appendix b: biological resources report€¦ · san jose martinez stockton hollister fairfield...

Appendix B: Biological Resources Report

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

JUNIPERO SERRA TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT

Prepared by:

H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES

Steve Rottenborn, Ph.D., Principal Patrick Boursier, Ph.D., Senior Plant Ecologist

Ginger Bolen, Ph.D., Project Manager Catherine Roy, M.S., Plant Ecologist

Prepared for:

David J. Powers & Associates 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200

San Jose, CA 95126 Attn: Kristy Weis

26 September 2011 Project No. 3283-01

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................. i INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION......................................................................................................... 1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Facilities.................................................................................................................... 1 Proposed Project ..................................................................................................................... 2

METHODS ......................................................................................................................................3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .....................................................................................................4

GENERAL PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION......................................................................... 4 BIOTIC HABITATS .................................................................................................................. 5

Ornamental Woodland ............................................................................................................ 5 California Annual Grassland................................................................................................... 7 Drainage Channel/Vegetated Swales ...................................................................................... 8 Developed ............................................................................................................................... 8

REGULATORY SETTING...........................................................................................................11 FEDERAL ................................................................................................................................ 11

Clean Water Act.................................................................................................................... 11 Federal Endangered Species Act .......................................................................................... 12 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act ....................................................................................... 12

STATE...................................................................................................................................... 12 Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act .. 12 California Endangered Species Act ...................................................................................... 13 California Environmental Quality Act.................................................................................. 14 California Fish and Game Code............................................................................................ 15

LOCAL ..................................................................................................................................... 15 County of Santa Clara Tree Ordinance and Preservation Code............................................ 15 State Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 17 — Oak Woodland Protection.......................... 16

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES AND SENSITIVE HABITATS...................................................18 Special-status Plant Species .................................................................................................. 21 Special-status Animal Species .............................................................................................. 21 Federal or State Threatened or Endangered Species............................................................. 26 California Species of Special Concern ................................................................................. 30 Sensitive and Regulated Plant Communities and Habitats ................................................... 33 Non-Native and Invasive Plant and Aquatic Species............................................................ 33

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................................................35 KEY ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................................. 35 IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT ..................................................... 36

Impacts on Ornamental Woodland ....................................................................................... 36 Impacts on California Annual Grassland .............................................................................. 36 Impacts on the Drainage Channel and Vegetated Swales..................................................... 37 Impacts on Potentially Nesting White-tailed Kites and Loggerhead Shrikes....................... 37 Impacts on Habitat for and Individuals of Certain Non-breeding Special-Status Wildlife Species .................................................................................................................................. 37

Junipero Serra Traffic Calming Project Biological Resources Report

H. T. Harvey & Associates26 September 2011

i

Impacts on Pallid Bats .......................................................................................................... 38 IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION................. 38

Impacts on Special-status Plants ........................................................................................... 38 Impacts on Water Quality ..................................................................................................... 40 Impacts to the California Tiger Salamander ......................................................................... 41 Impacts to Habitat for and Individual San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrats .................... 44

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS...................................................................................................... 44 COMPLIANCE WITH ADDITIONAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO

BIOTIC RESOURCES OF THE PROJECT SITE............................................................46 REGULATORY OVERVIEW FOR NESTING BIRDS ......................................................... 46

LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................................47 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................................................................ 50

FIGURES: Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2. Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 3. Biotic Habitats Map........................................................................................................ 6 Figure 4. CNDDB Plants Map..................................................................................................... 19 Figure 5. CNDDB Wildlife Map ................................................................................................. 20 Figure 6. California Tiger Salamander Sink Habitat ................................................................... 28 TABLES: Table 1. Biotic Habitat/Land Use Acreages within the Study Area. ............................................. 5 Table 2. Special-status Animal Species, Their Status, and Potential Occurrence in the Project

Study Area. ........................................................................................................................... 22 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A. SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES REJECTED FOR OCCURRENCE A-1 APPENDIX B. PLANTS IDENTIFIED ON THE PROJECT SITE........................................ B-1



ii

INTRODUCTION

This report describes the biological resources present in the area of the proposed Junipero Serra Traffic Calming Project (Project). It includes a description of the Project, study methodology, and affected environment, as well as the potential impacts of the proposed Project and recommended measures to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Location

The proposed Project alignment is composed of an approximately 0.5-mile (mi) segment of Junipero Serra Boulevard between Campus Drive East and Stanford Avenue, near the southwestern portion of the Stanford University Campus, in Santa Clara County, California (Figure 1). It is located in the Palo Alto, California 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle, Township 6 South, Range 3 East, Sections 14 and 15.

Purpose and Need

The Project area is unique from other segments of Junipero Serra Boulevard in that there are 18 residences along the roadway, each with individual access driveways. The Project area is also the segment in which many commuters enter and exit the Stanford University campus, as well as pedestrians and bicyclists. In addition, there is a crest vertical curve between Santa Maria Avenue and Campus Drive East that limits sight distance. The combination of high-speed vehicles with these other factors has caused concern regarding safety within the Project area. To address these concerns, the County of Santa Clara (County), with input from the neighborhood association, City of Palo Alto, and Stanford University, has been actively studying options for traffic calming to reduce speeds on Junipero Serra Boulevard. To date, the following improvements have been installed:

• Double yellow striping along the entire length of the Project alignment with broken yellow striping at driveways

• Median striping along the entire length of the Project alignment • “25 mph” advisory speed signs • Gateway signage at both ends of the Project alignment to increase driver awareness of the

need to slow down However, a study completed after the above improvements were installed found that vehicles continued to travel faster than the posted speed limit (CCS Planning and Engineering Inc. 2003).

Existing Facilities

Currently, the Project alignment consists of a 2-lane roadway (one lane in each direction, each lane 12 feet [ft] wide) with a 4-ft wide median down the center of the roadway. The roadway



1

includes 7 to 8-ft paved shoulders on both sides. The paved shoulders are designated bicycle lanes of varying widths with “No Parking” signs in some locations. A T-intersection with Santa Maria Way is located approximately mid-way through the Project alignment and is limited to right-in/right-out access. Several residential driveways connect to the roadway long the length of the Project.

Proposed Project

The County proposes to provide additional traffic calming improvements along an approximately 0.5-mi segment of Junipero Serra Boulevard between Campus Drive East and Stanford Avenue (hereafter study area; Figure 2). The County proposes to widen the roadway within the study area between approximately 10 and 65 ft to accommodate the following improvements:

• Two, 12-ft wide travel lanes (one in each direction)

• A 10-ft wide raised and landscaped median that includes five 5-ft wide breaks to allow for bicycle and pedestrian crossings

• Five-ft wide Class II (on-street, striped) bicycle lanes in each direction

• Three bulbs: 2 bulbs would consist of “teardrop” entry medians and be located at the northwestern and southeastern ends of the Project alignment, and the third bulb would be located at the Santa Maria Avenue intersection and include a “diamond” entry median and right-in/right-out access at the intersection. The roadway would be widened approximately 7 and 24-ft on each side of the roadway for these 3 bulbs.

In addition, the County proposes the following improvements:

• Realignment of the existing drainage channel on the south side of the roadway to accommodate the proposed western bulb

• Installation of street lighting at the bulb locations

• Installation of signage and pavement delineation

• Construction of drainage facilities such as overside drains and inlets

• Reconditioning of existing drainage swales

• Replacement of existing drainage inlets and pipes

• Relocation of existing utilities where required.

• Six driveways on the south side of Junipero Serra Boulevard east of Santa Maria Avenue would be temporarily impacted when the Project removes and replaces existing storm drain lines located beneath the driveways. In addition, the Project would adjust 2 existing driveways on the south side of Junipero Serra Boulevard directly east and west of the proposed bulb to conform to the proposed road widening.



2

1 0 10.5Miles±

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂_̂

_̂ _̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

Napa

Oakland

San Jose

StocktonMartinez

Hollister

Fairfield

Santa Cruz

San Rafael

Santa Rosa

Redwood City

San Francisco

SO L A N O

SA N TA C L A R A

A L A M E D A

N A PA

SO N O M A

C O N T R A C O S TA

M A R I N

SA N M AT E O

SA N TA C R U Z

SA N JO A Q U I N

STA N I SL A U S

SA N B E N IT O

Y O L O

M O N T E R E Y

SA N FR A N C I SC O

M E R C E D

PACIFICOCEAN

Project Location

Detail

California

0 20

Miles

±

Figure 1: Vicinity Map

September 2011

N:\P

rojec

ts\28

41-01

\05\R

eport

s\BA

Project Vicinity

Junipero Serra Traffic Calming ProjectBiological Resources Report (3283-01)

Match

line S

heet

1

Fren

chma

ns R

d

Junipero Serra Blvd

Vegetated Swales

Vegetated SwalesVegetated SwaleVegetated Swale

Santa

Mar

ia Rd

Match

line S

heet

2

Match

line S

heet

2

Junipero Serra Blvd

Drainage Channel

Drainage Channel

Vegetated Swales Vegetated Swales

120 0 12060Feet±

Figure 2: Study AreaSeptember 2011

N:\P

rojec

ts320

0\328

3-01\R

eport

s\Biol

ogica

l Res

ource

s

Junipero Serra Traffic Calming Project Biological Resources Report (3283-01)

LEGENDStudy Area

SHEET 1

SHEET 2

METHODS

Prior to conducting field work, H. T. Harvey & Associates biologists reviewed Project plans; recent ecological studies/summaries for other projects in the vicinity (e.g., Draft Stanford University Habitat Conservation Plan); aerial photos and topographic maps; a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) species list for the Palo Alto, California 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle and the surrounding eight quadrangles; the California Department of Fish and Game’s (CDFG) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2011); Calflora (2011); the Consortium of California Herbaria (2011); and other relevant scientific literature, technical databases, and resource agency reports in order to assess the current distribution of special-status plants and wildlife in the Project vicinity. For the purposes of this report, the general vicinity of the study area is defined as the area within a 5-mi radius. Reconnaissance-level field surveys of the study area were conducted by H. T. Harvey & Associates senior wildlife biologist G. Bolen, Ph.D., and botanist Catherine Roy, M.S., on 8 September 2011. The purpose of these surveys was to provide a Project-specific impact assessment for development of the proposed Project as described above. Specifically, surveys were conducted to: (1) assess existing biotic habitats and general wildlife communities in the study area, (2) assess the site for its potential to support special-status species and their habitats, and (3) identify potential jurisdictional habitats, such as waters of the U.S. and riparian habitat.



3

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

GENERAL PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION

The study area is located approximately 4 mi east of the center of the City of Palo Alto, at the eastern toe of the Santa Cruz Mountains. To the west of the study area is a large open space area designated as Academic Reserve by Stanford University, known locally as the Dish Area. The Dish Area is composed of undeveloped lands with paved walking trails open to the public. Stanford's Conservation Biology Program is also directing a program of environmental restoration in portions of the Dish Area. Land use to the north and east of the study area is predominantly composed of broadly spaced residential homes, and private and public open space. The main Stanford University campus is located approximately 0.5 mi north of the study area and Lagunita is located approximately 0.4 mi northeast the study area. The elevations in the study area range from approximately 170 ft at the southeastern end to 210 ft at the northwestern end. The average annual temperatures in the region range from approximately 44 to 74 degrees Fahrenheit (˚F), and the average annual precipitation is approximately 30 inches (NRCS 2011a). The soils in the study area are composed of 5 general types: (1) Alo-Altamont complex, 15-30 percent slopes, (2) Urbanland-Stevens Creek complex, 2–9 percent slopes (3) Urban land-Botella complex, 2–9 percent slopes, (4) Cropley clay, 2–9 percent slopes, and (5) Urban land-Cropley complex 0–2 percent slopes (NRCS 2011b). The majority of the study area is underlain by Alo-Altamont complex, 15–30 percent slopes soils, which contain approximately 50 percent Alo soils, 35 percent Altamont soils, and 35 percent soils with minor components of Cropley and Kawenga soils. Alo soils are found on hills and are considered well-drained soils that are derived from residuum weathered from calcareous shale. The upper profile is clay to a depth of approximately 2 inches over very silty clay to a depth of approximately 25 inches, then clay to 35 inches over paralithic bedrock. The Altamont soil that is included in this soil type description is a well-drained soil that is composed of clay loam to a depth of approximately 10 inches, over clay to 40 inches over paralithic bedrock. Both of these soils have a maximum calcium carbonate content of approximately 2–5 percent. The remaining 4 soil types are similar in that they are all well-drained with profiles made up of varying degrees of sandy loams, silt loams, and clay loams, with the exception of the Cropley clay soils, which are predominantly composed of clay (NRCS 2011b). There are no wetland features identified by the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (2011) in the study area. However, the NWI identifies a palustrine, emergent, diked, seasonally flooded wetland in the Dish Area, near the drainage feeding into the drainage channel in the study area. In addition, Lagunita is identified as a palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, semipermanently flooded, diked or impounded feature, and portions of San Francisquito Creek located north of the study area, and Matadero Creek located south of the study area are both classified as palustrine, forested, temporarily flooded features.



4

BIOTIC HABITATS

Reconnaissance-level surveys revealed four biotic habitats/land use types in the study area: ornamental woodland, California annual grassland, drainage channel/vegetated swales, and developed. These habitats and land uses are described in detail below, and their distribution within the study area is depicted in Figure 3. Wherever possible, habitats were described based on Holland’s system of classification (1986), a relatively coarse level of classification based on general species assemblages and broad edaphic characteristics. Table 1 provides the approximate acreage of each habitat and land use type within the study area boundary. Table 1. Biotic Habitat/Land Use Acreages within the Study Area.

Biotic Habitat/Land Use Total Area (ac) Ornamental woodland 3.51 California annual grassland 1.13 Drainage channel/vegetated swales 0.19 Developed 4.15 Total 8.98

Ornamental Woodland

Vegetation. Ornamental woodland is the most common habitat type in the study area, covering approximately 3.51 acres (ac). This habitat is made up of dense to open woodland of a variety of native and ornamental trees and shrubs that were intentionally planted or have become established as volunteer seedlings along the roadside (Photograph 1). Aerial imagery of the study area in 1948 (Google Earth 2011) shows few trees along Junipero Serra Boulevard at that time, indicating that the majority of the ornamental woodland has become established in the last 60 years. Native tree species that are common in the ornamental woodland include coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and valley oak (Quercus lobata). Common non-native trees include eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.), Atlantic cedar (Cedrus atlantica), ornamental pine (Pinus sp.), and Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia). The understory is composed of ornamental plants such as oleander (Nerium oleander), cotoneaster (Cotoneaster sp.), and English ivy (Hedera helix), and roadside weeds such as wild oats (Avena fatua), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), and ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus). Wildlife. The wildlife most often associated with landscaped areas are those that are most tolerant of periodic human disturbances, including several introduced species such as European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), rock doves (Columba livia), and house mice (Mus musculus). Native species that are able to utilize these habitats include western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis), American robins (Turdus migratorius), Brewer’s blackbirds (Euphagus cyanocephalus), northern mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos), mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus), California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi), black-tailed hares (Lepus californicus), and striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis). In addition, numerous San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) houses as well as aerial nests were observed scattered throughout the ornamental woodlands in the Project area.



5

Match

line S

heet

1

Fren

chma

ns R

d

Junipero Serra Blvd

Vegetated Swales

Vegetated Swales

Vegetated Swale

Vegetated Swale

Santa

Mar

ia Rd

Match

line S

heet

2

Match

line S

heet

2

Junipero Serra BlvdDrainage Channel

Drainage Channel

Vegetated Swales Vegetated Swales

120 0 12060Feet±

Figure 3: Habitat MapSeptember 2011

N:\P

rojec

ts320

0\328

3-01\R

eport

s\Biol

ogica

l Res

ource

s


LEGENDStudy Area

Habitat Types & Land UsesCalifornia Annual Grassland (1.13 ac)Ornamental Woodland (3.51 ac)Drainage Channel & Vegetated Swales (0.19 ac)Developed (4.15 ac)

SHEET 1

SHEET 2

California Annual Grassland

Vegetation. California annual grassland habitat covers approximately 1.13 ac of the study area (Figure 3; Photograph 2). This habitat occurs primarily in openings to the south and west of Junipero Serra Boulevard where the study area is adjacent to the Dish Area. California annual grassland habitats are highly dynamic, varying in species dominance seasonally due to the ephemeral nature of annual species, which germinate, grow rapidly, and dehisce within an average period of 2–3 months. The quality of these habitats is generally based on the level of anthropogenic disturbance, which largely determines the diversity and native abundance of the grassland. Typically, grasslands with less disturbance support more natives and higher diversity than more disturbed grasslands that support less natives and lower diversity. At the time of the reconnaissance survey, the stretch of California annual grassland present southwest of Junipero Serra Boulevard near the eastern end of the study area was dominated by dry and decaying, non-native annual grasses such as wild oats, soft chess brome (Bromus diandrus), and rattail fescue (Vulpia myuros). Invasive species such as Italian thistle and common St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) were also present, as well as green patches of low-growing saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) where the ground retains slightly more water for longer periods throughout the year. Also present along this typical roadside stretch of grassland were a few small to medium-sized native coast live oaks and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) shrubs, as well as acacia (Acacia sp.) seedlings spaced along the fenceline. West of the fenceline, an approximately 50-ft wide stretch of California annual grassland had been disked. Very little vegetation remained in the upturned soil with the exception of some common St. Johnswort, which had rapidly re-colonized the disked soils. The California annual grassland habitat present south of Junipero Serra Boulevard near the western end of the study area is a moderately high quality grassland composed of many non-native grasses such as wild oats and soft chess brome, as well as native grasses such as one-sided bluegrass (Poa secunda ssp. secunda) and annual hairgrass (Deschampsia danthonioides). A large population of the highly fragrant hayfield tarweed (Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia) was flowering at the time of the survey while several unidentifiable herbs in the sunflower family (Asteraceae) and natives such as blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum) were dry and dehisced among the grasses. The quality of the annual grassland habitat in this portion of the study area is threatened by an adjacent, approximately 200-ft² patch of invasive yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Wildlife. Annual grassland habitat in the study area attracts reptiles and amphibians such as the western fence lizard, western skink (Eumeces skiltonianus), and western toad (Anaxyrus boreas) that feed on invertebrates found within and beneath debris in the vegetation. Insect-eating birds, such as the western scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), and northern mockingbird, also use this habitat for foraging, and the scattered trees provide nesting habitat for some of these species. Bird species such as the mourning dove, golden-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla), and white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) forage on the seed crop this community provides, and a number of mammal species, such as the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), and black-tailed hare, forage and nest within these grasslands. These species, in turn, attract predators such as the



7

gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus).

Drainage Channel/Vegetated Swales

Vegetation. Stormwater runoff from Junipero Serra Boulevard and water draining from the adjacent open space is directed through the study area via a drainage channel (Photograph 3) and a number of vegetated swales (Photograph 4) that run approximately parallel to the road (Figure 3). These drainage features cover approximately 0.19 ac of the study area. The vegetated swales are shallow, approximately 4–8 inches deep and 2 ft wide, and are spaced along the west side of Junipero Serra Boulevard in front of the residential homes. They have earthen beds and are sparsely vegetated with escaped landscape plants, such as English ivy and cotoneaster, and roadside weeds, such as wild oat and Italian thistle. The swales appear to convey stormwater runoff for a brief period after rains but do not support any wetland vegetation. They are directed into culverts as they pass under driveways and appear to ultimately be piped under Junipero Serra Boulevard or flow into the drainage channel at the north end of the study area. The drainage channel located on the southwest side of Junipero Serra Boulevard at the western end of the study area (Figure 3) is fed seasonally by an intermittent drainage that drains off the adjacent Dish Area. Within the study area, the drainage channel flows north and west, diverging at its northernmost end into 2 culverts, one of which routes flows north under Junipero Serra Boulevard. Within the study area, the eastern bank of the drainage channel is lined with sacrete, and the majority of the channel bed is lined with concrete. The western bank is earthen. Small woody trees and shrubs, such as young coast live oaks, coyote brush, toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), cotoneaster seedlings, and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), grow above the channel and on the banks. Herbaceous plants such as triangle fern (Pentagramma triangularis), soft chess brome, and creeping wildrye (Leymus triticoides) grow on the banks and in the sediment that has accumulated on the bottom of the channel. Wildlife. Because the vegetated swales do not hold standing water for long periods and do not support wetland vegetation, wildlife use of this habitat is similar to that of the surrounding habitats. Wildlife use of the drainage channel is limited as the channel within the study area is predominately concrete lined and does not support wetland vegetation or suitable breeding habitat for amphibians. However, many of the wildlife species occurring in adjacent habitat types likely use the vegetation along the channel banks for foraging, cover, and/or breeding.

Developed

Vegetation. Developed land uses in the study area cover approximately 4.15 ac and include the paved surfaces of Junipero Serra Boulevard, Santa Maria Avenue, and driveways leading onto Junipero Serra Boulevard. These paved areas are mostly devoid of vegetation as the pavement and road surfaces are relatively new. However, some hardy weeds, including ripgut brome, Italian thistle, and English ivy, are able to grow in cracks in the asphalt. Wildlife. This habitat provides few resources to wildlife species. Although some species associated with adjacent habitats may forage on the road shoulders to some extent, use of this habitat by wildlife is expected to be limited.



8

Photograph 1. Ornamental woodland and developed habitat

Photograph 2. Annual grassland



9

Photograph 3. Drainage channel

Photograph 4. Vegetated swale



10

REGULATORY SETTING

Biological resources within the study area are regulated by a number of federal, state, and local laws and ordinances, as described below.

FEDERAL

Clean Water Act

Areas meeting the regulatory definition of “waters of the U.S.” (jurisdictional waters) are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under provisions of Section 404 of the 1972 Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act). These waters may include all waters used, or potentially used, for interstate commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, all interstate waters, all other waters (intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, playa lakes, natural ponds, etc.), all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as “waters of the U.S.,” tributaries of waters otherwise defined as “waters of the U. S.,” the territorial seas, and wetlands (termed Special Aquatic Sites) adjacent to “waters of the U.S.” (33 CFR, Part 328, Section 328.3). Wetlands on non-agricultural lands are identified using the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Areas typically not considered to be jurisdictional waters include non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land, artificially-irrigated areas, artificial lakes or ponds used for irrigation or stock watering, small artificial water bodies such as swimming pools, and water-filled depressions (33 CFR, Part 328). Construction activities within jurisdictional waters are regulated by the USACE. The placement of fill into such waters must comply with permit requirements of the USACE. No USACE permit will be effective in the absence of state water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is the state agency (together with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards [RWQCBs]) charged with implementing water quality certification in California. Project Applicability: Any work within waters of the U.S. (i.e., wetlands and other waters) will require a Section 404 fill discharge permit from the USACE and Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB. The drainage channel located on the south side of Junipero Serra Boulevard at the western end of the study area, and the vegetated swales that are spaced intermittently along the roadsides, are potentially regulated waters of the U.S. and State. While field surveys determined that these features primarily convey storm water run-off, whether these features will be considered jurisdictional by each agency will depend on additional details, including connectivity of these features with the remainder of the watershed and other regulated waters of the U.S., whether these drainages replace historic, native drainage features, and whether they are regularly maintained. Therefore, the final determination of jurisdiction will necessitate a thorough study examining the features, including when they were installed, historical photographs, as-built drawings, and maintenance schedule, and consultation with the responsible agencies. A jurisdictional determination and, if these features are considered jurisdictional, acquisition of any applicable permits will be necessary before implementation of any Project-related activities that might impact these features.



11

Federal Endangered Species Act

The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects 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 FESA only if they occur on federal lands or if the project requires a federal action, such as a Clean Water Act Section 404 fill permit from the USACE. The USFWS has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and endangered wildlife species under FESA, while the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has jurisdiction over federally listed marine and anadromous fish. Project Applicability: No federally listed plants are expected to occur in the study area and only one federally listed wildlife species, the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), has the potential to occur.

Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C., §703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The trustee agency that addresses issues related to the MBTA is the USFWS. Species of birds protected under the MBTA include all native birds and certain game birds (USFWS 2005a). 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: The vast majority of bird species that occur in the study area are protected under the MBTA.

STATE

Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

The RWQCB is responsible for protecting surface, ground, and coastal waters within its boundaries, pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of the California Water Code. The RWQCB has jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for activities that could result in a discharge of dredged or fill material to a water body. Federal authority is exercised whenever a proposed project requires a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the USACE in the form of a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. State authority is exercised when a proposed project is not subject to federal authority, in the form of a Notice of Coverage, Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR). Many wetlands fall into RWQCB



12

jurisdiction, including some wetlands and waters that are not subject to USACE jurisdiction. RWQCB jurisdiction of other waters, such as streams and lakes, extends to all areas below the ordinary high water mark. The RWQCB has no formal technical manual or expanded regulations to help in identifying their jurisdiction. The only guidance can be found in Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, Chapter 2 (Definitions), which states, “‘waters of the State’ means any surface water or ground water, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the SWRCB and the nine regional boards also have the responsibility of granting Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits and waste discharge requirements for certain point-source and non-point discharges to waters. These regulations limit impacts to aquatic and riparian habitats from a variety of urban sources. Project Applicability: If application is made to the USACE for a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit, then application must be made to the RWQCB for a 401 Certification. In such a case, the RWQCB may:

issue the 401 Certification

or if there are greater concerns over water quality effects, the RWQCB may elect to deny the 401 certification without prejudice and just issue a WDR

or they may issue a combined 401 Certification/WDR.

If the USACE does not claim jurisdiction over wetlands/other waters on the property, then an application must be made to the RWQCB for a WDR under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

California Endangered Species Act

The California Endangered Species Act (CESA, Fish and Game Code of California, Chapter 1.5, Sections 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 CESA, the CDFG has jurisdiction over state-listed species. The CDFG regulates activities that may result in “take” of individuals listed under the Act (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 Fish and Game Code. The CDFG, 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 state threatened or endangered plants are expected to occur in the study area. The only state listed wildlife species potentially occurring in the study area is the California tiger salamander.



13

California Environmental Quality Act

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a state law that requires state and local agencies, such as the County of Santa Clara, 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. 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 FESA and CESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants or 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 significant effect on a species that has not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFG or species that are locally or regionally rare. The CDFG has produced 3 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). The California Native Plant Society (CNPS), a non-governmental conservation organization, has developed lists of plant species of concern in California. Vascular plants included on these lists are defined as follows:

List 1A Plants considered extinct

List 1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere

List 2 Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere

List 3 Plants about which more information is needed - review list

List 4 Plants of limited distribution-watch list.

These CNPS listings 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.



14

Although the CNPS is not a regulatory agency and plants on these lists have no formal regulatory protection, plants appearing on List 1B or List 2 are, in general, considered to meet CEQA’s Section 15380 criteria, and adverse effects to these species may be considered significant. Impacts to plants that are listed by the CNPS on List 3 or 4 are also considered during CEQA review, although because these species are typically not as rare as those on List 1B or List, impacts to them are less frequently considered significant. Project Applicability: All potential impacts to biological resources will be considered during CEQA review of the Project in the context of this Biological Resources Report.

California Fish and Game Code

The California Fish and Game Code includes regulations governing the use of, or impacts to, many of the state’s fish, wildlife, and sensitive habitats. The CDFG exerts jurisdiction over the bed and banks of rivers, lakes, and streams according to provisions of §§1601–1603 of the Fish and Game Code. The Fish and Game Code requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement for the fill or removal of material within the bed and banks of a watercourse or waterbody and for the removal of riparian vegetation. Certain sections of the Fish and Game Code describe regulations pertaining to certain wildlife species. For example, Fish and Game Code §§3503, 2513, 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 CDFG. Raptors (i.e., eagles, falcons, hawks, and owls) and their nests are specifically protected in California under Fish and Game 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.” Non-game mammals are protected by Fish and Game Code §4150, and other sections of the Code protect other taxa. Project Applicability: The CDFG may consider the drainage channel and the vegetated swales from the top of the outermost bank to top of the outermost bank, as well as any vegetation associated with these banks, under their jurisdiction. The extent of CDFG jurisdiction in the study area is determined after consultation with the CDFG and a thorough review of applicable documentation. If it is determined that any of these features are regulated by the CDFG, then a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement will be required before any Project-related activities that might impact these features. All native bird, mammal, and other wildlife species that occur on the study area and in the immediate vicinity are protected by the California Fish and Game Code.

LOCAL

County of Santa Clara Tree Ordinance and Preservation Code

The County of Santa Clara Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance (County Code, §C16.1 to §C16.17) serves to protect trees meeting specified conditions. Any person proposing to remove



15

a protected tree shall file for an administrative permit no less than 10 days prior to removal, or for heritage trees, 90 days prior to removal. A protected tree on any private or public property shall consist of any of the following: Any tree having a main trunk or stem measuring 37.7 inches or greater in circumference (12 inches or more in diameter) at a height of 4.5 ft above ground level, or in the case of multi-trunk trees a total of 75.4 inches in circumference (24 inches or more of the diameter) of all trunks in the following areas of the county:

• parcels zoned "Hillsides" (3 ac or less) • parcels within a "-d" (Design Review) combining zoning district • parcels within the Los Gatos Specific Plan area.

Any tree having a main trunk or stem measuring 18.8 inches or greater in circumference (6 inches or more in diameter) at a height of 4.5 ft above ground level, or in the case of multi-trunk trees, a total of 37.7 inches in circumference of all trunks (12 inches or more of the diameter) in the "h1 " New Almaden Historic Preservation zoning district. Any heritage tree, as that term is defined in §C16-2 of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Any tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed tree, pursuant to §C16-17(e) of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Any tree that was required to be planted or retained by the conditions of approval for any use permit, building site approval, grading permit, architectural & site approval (ASA), design review, special permit or subdivision. On any property owned or leased by the County of Santa Clara, any tree which measures over 37.7 inches in circumference (12 inches or more in diameter) measured 4.5 ft above the ground, or which exceeds 20 ft in height. Any tree, regardless of size, within road rights-of-way and easements of the County, whether within or without the unincorporated territory of the county. Project Applicability. Any trees proposed for removal that qualify as protected trees under the Santa Clara County Tree Ordinance and Preservation Code will be subject to the provisions of this ordinance.

State Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 17 — Oak Woodland Protection

State Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 17 requires that all state agencies having land use planning duties assess and determine the effects of their land use decisions or actions within any oak woodland containing blue, Engelmann, valley or coast live oak that may be affected by their decisions or actions. For purposes of this measure, the term “oak woodlands” means a 5-ac circular area containing 5 or more oak trees per acre. The state agencies are required to preserve and protect native oak woodlands to the maximum extent feasible or provide replacement plantings where any of the oak trees listed above are removed from oak woodlands.



16

Project Applicability: Based on historic aerial imagery (Google Earth 2011), the ornamental woodland in the study area was historically grassland habitat. The majority of the existing mixed canopy of oaks and ornamental trees has been intentionally planted for landscaping or has established from seedlings of planted trees. As a result, the ornamental woodland habitat in the study area is not a natural habitat and as such, is not considered native oak woodland.



17

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 the Regulatory Setting section 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.

• Listed by the CNPS as rare or endangered on Lists 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 CDFG 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 Section 3511, mammals in Section 4700, reptiles and amphibians in Section 5050, and fish in Section 5515).

Information concerning special-status species that may occur in the study area and surrounding vicinity was collected from several sources and reviewed by H. T. Harvey & Associates biologists as described in 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 may potentially occur in the study area. Figures 4 and 5 depict CNDDB records of special-status plant and wildlife species, respectively, in the general vicinity of the study area. For the purposes of this report, the general vicinity of the study area is defined as the area within a 5-mi radius. Because the CNDDB is limited to reported sightings, it is not a comprehensive list of species that may occur in a particular area. Therefore, other sources (as described above) were also considered to determine whether a species may be present or absent in the vicinity of the study area.



18

Serpentine BunchgrassSerpentine Bunchgrass

Serpentine BunchgrassSerpentine Bunchgrass

Northern Coastal Salt MarshNorthern Coastal Salt Marsh


Valley Oak WoodlandValley Oak Woodland


Valley Oak WoodlandValley Oak WoodlandValley Oak WoodlandValley Oak Woodland

lost thistlelost thistle

fragrant fritillaryfragrant fritillary

alkali milk-vetchalkali milk-vetch

Franciscan onionFranciscan onion


robust monardellarobust monardella

western leatherwoodwestern leatherwood


San Mateo thorn-mintSan Mateo thorn-mint

Hoover's button-celeryHoover's button-celery

Hoover's button-celeryHoover's button-celery

San Francisco collinsiaSan Francisco collinsia

Point Reyes bird's-beakPoint Reyes bird's-beak

woodland woollythreadswoodland woollythreads


Davidson's bush-mallowDavidson's bush-mallow

Crystal Springs lessingiaCrystal Springs lessingia

slender-leaved pondweedslender-leaved pondweed

Kings Mountain manzanitaKings Mountain manzanita


Franciscan onionFranciscan onionwestern leatherwoodwestern leatherwood


Anderson's manzanitaAnderson's manzanita


white-rayed pentachaetawhite-rayed pentachaetacoastal marsh milk-vetchcoastal marsh milk-vetch

arcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow

western leatherwoodwestern leatherwoodarcuate bush-mallowarcuate bush-mallow

showy rancheria clovershowy rancheria clover


California seabliteCalifornia seablite

legenerelegenere



Kings Mountain manzanitaKings Mountain manzanitalong-beard lichenlong-beard lichen





Point Reyes bird's-beakPoint Reyes bird's-beak

Choris' popcorn-flowerChoris' popcorn-flower




San Mateo woolly sunflowerSan Mateo woolly sunflower







white-flowered rein orchidwhite-flowered rein orchid

fountain thistlefountain thistle



fountain thistlefountain thistlefountain thistlefountain thistle

Kings Mountain manzanitaKings Mountain manzanitaCongdon's tarplantCongdon's tarplant



Marin western flaxMarin western flax

Congdon's tarplantCongdon's tarplant


western leatherwoodwestern leatherwoodwestern leatherwoodwestern leatherwood


Congdon's tarplantCongdon's tarplant






San Francisco Bay spineflowerSan Francisco Bay spineflower

white-rayed pentachaetawhite-rayed pentachaeta

Marin western flaxMarin western flax


western leatherwoodwestern leatherwood Marin western flaxMarin western flax


San Francisco campionSan Francisco campion

Kings Mountain manzanitaKings Mountain manzanitaKings Mountain manzanitaKings Mountain manzanita

San Francisco collinsiaSan Francisco collinsiawestern leatherwoodwestern leatherwood

!"#$280

·|}þ84

·|}þ35

·|}þ85

·|}þ82

·|}þ109

·|}þ237

·|}þ114

·|}þ84

£¤101

San Francisco Bay

Figure 4: CNDDB Plants RecordsSeptember 2011

N:\P

rojec

ts320

0\328

3-01\R

eport

s\Biol

ogica

l Res

ource

s


1.2 0 1.20.6

Miles±

LEGENDProject Location

5-Mile Radius

CNDDB Records

Specific Location

General Area

Approximate Location

Plants

General Area

Terrestrial CommunitiesApproximate Location

Santa Cruz kangaroo ratSanta Cruz kangaroo rat

pallid batpallid bat

pallid batpallid bathoary bathoary bat

hoary bathoary bat

hoary bathoary bat hoary bathoary bat

hoary bathoary bat

hoary bathoary bat

American badgerAmerican badger

Alameda song sparrowAlameda song sparrow



pallid batpallid bat Santa Cruz kangaroo ratSanta Cruz kangaroo rat

Santa Cruz kangaroo ratSanta Cruz kangaroo rat

western snowy ploverwestern snowy plover

burrowing owlburrowing owl

California least ternCalifornia least tern


California clapper railCalifornia clapper rail


hoary bathoary bat

Edgewood Park micro-blind harvestmanEdgewood Park micro-blind harvestman

salt-marsh wandering shrewsalt-marsh wandering shrew



western pond turtlewestern pond turtle

salt-marsh harvest mousesalt-marsh harvest mouse





saltmarsh common yellowthroatsaltmarsh common yellowthroat


mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail)mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail)


California clapper railCalifornia clapper railAlameda song sparrowAlameda song sparrow




California black railCalifornia black rail








American badgerAmerican badger

Bay checkerspot butterflyBay checkerspot butterfly



northern harriernorthern harrier











Edgewood blind harvestmanEdgewood blind harvestman


saltmarsh common yellowthroatsaltmarsh common yellowthroatRicksecker's water scavenger beetleRicksecker's water scavenger beetle

Bay checkerspot butterflyBay checkerspot butterflysalt-marsh harvest mousesalt-marsh harvest mouse




steelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPS




steelhead - central California coast DPSsteelhead - central California coast DPS


salt-marsh harvest mousesalt-marsh harvest mouseburrowing owlburrowing owlsaltmarsh common yellowthroatsaltmarsh common yellowthroat









San Francisco dusky-footed woodratSan Francisco dusky-footed woodrat




Bay checkerspot butterflyBay checkerspot butterfly salt-marsh harvest mousesalt-marsh harvest mouseBay checkerspot butterflyBay checkerspot butterfly






northern harriernorthern harrier

snowy egretsnowy egret



western pond turtlewestern pond turtlewestern pond turtlewestern pond turtle


North Central Coast Steelhead/Sculpin StreamNorth Central Coast Steelhead/Sculpin Stream

CRLFCRLF

CRLFCRLF

CRLFCRLF

CRLFCRLF

CRLFCRLF

CRLFCRLF

CRLFCRLFCRLFCRLF

CRLFCRLF

CRLFCRLF

CRLFCRLF

CRLFCRLF

CTSCTS

CTSCTS

CTSCTS

CTSCTS

CTSCTS

CTSCTS

!"#$280

·|}þ84

·|}þ35

·|}þ85

·|}þ82

·|}þ109

·|}þ237

·|}þ114

·|}þ84

£¤101

San Francisco Bay

Figure 5: CNDDB Animals RecordsSeptember 2011

N:\P

rojec

ts320

0\328

3-01\R

eport

s\Biol

ogica

l Res

ource

s


1.2 0 1.20.6

Miles±

LEGEND

Specific Location

General Area

Approximate Location

Project Location

Animals

General AreaAquatic

5-Mile Radius

CNDDB Records



21

Special-status Plant Species

The CNPS identifies 81 special-status plant species as potentially occurring in at least one of the nine quadrangles containing or surrounding the study area, or for List 4 species, in Santa Clara County. H. T. Harvey & Associates botanists determined that 80 of these species were absent from the study area due to one or more of the following reasons: (1) lack of specific edaphic requirements such as serpentine or alkaline soils, (2) the elevation range of the species is outside the range within the study area boundary, (3) specific habitat or microhabitat requirements for the species are not present, (4) the site is outside the highly endemic range of the species in question, or (5) the species is considered extirpated from the County. Appendix A lists the plants that were rejected for consideration and the reasons for their rejection. Only one of the 81 special-status plant species discussed above, bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris), is known to occur within the site vicinity and/or have general habitat requirements similar to those in the study area. This species is discussed in detail below. Bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: None; CNPS List: 1B.2. Bent-flowered fiddleneck is an annual herb in the borage family (Boraginaceae) that blooms from March to June. It inhabits openings in cismontane woodland, coastal bluff scrub, and valley and foothill grassland habitat at elevations from 10 to 1640 ft. Bent-flowered fiddleneck occurs or has been known to occur in Alameda, Contra Costa, Colusa, Lake, Marin, Napa, San Benito, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, and Yolo counties. It is known from fewer than 35 occurrences in the North and Central Coast Ranges many of which have not been observed in recent years (CNPS 2011). There are two extant CNDDB (2011) occurrences of bent-flowered fiddleneck in grassland habitats near Crystal Springs Road, approximately 5 mi north of the study area. The moderately high quality patch of California annual grassland habitat mapped on the south side of Junipero Serra Boulevard west of Santa Maria Road (Figure 3) provides suitable habitat for this species.

Special-status Animal Species

The legal status and likelihood of occurrence of special-status animal species known to occur, or potentially occurring, in the general Project vicinity are presented in Table 2. Figure 5 depicts the CNDDB-mapped locations of special-status animals in the Project vicinity. Most of the special-status animal species listed in Table 2 are not expected to occur in the study area because the site lacks suitable habitat, is outside the distributions of the species, and/or is isolated from the nearest known extant populations by development or otherwise unsuitable habitat. For instance, the lack of streams in the study area precludes the presence of special-status fish species, such as the Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Other species not expected to occur in the study area for the reasons outlined above include the Bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis), foothill yellow legged frog (Rana boylii),

Table 2. Special-status Animal Species, Their Status, and Potential Occurrence in the Project Study Area. NAME *STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE

STUDY AREA

Federal or State Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species Bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis)

FT Native grasslands on serpentine soils. Larval host plants are Plantago erecta and/or Castilleja sp.

Absent. No serpentine habitat and no host plants are present in the study area. Determined to be absent.

Central California coast Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)

FE, SE Open ocean, estuaries, and rivers. Absent. Suitable aquatic habitat is not present in the study area. Determined to be absent.

Central California coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

FT Cool streams with suitable spawning habitat and conditions allowing migration between spawning and marine habitats.

Absent. Suitable aquatic habitat is not present in the study area. Determined to be absent.

California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense)

FT, SE Vernal or temporary pools in annual grasslands or open woodlands.

May be Present. Aquatic breeding habitat is not present in the study area; however, there is some potential for small numbers of individuals of this species breeding in Lagunita or ponds in the Dish Area to disperse into or through the site and potentially aestivate in the study area.

California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii)

FT, CSSC Streams, freshwater pools, and ponds with emergent or overhanging vegetation.

Absent. Suitable aquatic breeding habitat is not present within the study area, and the species is not expected to disperse across the site.

San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia)

FE, SE Freshwater marshes, ponds, and slow‐moving streams along the coast.

Absent. Garter snakes in the Palo Alto/Stanford area fall within the intergrade zone between the San Francisco garter snake and the red-sided garter snake (Barry 1994). The intergrade populations do not belong exclusively to either subspecies; thus, true San Francisco garter snakes do not occur in the study area. Determined to be absent.

California Species of Special Concern Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii)

CSSC Partially shaded shallow streams and riffles with a rocky substrate. Occurs in a variety of habitats in coast ranges.

Absent. Aquatic breeding habitat is not present in the study area, and the species is likely extirpated from the vicinity (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1999). Determined to be absent.

22

23

NAME *STATUS HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

Western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata)

CSSC Permanent or nearly permanent water in a variety of habitats.

Absent. Suitable aquatic habitat is not present in or adjacent to the study area. Determined to be absent.

Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus)

CSSC (nesting)

Nests in marshes and moist fields, forages over open areas.

Absent as breeder. Grasslands in and adjacent to the study area provide foraging habitat; however, suitable breeding habitat is not present.

Long-eared owl (Asio otus)

CSSC (nesting)

Riparian bottomlands with tall, dense willows and cottonwood stands (also dense live oak and California Bay along upland streams); forages primarily in adjacent open areas.

Absent. Suitable dense riparian habitat is not present in or immediately adjacent to the study area. Determined to be absent.

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)

CSSC Open grasslands and ruderal habitats with suitable burrows, usually those made by California ground squirrels.

Absent. The species has not been recorded in or adjacent to the study area (CNDDB 2011) despite high levels of bird watching activity along the adjacent Stanford Dish Trail. Thus, the species is not expected to occur in or adjacent to the study area.

Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi)

CSSC (nesting)

Nests in snags in coastal coniferous forests or, occasionally, in chimneys; forages aerially.

Absent as Breeder. Suitable nesting habitat is not present in or immediately adjacent to the study area; however, the species may occasionally forage over the Project site.

Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi)

CSSC (nesting)

Breeds in mature forests with open canopies, along forest edges in more densely vegetated areas, in recently burned forest habitats, and in selectively harvested landscapes.

Absent. Mature forest habitat is not present in or immediately adjacent to the study area. Determined to be absent.

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)

CSSC (nesting)

Nests in tall shrubs and dense trees; forages in grasslands, marshes, and ruderal habitats.

May be Present. Grasslands in the study area provide suitable breeding and foraging habitat, though the species would occur in only low numbers.

Yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia)

CSSC (nesting)

Nests in riparian woodlands. Absent as Breeder. Suitable riparian breeding habitat is not present in or adjacent to the study area. Occurs only as a migrant.

San Francisco common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa)

CSSC Nests in herbaceous vegetation, usually in wetlands or moist floodplain/riparian habitats.

Absent. Wetlands and moist floodplain/riparian habitat are not present in or adjacent to the study area. Determined to be absent.

24


Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens)

CSSC (nesting)

Nests in dense stands of willow and other riparian habitat.

Absent. Suitable riparian habitat is not present in or adjacent to the study area. Determined to be absent.

Alameda song sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula)

CSSC Nests in salt marsh, primarily in marsh gumplant and cordgrass along channels.

Absent. Salt marsh habitat is not present in or adjacent to the study area. Determined to be absent.

Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum)

CSSC (nesting)

Breeds and forages in grasslands, meadows, fallow fields, and pastures.

Absent. Species has not been recorded in the grasslands within or adjacent to the study area despite high levels of bird watching activity along the adjacent Stanford Dish Trail. Further, the species is not expected to occur at elevations as low as that found at the Project site. Determined to be absent.

Bryant’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus)

CSSC Nests in pickleweed-dominated salt marsh and adjacent ruderal habitat, and in extensive upland grassland.

Absent. Species has not been recorded breeding in the grasslands within or adjacent to the study area despite high levels of bird watching activity along the adjacent Stanford Dish Trail. Determined to be absent.

Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)

CSSC (nesting colony)

Nests near fresh water in dense emergent vegetation.

Absent. Suitable habitat is not present in or adjacent to the study area. Determined to be absent.

Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)

CSSC Forages over many habitats; roosts in caves, rock outcrops, buildings, and hollow trees.

May be present. Large trees with cavities may provide suitable roosting habitat and the grasslands within and adjacent to the site provide foraging habitat.

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)

CSSC Roosts in caves and mine tunnels, and occasionally in deep crevices in trees such as redwoods or in abandoned buildings, in a variety of habitats.

Absent as breeder. Suitable roosting habitat is not present in the study area; however, the species may forage over the site.

Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii)

CSSC Roosts in foliage in forest or woodlands, especially in or near riparian habitat.

Absent as breeder. Species does not breed in the Project region. However, it may occur as an occasional migrant or winter resident, and may roost in foliage in trees in the study area.

San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens)

CSSC Nests in a variety of habitats including riparian areas, oak woodlands, and scrub.

Present. Several woodrat nests were observed within the ornamental woodlands within the study area during the reconnaissance survey of the Project site.

25


American badger (Taxidea taxus)

CSSC Burrows in grasslands and occasionally in infrequently disked agricultural areas.

Absent. Although the species historically occurred in grasslands in the site vicinity, there are no recent records in the area. Due to the high levels of human disturbance in the study area and the highly modified nature of surrounding habitats, this species is determined to be absent.

State Fully Protected Species American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)

SP Forages in many habitats; nests on cliffs and tall bridges and buildings.

Absent. Study area does not provide suitable nesting or foraging habitat.

Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)

SP Breeds on cliffs or in large trees (rarely on electrical towers), forages in open areas.

Absent as breeder. Study area does not provide suitable nesting habitat; however, the species may occasionally forage in grassland habitats adjacent to the study area.

White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus)

SP Nests in tall shrubs and trees, forages in grasslands, marshes, and ruderal habitats.

May be Present. Annual grasslands in the study area may provide suitable breeding and foraging habitat.

Ringtail (Bassariscus astutus)

SP Cavities in rock outcrops and talus slopes, as well as hollows in trees, logs, and snags that occur in riparian habitats and dense woodlands, usually in close proximity to water.

Absent. Dense woodlands and riparian habitat are not present in the study area. Determined to be absent.

*SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES CODE DESIGNATIONS FE = Federally listed Endangered FT = Federally listed Threatened SE = State listed Endangered CSSC = California Species of Special Concern SP = State Protected Species

western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), long-eared owl (Asio otus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), San Francisco common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens), Alameda song sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), Bryant’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), American badger (Taxidea taxus), and ringtail (Bassariscus astutus). The San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) is determined to be absent from the study area because garter snakes in the Stanford area have been found to fall within the intergrade zone between the San Francisco garter snake and the red-sided garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis infernalis) (Barry 1994). Thus, the intergrade population present in the Project vicinity does not belong exclusively to either subspecies, and any garter snakes present in the study area would not represent the true San Francisco garter snake. The California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) is also not expected to occur in the study area. Recent observations of breeding by California red-legged frogs in the vicinity of the study area are limited to the reaches of Matadero and Deer Creeks south of Foothill Expressway (approximately 0.5 mi and 0.7 mi southeast of the study area respectively), and San Francisquito Creek south of Interstate 280 (approximately 1.6 mi southwest of the study area) (CNDDB 2011, Stanford 2009). In addition, aquatic habitat is not present in the study area and there are no recent records of California red-legged frogs breeding north of Junipero Serra Boulevard in the Project vicinity. Further, according to the Stanford University HCP, annual monitoring of California red-legged frogs on Stanford lands has resulted in the documentation of two distinct frog populations in the area, one along Matadero and Deer creeks and one along San Francisquito Creek, with few recent observations of red-legged frogs in locations away from these creeks. Thus, there is no expectation that red-legged frogs would disperse across the study area from known breeding locations in Matadero, Deer, or San Francisquito creeks. Several other special-status species are expected to occur in the study area only as uncommon to rare visitors, migrants, or transients, or may forage on the site while breeding in adjacent areas. However, these species are not expected to breed in the study area in any numbers, or to be affected by Project implementation. These include the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi), yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), and western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii). A few other special-status wildlife species are known or expected to occur regularly on or near the study area and may breed there, or are species for which resource agencies have expressed particular concern; expanded discussions of these species are presented below.

Federal or State Threatened or Endangered Species

California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Federal Listing Status: Threatened; State Listing Status: Endangered. The California tiger salamander’s preferred breeding habitat consists of temporary (minimum of 3-4 months), ponded environments (e.g., vernal pool, ephemeral pool, or human-made ponds) surrounded by uplands that support small mammal burrows. Such ponds provide breeding and larval habitat, while burrows of small

Junipero Serra Traffic Calming Project Biotic Resources Report


26

mammals, such as California ground squirrels and Botta’s pocket gophers, in upland habitats provide refugia for juvenile and adult salamanders during the dry season. The range of the California tiger salamander is restricted to the Central Valley and the South Coast Range of California from Butte County south to Santa Barbara County. Tiger salamanders have disappeared from a significant portion of their range due to habitat loss from agriculture and urbanization and the introduction of non-native aquatic predators. The California tiger salamander was federally listed as threatened in August 2004 (USFWS 2004) and critical habitat was designated in August 2005 (USFWS 2005b). In February 2009, the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) approved the designation of the tiger salamander as a candidate species for listing as endangered under CESA. On 20 May 2010, the Commission determined that the California tiger salamander should be listed as threatened. Ponds in the vicinity of the study area that provide breeding habitat for California tiger salamanders include Lagunita (approximately 0.45 mi northwest of the study area) and two artificial breeding ponds (approximately 0.20 mi southwest and 0.25 mi west of the study area) (Stanford 2009). According to the Final Rule for listing the central population of the California tiger salamander as threatened under FESA (USFWS 2004), “Adult California tiger salamander have been observed up to1.3 mi from breeding ponds (S. Sweet, University of California, Santa Barbara, in litt. 1998), which may be vernal pools, stock ponds, or other seasonal or perennial water bodies.” California tiger salamander at Stanford University have been recorded up to 1.0 mi from their breeding pond (Dr. Alan Launer, pers. comm. to Steve Rottenborn, 24 February 2006), and Austin and Shaffer (1992) reported dispersal distances of at least 1.0 mi. Trenham et al. (2001) observed a high probability of adult California tiger salamander dispersing between pools up to 2200 ft apart but did not observe dispersal events longer than 2300 ft. Trenham and Shaffer (2005) estimated 50, 90, and 95 percent of adult California tiger salamander were within 492, 1608, and 2034 ft of their study pond, respectively, and that 95 percent of juvenile California tiger salamander were within 2067 ft of the pond, with 85 percent concentrated between 656 and 1969 ft, but none were found at 2625 ft. However, Orloff (2007) reported longer-distance dispersal by a few individuals in a population in Pittsburgh, Contra Costa County; her results suggested that some individuals may be been traveling up to 1.3 mi from aquatic breeding habitat to upland aestivation habitat. Collectively, these studies suggest that dispersal distances may vary among populations and/or sites; that California tiger salamander abundance likely decreases with increasing distance from a breeding pond; and that a few individuals may disperse 1 mi or more from breeding areas. No tiger salamanders have been recorded within the study area. Further, the central portion of the Project site, which is lined with residential development on both sides of the road, is located within an area that is considered a population sink for salamanders (Stanford 2009; Figure 6), which means that it is extremely difficult for any individuals that manage to get into this area to find their way back to Lagunita or one of the other breeding ponds. Dense woodland or scrub could all pose impediments to dispersal of salamanders between breeding ponds and this portion of the Project site. In addition, tiger salamanders dispersing to or from Lagunita would face several impediments, including Junipero Serra Boulevard and Campus Drive as well as smaller residential roadways, driveways, and residential homes. Similarly, tiger salamanders dispersing



27

Junipero Serra Blvd

Santa

Mari

a Rd

Fren

chma

ns R

d

Stan

ford

Ave

300 0 300150Feet±

Figure 6: California Tiger Salamander Population SinksSeptember 2011

N:\P

rojec

ts320

0\328

3-01\R

eport

s\Biol

ogica

l Res

ource

s


Sources:1. California Tiger Salamander Population Sinks from Stanford University Habitat Conservation Plan.2. Aerial Background from USDA 2009 NAIP.

LEGENDStudy AreaCalifornia Tiger Salamander Population Sinks

to or from the ponds in the Dish Area would be forced to either traverse the residential housing south of Junipero Serra Boulevard or travel along the roadway to reach this portion of the Project site. Such impediments both reduce the number of salamanders that could disperse to this portion of the Project site and reduce the probability that any individuals reaching the site could successfully return to aquatic habitats to breed (Stanford 2009). Thus, the portion of the site on the north side of Junipero Serra Boulevard, and the central portion (adjacent to residential development) on the south side of the road are considered population sinks; in these areas, overall habitat quality for this species is very low, and few individuals, if any, are expected to occur here. Nevertheless, the portion of the study area south of Junipero Serra Boulevard and west of the drainage channel is designated as California Tiger Salamander Reserve under the Stanford University Draft HCP, and the study area is within dispersal range of California tiger salamanders breeding in Lagunita or the artificial ponds to the south and west. Thus, it is possible that some individuals dispersing from those breeding locations could reach the site, particularly the southwestern-most portion of the site, which lies outside the area considered a population sink, contains potential aestivation habitat (i.e., grasslands with burrows), and is only 0.20 mi from the nearest breeding pond. If tiger salamanders occur on the site, they could potentially use these areas for dispersal between aquatic and upland habitats and, possibly, for aestivation. Potential aestivation habitat was observed in the study area during the reconnaissance survey, primarily within the grasslands and more open areas of ornamental woodland located adjacent to both the western and eastern ends of the Project alignment (Photograph 5). However, because the grasslands located along the easternmost portion of the Project site are located more than 0.5 mi from the nearest breeding pond, the number of individuals that could potentially occur on this portion of the site, having dispersed there from one of the breeding ponds to the west, is expected to be very low.



29

Photograph 5. Burrows providing potential California tiger salamander aestivation sites (north of Junipero Serra Boulevard at the western end of the study area)

California Species of Special Concern

Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern (Nesting). The loggerhead shrike is distributed throughout much of California, except in higher-elevation and heavily forested areas including the Coast Ranges, the Sierra Nevada, the southern Cascades, the Klamath and Siskiyou ranges, and the highest parts of the Transverse Ranges (Humple 2008). While the species’ range in California has remained stable over time, populations have declined steadily (Cade and Woods 1997). Loggerhead shrikes establish breeding territories in open habitats with relatively short vegetation that allows for visibility of prey; they can be found in grasslands, scrub habitats, riparian areas, other open woodlands, ruderal habitats, and developed areas including golf courses and agricultural fields (Yosef 1996). They require the presence of structures for impaling their prey; these most often take the form of thorny or sharp-stemmed shrubs, or barbed wire (Humple 2008). Ideal breeding habitat for loggerhead shrikes is comprised of short grass habitat with many perches, shrubs, or trees for nesting, and sharp branches or barbed wire fences for impaling prey. Shrikes nest earlier than most other passerines, especially in the west where populations



30

are sedentary. The breeding season may begin as early as late February and lasts through July (Yosef 1996). Nests are typically established in shrubs and low trees including sagebrush, willow, and mesquite, through brush piles may be used when shrubs are not available. Loss and degradation of breeding habitat, as well as possible negative impacts of pesticides, are considered the major contributors to the population declines exhibited by this species (Cade and Woods 1997). Loggerhead shrikes breed in the Project region in areas with open grassland, ruderal, or agricultural habitat having scattered brush, chaparral, or trees that provide perches and nesting sites. The annual grassland habitat within and immediately adjacent to the study area provides potential breeding and foraging habitat for the loggerhead shrike; however, due to the small size of the study area, at most one or two pairs of loggerhead shrikes could nest within or immediately adjacent to the Project boundaries. Non-breeding loggerhead shrikes may also forage on the site during winter and migration. White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus). Federal Status: None; State Status: Fully Protected. The white-tailed kite ranges throughout the western states and Florida where suitable habitat occurs. 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 (Polite et al. 1990, Dunk 1995, Erichsen et al 1996). Although the species rallied impressively after marked reductions during the early 20th century, populations may be exhibiting new declines as a result of recent increases in habitat loss and disturbance (Dunk 1995, Erichsen et al 1996). White-tailed kites are year-round residents of the state, establishing breeding territories that encompass open areas with healthy prey populations, and snags, shrubs, trees, or other nesting substrates (Dunk 1995). Non-breeding birds typically remain in the same area over the winter, although some movements do occur (Polite et al 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). White-tailed kites are fairly common residents in less developed portions of the Project vicinity that contain extensive open grassland, ruderal, or agricultural habitats. For example, several pairs of white-tailed kites are present year-round in the Dish Area. Breeding white-tailed kites may forage in the study area during the nesting season, and non-breeding individuals may forage in the study area year-round. However, due to the proximity to Junipero Serra Boulevard as well as residential housing, white-tailed kites are not expected to nest within the study area itself, and it is unlikely that more than one pair would forage within the study area. San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern. The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat occurs in a variety of woodland and scrub habitats throughout the South Bay and the adjacent central coast range, south to the Pajaro River in Monterey County (Hall 1981, Bryiski et al. 1990). Woodrats prefer riparian and oak woodland forests with dense understory cover or thick chaparral habitat (Lee and Tietje 2005). Although woodrats are locally common in many areas, habitat conversion and increased urbanization, as well as increasing populations of introduced predators such as domestic cats, pose substantial threats to this subspecies (H. T.



31

Harvey & Associates 2010). Dusky-footed woodrats build large, complex nests of sticks and other woody debris, which may be maintained by a series of occupants for several years (Carraway and Verts 1991). Woodrats are also very adept at making use of human-made structures and can nest in electrical boxes, pipes, wooden pallets, and even portable storage containers. Woodrat nest densities increase with canopy density and with the presence of poison oak (Carraway and Verts 1991). While the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat is described as a generalist omnivore, individuals may specialize on local plants that are available for forage (Haynie et al. 2007). The breeding season for dusky-footed woodrats begins in February and sometimes continues through September, with females bearing a single brood of one to 4 young per year (Carraway and Verts 1991). Although a focused survey for dusky-footed woodrat nests was not conducted, at least eight nests were observed within and immediately adjacent to the study area during the reconnaissance survey of the Project site. Both mounded stick and leaf woodrat houses, as well as aerial nests within trees, were observed scattered throughout the site’s ornamental woodlands. Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus). Federal status: None; State status: Species of Special Concern. The pallid bat occurs throughout California with the exception of the northwest corner of the state and the high Sierra Nevada (Hall 1981, Zeiner et al. 1990). It is a colonial species with colonies ranging in size from a few individuals to over a hundred, but usually consisting of at least 20 individuals (Wilson and Ruff 1999, Sherwin and Rambaldini 2005). 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. 1990, Ferguson and Azerrad 2004). Typically, pallid bats use separate day and night roosts (Hermanson and O’Shea 1983). In general, day roosts are more enclosed, protected spaces than are night roosts, which often occur in open buildings, porches, garages, highway bridges, and mines. Roosts generally have unobstructed entrances/exits, and are high above the ground, warm, and inaccessible to terrestrial predators (Sherwin and Rambaldini 2005). Winter habits are poorly known, but pallid bats apparently do not migrate long distances between summer and winter sites (Sherwin and Rambaldini 2005). However, movements of up to 18.6 mi between night roosts have been recorded, and homing trials revealed a maximum return distance of 108.1 mi (Sherwin and Rambaldini 2005). 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). Maternity colonies in California may be active from May to October (Gannon 2003). Pallid bats forage on a variety of insects, including beetles, centipedes, cicadas, crickets, grasshoppers, moths, and others, gleaned both on the wing and from surfaces (Bolster 2005). Their 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 have been historically recorded in the Project vicinity (CNDDB 2011) and the species likely forages throughout the study area. Small numbers of pallid bats may roost in crevices or under exfoliating bark in trees within the study area; however, the absence of large trees with cavities precludes the presence of a large colonial roost or maternity colony (as opposed to solitary females with young) within the study area.



32

Sensitive and Regulated Plant Communities and Habitats

The CDFG ranks certain rare or threatened plant communities, such as wetlands, meadows, and riparian forest and scrub, as ‘threatened’ or ‘very threatened’. These communities are tracked in the CNDDB. Impacts on CDFG sensitive plant communities, or any such community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, must be considered and evaluated under CEQA (California Code of Regulations: Title 14, Div. 6, Chap. 3, Appendix G). Furthermore, wetland and riparian habitats are also afforded protection under applicable federal, state, and local regulations, and are generally subject to regulation, protection, or consideration by the USACE, RWQCB, CDFG, and/or the USFWS. CDFG Sensitive Habitats and Vegetation Alliances. A query of sensitive habitats in Rarefind (CNDDB 2011) was performed for the Palo Alto, California 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle. The query identified the following sensitive habitats as occurring within the study area: North Central Coast California roach/stickleback/steelhead stream, North Central Coast steelhead/sculpin stream, northern coastal salt marsh, serpentine bunchgrass, and valley oak woodland. Because there are no streams or creeks in the study area, the North Central Coast California roach/stickleback/steelhead stream and North Central Coast steelhead/sculpin stream sensitive habitats do not occur. In addition, serpentine bunchgrass grasslands are defined as being underlain by serpentine soils. Because there are no serpentine soils in the study area, the onsite grasslands would not qualify as the sensitive habitat, serpentine grassland. The valley oak woodland sensitive habitat is an open canopy savanna found in deep alluvial soils with mature stands of valley oak. These stands are typically found on valley floors that retain some moisture in the summer months. None of the habitats in the study area would qualify as valley oak woodland because the onsite soils are relatively shallow, with dense populations of predominantly young, planted coast live oak trees on a hillslope. The CDFG provides the Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program’s currently accepted list of sensitive vegetation alliances (CDFG 2007). Any habitat type dominated by a species listed with a ranking lower than G4S4 (Global ranking of apparently secure, state ranking of apparently secure) is considered to be sensitive by the CDFG. The query did not identify any sensitive vegetation alliances as occurring within the study area. Waters of the U.S./State. As discussed under Regulatory Setting above, a consultation with the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFG to determine the precise locations and boundaries of jurisdictional waters is necessary to determine the limits of jurisdictional habitats. The drainage channel and vegetated swales in the study area are potentially regulated by these agencies. If any of these features are determined to be jurisdictional, permits will be required from the appropriate agency before work is conducted in these habitats.

Non-Native and Invasive Plant and Aquatic Species

A number of non-native and invasive plant species were observed during the reconnaissance-level botanical surveys of the study area in 2011. These species are typically opportunistic and



33

will particularly colonize areas of disturbance. The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) categorizes invasive species of concern as being an A-, B-, or C-listed plant:

• A = Eradication, quarantine, or other holding action at the state/county level. • B = Intensive control or eradication, where feasible, at the county level. • C = Control or eradication as local conditions warrant, at the county level.

Non-native and/or invasive plant species observed in the grassland habitats in the study area were the A-list species yellow star-thistle and English ivy, and the B-list species, common St. Johnswort and Italian thistle.



34

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

The CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines provide guidance in evaluating impacts of projects to 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”

KEY ASSUMPTIONS

The following impact analysis is based on the draft Project description dated 25 August 2011 and 30 percent design plans provided by David J. Powers & Associates. We have assumed that all staging of construction equipment would occur entirely within developed or landscaped areas,



35

with no impacts to adjacent natural or regulated habitats outside the Project footprint and that the entirety of the 8.98-ac study area (as shown on Figure 2) would be subject to disturbance during Project construction activities.

IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT

Impacts on Ornamental Woodland

Impacts from the proposed Project will result in the loss of approximately 3.51 ac of ornamental woodland (Figure 3). The ornamental woodland in the study area is common throughout the region, and is composed of a mixture of native and non-native ornamental trees that were intentionally planted for landscaping, or became established as volunteer seedlings along both sides of Junipero Serra Boulevard. This human-created habitat was historically open grassland, and has only become established relatively recently (Google Earth 2011). The dense tree canopy and lack of native vegetation provides poor habitat for any special-status plants. Although this vegetation provides habitat for a variety of common wildlife species, the loss of 3.51 ac of this habitat will affect only an extremely small proportion of regionally available habitat for these species, and thus displace only a very small proportion of their regional populations. Thus, given the relative abundance of this habitat in the Project region, the disturbance of 3.51 ac of ornamental woodland habitat as a result of Project implementation is considered a less-than-significant impact.

Impacts on California Annual Grassland

Approximately 1.13 ac of California annual grassland will be impacted as a result of the proposed Project (Figure 3). The grassland habitat south of Junipero Serra Boulevard on the eastern end of the study area is a low quality grassland, containing many invasive plant species with very little native cover and low diversity. The approximately 0.13 ac of California annual grassland habitat south of Junipero Serra Boulevard on the western end of the study area is a moderately high quality grassland composed of a mixture of both native and non-native grasses and forbs. California annual grassland habitat is common in the region, including the large expanse of grassland found within the Dish Area south of the Project site. Although some grassland-associated species, including special-status species such as the white-tailed kite and loggerhead shrike, may occasionally forage in the grassland within the Project area, they are more likely to use broader expanses of grassland located farther to the south. As a result, the loss of grassland resulting from the Project is expected to impact only a very small proportion of regionally available grassland habitat for wildlife, and thus only a very small proportion of these species’ regional populations. Thus, the loss of 1.13 ac of California annual grassland, which is predominantly low quality and disked, would not constitute a significant impact. The analysis of the potential for the small area of moderately high quality grassland to support special-status plants is provided under Impacts to Special-Status Plants below, while the analysis of the potential impacts to California tiger salamanders using this grassland is discussed under Impacts to the California Tiger Salamander below.



36

Impacts on the Drainage Channel and Vegetated Swales

The proposed Project will result in approximately 0.19 ac of direct impacts to the drainage channel and vegetated swales along Junipero Serra Boulevard as a result of grading and realignment activities (Figure 3). The drainage channel on the northwest end of Junipero Serra Boulevard has a concrete bed and both earthen and sacrete banks. The vegetated swales are shallow features that run along the road and are composed of vegetation that is essentially the same as the surrounding upland habitats, which is in this case ornamental woodland. As a result, these features in themselves provide little importance for special-status plants or wildlife, and they provide little to no value to wetland and aquatic wildlife species. Further, roadside drainages and channels are common within the region where they are created to convey stormwater and runoff from hardscape and natural gradients. Thus, impacts to the drainage channel and vegetated swales are considered a less-than-significant impact. As discussed under Regulatory Setting above, some or all of these features may be regulated by the USACE, RWQCB, and/or the CDFG. Based on consultation with the responsible agencies a determination will be made as to the jurisdictional boundaries and permits requiring compensatory mitigation for impacting these features may be required. Potential impacts from construction activities to water quality are discussed under Impacts to Water Quality below.

Impacts on Potentially Nesting White-tailed Kites and Loggerhead Shrikes

The white-tailed kite and loggerhead shrike could potentially nest in or adjacent to the study area. If a pair of white-tailed kites or loggerhead shrikes nests in the trees in or near the study area, Project activities could result in the removal of trees containing an active nest, or disturbance of an active nest to the point of nest abandonment. Due to these species’ territoriality, at most one pair of white-tailed kites and one or two pairs of loggerhead shrikes would be expected to breed within the Project boundaries or close enough to be disturbed by Project activities, and there is actually a low probability that either species nests very close to the Project area owing to disturbance associated with Junipero Serra Boulevard and the residential areas near the study area. Because the amount and quality of habitat for the species being impacted is low, and the number of nesting pairs that could be disturbed is very small, the Project’s impacts would not substantially reduce regional populations of these species. Thus, these impacts do not meet the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect on these species. Although the loss of any active nests of protected birds would be in violation of federal and state laws (see Regulatory Setting above and Regulatory Overview for Nesting Birds below), impacts to these species and their habitats would not be considered a significant impact under CEQA.

Impacts on Habitat for and Individuals of Certain Non-breeding Special-Status Wildlife Species

Several special-status species may use the study area as transients or migrants, in low numbers, but are not expected to breed at the site or to be present in large numbers, and thus would not be impacted significantly by Project activities. These species include the golden eagle, northern harrier, Vaux’s swift, yellow warbler, and western red bat.



37

Project construction would not result in injury or mortality of any individuals of these species, which are mobile enough to avoid construction equipment. None of these species is expected to occur on the site in large numbers or use the site regularly, and there would be no substantial loss of foraging or non-breeding habitat for any of these species. As a result, conversion of habitat resulting from the Project would not be expected to have any impact on populations of these species. Thus, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on these species.

Impacts on Pallid Bats

The proposed Project will result in the removal of trees that may be used as day-roosts by individual pallid bats, including pregnant females or females with young. Thus, bats could be physically injured or killed; subjected to physiological stress resulting from being disturbed during torpor; or face increased predation if they are flushed during daylight. In addition, nursing young might be subjected to disturbance-related abandonment by their mothers. However, Project activities will not result in the loss of high-quality roost sites, large maternity colonies, or large numbers of bats because the study area does not support trees with large cavities. Further, as discussed above, ornamental woodlands are abundant in the Project region and the proposed Project would affect only a small percentage of ornamental woodland habitat available regionally. Thus, the proposed Project would not have a significant effect on the species’ local and regional populations and the potential impact is determined to be less than significant.

IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION

Impacts on Special-status Plants

The California annual grassland habitat located on the south side of Junipero Serra Boulevard west of Santa Maria Road may provide habitat for the bent-flowered fiddleneck, a CNPS List 1B.2 species (Figure 3). Project activities in this habitat could result in the loss of individual plants or populations as a result of mechanical or physical removal of vegetation in the work site, and damage to plants might occur as a result of crushing by equipment; trampling by personnel; and compaction of soil, which could result in damage to plant roots. These activities could result in death, altered growth, or reduced seed set through physically breaking, crushing, wilting, or uprooting plants. Further, Project activities could result in the temporary degradation or permanent loss of habitat for the species. Thus, because this species is regionally rare and could potentially occur in high enough abundance in the impact area that the Project would affect a substantial proportional of the regional population, these impacts may be significant. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts on bent-flowered fiddleneck to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 1A. Conduct Special-status Plant Surveys. Prior to initiating construction in the area mapped as California annual grassland south of Junipero Serra Boulevard on the western end of the study area, the Project proponent shall be required to hire a qualified biologist to conduct focused surveys during the published blooming period for bent- flowered fiddleneck.



38

Mitigation Measure 1B. Determine CEQA Significance for Potential Impacts. After protocol-level floristic surveys are completed, a species-specific determination of potential significance will be conducted by a qualified plant ecologist, using the results of the Project Area survey and existing databases, as follows:

• If the bent-flowered fiddleneck is found within or directly adjacent to the proposed work area, the impact will be deemed less than significant and no further mitigation will be required if activities will result in either 1) the loss of less than 5 percent of the known individuals documented as occurring within 50 mi of the impact location, or 2) if the total number of individuals is unknown, the loss of less than 5 percent of the known populations. Such an impact would be considered less than significant because regional populations will remain abundant following Project implementation and the Project will not substantially reduce the number or range of the species.

• If such activities will result in loss of more than 5 percent of the known populations or

individuals of these species documented as occurring within 50 mi of the impact location, this impact is determined to be significant.

If it is determined that Project activities may result in a significant impact to the bent-flowered fiddleneck, the following mitigation measure will be implemented. Mitigation Measure 1C. Avoid and Preserve Special-status Plants. To the extent feasible, construction activities will avoid impacts to bent-flowered fiddleneck populations on site. All populations of this species (for which a determination of significance has been determined under Mitigation Measure 2B) that are to be avoided shall be protected by a permanent buffer zone established prior to site grading. A qualified botanist will work with the Project team to determine whether a buffer adequate to avoid impacts is feasible. If a feasible buffer cannot be established, the occurrence will be considered impacted and Mitigation Measure 1D shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure 1D. Compensatory Mitigation. If avoidance of a bent-flowered fiddleneck population (for which a determination of significance has been determined) is not feasible, mitigation shall be provided via the preservation, enhancement, and management of occupied habitat for the affected species. Habitat that supports the species that are impacted shall be preserved and managed in perpetuity. The mitigation habitat shall be of equal or greater habitat quality compared to the impacted areas, as determined by a qualified botanist, in terms of soil features, extent of disturbance, vegetation structure, and dominant species composition, and will contain at least as many individuals as are impacted by Project activities. The permanent protection and management of mitigation lands shall be ensured through an appropriate mechanism, such as a conservation easement or fee title purchase. A Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) will be developed and implemented for the mitigation lands. That plan will include, at a minimum, the following information:

• A summary of habitat impacts and the proposed mitigation

• A description of the location and boundaries of the mitigation site and description of existing site conditions



39

• A description of measures to be undertaken to enhance (e.g., through focused management) the mitigation site for the focal special-status species

• A description of measures to transplant individual plants or seeds from the impact area to the mitigation site, if appropriate (which will be determined by a qualified botanist)

• Proposed management activities to maintain high-quality habitat conditions for the focal species

• A description of habitat and species monitoring measures on the mitigation site, including specific, objective final and performance criteria, monitoring methods, data analysis, reporting requirements, monitoring schedule, etc.

• Contingency measures for mitigation elements that do not meet performance criteria

Alternatively, mitigation could be provided by contributing funds to an entity, such as the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, that would be used specifically to enhance and manage habitat supporting the species for which mitigation is needed. Such enhancement and management would be performed in accordance with the HMMP contents listed above.

Impacts on Water Quality

The realignment of the drainage channel south of Junipero Serra Boulevard on the western end of the study area, and the reconditioning of the vegetated swales located intermittently along the south side of the road, may result in impacts on water quality by introducing sediment or contaminants associated with construction equipment into watercourses. Such impacts are potentially significant because the channels and swales on the Project site appear to drain toward Lagunita, which provides breeding habitat for the California tiger salamander and other, more common amphibians, and these species could be adversely affected by water quality degradation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 2 described below will reduce the potential effects on aquatic species from degradation of water quality to a level that is less-than significant. Mitigation Measure 2. Best Management Practices. The following standard BMP’s will be implemented to prevent significant Project-related effects on water quality:

• No equipment will be operated in the live stream channel.

• Standard erosion control and slope stabilization measures will be required for work performed in any area where erosion could lead to sedimentation of a waterbody.

• No debris, soil, silt, sand, bark, slash, sawdust, cement, concrete, washings, petroleum products or other organic or earthen material will be allowed to enter into or be placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into waters of the U.S./State or aquatic habitat.

• Machinery will be refueled at least 60 ft from the top-of-bank, and a spill prevention and response plan will be implemented.



40

Impacts to the California Tiger Salamander

As discussed above, California tiger salamanders do not breed within the study area due to a lack of suitable aquatic habitat. Further, a portion of the study area is considered a sink for salamanders, which means that it is extremely difficult for any individuals that manage to get into this area to find their way back to breeding areas due to the presence of curbs, steps, buildings, drains, retaining walls, and other features that block migrating salamanders (Stanford 2009). Nevertheless, there is some potential for this species’ occurrence on the site due to the site’s proximity to known breeding ponds (i.e., Lagunita and two artificial ponds) (Stanford 2009), dispersal capabilities of the species, and the presence of potential upland refugia (i.e., burrows). Confirming the absence of this species would require intensive drift-fence surveys over at least two wet seasons, with approval of the USFWS and CDFG. Unless the applicant conducts such surveys, the potential presence of tiger salamander on the Project site cannot be discounted. Thus, Project activities could result in the direct loss of individual tiger salamanders as a result of trampling by personnel or equipment, the collapse of underground burrows resulting from soil compaction due to heavy equipment use, and the loss of aestivation and dispersal habitat. Project development would result in impacts on 1.47 ac of grassland and ornamental woodland habitat, outside the areas considered by Stanford (2009) to represent population sink areas, that may be traversed by dispersing tiger salamanders, and that could possibly provide upland refugia. Because of the regional rarity of this species, continued threats to its populations, and the significance of Stanford’s tiger salamander population (i.e., as the northernmost large population of the species known on the San Francisco Peninsula), increased mortality of California tiger salamanders and loss of dispersal and/or aestivation habitat would be significant under CEQA. The following mitigation measures will reduce impacts on California tiger salamanders and their habitat to a less-than-significant level. Note that incidental take approval should be obtained from the USFWS and CDFG prior to initiation of any activities that will result in take of California tiger salamanders. Mitigation Measure 3a. Temporary Construction Barrier. Prior to any ground disturbance in the study area, a temporary barrier will be constructed along the limits of grading and disturbance, where such limits abut undeveloped habitat, to minimize the potential for California tiger salamanders to enter the Project footprint during construction. The barrier will consist of 3-ft wide silt fencing buried to a depth of at least 6 inches below the soil surface. This barrier will be inspected regularly and maintained and repaired as necessary to ensure that it is functional and is not a hazard to tiger salamanders on the outer side of the fence. Mitigation Measure 3b. Pre-construction Surveys. Following construction of the temporary construction barrier, and within 48 hours of the initiation of construction, a qualified biologist will inspect the entire construction footprint for individual California tiger salamanders. The biologist will look in the entrances of mammal burrows, under rocks or debris, or in any other areas that might serve as refugia for tiger salamanders. Any individuals detected during these surveys will be moved to a safe location (e.g., the mouth of a burrow) in a nearby area but outside the limits of disturbance by a qualified biologist approved by the USFWS and CDFG to handle the tiger salamanders.



41

Mitigation Measure 3c. Biological Monitor. A qualified biologist shall be present during all initial ground-disturbing activities that occur within suitable California tiger salamander habitat (i.e., grasslands and ornamental woodland areas not mapped by Stanford (2009) as being within an area considered a population sink). The qualified biologist will look for salamanders during all initial ground-disturbing activities and shall be given the authority through communication with the resident engineer/Project manager or their designee to stop any work that may result in the take of a California tiger salamander. If a tiger salamander is encountered during Project construction, the following protocol will be implemented:

• All work that could result in direct injury, disturbance, or harassment of the individual animal must immediately cease;

• The qualified biologist will immediately notify the USFWS and CDFG; and

• If approved by the USFWS and CDFG, the qualified biologist will remove the individual to a safe location nearby.

Mitigation Measure 3d. On-site Construction Crew Education Program. A worker education program will take place before the commencement of construction and a USFWS-approved biologist will explain to construction workers how best to minimize the accidental take of California tiger salamanders. The approved biologist will conduct a training session that would be scheduled as a mandatory informational field meeting for contractors and all construction personnel. The field meeting will include topics on species identification, life history, descriptions, and habitat requirements during various life stages. Emphasis will be placed on the importance of the habitat and life stage requirements within the context of Project avoidance and minimization measures. Handouts, illustrations, photographs, and Project mapping showing areas where minimization and avoidance measures are being implemented will be included as part of this education program. The program will increase the awareness of the contractors and construction workers about existing federal and state laws regarding endangered species as well as increase their compliance with conditions and requirements of resource agencies. Prior to the start of work each day, dedicated construction personnel will inspect trenches and pits that were left open overnight for tiger salamanders. If a tiger salamander is encountered during Project construction, the following protocol will be implemented:

• All work that could result in direct injury, disturbance, or harassment of the individual animal must immediately cease;

• The foreman will be immediately notified;

• The foreman will immediately notify a qualified biologist, who in turn will immediately notify the USFWS and CDFG; and

• If approved by the USFWS and CDFG, the qualified biologist will remove the individual to a safe location nearby.

Mitigation Measure 3e. Compensatory Habitat Mitigation. Prior to any ground disturbance within the Project site, mitigation lands providing similar or better habitat for California tiger



42

salamanders compared to the habitat that will be impacted by the Project shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. As described above, a portion of the Project site is considered a sink for California tiger salamanders. Therefore, no habitat mitigation shall be required for impacts to this portion of the Project site. Mitigation shall be required at a 2:1 replacement ratio for impacts to all other potential upland refugial and dispersal habitat (i.e., grasslands). This mitigation ratio has been determined to reflect the need to compensate for lost habitat functions and values, and potentially loss of individuals, resulting from Project activities. Thus, based upon the estimated area of impact (i.e., 1.47 ac of grassland habitat not within the area considered a population sink) this would result in approximately 2.94 ac of habitat to be preserved. Compensatory mitigation may be carried out through purchasing credits at a habitat mitigation bank (if available and approved by the USFWS and CDFG), contribution of funds to the Stanford University HCP California tiger salamander mitigation account, and/or one or both of the following methods, in order of preference:

• The preservation and management of high-quality habitat that is already occupied by California tiger salamanders.

• The restoration or enhancement of degraded habitat or habitat that is unsuitable for use by California tiger salamanders, but that (a) is in close proximity to areas of known occurrence and (b) could be made more suitable for use via construction of one or more breeding ponds, enhancement of breeding and non-breeding aquatic habitat via improvements to emergent vegetation or other cover, or management to improve the quality of upland habitat

If high quality habitat is preserved or degraded habitat restored/enhanced, the Project proponent will develop a HMMP describing the measures that will be taken to manage the property and to monitor the effects of management on the California tiger salamander. That plan will include, at a minimum, the following:

• A summary of impacts to tiger salamanders and the proposed mitigation

• A description of the location and boundaries of the mitigation site and description of existing site conditions

• A description of measures to be undertaken if necessary to enhance (e.g., through focused management) the mitigation site for tiger salamanders

• Proposed management activities, such as managed grazing and management of invasive plants, to maintain high-quality habitat conditions for the focal species

• A description of community and species monitoring measures on the mitigation site, including specific, objective goals and objectives, performance indicators, success criteria, monitoring methods, data analysis, reporting requirements, and monitoring schedule

• A description of the management plan’s adaptive component, including potential contingency measures for mitigation elements that do not meet performance criteria

• A description of the funding mechanism to ensure the long-term maintenance and monitoring of the mitigation lands



43

The HMMP will be submitted to the County for review and approval prior to implementation.

Impacts to Habitat for and Individual San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrats

San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat houses were observed within and adjacent to the study area. Thus, Project activities might result in the injury or mortality of dusky-footed woodrats as a result of clearing and grading and worker foot traffic, particularly if disturbance occurs when woodrats are taking refuge in their stick nests. Further, indirect impacts could occur as a result of over-crowding (resulting form individuals in disturbed habitat moving to areas that are already occupied) and increased risk of predation. Based on observations during our reconnaissance-level survey, it is possible that as many as eight woodrat nests or more could be impacted by the Project. San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats are relatively common in suitable habitat regionally, but given the number of individuals that could potentially be impacted by the Project, the loss of woodrats could affect regional populations to the extent that this would be considered a significant impact. Implementation of the following measures would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 4a. Pre-construction Survey. A qualified biologist should conduct a pre-construction survey within 30 days prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities to identify the locations of active woodrat nests within the Project boundary. If active nests are determined to be present, Mitigation Measures 4b and/or 4c shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure 4b. Avoidance. Dusky-footed woodrats are year-round residents. Therefore, avoidance mitigation is limited to restricting Project activities to avoid direct impacts to woodrats and their active nests to the extent feasible. Ideally, a minimum 10-ft buffer should be maintained between Project construction activities and each nest to avoid disturbance. In some situations, a smaller buffer may be allowed if in the opinion of a qualified biologist removing the nest would be a greater impact than that anticipated as a result of Project activities. Mitigation Measure 4c. Relocation. If active woodrat nests are found within the Project boundary and avoidance is not feasible, then the woodrats shall be evicted from their nests prior to the removal of the nests and onset of ground-disturbing activities to avoid injury or mortality of the woodrats. A qualified biologist shall disturb the woodrat nest to the degree that all woodrats leave the nest and seek refuge outside of the Project activity area. Subsequently, the nest sticks shall be removed from the site; if feasible, these materials will be piled at the base of a nearby tree or shrub. The spacing between relocated nests shall not be less than 100 ft, unless a qualified biologist has determined that the habitat can support higher densities of nests.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts arise due to the linking of impacts from past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the region. With the exception of the small patch of moderately high quality California annual grassland within the study area, the remaining habitats are highly disturbed with a large number of introduced and weedy species established throughout the site. Thus, Project impacts will result primarily from the disturbance and loss of regionally abundant terrestrial habitats and the associated disturbance of wildlife communities dominated by



44

regionally abundant species. Due to the abundance of these species and habitat types regionally, no significant cumulative impacts on these resources are occurring. Further, use of the majority of lands in the Project area is governed by the Stanford University General Use Permit (2000) and the Stanford HCP, if approved. Any project on University lands would be expected to comply with the conditions outlined in the GUP and the HCP, to complete its own separate CEQA review, and to address any potential impacts therein by mitigating them to a less-than-significant level. With implementation of the mitigation measures above, no significant impacts are expected as a result of the proposed Project. The proposed Junipero Serra Boulevard Traffic Calming Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on biological resources.



45

COMPLIANCE WITH ADDITIONAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO BIOTIC RESOURCES OF THE PROJECT SITE

REGULATORY OVERVIEW FOR NESTING BIRDS

Construction disturbance during the breeding season (1 March 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 in the study area due to the local and regional abundances of these species and/or the low magnitude of the potential impact of the Project to these species (i.e., the Project is only expected to impact a few individual pairs of these species, at most, which is not a significant impact to 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 to 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 April through 31 August. Measure 2. Pre-construction/Pre-disturbance Surveys. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between 1 September and 31 March 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 7 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 250 ft for raptors and 50–100 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 April). 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.



46

LITERATURE CITED

Austin, C. C. and H. B. Shaffer. 1992. Short-, medium-, and long-term repeatability of locomotor performance in the tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense. Functional Ecology 6:145-153.

Barry, S. 1994. The distribution, habitat, and evolution of the San Francisco garter snake,

Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, UC Davis, 143 pages.

Bolster, Betsy C. 2005. Western Bat Working Group species accounts Lasiurus blossevillii.

Available at: http://www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/species_accounts.html (accessed 26 April 2011).

Bryiski, P., R. Duke, and H. Shellhammer. 1990. Dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes).

Pp. 246-247 In: D. Zeiner, W. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. Mayer, and M. White (eds.). California’s wildlife, Vol. 3. Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game.

Cade, T. J. and C. P. Woods. 1997. Changes in distribution and abundance of the loggerhead

shrike. Conservation Biology 11:21-31. Calflora. 2011. Website: http://www.calflora.org/index.html (accessed September 2011). CCS Planning and Engineering, Inc. 2003. Technical Memorandum #1: Evaluation of Existing

Conditions. June 30, 2003. Carraway L. N. and B. J. Verts. 1991. Neotoma fuscipes. Mammalian Species No. 386, The

American Society of Mammalogists. 10 pp. [CDFG] California Department of Fish and Game. 2007. Vegetation Classification and

Mapping Program List of California Vegetation Alliances and Rarity Ranking. [CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Data Base. 2011. Rarefind. California Department of

Fish and Game. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2011. Inventory of rare and endangered plants of

California (7th edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. Available at: http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi.

Consortium of California Herbaria. 2011. Regents of the University of California.

http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/. Dunk, J. R. and R. J. Cooper. 1994. Territory-size regulation in black-shouldered kites. Auk

111(3): 588-595.



47

http://www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/species_accounts.html

http://www.calflora.org/index.html

http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi

http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/

Dunk, J. R. 1995. White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). In 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.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. U.S. Army

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Erichsen, E. L., S. K. Smallwood, A. M. Commandatore, B. W. Wilson, and M. D. Fry. 1996.

White-tailed kite movement and nesting patterns in an agricultural landscape. In Raptors in Human Landscapes, D. Bird, D. Varland, and J. Negro, Eds. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp 165-175.

Ferguson, H., and J. M. Azerrad. 2004. Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus. In Management

recommendations for Washington's priority species - Volume V: Mammals: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Gannon, W. A. 2003. Bats - Vespertilionidae, Molossidae, Phyllostomidae. Chapter 3 In:

Feldhamer, G. A., B. C. Thompson, and J. A. Chapman (Eds). Wild mammals of North America: Biology, management and conservation. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 1216 pp.

Google Inc. (2011). Google Earth (Version 5.1.3533.1731) [Software]. Available from

http://www.google.com/earth/index.html Accessed September 2011. H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1999. Santa Clara Valley Water District foothill yellow-legged frog

distribution and status - 1999. Prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Water District. 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.

Hall, E. R. 1981. The mammals of North America. Second edition, 2 vols. John Wiley and

Sons, New York. 2:699-700. Haynie, M. L., C. F. Fulhorst, M. Rood, S. G. Bennett, B. D. Hess, and R. D. Bradley. 2007.

Genetic variation in multilocus microsatellite genotypes in 2 species of woodrats (Neotoma macrotis and N. fuscipes). California Journal of Mammalogy 88:745-758.

Hermanson, J. W. and T. J. O'Shea. 1983. Antrozous pallidus. Mammalian Species 213:1-8.

Hickman, J. C. (1993). The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, University of California Press.

Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of

California. Unpublished report. California Department of Fish and Game: Sacramento, California.



48

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/178

http://www.google.com/earth/index.html

http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/pdf/HollandReport.pdf

http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/pdf/HollandReport.pdf

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.

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.

Lee, D. E. and W. D. Tietje. 2005. Dusky-footed woodrat demography and prescribed fire in a

California oak woodland. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(3):1211-1220. 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. PSW-GTR-195. [NRCS] Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2011a. National Water and Climate Center.

Woodside Fire Station 1, CA9792. Data available online courtesy of the USDA at http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/cgibin/state.pl?state=ca (accessed September 2011).

[NRCS] National Resources Conservation Service. 2011b. Custom Soil Resource Report for

Santa Clara County, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture. [NWI] National Wetland Inventory. 1985 and 2011 (online). NWI map for the USGS 7.5-

minute Palo Alto quadrangle. Data available online courtesy of the USFWS at http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html. Accessed September 2011.

Orloff, S. 2007. Migratory movements of California tiger salamanders in upland habitat-a five-

year study. Pittsburg, California. Prepared for Bailey Estates, LCC by Ibis Environmental, Inc. May.

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.

Safford, H. D., Viers, J. H., and Harrison, S. P. 2005. Serpentine Endemism in the California

Flora: A Database of Serpentine Affinity Madrono, California Botanical Society, Northridge, Calif, Vol 52(4):222-257

Sherwin, R. and D. A. Rambaldini. 2005. Antrozous pallidus. Western Bat Working Group

2005, Available from http://wbwg.org/species_accounts/vespertilonidae/anpa.pdf (accessed May 2011).

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



49

http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/cgibin/state.pl?state=ca

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html

http://wbwg.org/species_accounts/vespertilonidae/anpa.pdf

[Stanford] Stanford University Land Use and Environmental Planning Office. 2009. Draft Stanford University Habitat Conservation Plan.

Trenham, P. C., W. D. Koenig, and H. B. Shaffer. 2001. Spatially autocorrelated demography

and interpond dispersal in the salamander Ambystoma californiense. Ecology 82:3519-3530.

Trenham, P. C. and H. B. Shaffer. 2005. Amphibian upland habitat use and its consequences for

population viability. Ecological Applications 15:1158-1168. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;

determination of threatened status for the California tiger salamander; and special exemption for existing routine ranching activities; Final Rule. Federal Register 69(149):47211-47248.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a. Draft list of bird species to which the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act does not apply. Federal Register 70:372-377. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and

Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Tiger Salamander, Central Population. Final Rule. Federal Register 70(162):49380-49458.

Wilson, D. E., and S. Ruff. 1999. The Smithsonian book of North American mammals.

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, K. E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California’s wildlife,

volume III: Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead shrike. In A. Poole, and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia.

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

Dr. Alan Launer, Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University; pers. comm. to Dr. Steve Rottenborn, H. T. Harvey & Associates (24 February 2006).



50

APPENDIX A. SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES REJECTED FOR OCCURRENCE



A-1

Appendix A. Special-Status Plant Species Considered but Rejected for Occurrence at the City of Junipero Serra Project Site.

COMMON NAME

Lac

k of

Ser

pent

ine

Soils

Lac

k of

Sui

tabl

e H

abita

t/Mic

roha

bita

t Typ

e

Oth

er E

daph

ic R

equi

rem

ents

Out

side

the

Ele

vatio

n R

ange

Ext

irpa

ted/

abse

nt fr

om C

ount

y/Pr

ojec

t Vic

inity

Hig

hly

End

emic

Ran

ge SCIENTIFIC NAME

Acanthomintha duttonii San Mateo thorn-mint X Acanthomintha lanceolata Santa Clara thorn-mint X X Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum Franciscan onion X Androsace elongata ssp. acuta California androsace X X Arctostaphylos andersonii Anderson's manzanita X Arctostaphylos montaraensis Montara manzanita X X XArctostaphylos regismontana Kings Mountain manzanita X X Astragalus pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus coastal marsh milk-vetch X X Astragalus tener var. tener alkali milk-vetch X X Atriplex joaquiniana San Joaquin spearscale X X Azolla microphylla Mexican mosquito fern X Calandrinia breweri Brewer's calandrinia X Calochortus umbellatus Oakland star-tulip X X X Calystegia collina ssp. venusta South Coast Range morning-glory X X Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Congdon's tarplant X X Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre Point Reyes bird's-beak X X X Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata San Francisco Bay spineflower X X Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale Crystal Springs fountain thistle X X X Cirsium praeteriens lost thistle X Clarkia breweri Brewer's clarkia X X X Clarkia concinna ssp. automixa Santa Clara red ribbons X Collinsia multicolor San Francisco collinsia X X Cypripedium fasciculatum clustered lady's-slipper X X Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood X Eriogonum argillosum clay buckwheat X X X Eriogonum nudum var. decurrens Ben Lomond buckwheat X X XEriogonum umbellatum var. bahiiforme bay buckwheat X X X X Eriophyllum jepsonii Jepson's woolly sunflower X X X Eriophyllum latilobum San Mateo woolly sunflower X X



A-2


Ext

irpa

ted/

abse

nt fr

om C

ount

y/Pr

ojec

t Vic

inity

Lac

k of

Sui

tabl

e H

abita

t/Mic

roha

bita

t Typ

e

Oth

er E

daph

ic R

equi

rem

ents

Out

side

the

Ele

vatio

n R

ange

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Lac

k of

Ser

pent

ine

Soils

Hig

hly

End

emic

Ran

ge

Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri Hoover's button-celery X Erysimum franciscanum San Francisco wallflower X X Fritillaria agrestis stinkbells X Fritillaria biflora var. ineziana Hillsborough chocolate lily X X Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary X Galium andrewsii ssp. gatense phlox-leaf serpentine bedstraw X X X X Helianthus exilis serpentine sunflower X X X Hesperevax sparsiflora var. brevifolia short-leaved evax X X Hesperolinon congestum Marin western flax X Hoita strobilina Loma Prieta hoita X X Iris longipetala coast iris X Isocoma menziesii var. diabolica Satan's goldenbush X Lasthenia conjugens Contra Costa goldfields X X Legenere limosa legenere X Leptosiphon acicularis bristly leptosiphon X Leptosiphon ambiguus serpentine leptosiphon X X Leptosiphon grandiflorus large-flowered leptosiphon X Lessingia arachnoidea Crystal Springs lessingia X Lessingia hololeuca woolly-headed lessingia X Lessingia tenuis spring lessingia X X Lilium maritimum coast lily X Lupinus arboreus var. eximius San Mateo tree lupine X Malacothamnus arcuatus arcuate bush-mallow X Malacothamnus davidsonii Davidson's bush-mallow X X Malacothamnus hallii Hall's bush-mallow X Malacothrix phaeocarpa dusky-fruited malacothrix X X X Micropus amphibolus Mt. Diablo cottonweed X Microseris sylvatica sylvan microseris X Monardella villosa ssp. globosa robust monardella X X Monolopia gracilens woodland woolythreads X X



A-3


Ext

irpa

ted/

abse

nt fr

om C

ount

y/Pr

ojec

t Vic

inity

Lac

k of

Sui

tabl

e H

abita

t/Mic

roha

bita

t Typ

e

Oth

er E

daph

ic R

equi

rem

ents

Out

side

the

Ele

vatio

n R

ange

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

Lac

k of

Ser

pent

ine

Soils

Hig

hly

End

emic

Ran

ge

Navarretia cotulifolia cotula navarretia X X Navarretia myersii ssp. myersii pincushion navarretia X X Pedicularis dudleyi Dudley's lousewort X Pentachaeta bellidiflora white-rayed pentachaeta X Perideridia gairdneri ssp. gairdneri Gairdner’s yampah X X Piperia candida white-flowered rein orchid X X Piperia leptopetala narrow-petaled rein orchid X X Piperia michaelii Michael's rein orchid X Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus Choris' popcorn-flower X Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. hickmanii Hickman's popcorn-flower X Plagiobothrys glaber hairless popcorn-flower X X X Plagiobothrys myosotoides forget-me-not popcorn-flower X X Polemonium carneum Oregon polemonium X Psilocarphus brevissimus var. multiflorus Delta woolly-marbles X Sidalcea malachroides maple-leaved checkerbloom X X Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda San Francisco campion X Stuckenia filiformis slender-leaved pondweed X X Suaeda californica California seablite X X X Trifolium hydrophilum saline clover X Triphysaria floribunda San Francisco owl's-clover X Tropidocarpum capparideum caper-fruited tropidocarpum X X



A-4

APPENDIX B. PLANTS IDENTIFIED ON THE PROJECT SITE



B-1

Appendix C. Plants Identified on the Junipero Serra Boulevard Project Site.

FAMILY NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Cotinus sp. smoke bush Anacardiaceae Schinus molle Peruvian peppertree Toxicodendron diversilobum poison oak Nerium oleander oleander Apocyncaceae Hedera helix English ivy Araliaceae Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush Asteraceae Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Centaurea solstitialis yellow star-thistle Chamomilla suaveolens pineapple weed Conyza canadensis horseweed Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia hayfield tarweed Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce Picris echioides bristly ox-tongue Brassica nigra black mustard Brassicaceae Arbutus unedo strawberry tree Ericaceae Croton setigerus turkey mullein Euphorbiaceae Acacia sp. acacia Fabaceae Quercus agrifolia coast live oak Fagaceae Quercus lobata valley oak Hypericum perforatum common St. Johnswort Hypericaceae Sisyrinchium bellum blue-eyed grass Iridaceae Malva parviflora cheeseweed Malvaceae Eucalyptus sp. eucalyptus Myrtaceae Olea europea olive Oleaceae Epilobium ciliatum willow herb Onagraceae Eschscholzia californica California poppy Papaveraceae Cedrus atlantica Atlantic cedar Pinaceae Pittosporum sp. cheesewood Pittosporaceae Plantago lanceolata English plantain Plantaginaceae Avena fatua wild oats Poaceae Briza minor little quacking grass Bromus diandrus ripgut brome Deschampsia danthonioides annual hairgrass Distichlis spicata salt grass Leymus triticoides creeping wildrye Phalaris aquatica harding grass Piptatherum miliaceum smilograss Poa secunda ssp. secunda one-sided bluegrass Vulpia myuros rattail fescue Polygonum lapathifolium common knotweed Polygonaceae Pentagramma triangularis triangle fern Pteridaceae Cotoneaster sp. cotoneaster Rosaceae Heteromeles arbutifolia toyon Pyracantha angustifolia scarlet firethorn Raphiolepis indicus Indian hawthorne Rubus discolor Himalayan blackberry Ailanthus altissima tree of heaven Simaroubaceae Ulmus parvifolia chinese elm Ulmaceae

The species are arranged alphabetically by family name for all vascular plants encountered during the plant survey. Plants are also listed alphabetically within each family. Species nomenclature is from Hickman (1993).



B-2

appendix b: biological resources report€¦ · san jose martinez stockton hollister fairfield...

Documents