulrushes, often near the mouths of creeks. Black rails build nests in tall grasses or marsh vegetation during spring, and lay about six eggs. Nests are usually constructed of pickleweed, and are placed directly on the ground or slightly above ground in vegetation. Black rails feed on terrestrial insects, aquatic invertebrates, and possibly seeds (Trulio and Evens 2000). The California black rail was listed under the CESA in 1971 and is fully protected species under state Fish and Game Code.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates C-5 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

The California black rail reportedly nested in the Alviso area in the early 1900s (Wheelock 1916), but is generally not known to nest in the South Bay. However, black rails were detected during the breeding season in Triangle Marsh north of the Project site in 2012. Fourteen of these rails were tracked throughout the 2012 nesting season in Triangle Marsh, suggesting that the species nests there (Laurie Hall, pers. comm.). Since 2012, the number of reports of calling black rails, especially in spring and early summer, in the Alviso area has increased. Black rails have been reported in a number of areas along lower and middle reaches of Alviso Slough, as far upstream as the old Alviso Marina County Park. However, no individuals have been detected upstream as far as the Project site.

The scarcity of nesting black rails in the South Bay is presumably a result of habitat loss. Tidal marsh habitat has been lost, but perhaps more important to winter survival is the loss of high-tide refugia. Upland transition habitat, both on natural levees within marshes and on landward edges of marshes, has been lost as a result of fill for development, and reductions in marsh size and resulting reductions in natural levees along higher-order channels. Predation of black rails by egrets, herons, gulls, and harriers has been observed in these marshes during winter high tides, as rails are forced into the open by rising water. The importance of this predation on a population level, especially in light of impacts on high tide refugia, is unknown, but it may be a significant factor in the extirpation of nesting populations of the species from the South Bay.

Suitable nonbreeding habitat for California black rails occurs in the tidal marsh in Alviso Slough adjacent to the Project site. The brackish marsh vegetation in this area provides suitable foraging habitat for black rails. This tidal marsh could be used for foraging by small numbers of black rails that disperse into the area after the nesting season, but they are not expected to be used for nesting because there have been no reports of calling individuals upstream from the old Alviso Marina County Park, which is located 0.5 mi north of the Project site.

Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). Federal Listing Status: Threatened; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern. The snowy plover is a small shorebird that occurs on almost every continent. On the Pacific coast, snowy plovers nest on sandy beaches and salt panne habitat from Washington to Baja Mexico. Because they nest during the summer, primarily on beaches in a temperate climate, snowy plovers are susceptible to nest disturbance and other negative interactions with humans. Much of their nesting habitat, particularly in southern California, has been lost to development and high human use. In addition, introduced predators, especially the non-native red fox, have had dramatic effects on snowy plover nesting success (Neuman et al. 2004). In response to severe population declines, the USFWS listed the Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover as threatened in 1993. Critical habitat was designated for this population in 1999 (USFWS 1999b), and a revised recovery plan was released in 2007 (USFWS 2007a). None of the species’ nesting sites within San Francisco Bay are considered critical habitat.

In the South San Francisco Bay, snowy plovers nest on low, barren to sparsely vegetated saline managed pond levees and islands, at pond edges, and on salt panne areas of dry ponds (Page et al. 2000), and preferentially use light-colored substrates such as salt flats (Feeney and Maffei 1991, Marriott 2003). Nesting areas are located

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates C-6 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

near water, where prey (usually brine flies and other insects) are abundant. In some areas, snowy plovers nest within dry saline managed ponds; in other areas where ponds typically hold water through the summer, nests are located primarily on levees. In Santa Clara County, the distribution of snowy plovers is restricted to a few managed ponds and other impoundments along the immediate edge of San Francisco Bay (Bousman 2007a).

In the vicinity of Alviso Slough, snowy plovers previously nested on dry berms within Pond A8 prior to its conversion from a seasonal pond to a tidally-influenced open water pond (CNDDB 2015; Figure 5). The most recently documented plover nest in Pond A8 was a nest located adjacent to an access road in 2009, prior to the introduction of tidal action later than year (Robinson-Nilsen 2009). However, water levels in Pond A8 are now managed high enough that suitable nesting habitat for this species is absent. Although nesting habitat for snowy plovers is present in a number of other locations in the Alviso area, the nearest nesting habitat to the Project site consists of the islands in Pond A12 more than 1000 ft from the Project site.

California Least Tern (Sterna antillarum brownii). Federal Listing Status: Endangered; State Listing Status: Endangered, Fully Protected. California least terns nest in California during the breeding season from April to September (Rigney and Granholm 1990, Baron and Takegawa 1994). Their nesting habitat consists of shallow depressions in sand or small gravel along large tracts of undisturbed beaches (Baron and Takegawa 1994, Marschalek 2008). The loss of available high quality nesting habitat for least terns resulted in a reduction in population size to only 600 known breeding pairs (Baron and Takegawa 1994). In response to severe population declines, the USFWS listed the California least tern as endangered in 1970 (USFWS 1970), and the State of California listed the species as both endangered and fully protected in 1971. No critical habitat has been designated for this species.

Habitat requirements for the California least tern typically consist of quiet, extensive beaches or tidal flats located close to an abundance of small fish (Baron and Takegawa 1994, Rigney and Granholm 1990). In San Francisco Bay, this species’ largest colony is located on an old airport runway at the former Alameda Naval Air Station, although small numbers of least terns nest on islands and salt pannes in former saline managed ponds in a few areas.

California least terns have never been recorded nesting in the vicinity of the Project site or anywhere else in Santa Clara County. However, in recent years, the main post-breeding staging area for least terns in the South Bay has been in the complex of salt ponds immediately north of Moffett Field (Ponds AB1, A2E, and AB2), which are located approximately 4 mi northwest of the Project site. These areas are used for roosting and foraging by adults and juveniles in July and August every year, with typical counts of 20 to 100 terns, although 276 were observed there in July 2004 (S. Rottenborn, pers. obs.). Least terns have also been recorded at other South Bay ponds, including A1, A2E, A3N, A3W, A4, A5, A7, A9, A10, A11, and A14, but not at Pond A8 (Hurt pers. comm., Marschalek 2006, J. Krause pers. comm., USGS Preliminary data, unpub.). Least terns do not generally forage in the sloughs or channels adjacent to the salt ponds but prefer open waters. They forage in the open San Francisco Bay waters; 50 of 58 least terns observed foraging in the bay in July 2004 were doing

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates C-7 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

so over the open waters of the bay while only eight of those terns were seen foraging in salt ponds (S. Rottenborn, pers. obs.).

The Project site is not known to support least tern breeding due to a lack of suitable nesting habitat. Least terns could forage in Alviso Slough and Pond A8, particularly during the post-breeding season when they are known to stage in the area. However, Alviso Slough does not contain optimal foraging habitat due to the species’ preference for broader expanses of open waters (as opposed to relatively narrow sloughs), and least terns have not been recorded in these areas (e.g., by birders, western snowy plover surveyors, or others).

Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris). Federal Listing Status: Endangered; State Listing Status: Endangered and Fully Protected. The salt marsh harvest mouse is a rodent endemic to the salt and brackish marshes, and adjacent tidally influenced areas, of the San Francisco Bay estuary. At present, the distribution of the northern subspecies, R. raviventris halicoetes, occurs along Suisun and San Pablo Bays north of Point Pinole in Contra Costa County, and Point Pedro in Marin County. The southern subspecies, R. raviventris raviventris, is found in marshes in Corte Madera, Richmond, and South Bay mostly south of the San Mateo Bridge (Highway 92).

The salt marsh harvest mouse has evolved to a life in tidal marshes. The species depends mainly on dense pickleweed as its primary cover and food source and may utilize a broader source of food and cover that includes saltgrass and other vegetation typically found in the salt and brackish marshes of this region. In natural systems, salt marsh harvest mice can be found in the middle tidal marsh and upland transition zones. Upland refugia are an essential habitat component during high tide events, when the marsh plain is inundated, as salt marsh harvest mice are highly dependent on cover (Shellhammer 1978, as cited in USFWS 1984). The harvest mouse does not burrow, but the northern subspecies may build nests of loose grasses. Salt marsh harvest mice are capable of breeding year-round, although most reproductive activity likely occurs between March and November, with a peak in mid-summer.

Cover-dependent salt marsh harvest mice are unlikely to move long distances over bare areas, and thus, isolation of suitable habitat may lead to genetic isolation of populations or local extinctions. While they are known to swim well, especially in comparison with western harvest mice, they have not been documented to move more than 13.1 to 16.4 ft across water or more than 16.4 ft over bare ground (Bias 1994, Geissel et al. 1988). The maximum movement through brackish or fresh water vegetation is reported by H. T. Harvey & Associates (Shellhammer 1982), in which two harvest mice moved several hundred feet along a levee side-slope at the upper edge of a brackish marsh. Based on this information, Shellhammer and Duke (2004) have hypothesized that barren areas of land more than 16.4 ft wide, reaches of water more than 42 ft wide, and brackish or freshwater marsh more than 820 ft wide act as barriers to movement of the southern subspecies of the harvest mouse, and hence barriers to gene flow. Areas of bare ground, water, or fresh/brackish marsh less than or equal to these distances may act as filters, reducing the movement of this species (and hence the rate of gene flow) between populations or between portions of a semi-fragmented population. The isolation of populations

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates C-8 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

has contributed to the decline of the species (Shellhammer and Duke 2004) and could lead to local extinctions due to demographic processes or genetic “death.”

The habitat along the bayward (i.e., downstream) reaches of Alviso Slough, where pickleweed is more widely distributed than in the upper reaches of the slough, is adequate to support salt marsh harvest mice. Recent trapping results discovered this species in salt and brackish marshes along Coyote Creek (H. T. Harvey & Associates 2007; CNDDB 2015; Figure 3), indicating that this species could also occur in at least small numbers in the brackish marshes along the lower reaches of Alviso Slough near the mouth of the slough. However, the marsh habitat along the upper reach of Alviso Slough adjacent to the Project site is not appropriate habitat for the species, there is no suitably extensive pickleweed or other salt marsh habitat adjacent to the Project site.

In nearby trapping studies along Coyote Creek to the north (H. T. Harvey & Associates 2007), the majority of salt marsh harvest mice were captured in areas dominated by salt marsh associations such as pickleweed and gumplant (Calaveras Marsh), and salt/brackish marsh associations such as pickleweed and alkali bulrush (Triangle Marsh). Trapping in Warm Springs Marsh resulted in capturing salt marsh harvest mice in areas dominated largely by alkali bulrush, although at approximately half the density of the harvest mice captured at Calaveras and Triangle Marshes. Presumably, the harvest mice were able to use the thick layer of thatch that has developed in that brackish marsh (H. T. Harvey & Associates 2007).

The nearest potentially suitable habitat in for salt marsh harvest mice in Alviso Slough occurs approximately 2 mi downstream (northwest) of the site, where the fringe marshes along the slough are wider and are comprised of pickleweed and other salt and brackish marsh vegetation. Even in the small, isolated areas consisting of pickleweed adjacent to where Project activities will occur, salt marsh harvest mice are expected to be absent because these small areas are isolated from ostensibly suitable habitat to the north by large patches of intervening freshwater marsh and open water habitats. Salt marsh harvest mice also occur in New Chicago Marsh to the northeast (CNDDB 2015), but this marsh is separated by 2000-3000 ft of intervening development in Alviso and thus mice would not be able to disperse from the marsh to Alviso Slough. The biological opinion for the Alviso Marina County Park Boat Launching Facility Project, immediately to the north of the Project, determined that salt marsh harvest mice were absent from marsh in that project footprint (USFWS 2009). The biological opinion for the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Long-term Plan and Project-level Phase 1 Actions also determined that salt marsh harvest mice were absent from the marshes in the vicinity of the Pond A8 notch (USFWS 2008b). The BO also determined that the pickleweed patches on the interior of Pond A8 are unlikely to support salt marsh harvest mice because they are small, isolated, and subject to inundation during high rainfall years and/or when flood flows enter the ponds. Therefore, salt marsh harvest mice are considered absent from within and adjacent to the Project site, and the closest area with potential for their occurrence is the wider fringe marshes with pickleweed and other salt and brackish marsh habitat approximately 2 mi northwest of where Project activities will occur.

California Species of Special Concern and Fully Protected Species

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates C-9 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Central Valley Fall-run Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern. Like the steelhead, the Chinook salmon is an anadromous salmonid. Populations of Pacific salmon have been categorized into Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) by the NMFS; an ESU represents a population of Pacific salmon that is reproductively isolated from other conspecific populations, and is recognized as a distinct evolutionary component of the species. The Central Valley Fall-run ESU represents a population of Chinook salmon that migrate from the ocean to spawning streams in late fall and begin spawning in beds of coarse river gravels between October and December. Populations of fall-run Chinook salmon have suffered the effects of over-fishing by commercial fisheries, degradation of spawning and rearing habitat, added barriers to upstream migration, and reductions in winter flows due to damming. Approximately 40 to 50 percent of spawning and rearing habitats in Central Valley streams have been lost or degraded. Chinook salmon generally spawn in cool waters providing incubation temperatures no warmer than 55 °F. Compared to steelhead, Chinook salmon are more likely to spawn in coarse gravels located lower in the watershed.

Chinook salmon did not historically spawn in streams flowing into South San Francisco Bay. However, small numbers of fall-run Chinook salmon have been found in several such streams within the Project region since the mid-1980s including Coyote Creek, Los Gatos Creek, and the Guadalupe River (Leidy et al. 2003). Genetic analysis, timing of spawning, and the detection of coded wire-tagged hatchery fish in the Project region suggests that these fish are derived from Central Valley fall-run stock (Garcia-Rossi and Hedgecock 2002), possibly hatchery releases, and do not represent a native run.

Because the Project site is located adjacent to the upper, tidal reaches of Alviso Slough, the streambed in the vicinity of the Project site is covered by fine sediment rather than the gravel substrates used for spawning. Therefore, the reach of Alviso Slough adjacent to the Project site is used only during upstream migration of adults and downstream migration of juveniles, but is not used for spawning.

Western Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern. The western pond turtle occurs in ponds, streams, and other wetland habitats in the Pacific slope drainages of California and northern Baja California, Mexico (Bury and Germano 2008). The central California population was historically present in most drainages on the Pacific slope (Jennings and Hayes 1994), but streambed alterations and other sources of habitat destruction, exacerbated by frequent drought events, have caused substantial population declines throughout most of the species’ range (Stebbins 2003). Ponds or slack-water pools with suitable basking sites (such as logs) are an important habitat component for this species, and western pond turtles do not occur commonly along high-gradient streams. Females lay eggs in upland habitats, in clay or silty soils in unshaded (often south-facing) areas up to 0.25 mile from aquatic habitat (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Juveniles feed and grow in shallow aquatic habitats (often creeks) with emergent vegetation and ample invertebrate prey. Nesting habitat is typically found within 600 ft of aquatic habitat (Jennings and Hayes 1994), but if no suitable nesting habitat can be found close by adults may travel overland considerable distances to nest.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates C-10 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

In the Project vicinity, western pond turtles are rare, but are occasionally recorded along the upper reaches of Alviso Slough. The species is not expected to breed on the Project site due to a lack of suitable habitat.

Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern (Nesting). The northern harrier nests in marshes and grasslands with tall vegetation and sufficient moisture to inhibit accessibility of nest sites to predators. This species forages primarily on small mammals and birds in a variety of open grassland, ruderal, and agricultural habitats. Northern harriers forage in a variety of open habitats, especially during the nonbreeding season. The species is fairly widespread as a forager in grasslands, extensive wetlands, and agricultural areas in the Project region during migration and winter. Although suitable nesting habitat is not present on the Project site, foraging habitat is present on the site, and northern harriers nest in small numbers in extensive patches of tidal marsh habitat closer to San Francisco Bay, including marshes along the lower, tidal reaches of Alviso Slough. Thus, this species may occur as a forager on the Project site.

Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern. Burrowing owls occur year-round in the Santa Clara Valley, using open, agricultural or grassland areas with active small mammal burrows, which they use for nesting and roosting. Typical burrowing owl habitat is treeless (because tall trees provide perches for raptors that can easily prey on burrowing owls), with minimal shrub cover and woody plant encroachment, and low density and foliage height diversity, which allows the owls to observe approaches to their nest or roost burrows. In the San Francisco Bay Area, burrowing owls are chiefly associated with burrows of California ground squirrels, which, in addition to providing nesting, roosting, and escape burrows, improve habitat for burrowing owls in other ways. For example, burrowing owls are known to favor areas with short, sparse vegetation (Coulombe 1971, Haug and Oliphant 1990, Plumpton and Lutz 1993a), which provides visual protection from avian predators and foraging habitat, and ground squirrel colonies maintain short vegetation height. In the absence of ground squirrel populations, habitats soon become unsuitable for occupancy by owls.

Burrowing owls are diet generalists. Insects, small mammals, birds, and occasionally amphibians and reptiles may be eaten (Errington and Bennett 1935, Thomsen 1971, Green et al. 1993, Plumpton and Lutz 1993b). Prey size and availability may be more important than prey species. Numerically, insect prey are most often represented, while small mammal prey (e.g., mice and voles) comprise the majority of biomass intake.

The burrowing owl nesting season as recognized by the CDFW runs from 1 February through 31 August. In Santa Clara County, burrowing owl families with non-flying young have been found as early as 30 March, suggesting egg-laying dates in mid to late February, and fledged young still dependent on adults have been found into late August (Trulio 2007). After nesting is completed, adult owls may remain in their nesting burrows or in nearby burrows, or they may migrate and over-winter elsewhere (Gorman et al. 2003). Young birds disperse across the landscape from 0.1 mi to 35 mi from their natal burrows (Rosier et al. 2006). Philopatry (the tendency for individuals to breed at or near their place of birth), site tenacity (the tendency for individuals to breed at or near their prior nest location), and nest burrow reuse have been well documented for burrowing

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates C-11 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

owls (Martin 1973, Gleason 1978, Rich 1984, Plumpton and Lutz 1993a), and burrowing owls may return to a nesting site and attempt to nest even after the site has been developed. Further, past reproductive success may influence future site reoccupancy. Female burrowing owls with large broods tend to return to previously occupied nest sites, while females that fail to breed, or which produce small broods, may change nest territories in subsequent years (Lutz and Plumpton 1999).

The ruderal grasslands within the Project site provide ostensibly suitable nesting, foraging, and roosting habitat for the burrowing owl. However, protocol-level surveys for this species conducted on the Project site on May 3, 8, 10, and 13, 1998; May 24, 25, 26, and 27, 1999 (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1999); and 14, 20, 21, and 24 September, 2000 (H. T. Harvey & Associate 2000a) failed to find any burrowing owls or evidence of their presence (e.g., whitewash, cast pellets, or feathers) on the site. Further, because only one ground squirrel burrow was observed within the Project site during a focused survey conducted on 10 February 2015, burrowing owls are not expected to nest or roost on the site. Several pairs of burrowing owls are known to have nested historically in the vicinity of the Project site (Figure 3) (CNDDB 2015, H. T. Harvey & Associates 1999) and some of these nests are sufficiently close to the Project site that burrowing owls nesting at these locations may forage on the Project site on occasion. However, in recent years, several of the closest breeding pairs have been displaced by development (CNDDB 2015).

Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern (Nesting). The loggerhead shrike is a predatory songbird associated with open habitats interspersed with shrubs, trees, poles, fences, or other perches from which it can hunt (Yosef 1996). Nests are built in densely foliated shrubs or trees, often containing thorns, which offer protection from predators and upon which prey items are impaled. The breeding season for loggerhead shrikes may begin as early as mid- February and lasts through July (Yosef 1996). Nationwide, loggerhead shrike populations have declined significantly over the last 20 years. Loggerhead shrikes are still fairly common in parts of the San Francisco Bay area, but urbanization has reduced available habitat, and local populations are likely declining (Cade and Woods 1997, Humple 2008).

Loggerhead shrikes nest in a number of locations in the Project region where open grassland, ruderal, or agricultural habitat with scattered brush, chaparral, or trees that provide perches and nesting sites occurs (Bousman 2007g). This species occurs slightly more widely (i.e., in smaller patches of open areas providing foraging habitat) during the nonbreeding season. The ruderal grassland habitat on the Project site provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the loggerhead shrike. However, based on the extent of suitable habitat within the Project site and typical territory sizes of this species, no more than one pair of loggerhead shrikes is expected to nest on the Project site.

Yellow Warbler (Setophaga petechia). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern (Nesting). The yellow warbler is a widespread neotropical migrant that inhabits wet deciduous forests throughout North America (Lowther et al. 1999). In California, yellow warblers occupy wooded riparian habitats along the coast, on both eastern and western slopes of the Sierra Nevada up to

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates C-12 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

approximately 1700 ft, and throughout the northern portion of the state (Heath 2008). Their range has remained relatively stable over time, but populations have declined substantially in many localities due to habitat loss (Cain et al. 2003, Heath 2008) and expansion of the brood-parasitic brown-headed cowbird. As a result, nesting yellow warblers have been largely extirpated from the Santa Clara Valley (Heath 2008). Ideal nesting habitat for yellow warblers consists of riparian corridors with dense, shrubby understory and open canopy (Lowther et al. 1999, Cain et al. 2003, Heath 2008). Yellow warblers nest from early May through early August and construct open cup nests in upright forks of shrubs or trees in dense willow thickets or other dense vegetation (Lowther et al. 1999).

Yellow warblers are uncommon breeders in the Project region due to loss of riparian habitat, invasion by non- native plants, development along riparian corridors, and the abundance of the brown-headed cowbird in the San José area. However, small numbers of yellow warblers still nest in remnant riparian areas within Santa Clara County (Bousman 2007b). Suitable nesting habitat consists of riparian corridors, often with an overstory of mature cottonwoods and sycamores, a midstory of box elder and willow, and a substantial shrub understory (Bousman 2007b). Riparian areas with reduced understory due to grazing or disturbance are generally not used by this species, and riparian corridors lacking open ruderal or herbaceous vegetation along the edges of the corridors or with development up to the corridor edge are often avoided as well. Thus, suitable nesting habitat is absent from the Project Site. However, the yellow warbler is an abundant migrant throughout the Project region during the spring and fall, and may occur on the Project site as an occasional migrant.

San Francisco Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern. The San Francisco common yellowthroat inhabits emergent vegetation and nests in fresh and brackish marshes and moist floodplain vegetation around the San Francisco Bay. Common yellowthroats will use small and isolated patches of habitat as long as groundwater is close enough to the surface to encourage the establishment of dense stands of rushes (Scirpus and Juncus spp.), cattails, willows, and other emergent vegetation (Nur et al. 1997, Gardali and Evens 2008). Ideal habitat, however, is comprised of extensive, thick riparian, marsh, or herbaceous floodplain vegetation in perpetually moist areas, where populations of brown-headed cowbirds are low (Menges 1998). San Francisco common yellowthroats nest primarily in fresh and brackish marshes, although they nest in salt marsh habitats that support tall vegetation (Guzy and Ritchison 1999). This subspecies builds open-cup nests low in the vegetation, and nests from mid-March through late July (Guzy and Ritchison 1999, Gardali and Evens 2008).

In the South Bay, the San Francisco common yellowthroat is a fairly common breeder in fresh and brackish marshes. It is known to nest abundantly in the marshes along Alviso Slough. No suitable nesting habitat for this species is present within the Project site itself, but the species breeds commonly in adjacent marsh along Alviso Slough.

Alameda Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern. The Alameda song sparrow is one of three subspecies of song sparrows that nest only in salt marsh habitats in the San Francisco Bay area (Chan and Spautz 2008). Prime habitat for

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates C-13 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Alameda song sparrows consists of large areas of tidally influenced salt marsh dominated by cordgrass and gumplant and intersected by tidal sloughs, offering dense vegetative cover and singing perches. Although the special-status pusillula subspecies (the “species” of special concern) is occasionally found in brackish marshes dominated by bulrushes, it is apparently very sedentary and is not known to disperse upstream into freshwater habitats (Basham and Mewaldt 1987). While the range of the Alameda song sparrow has remained relatively unchanged over time, populations have been reduced substantially and are continually threatened by the loss and fragmentation of salt marshes around the Bay (Nur et al. 1997, Chan and Spautz 2008).

Song sparrows nest as early as March, but peak nesting activity probably occurs in May and June. Song sparrows that nest in salt marshes in the Bay area (including pusillula) are known to nest about two weeks earlier than the more widespread gouldii subspecies, which nests farther inland in freshwater habitats (Johnston 1954; Johnston 1956). This early nesting by pusillula is apparently an adaptation to breeding in a tidal environment, as high tides in late spring and early summer may destroy large numbers of nests.

Suitable nesting habitat for the Alameda song sparrow is not present on the Project site. However, song sparrows breed commonly in the marshes along Alviso Slough adjacent to the Project site. The primary habitat for the pusillula subspecies of song sparrow is fully tidal salt marsh. These song sparrows apparently nest along the lengths of tidal sloughs and the creeks that flow into them. Where suitable nesting habitat is continuous along such creeks, the species appears to nest continuously from tidal salt marshes, where the breeding subspecies is pusillula, upstream to freshwater marsh and woody riparian habitats, where the breeding subspecies is gouldii. The line of demarcation (or perhaps more accurately, the zone of intergradation) along these sloughs between these two subspecies is unknown (Rottenborn 2007); a recent study indicates that song sparrows nesting along the Upper Alviso Slough may be intergrades between the pusillula subspecies and the gouldii subspecies (San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory 2012).

Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern (Nesting Colony). Tricolored blackbirds are found primarily in the Central Valley and in central and southern coastal areas of California. This species is considered a California species of special concern (at its nesting colonies) due to concerns over the loss of wetland habitats in the state. The tricolored blackbird is highly colonial in its nesting habits, and forms dense nesting colonies that, in some parts of the Central Valley, may consist of up to tens of thousands of pairs. This species typically nests in tall, dense, stands of cattails or tules, but also nests in blackberry, wild rose bushes, and tall herbs. Nesting colonies are usually located near fresh water. Tricolored blackbirds form large, often multi-species flocks during the nonbreeding period and range more widely than during the nesting season.

Suitable nesting habitat for the tricolored blackbird is not present on the Project site, as this species is not known to breed in tidal marsh in the South Bay, where all ostensibly suitable emergent vegetation is located. However, the species may forage in the Project area during the nonbreeding season, and may roost in marshes along upper Alviso Slough.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates C-14 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern. The pallid bat is a light brown or sandy-colored, long-eared, moderate-sized bat that occurs throughout California with the exception of the northwest corner of the state and the high Sierra Nevada (Zeiner et al. 1990b). Pallid bats are most commonly found in oak savannah and in open dry habitats with rocky areas, trees, buildings, or bridge structures that are used for roosting (Zeiner et al. 1990b, Ferguson and Azerrad 2004). Coastal colonies commonly roost in deep crevices in rocky outcroppings, in buildings, under bridges, and in the crevices, hollows, and exfoliating bark of trees. Night roosts often occur in open buildings, porches, garages, highway bridges, and mines. Colonies can range in size from a few individuals to over a hundred (Barbour and Davis 1969), and usually consist of at least 20 individuals (Wilson and Ruff 1999). Pallid bats typically winter in canyon bottoms and riparian areas. After mating during the late fall and winter, females leave to form maternity colonies, often on ridge tops or other warmer locales (Johnston et al. 2006). Pallid bat roosts are very susceptible to human disturbance, and urban development has been cited as the most significant factor contributing to their regional decline (Miner and Stokes 2005).

Pallid bats were likely present throughout the South Bay historically, but they are slowly being extirpated from the area due to anthropogenic disturbance and habitat loss. No trees with suitably large cavities to provide roosting habitat for pallid bats are present on the Project site. Further, pallid bats have been extirpated from highly urbanized areas close to the Bay in the region, and thus this species is not expected to roost in the Project vicinity. However, individuals from more remote roosts could potentially forage on the Project site over open habitats on rare occasions

State Fully Protected Species American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Fully Protected. The American peregrine falcon occurs throughout much of the world, and is known as one of the fastest flying birds of prey. Peregrine falcons prey almost entirely on birds, which they kill while in flight. These falcons nest on ledges and caves on steep cliffs, as well as on human-made structures such as buildings, bridges, and electrical transmission towers. In California, they are known to nest along the entire coastline, the northern Coast, and the Cascade Ranges and Sierra Nevada.

A severe decline in populations of the widespread North American subspecies anatum began in the late 1940s. This decline was attributed to the accumulation of DDE, a metabolite of the organochlorine pesticide DDT, in aquatic food chains. When concentrated in the bodies of predatory birds such as the peregrine falcon, this contaminant led to reproductive effects, such as the thinning of eggshells. The American peregrine falcon was listed as endangered by the USFWS in 1970 (USFWS 1970) and by the State of California in 1971. Recovery efforts included the banning of DDT in North America, and captive breeding programs to help bolster populations. The USFWS removed the American peregrine falcon from the endangered Species List in 1999 (USFWS 1999a), and from the state endangered species list in 2009.

The only locations within the Project vicinity where peregrines have been detected nesting are in old raven and hawk nests on electrical transmission towers within managed ponds in the Mountain View/Alviso area. The

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates C-15 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

species is not known or expected to nest in the immediate Project area. However, peregrines nesting elsewhere in the South Bay, as well as migrants and wintering birds, forage occasionally in the Project area.

Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Fully Protected. In California, the golden eagle is an uncommon permanent resident and migrant throughout the state. The species’ breeding range within California excludes only the Central Valley, the immediate coast in the far north, and the southeastern corner of the state (Zeiner et al. 1990a). Recent declines of golden eagle populations have occurred in several western states in North America, including California, primarily because of loss of habitat and mortalities resulting from human activities (Kochert et al. 2002, Good et al. 2007). Further declines in eagle populations are expected to occur as long as habitat loss and anthropogenic landscape alteration continue (Good et al. 2007).

The golden eagle nests in a range of open habitats, including desert scrub, foothill cismontane woodlands, and annual or perennial grasslands (Zeiner et al. 1990a, Kochert et al. 2002). Golden eagle nesting habitat is characterized by large, remote patches of grassland or open woodland; a hilly topography that generates lift; an abundance of small mammal prey; and tall structures that serve as nest platforms and hunting perches (Kochert et al. 2002). Once a breeding pair establishes a territory, they may build a number of nests in tall structures such as tall trees or snags, cliffs, or utility towers (Zeiner et al. 1990a, Kochert et al. 2002), only one of which is used in any given year (Kochert et al. 2002). The eagle breeding season begins in late January and continues through August (CDFG 2008). Following the nesting period, adult eagles usually remain in or near their breeding territory (Zeiner et al. 1990a). Young birds in California tend to be sedentary, remaining in or near their parental home ranges (Kochert et al. 2002).

In the South Bay, golden eagles nest widely in the Diablo Range and less commonly in the Santa Cruz Mountains (Bousman 2007c), outside the Project area. No suitable nesting habitat for golden eagles occurs within or adjacent to the Project Site. Suitable foraging habitat for golden eagles occurs on the Project site, and nonbreeding eagles may forage there on occasion. However, this species occurs very infrequently around the immediate edge of the baylands in the South Bay, and based on the infrequency with which it has been reported in this heavily birded area by birders, it is expected to forage in open habitats within and adjacent to the Project site only on rare occasions.

White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Fully Protected. In California, white-tailed kites can be found in the Central Valley and along the coast, in grasslands, agricultural fields, cismontane woodlands, and other open habitats (Zeiner et al. 1990a, Dunk 1995, Erichsen et al. 1996). White-tailed kites are year-round residents of the state, establishing nesting territories that encompass open areas with healthy prey populations, and snags, shrubs, trees, or other nesting substrates (Dunk 1995). Nonbreeding birds typically remain in the same area over the winter, although some movements do occur (Polite 1990). The presence of white-tailed kites is closely tied to the presence of prey species, particularly voles, and prey base may be the most important factor in determining habitat quality for white-tailed kites (Dunk and Cooper 1994, Skonieczny and Dunk 1997). Although the species recovered after population declines

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates C-16 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016

during the early 20th century, its populations may be exhibiting new declines as a result of recent increases in habitat loss and disturbance (Dunk 1995, Erichsen et al. 1996).

In the Project vicinity, white-tailed kites are known to nest along the northern edge of Santa Clara County throughout the open areas edging the San Francisco Bay (Bousman 2007d). Suitable foraging habitat for the white-tailed kite is present on the Project site and potentially suitable nesting sites are present in trees ~120 ft east of the Project site.

Residence Inn and Event Center H. T. Harvey & Associates C-17 Biological Resources Report 29 January 2016