Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 East Ala Cty Conserv Strategy (1)G`�y OF Dp�jlly. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL August 21, 2012 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Joni Pattillo, City Manager &aa ,��� East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: CITY CLERK File #400 -10 The City Council will consider accepting the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects. The Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to permitting and mitigation for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land development, infrastructure, and other activities. The City of Dublin partially funded and participated in the development of the Conservation Strategy. The final step in the process is to recognize the document for use in future public projects. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The total cost of preparing the Conservation Strategy was $391,862. Funding authorized by the City Council in 2007 and 2008 covered Dublin's contribution of $38,125 to the effort. The balance of the cost was covered by other agencies with representatives on the Steering Committee and a State of California Proposition 50 grant. The City of Dublin has no additional funding obligations to the project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, deliberate and adopt a Resolution Accepting the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects affecting habitat and endangered species in Eastern Alameda County. Submitted By Director of Community Development Reviewed By Assistant City Manager Page 1 of 5 ITEM NO. 7.1 DESCRIPTION: A number of land conservation programs are occurring in eastern Alameda County, with the intent of setting aside land as permanent open space and habitat. In addition, .private land development and public infrastructure projects occasionally trigger the need to mitigate for impacts to wetlands, habitat, and species impacted by these projects. Mitigating these impacts is regulated by public resource agencies (the State of California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). The permitting process through these agencies can be lengthy, costly, and a frustrating experience for both public and private entities. In 2007, a Steering Committee was formed with representatives from the aforementioned resource agencies, the cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton, Zone 7, Alameda County, the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, Caltrans, the National Resource Conservation Service (the former Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service), the Alameda County Resource Conservation District, East Bay Regional Park District, the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority, and the Alameda County Partnership for Land Conservation and Stewardship. The goal of the Steering Committee was to develop a regional approach to permitting. At the time, permitting and mitigation was being conducted in a fragmented manner, which increased the costs and duration of permit review. On September 18, 2007, the City Council authorized the participation, including funding, in the development of the Conservation Strategy (Attachment 1). The environmental firm of Jones and Stokes was hired to develop a collective conservation strategy and to initiate discussions with other stakeholder groups on this topic. The primary purposes of the Conservation Strategy are to facilitate the regional conservation of biological resources and streamline environmental permitting for local land use, transportation, and infrastructure projects. The Conservation Strategy will also provide a baseline inventory of biological resources and conservation priorities for the eastern portion of Alameda County. The end goal was to achieve a Programmatic Biological Opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and streamline the permitting process by the resource agencies. The Conservation Strategy is intended to be utilized by local agencies and resource agencies during project -level planning and environmental permitting. It is intended to provide an effective framework to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources in eastern Alameda County, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts resulting from infrastructure and development projects. The Conservation Strategy describes, in detail, how to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on selected focal special- status species and sensitive habitats. A list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding the Conservation Strategy is included as Attachment 2 to this Staff Report. Compliance with the Conservation Strategy by local jurisdictions, individual landowners, and developers who need regulatory permits is strictly voluntary. There is no obligation on behalf of the City or private developers to comply with the Conservation Strategy. Rather, it is intended to be a guidance tool that could enable a more straightforward review and permitting process for projects with impacts to biological resources. The Conservation Strategy is a comprehensive document that consists of: • Regional conservation goals and objectives; • Regional maps identifying lands suitable for voluntary conservation and mitigation; Page 2 of 5 • Species occurrence maps and written descriptions; • Species distribution models; • Standard .avoidance and mitigation measures; • Mitigation ratios for species and habitat resources that are acceptable to regulatory agencies; and • Implementation toolkit that includes templates and guidelines for establishing conservation easements and long term management plans. The Conservation Strategy is included as Exhibit A to Attachment 4 of this Staff Report and can also be accessed online . at: http: / /www.eastalco- conservation.org /documents.html Outreach and Participation The process of developing the Conservation Strategy included participation by the consultants, Steering Committee, as well as a Users Advisory Group. The Users Advisory Group consisted of representatives from local environmental advocacy groups, rural landowners, ranchers and farmers, and the home building industry. Three public workshops were held in 2009 and 2010 at key points in the process, and landowner workshops were also held to solicit input as the Conservation Strategy was drafted. A public draft was available in September 2010 for public review and comment, and the final draft Conservation Strategy was published in December 2010. Following the completion of the Conservation Strategy, comments were received from ranchers and landowners, and a follow - up letter was signed by the Steering Committee members and distributed in May 2011. The City of Dublin also sent a letter to Dublin property owners and developers in May 2011 informing them of the availability of the Conservation Strategy. Subsequent to the letter being distributed, City Staff discussed concerns regarding the Conservation Strategy with members of the development community who had concerns and comments, including Kevin Fryer of Mission Valley Properties, land use attorney Marty Inderbitzen, property owner Pat Croak, and Andy Byde of Braddock and Logan. Following completion of the final draft Conservation Strategy, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began preparing a Programmatic Biological Opinion. The Programmatic Biological Opinion has been completed (see Regional Permitting discussion below for further details). The Conservation Strategy was formally accepted as guidance for environmental mitigation by both the Zone 7 Water Agency (June 2011) and the City of Livermore (July 2011). Now that the Biological Opinion has been completed, other local agencies involved in the creation of the Strategy are expected to accept the document as guidance in the coming months. The Conservation Strategy will continue to be a "living document' that can be updated and revised as new information emerges that is relevant to regional conservation and project mitigation. Regional Permitting One of the benefits of developing the Conservation Strategy is that projects that use the document as guidance could benefit from streamlined environmental permitting from the resource agencies. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has written and adopted a Programmatic Biological Opinion in consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A Biological Opinion is the document that states the opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as to whether or not an action by another federal agency is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. This Programmatic Biological Opinion will expedite the process for project approval, and will provide the framework Page 3 of 5 for compensation, mitigation, conservation, and appropriate minimization measures related to biological resources. Future development projects (either public projects or private development) that choose to use the Conservation Strategy as guidance could "tier" off of the programmatic -level analysis with project specific biological opinions. The Programmatic Biological Opinion is included as Attachment 3 to this Staff Report. Utilization of the Conservation Strategy for guidance also facilitates more efficient and thorough environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by providing baseline information for analyzing biological resources. Furthermore, the Conservation Strategy has pre - prepared avoidance and mitigation measures, mitigation standards, and conservation actions that can be used for mitigation measures in CEQA documents. The City of Dublin will need to obtain a number of resource agency permits in the future in conjunction with infrastructure costs, primarily those associated with development in Eastern Dublin. In addition, development of much of the remaining undeveloped land in Dublin may also require permitting by the resource agencies. Utilization of the Conservation Strategy provides a degree of certainty as to the expectations of the resource agencies and can simplify the permitting process. However, it will be up to the individual developer and resource agencies to determine if the guidance of the Conservation Strategy is to be followed. If the City Council accepts the Conservation Strategy as guidance for regional conservation and environmental permitting, the City will then utilize the document to advise how publicly - sponsored projects should avoid, minimize, and mitigate for impacts on biological resources in Eastern Alameda County. The document is also available for those private development projects that wish to utilize the guidance outlined within. The approval resolution for accepting the Conservation Strategy as guidance for public projects is included as Attachment 4 to this Staff Report, with the Conservation Strategy included as Exhibit A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State Guidelines and City Environmental Regulations, requires that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and when applicable, environmental documents prepared. For this project, Staff recommends that the project be found exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that accepting the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy as guidance for future environmental mitigation will not have a significant effect on the environment. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: A Public Meeting Notice was mailed to those requesting such notice ten days before the hearing and the Staff Report and attachments were made available for public review prior to the public hearing in accordance with Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091. Staff also sent a copy of the public notice for this meeting and a copy of the Staff Report to Kevin Fryer of Mission Valley Properties, land use attorney Marty Inderbitzen, property owner Pat Croak, and Andy Byde of Braddock and Logan, all of whom provided comments on the Conservation Strategy in the past. Page 4 of 5 ATTACHMENTS: 1. September 18, 2007 City Council Agenda Statement (without attachments) 2. Conservation Strategy FAQs 3. Programmatic Biological Opinion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Permitted Projects Utilizing the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy, dated May 31, 2012 4. Resolution accepting the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for projects affecting habitat and endangered species in Eastern Alameda County with the Conservation Strategy included as Exhibit A Page 5 of 5 U, On d- 43 ! . zz,�Ii 1 SUBJECT: CITY CLERK File # 1:1�UFO-1-121V] X X00 -mac AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 18, 2007 ATTACHMENTS: RECOMMENDATION: Pi Eastern Alameda County Regional Conservation Strategy Report Prepared by: Mark Lander, City Engineer 1. Joint letter from the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the Cities of Livermore, Dublin, and Pleasanton, the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County, and the Boards of Zone 7 and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency 2. Resolution 3. Budget Change Form Consider the City's participation in the development of the Eastern Alameda County Regional Conservation Strategy; and if the Council chooses to participate; 1. Adopt the Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Cooperative Agreement; and 2. Approve a budget change allocating $30,000 for the City's share of the Resource Strategy costs. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The cost to participate was originally stated as $67,500, but with the help of the Alameda County Resource Conservation District, a grant has reduced needed participation to $30,000. DESCRIPTION: A number of land conservation programs are occurring in eastern Alameda County, with the intent of setting aside land as permanent open space and habitat. In addition, land development and public infrastructure projects frequently trigger the need for land to be acquired as mitigation for impacts to wetlands or other habitat impacted by these projects. The processes for proactively acquiring land for open space and acquiring mitigation land as a permit requirement are not currently being coordinated in a regional effort. Permitting by public resource agencies (the State of California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the San Francisco Bay COPY TO: Pagel of 3 G: (AGENDA STATEMENTS, MISOagst Eastern Alameda County Regional Conservation Strategy.doc ITEM NO. `� ` ( d „p� Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) can be lengthy, costly, and a frustrating experience for both the permittees and the agencies as agencies attempt to assess impacts and proposed mitigation on a case -by -case basis. In conjunction with recent permit applications by the Zone 7 Water Agency relative to the Altamont Water Treatment Plant and Pipeline Project, the resource agencies have requested that Zone 7 initiate a regional approach for mitigation and other open space land acquisition efforts. Zone 7 has retained Jones and Stokes, an environmental consultant, to develop a draft strategy and initiate discussion with other stakeholder groups. Since April of this year, Zone 7 has hosted a series of meetings with stakeholders. In attendance have been the aforementioned resource agencies, the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin, the County of Alameda, the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, Caltrans, the National Resource Conservation Service (the former Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service), the Alameda County Resource Conservation District, the East Bay Regional Park District, and the Alameda County Partnership for Land Conservation and Stewardship. This working group has developed a schedule and scope of work for developing what will be known as the Eastern Alameda County Resource Conservation Strategy. The scope of work consists of base map preparation, delineation of existing land uses and existing open space lands, identification of habitat corridors, identification of corridor gaps and other significant habitat acquisition areas, prioritization of acquisition needs or opportunities, and preparation of a final report and maps. The work is scheduled to begin in September 2007 and be completed by January 2009, an 18 -month process. Anticipated benefits of the Conservation Strategy would be: 1) Streamlining of the permitting process by directing individual mitigation actions toward mitigation which regulatory agencies have previously approved and support. 2) Streamlining of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental impact review processes through improved identification and evaluation of impacts and mitigations. 3) Creation of a residual working relationship between local government, resource agencies, landowners, and developers. 4) Enhanced opportunities to obtain State or Federal funds for open space, habitat, and recreational lands in Eastern Alameda County. 5) Improved open space and habitat within Eastern Alameda County through the conservation of lands with high habitat value and/or that provide connections between open space lands. The City of Dublin will need to obtain a number of resource agency permits in the future in conjunction with infrastructure costs, primarily those associated with development in Eastern Dublin such as the Phase H Improvements to the Fallon Interchange and Hacienda Interchanges. In addition, development of much of the remaining undeveloped land in Dublin may also require permitting. The cost of the work being performed by Jones and Stokes is $405,000. Zone 7, which has fronted the costs of the Resource Strategy to date, has requested that other jurisdictions share in the remaining costs. Zone 7, along with the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, the County of Alameda, and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, have previously agreed to or are expected to approve a Page 2 of 3 contribution of $67,500 each. A similar contribution by the City of Dublin would provide the remainder of the needed funding. However, following the initial funding offers by the other agencies, the Alameda County Resource Conservation District has been successful in obtaining a grant in the amount of $295,000 from the State of California Department of Water Resources Watershed Program ( CALFED) to develop the Resource Strategy. Since a portion of the CALFED grant must be applied to an educational component not included in the Jones and Stokes scope of work, the grant does not result in a $295,000 reduction in the remaining costs to local agencies. The actual reduction in costs is estimated at $220,000, leaving $180,000 or $30,000 each for the six local agencies. Zone 7 has prepared a Cooperative Agreement for execution by the six participating agencies governing the management of the consultant's work and expenditure of funds. Staff is asking for Council direction with regard to the City's participation in the development of the Resource Strategy and may find participation advantageous for the following reasons: The City will be included in the management and oversight of the consultant's work, as well as creating the opportunity to provide input on the process and final product. Instead of being restricted to the public review process, the City will be in a better position to help create a final document that best serves the City's residents, enhance the City's working relationships with the resource agencies, and allow the City to reap the benefits of permit streamlining. Staff therefore recommends the Council consider the City's participation in the development of the Eastern Alameda County Regional Conservation Strategy; and if the Council chooses to participate; 1. Adopt the Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Cooperative Agreement; and 2. Approve a budget change allocating $30,000 for the City's share of the Resource Strategy costs. Page 3 of 3 Facts about the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy . Mat is Me East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS)? The EACCS is a collaborative effort to preserve endangered species by developing and adopting a shared vision to guide long -term habitat protection. The EACCS will assess areas across east Alameda County for their habitat conservation value and establish guiding biological principles for conducting conservation in this part of the County. Part of that guidance will include working with willing landowners to implement long -term conservation in the form of permanent conservation easements that would offset impacts from local land use, transportation, or other infrastructure projects. . Is the EACCS the same as Habitat Conservation Plan? No, a Conservation Strategy is not the same as a formal Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). An HCP is a planning document that identifies regionally- coordinated mitigation strategies aimed at conserving endangered or threatened species, under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), certain non - listed species, and habitat in order to offset specific anticipated development, transportation, and infrastructure projects. An HCP often requires local agencies to conserve species and habitats prior to approving projects that impact either listed endangered or threatened species and /or its habitat. An HCP results in a programmatic incidental take permit' from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for certain species, it identifies specific types of projects to be covered under the programmatic permit, requires a governance and funding program to ensure that the terms and conditions of the HCP are met. Unlike and HCP, the primary focus of EACCS is to develop a coordinated and biologically sound approach to mitigation that will both support conservation and /or recovery of listed species and streamline state and federal permitting by providing guidance on avoidance, minimization, and mitigation for projects. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and local governments and agencies agreed that preparing an HCP for east Alameda County is unnecessary because of the relatively low level of planned development that would typically justify the need for and adequately fund an HCP. As such, the EACCS will not automatically allow local agencies to approve permits for projects that could adversely impact threatened or endangered species. Instead, it will provide guidance during the project planning and permitting process to ensure that impacts are offset in a biologically effective manner. It should be noted that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has offered to develop a programmatic biological opinion (i.e. permit) to further streamline permitting and mitigation through EACCS. ' A permit that allows the permit- holder(s) to legally proceed with activities that would otherwise result in unlawful take of listed species under the federal ESA. www.eastalco - conservation.org . Wlwo is pursuing Owe EACCS and wlwy Undoubtedly there will be development and infrastructure projects which occur in the eastern part of Alameda County in the coming years. Those projects will benefit from a reliable biological framework to guide environmental mitigation, which is already required but is currently done on a piecemeal basis. The EACCS should help to improve mitigation programs, increase the benefit to local endangered species, and involve willing landowners more directly in regional conservation efforts. A primary goal of this strategy is to reduce project delays and consequently, project costs, while facilitating conservation of biological resources. The EACCS is funded by Alameda County Community Development Agency, Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, Alameda County Waste Management Authority, the Cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton, East Bay Regional Parks District, Zone 7 Water Agency, and by a CalFed grant obtained by the Alameda County Resource Conservation District. . Wlw at type of oaatm ach and review i's occurring t1wrouglwoaat Owe EACCS process? The goal of the Steering Committee, composed of the funders and regulatory agencies, is to develop the EACCS through a transparent and interactive planning process that involves participation of a wide range of stakeholders. The Users Advisory Group (UAG) was convened to review and provide real -time feedback to the Steering Committee on work products. The UAG is comprised of designated representatives that include landowners, developers, environmental and conservation groups. The UAG meetings are open to the public. The UAG meeting dates and times, agenda, meeting minutes from previous meetings and other handouts are posted on the EACCS website (www.eastalco- conservation.org). Three technical workshops were held in May 2009. The purpose of these workshops was to obtain feedback from species and local experts on the direction of the conservation strategy for specific natural communities and the focal species that predominantly reside in it. In addition to the technical workshops, there is ongoing technical review from species and local experts to ensure accuracy in land cover designations and identify data gaps. This information will help shape the conservation goals and objectives for each focal species and identify conservation priority areas. Two community meetings will be held during the planning process to give project updates to the general public. All information that is gathered or generated as part of the EACCS planning process will be available on the EACCS project website (www.eastalco - conservation.org) and available for review at any time during the development of the EACCS. 5. Will the EACCS restrict may land use No; the purpose of the EACCS is to provide guidance to local agencies and private developers about favorable mitigation strategies that can be used to offset the impacts of their projects. EACCS is not intended to be a land -use tool that would affect individual land use or property rights. Private land owners will never be forced to participate in mitigation programs on their property. All conservation on private lands will be voluntary. . Will you be conducting land surveys on may property? No; we will use publicly available existing data, obtained from state and local sources as well as interpretation of aerial photographs. We do not foresee a need to conduct new surveys. Landowners who would like to have surveys conducted on their property to assess conservation potential or value www.eastalco - conservation.org should contact the Alameda County Resource Conservation District or Natural Resource Conservation Service to negotiate access through their private landowner programs. 7. Will the EACCS disclose habitat or, species related information about Amy property? No; while the EACCS will provide general information about biological values across the eastern part of the County, the conservation strategy will not provide information on a parcel -by- parcel basis or direct conservation toward specific properties. . blow will the EACCS benefit me The EACCS will benefit willing landowners by helping to create an accessible and equitable market for land with conservation value for threatened and endangered species habitat. EACCS can also help to preserve working landscapes in east Alameda County by supporting conservation transactions on private lands and acknowledging the importance of grazing and other land uses that support the preservation of species and their habitats. Although the Conservation Strategy will be primarily focused on preserving endangered species and habitats, if implemented through permanent conservation easements with willing, private landowners, the Strategy could also directly contribute to the preservation of working landscapes in east Alameda County. . blow will you pursue acquisition of land for, conservation purposes? The acquisition of land for conservation purposes through fee title or permanent conservation easements will be accomplished by working only with interested and willing sellers. All conservation transactions that occur on private property will be negotiated by the local jurisdiction (e.g., city, county, etc.) that needs mitigation for a project and the landowner, rather than being pursued by the EACCS as a whole. 0. blow will tlae^ EACCS affect or, benefit vineyards and other croplands? The plan is focused on conservation of species and habitats. There may be some crop lands that could contribute to species conservation; however these parcels are not likely to provide the same level of biological conservation benefit as other, more natural landscapes. 11. What is tlae^ EACCS schedule The EACCS began in 2007 and is expected to be complete in 2009. Although parts of the Conservation Strategy will be available for review on -line throughout 2009, a complete draft Conservation Strategy will be available for a formal public review and comment in fall 2009.A second community meeting will be held at that time. The final Conservation Strategy will be completed following public review and accepted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, the Regional Water Quality control Board, and local agencies in winter 2009 -2010. 12. blow can interested parties abet involved The latest information and draft documents are available through the EACCS website at www.eastalco- conservation.org. Interested parties are encouraged to review and comment on available documents. In addition, interested parties are invited to attend Users Advisory Group meetings and community meetings. For, more information or, questions about the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy, please contract fury Lim, EACCS Coordinators at 925 -454 -5036 or, at mn im@zone'7water.com. You can also visit tlae^ EACCS website^ at www. era stralco- con,ser,vration.or,g. www.eastalco - conservation.org WOM 9 EAST ALAMEDA COUNTY 'CONSERVATJON STRATEGY PROGRAMMATIc BIOLOGI(CAL OPINION Table,.jif Conte-ils Introductory Paragraphs 4 Consultation History/Background 5 Conservation Strategy Bunn nary 6 Conservation Priorities 7 Goals and Objectives 8 Standardized Mitigation Ratios 8 Calculating Mitigation Ratios 9 Implementation and Adaptive Management 10 Introduction to the Biological Opinion I I Procedures for Appending Projects to the Programmatic Biological Opinion I I Suitability Criteria for Projects to be Appended to the Programmatic Biological Opinion 13 Biological Opinion 13 Description of the Action 13 Covered Activities 13 Minimization Measures 15 General Minimization Measures 16 Callippe Silverspot Butterfly 18 California Red-Legged Frog 19 Central California Tiger Salamander 19 San Joaquin Kit Fox 20 Ms, Jane Mn Hicks Palmate-Bracted Bird's-Bea,k Compensation/Mitigation Reporting and Notification l" on- and Remedial Actions Action Area Analytical Framework for the Jeopardy and Adverse Modification Analyses Status of the Species Environmental Baseline Effects of the Proposed Action Cumulative Effects Conclusion C,onservation Recommendations Reinitiation-Closing Statement Literature Cited Figure I Figure 2 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D I 22 22 23 24 24 24 26 41 54 62 63 63 64 65 74 75 US. "S FYSH & WILDLIFE SEIMYCH United States Department of -the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE S-A,-rnmpmtr% Pieb and Wildlife Office 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 Sacramento, California 95825-1846 In Reply Refer To: 08ESMF00-2012-F-0092-1 Ms. Jane M. Hicks MAY Chief, Regulatory Division San Francisco District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1455 Market Street San Francisco, California 94103-1398 Subject: Programmatic Biological Opinion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Permitted Projects Utilizing the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy that May Affect Federally Listed Species in East Alameda County, California (Corps File Number 2011-002305) Dear Ms. Hicks: This document transmits the biological opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on issuance of permits for projects under the Corps jurisdiction that are utilizing the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (Conservation Strategy) under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (Clean Water Act), for projects that may affect one or more of the following species: the federally endangered longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna) and its critical habitat, the threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) and its critical habitat, the endangered callippe silverspot butterfly (Speyeria callippe callippe), the threatened California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) and its critical habitat, the threatened Central California Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) (Central California tiger salamander) and its critical habitat, the threatened Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) and its critical habitat, the endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), and the endangered palmate-bracted bird's-beak (Cordylanthuspalmatus). Your office requested consultation on October 25, 2011 and the request was received in our field office on October 28, 2011. This document is issued pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 etseq.) (Act). The Conservation Strategy addresses 19 focal species: nine state and/or federally listed species and ten non-listed special status species. The Conservation Strategy provides a framework for long -term conservation and management of these species and the habitats that support them. The Conservation Strategy includes measures to protect all 19 focal species as if they are currently Ms. Jane M. Hicks 5 listed as endangered or threatened under the Act and/or the California Endangered Species Act. From a regulatory perspective, this Conservation Strategy is intended to streamline and simplify the issuance of permits for future project proponents, establish priorities for mitigation and conservation, and Itelp maintain native biological and eco logical, diversity in eastern A lanieda County. The Conservation Strategy aims to standardize avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and compensation requirements to comply with Federal (Act, National Environmental Policy Act), state (California Endangered Species Act, California Environmental Quality Act), and local laws and regulations, relating to biological and natural resources of the study area. The Conservation Strategy also provides, a framework for future conservation efforts unrelated to mitigation/compensation from project impacts/effects. The Conservation Strategy establishes a baseline condition for acres of protected land in the study area and establishes, which land cover types and focal species should be the focus of project planning and conservation efforts. 'rbe Conservation Strategy will be used to guide conservation projects, assist in obtaining grants lor conservation efforts, contribute to the implementation of the San Francisco Bay Area Upland Goals prcJjects, and promote the protection of wildlife corridors. It is intended to be utilized by various, entities, including but not limited to landowners, land trusts, non-profit organizations, and municipalities developing their regional pJaniiing documents, 11 1: [I A In late 2,0,06 and early 2007 Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) and the City of Livermore held discussions with the Service and the California Department offish and Game to deten-nine the best approach to streamline consultations and provide meaningful conservation. It was determined at the time that development would not be sufficient to fund a regional habitat conservation plan, and a conservation strategy similar to the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy would be more appropriate. Additional State, Federal, and local entities joined the discussion to form the Steering Committee: Alameda County, Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, Alameda County Resource Conservation District, Alameda County Waste Management Authority, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), City of Dublin, City of L,iven-nore, City of Pleasanton, East Bay Regional Park District, Natural Resources Conservation Service, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB), the Service, and Zone 7 Water Agency. The Steering Committee met monthly from early 0t17' to late, 2010 with additional meetings as needed, In order to have public and stakeholder participation, the User Advisory Group was fortned and met bimonthly or as needed. The User Advisory Group was comprised of individual rural landowners, home builders, conservation bankers, various local, state, and federal entities, and non-profit environmental groups. Working drafts of chapters were provided, to the'[Jser Advisory Group for review throughout the process. Several public meetings and smaller outreach meetings were held during the development of the Conservation Strategy, A website (http://eastalco-conservation.org/itidex.htmi) was created to allow for further outreach and review. T he administrative draft was released to the public in late summer 2010 for review and solicitation of comments. A public meeting followed the release of the administrative draft. The, Conservation Strategy was finalized in OIctober 2010 after an extended comment period. The Conservation Strategy is intended to be a "living docuinent" and will be adapted, as needed, during implementation, Please refer to the website for updates, The Ms, Jane M. Hicks 6 Corps requested section 7 consultation for projects that implement the Conservation Strategy with the Service on October 25, 2011. The Steering Committee intended this Conservation Strategy to be used during the entire project_ level analysis,, starting at project inception and ending at regulatory pertnits. Project applicants and resource agencies reviewing project effects/impacts and making decisions about compensation/mitigation should apply the mitigation standards of the Conservation Strategy and determine if the mitigation supports its conservation goals and objectives. Further, it should be determined whether the mitigation contributes to closing one or more conservation gaps for the focal species or natural communities in question within a given Conservation Zone, and ,ultimately within the Conservation Strategy Study Area. Additionally, the mitigation standards and analysis should not apply to projects that do not incorporate the conservation goals, objectives, and priorities of the strategy. Those projects will require additional analysis and most likely increased mitigation. The Conservation Strategy is designed to serve as a coordinated approach to conservation in the eastern portion of Alameda County, The conservation Strategy not only addresses prqject-level, mitigation for potential impacts to species and habitats throughout the eastern part of the county, but also provides a broader, coordinated approach for local conservation efforts beyond those required by regulatory requirements. The conservation goats, objectives, and conservation, actions provide a long -term vision of how conservation of resources should be implemented within the Conservation Strategy Study Area (Figure 1). Conservation Strategy SurnmM The Conservation Strategy Study Area encompasses 271,485 acres in eastern Alameda County, California. The western boundary runs, along the Alameda Creek watershed boundw-y which encompasses small portions of the cities of Fremont, Union City, and Hayward, though those jurisdictions were not formally part of the planning process, The northern, southern, and eastern boundaries follow the Alameda County line with Contra Costa County, Santa Clara County, and San Joaquin County, respectively. The Conservation Strategy generalized land cover types to seven natural communities (grassland, chaparral and coastal scrub, oak woodland, conifer woodland, riparian forest and scrub, wetlands, and open water) and two non-natural land cover types (cultivated agriculture and developed). Focal species include the federally listed longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, callippe si Iverspot butterfly, California red - legged frog, Central California, tiger salamander, Alameda whipsnake, San Joaquin kit fox, and palmate- bracted bird's-beak, Non-federally listed focal species include foothill yellow-legged frog, golden eagle, tricolored blackbird, western burrowing owl, American badger, Central California coast steelhead, San Joaquin spearscale, big tarplant, congdon's tarplant, Livermore Valley tarplant and recurve!d larkspur. 'rhe Conservation Strategy, was designed using a multi-scale approach in accordance with principles, of conservation biology. At the largest scale, conservation goals and objectives were developed to encompass ecological processes, environmental gradients, biological diversity, and regional wildlife linkages. Conservation actions were developed to implement these goals and Ms, Jane M. Hicks N objectives. These conservation actions occur at the landscape scale or landscape level— generally at the scale of miles or tens of miles. At the middle scale, conservation actions were developed to address natural communities primarily through the enhancement, restoration, and management of vegetation types (i,e., land cover types). This medium, scale is called the natural community level. The final scale addresses the specific needs of focal species for protection and enhancement of individuals, populations, and groups, of populations,. Species-level conservation actions, were developed to supplement and focus actions developed at the broader scales and to ensure that all the needs of particular species are addressed. A conservation gap analysis was conducted to determine the levels of existing protection of species and natural communities in the Conservation Strategy Study Area. The conservation gap analysis provided information on where natural communities occur in the study area, how many acres are currently protected, and how many should be protected for the natural community to persist. This was modeled using similar methods from the San Francisco Bay Area Upland Goals Project. The analysis then focused on finer scale resources such as species occurrences, species, habitat, Or unique, physical features to conserve biological diversity not protected by the broader scale approaches. That additional focus is incorporated through species-level conservation goals and objectives, The Conservation Strategy Study Area was subdivided into 18 Conservation Zones (Figure 2) based on California Deparunent of Water Resources sub - watersheds to identify locations for conservation actions in areas with the same relative ecological function as those areas where impacts occur. The primary purpose of these Conservation Zones was to describe the specific areas in which conservation actions such as land acquisition will occur, without identifying individual parcels. This focuses the conservation actions in a spatially explicit manner while maintaining, the flexibility to conduct these actions on different parcels and using different mechanisms (e.g,., acquisition vs. incentives) to meet the conservation objectives. Chapter 4 of the Conservation Strategy discusses, the conservation value and conservation acreage goals and recommendations for each Conservation Zone, Recommendations by Conservation Zones were calculated by applying the percentage of a land cover type that needs to be protected throughout the Conservation Strategy Study Area to the fraction of each land cover type in each zone. This approach allows for a rnore relevant assessment of the importance of resources in each zone: during project review and determine where the conservation focus should be for each part of the study area. Conservation Priorities Conservation priorities were assessed for focal species on the basis of suitable habitat and designated critical habitat, (where applicable) to focus where initigation/conservation should occur. The conservation priorities in each Conservation Zone were determined by: (1) the rarity of the resource in the zone and in the study area; (2) the current and future threats on the persistence of the resource in the zone and in the study area; and (3) the acreage of the land cover, type under protection in each zone relative to its distribution in the study area. These conservation priorities for federally 'listed species and their habitats, in each conservation zone are described in Chapter 4 of Conservation Strategy and are incorporated by reference, Ms. Jane M. Hicks 8 Goals and Objectives The conservation goals and objectives, provide a long-term vision of how conservation of resources should be implemented in the study area. They were designed to maintain current populations of focal, and other native species in the Conservation Strategy Study Area. In some cases, populations of focal species are expected to increase as a result of land preservation, management, habitat enhancement, habitat restoration, and habitat creatiom Each conservation goal is supported by several conservation objectives. Conservation goals and objectives will be achieved through the implementation of conservation actions at the project level. These goals and objectives are described in Chapter 3 of the Conservation Strategy and are incorporated by reference. Standardized Mitigalion alto for Species The core of the Conservation Strategy for the focal species is the application of standardized mitigation ratios for each species (Tables 3-4 through: 3-12 of the Conservation Strategy; Appendix C of Programmatic 130), Appendices A and Bare Tables 3-2 and 3-3 (minimization measures) of the Conservation Strategy. These ratios would be utilized by local jurisdictions and the Service to determine the level of mitigation necessary to offset project impacts. The ratios were developed in collaboration with the Service and based on consideration of sites with habitat quality and species occurrence typical of the study area. Figures 3-6 through 3-16 of the Conservation Strategy show spatially explicit information about how the ratios are applied. When determining the mitigation ratio for a focal species both the species' standardized mitigation ratio table and figure need to be consulted. The intent of the standardized ratios mid figures is to keep the mitigation location as close to the impact area witli habitat similar or better to where the impacts occur and to keep mitigation within the Conservation Strategy Study Area. Mitigation ratios are applied to the project site based on actual site conditions and habitat quality. If the project area is more, sensitive or if proposed mitigation sites have a higher habitat value, then ratios should be adjusted accordingly. Project applicants evaluate habitat quality based on a scoring system that qualitatively assigns habitat units for each focal species that occurs or may occur on the project site. A scoring system was created for all focal species except steelhead based on each species' life history (see Appendix D in this Programmatic BO and Appendix E in the Conservation Strategy for the scoresheets). Each applicable scoresbeet will be completed to reflect project site conditions that are directly related to the habitat quality for each .focal species. As discussed above, the assessment of habitat potential on a site will disregard the current land use and management activities that might be compromising the maximum potential habitat quality of the site. Sites with higher quality habitat will score higher for that particular focal species. The habitat unit scores for project impacts reflect the habitat quality on the site where irnpacts will occur. While final determinations are subject to site-specific conditions, it is recommended that mitigation generally not be allowed at sites supporting lower quality habitat than the site being afTected. However, exceptions can be made where potential mitigation sites with lower quality habitat have the potential to be enhanced or restored to a level of equal or higher habitat Ms..Jane M. Hicks, 9 value. If such a determination is made, the enhancements, or restoration actions will be completed prior to initiation of project impacts to ensure that the mitigation adequately offsets the impacts. Calculating, Afiligalion Ratios The mitigation needed for each species is determined by multiplying the total acres of focal. species habitat that are affected by, the mitigation ratios, according to the location of the mitigation site mid the mix of mitigation provided. Mitigation ratios are determined by using the mitigation reference map (Figures 3-6 through 3-16 in Chapter 3 of the Conservation Strategy and Appendix C in this Programmatic BO) for the appropriate species, and applying the mitigation ratio from the mitigation ratio table (Tables 3-4 through 3-12 in Chapter 3 of the Conservation Strategy and Appendix C in this Programmatic BO) depending on the location of project impact and the location of proposed mitigation. Less mitigation may also be required if mitigation habitat is of higher quality than affected habitat. For a given species, the species score, sheets provided in Appendix E of the Conservation Strategy and Appendix D in this Programmatic BO allow a project applicant and the 'service and CDFG to calculate a habitat score for the area that will be impacted by the proposed project. Similarly, these species score sheets would also be used to calculate a habitat score for that species on the proposed mitigation site, For the species in question the mitigation site must score equally or higher than the impact site in order for it to be considered for mitigation purposes. if the score of the mitigation site is higher than The score of the impact site the total mitigation required (as calculated using the Standardized Mitigation Table for that species, and Mitigation Reference Map) would be reduced using a Mitigation Correction Factor, The Mitigation Correction Factor for the species in question is the species habitat score for the impact site divided by the species habitat score for the mitigation site. The Mitigation Correction Factor is then multiplied by the total mitigation acreage required when the Standardized Mitigation Ratios for drat species are applied. This approach provides incentives for applicants to mitigate close to flie impact sites. I For some projects, habitat restoration may be used in lieu of'some habitat preservation, 11"habitat restoration care be provided, less habitat preservation may be required. In all cases, more species, habitat will be preserved than affected. For example, a project is proposed that witi affect the Alameda whipsnake in Conservation Zone 13 and is located within a draft recovery unit but outside a critical habitat unit and the compensation site is located within the same draft recovery unit and inside a critical habitat unit. 'rhe standard mitigation ratio is 2.5 : I for Alameda whipsnake, Using the scoring sheets based on locations and habitat quality for both the impact, site and compensation site, the proJect impact site score is 18 and the proposed compensation site score is 25. Therefore, the impact site score is divided by the compensation site score and then multiplied by the standard mitigation ratio to determine the adjusted ratio [(18 . 25) x 2.5 = 1.81 , Ms. Jane M. Hicks 10 Another example, a project is proposed within grassland habitat within Conservation Zone 7. Using the scoring sheets, the proposed project will affect San Joaquin kit fox habitat (score is 25) and uplands for the Central California tiger salamander (score is 21) and California red - legged. frog (score is 34). The project proponent proposes to compensate at a conservation bank near the impact site, The scores for the bank using the score sheets are: 29 for San Joaquin kit fox; 36 for Central California tiger salamander; and 50 for the California red-legged frog. The standard mitigation ratio for the species based on the locations of the impact site and the mitigation bank are: 3:1 for the San Joaquin kit fox; 3:1 for the Central California tiger salamander; and 3:1 for the California red-legged frog. The impact site scores are divided by the compensation site scores and multiplied by the standard mitigation ratios to determine the corrected ratios, The adjusted ratios are: (25 + 29) x 3:1= 2.5:1 for the San Joaquin kit fox; (21 � 36) x 3 :1= 1.'7.5:1 for the Central California tiger salamander; and (34 — 50) x 3:1 r 2:1 for the California red-legged frog. As a third example, a project is proposed in Conservation Zone 3 that will affect Central California tiger salamanders, California red-legged frogs and critical habitat, and San Joaquin kit foxes. The habitat scores for the impact site per species are: 40 for the Central California tiger salamander, 45 for the California red-legged frog, and 18 for the San Joaquin kit fox. The project proponent proposes to mitigate in Conservation Zone 10. 'Using the standard mitigation ratio reference map and tables the standard ratios without the correction factor are: 4:1 for the Central California tiger salamander and 3:1 for the San Joaquin kit fox. The California red- legged frog ratio will be determined by the agencies per the standard mitigation ratio reference map and tables in Chapter 3 of the Conservation Strategy, The habitat scores for the mitigation site using the score sheets are: 21 for the Central California tiger salamander, 33 for the California red-legged frog, and 15 for the San Joaquin kit fox. After reviewing the project of and compensation, the agencies approve a standard mitigation ratio of 4:1 for the California red- legged frog. The impact site scores are divided by the compensation site scores and multiplied by the standard mitigation ratios to determine the corrected ratios. Therefore, the corrected ratios are: (40 + 2 1 ) x 4:1= 7.6:1 for the Central California tiger salamander; (45 —". 33) x 4 :1 = 5.45.1 for the California red-legged frog; and (18 —1 15) x 3:1= 3.6:1 for the San Joaquin kit fox. Implementation and Adaptive, Managemeni In order to track how the strategy is working and update the strategy over time, an Implementation Committee will be formed. The Implementation Committee will form a Public Advisory Committee to discuss technical issues, any lessons learned, and recommendations to the Implementation Committee. The intent is to update the Conservation Strategy in an adaptive manner based on input from all of the stakeholders and new scientific information, Similarly, this programmatic biological, opinion may be revised based on changes to the Conservation Strategy. Chapter 5 of the Conservation Strategy outlines the processes for implementation of the multiple aspects of the Conservation Strategy. Ms, Jane M. Hicks This, programmatic consultation evaluates the effects on the eight, federally listed species named above from certain activities authorized by the Corps under Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act pen-nits in the Conservation Strategy Study Area in eastern Alameda County, California. The purpose of this programmatic document is to streamline section 7 consultations on projects that implement the Conservation Strategy for those eight federally listed species. This progtrammatic consultation does not evaluate the effects, for the non-federally listed focal species or the federally threatened Central California coastal steelbead (Oncorkynchus mykiss) focal species. This programmatic biological opinion (Programmatic 130) with the Corps was developed as a too] to implement the Conservation Strategy and streamline consultations within the action area. The Conservation Strategy is the biological framework upon which this Programmatic 130 is based. Since the Conservation Strategy is intended to be a living document via the adaptive management process, this Programmatic BO may be amended or a new one may be written if the Conservation Strategy is changed substantially. This Programmatic BO is issued to the Corps for permits, enforcement actions or mitigation banks (project (s)) that are under their jurisdiction, Projects that are appended to this Programmatic B4O will be provided individual incidental take authorization. Incidental take authorization is not provided in this document, This Prograrrunatic 130 will expedite the process for prQject approval provided all information listed in Ole next section is provided by the prQject applicants. The Conservation Strategy and this Programmatic provide the framework for compensation, mitigation, conservation, and appropriate minimization measures, The Service will track project effects,, compensation and other pertinent information. This Programmatic BO is based on information provided by the following information and docurnents: (I ) the October 20 10 East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Final Draft and corrections; (2) meetings and conversations with the Corps and CDFCY;, and (3) other information available to the Service. Procedures for Appending, Projects to the Programmatic Biological Opi I nion The following information is required from the applicant and will be used by the Corps to evaluate whether a project can be appended to this Programmatic BO: I, Corps Pe unit Application including Assessor's Parcel Number(s), Universal Transverse Mercator ( UTM I ) or Latitude and Longitude coordinates, CIS shape files with rnetadata, and street address of the project; 2. Corps-verified j urisdictional determination; 3. Biological Assessment pursuant, to 50 Code of Fcderal Regulations (CFR) 402.12. The Biological Assessinent will include at a minimurn- Ms. Jane M. Hicks 12 a, Detailed project and compensation maps with listed species occurrences and critical habitat; b. Baseline conditions for listed species; c. Construction and compensation details,, d. Conservation measures; and e. Effects of the project, conservation measures, and compensation on the listed species. The Corps will make one of the following determinations of effect for a project by reviewing the Biological Assessment and other inforniation provided by the applicant and will take the identified action: No qf .fct. The proposed project wit] not affect listed species or critical habitat. The Corps will not consult with the Service. Alay ia�'jeet but is, riot likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat 'The proposed project effects are expected to be discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial. Beneficial effects are contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the species. Insigni'fican't effects relate to the size of the impact and do not reach the scale where take occurs. Discountable ef(ects, are those extremely unlikely to occur, used on bestjudgment, for these effects a person would not: (1) be able to meaningful measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects; or (2) expect discountable effects to occur. 'The, Corps will consult with the Service for concurrence and forward all biological and other pertinent information. May qf ,lect and is likeky to adversely cif Zct listed species or critical habitat. The proposed project has any adverse effect, either as a direct or indirect result of the proposed action or its interrelated or interdependent actions, and the effects are not: discountable, insignificant, or beneficial. The proposed project may be overall beneficial to listed species, but is also likely to cause some adverse efTects. The proposed project anticipates incidental take, The Corps will consult with the Service, requesting that the proposed project to be appended to this Programmatic BO and forward all biological and other pertinent, information. The Service will review the proposed project to evaluate whether it is appropriate to append the project to this Prograirmiatic 130 based on the level of effects, avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures. The Service may determine sonic projects require separate section 7 consultation and will not be appended to this Programmatic BO. If the Service does not concur the project is appropriate to be appended to this Programmatic 130, the Service will notify the Corps in writing„. Applicants who have had consultation initiated by the Corps prior to the date of this Programmatic BO may continue with that consultation or may request their project be appended to this Programmatic BO., Ms. Jane M. Hicks 13 Suitability Criteria for Projects to be Appended to the Programmatic Biological Opinion Actions that fall under this CODSUltation are projects that may adversely affect the above mentioned listed species either by take of individuals, temporary disturbance or pen-nanent loss of habitat, and/or temporary disturbance or permanent loss of critical habitat, but which nonetheless are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species, and are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In order for individual projJects to be appended to this Programmatic BO, they must be consistent, with the Conservation Strategy and have been reviewed by the Corps and Service via, the procedure described above. Individual prqjects will be located within the Conservation Strategy Study Area and fall under the list of covered activities in this ProgTammatic BO. Projects that are not covered activities, will not be appended to this Programmatic BO and will require individual formal consultation. Prc�lects will adhere to the may imurn extent practicable the Project-Level Use of the Strategy and Conservation Goals, and Objectives as outlined in Chapter 3 of the Conservation Strategy including the Generalized Avoidance and Minimization Measures to Reduce Effects on Focal Species, Species-Specific Avoidance and Minimization Measures, Standardized Mitigation Ratios for focal species, and Impact/Mitigation Scoring of Focal Species Habitat. ProJects shall follow Conservation Priorities and Summary actions for their specific Conservation Zone as described in chapter 4 of the Conservation Strategy. All of these sections have been summarized above. Compensation for proJect effects should occur within the Conservation Strategy Study Area for the protect to be appended to the Prograirmiatic BO. Consistent with the Conservation Strategy, the Service will consider compensation outside of the Conservation Strategy, Study, Area on a case by case basis. Any projects wishing to use areas outside of the Conservation Strategy Study Area shall provide a biological rational for not compensating within the Conservation Strategy Study Area. The Service reserves the right to determine if the project and compensation is appropriate to append to this Progra=iatic 130. 1111639"IEWNWOU - Description of the Action Covered Activ ities, Development Projects: Residential Commercial Industrial Parks Public Institutions # Associated Infrastructure (roads, utilities) for new development and redevelopment o Park Facilities- Security residences, service, yards, staging areas, small interpretive Ms. Jane M. Hicks 14 facilities, campgrounds, and picnic areas (includes utilities, fencing for facilities, water and septic, maintenance) Infi,astructure Projects: • Power Infrastructure and maintenance (includes transmission lines),: New and existing infrastructure; minor construction • Road Construction and Maintenance: New and existing roads • Trail Construction and Maintenance: New and existing trails • Rail Construction and Maintenance.- New and existing • Weather Towers, and Maintenance: New and existing towers • Telecommunication Towers and Maintenance: New and existing towers • Bridge Construction and Maintenance: New and existing bridges and ramps • Solar Projects: Installation, operation, and maintenance • Wind Energy Projects: Installation, operation, and maintenance. Avian and bat effects are not included in this consultation. • Electrical Co-Generation Plants • Flood Wall Installation • Bank Stabilization • Low Flow Crossings and Maintenance • Levee Installation and Maintenance • Sedimentation Basins Construction and Maintenance • Water Detention Basins Construction and Maintenance • Drainage Pump Station • New Flood Control Channel: Excavation and construction • Flood Control Facilities, and Appurtenances • Culvert Installation and Maintenance • Grade Control Structures: Construction, maintenance, removal • Water Diversion Structure Construction and Maintenance. The actual diversion of water is not included in this consultation. • Retaining Walls • Water Treatment Plants and Appurtenances • Water Pipelines, and Appurtenances • Sewer/Wastewater Pipelines • Pump Stations • Sludge Beds • Aqueduct and Transmission System Turnouts: Construction and maintenance. • Wells: Production, monitoring, cathodic protection and injection. • Water Storage Tanks: Construction and maintenance • Water Spreading Basins: For groundwater recharge • Stream Gage. Installation and repairs • Recycled Water Projects: Irrigation, recharge • Solid Waste Dischar ges: Soil disposal, stockpiles, (uncontaminated) • Groundwater remediation systems Ms. Jane M. Hicks 15 Maintenance Pt-qfects,' # Sediment Remoc val: Flood control channel, basin, stock pond # Debris, Removal: For large trash and woody debris Dams and Other Water Impoundments (Existing): Maintenance. w onsrution or increases in capacity or size are not covered, Vegetation Management: Riparian, native, and control of invasive vegetation (,dependent on application) Restoration Prqjecls: • Pond and/or Stream Restoration/E,nhancei-nent/Coiist,ruction * Fish Barrier Removal and Modification • Wetland Construction and Maintenance (if needed) • Channel Reconfiguration to Increase Complexity for Floodplain creation and. Recontouring • Species/Habitat Conservation/Restoration Pr(aJects Enforcement Actions,- Actions Related to Reguiatory Enforcement (Act, National Environmental Policy Act California Endangered Species Act, California Environmental Quality Act, Clean Water Act, etc...) Certain activities will be covered as pail of a long term management plan for conservation, areas that are managed for listed species as compensation for project effects. These activities may include but are not limited to: integrated pest management, vegetation management, grazing, species surveys, conservation area enhancement actions, fence installation and maintenance, grazing water supply bitrastructure installation and maintenance, and porid. maintenance. Minimization Measures 'Fo the maximum extent practicable, projects authorized under this Programmatic ISO will be designed said implemented in such a way as to minimize adverse effects tam listed species and/or their habitat, To achieve that pu4�ose, the prpJjects will follow the Focal Species Goals and Ob�jectives as described in Chapter 3 of the Conservation Strategy, Generalized Avoidance and Minimization Measures, to Reduce Effects on Focal Species (Appendix A of this Programmatic BO and Table 3-2 in the Conservation Strategy), Species-Specific Avoidance and Minfi-nization Measures (Appendix B of this Progranimatic BO and 'cable 3-3 in the Conservation Strategy), Standardized Mitigation Ratios (Appendix C of this Progranu-natic BO and'I'able 3-4 in the Conservation Strategy), and Impact/Mitigation Scoring of Focal, Species Habitat (Appendix D of this Programmatic BO and Appendix E in the Conservation Strategy). In addition to the measures in the Conservation Strategy and discussed above, the Service has added the following general and species specific minimization measures. The Service recognizes that not all projects will require all of these measures,. The applicant may request inodification of these measures, if applicable. However, these measures below will be implemented unless Ms. Jane M. Hicks 16 otherwise modified or waived by the Service in writing, General Minimization Measures At least 15 days, prior to any ground disturbing activities, the applicant will submit to the Service for review and approval the qualifications of the proposed biological monitor(s). A qualified biological monitor means, any pet-son who has completed at least four years, of university training in wildlife, biology or a related science and/or has demonstrated field experience in the identification and life history of the listed species. 1 A Service-approved biological monitor, will remain on-site during all construction activities in or adjacent to habitat for listed species. The Service - approved biological monitor(s) will be given the authority to stop any work that may result in the take of listed species,. If the Service-approved biological monitor s) exercises this authority, the Service will be notified by telephone and electronic mail within one working day. The Service-approved biological monitor will be the contact for any employee or contractor who inight inadvertently kill or injure a listed species or anyone who finds a dead, injured or entrapped individual, The Service-approved biological monitor will possess a working wireless/i-nobile phone whose number will be provided to the Service, 3. Prior to construction, a construction employee education program will be conducted in reference to potential listed species on site. At minimum, the program will consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in endangered species biology, and legislative protection (Service-approved biologist) to explain concerns to contractors, their employees, and, agency personnel involved in the project. The program will include: a description of the species, and their habitat, needs, any reports of occurrences in the project area; an explanation of the status of each listed species and their protection under the Act; and a list of measures being taken to reduce effects to the species during construction and implementation. Fact sheets conveying this information and an educational brochure containing color photographs of all listed species in the work area(s) will be prepared for distribution to the above-mentioned people and anyone else who may enter the project area. A list of employees who attend the training sessions will be maintained by the applicant to be made available for review by the Service upon request. Contractor training will be incorporated into construction contracts and will be a component of weekly project meetings,. 4. Preconstruction, surveys for listed species will be performed immediately prior to groundbreaking activities, Surveys will be conducted by Service-approved biologists. If at any point, construction activities cease for more than five consecutive days, additional preconstruction surveys will be conducted prior to the resumption of these actions,. To prevent the accidental entrapment of I isted species during construction, all excavated holes, or trenches deeper than 6 inches will be covered at the end of each work day with plywood or similar materials, Foundation trenches or larger excavations that cannot easily be covered will be ramped at the end of the work day to allow trapped animals an Ms,. Jane: M, Hicks IN escape method. Prior to the filling of such holes, these areas will be thoroughly inspected for listed species by Service-approved biologists. In the event of a trapped animal is observed, construction will cease until the individual has been relocated to an appropriate location. 6, Translocation will be approved on a project specific! basis. The applicant will prepare a listed species translocation plan for the prqJect to be reviewed and approved by the Service prior to project implementation, The plan will include trapping and translocation methods, translocation site, and post translocation, monitoring. 7. Only Service-approved biologists will conduct surveys and move listed species. 8. All trash and debris within the work area will be placed in containers with secure fids before the end, of each work day in order to reduce the likelihood of predators being attracted to the site by discarded food rappers and other rubbish that may be left on-site. Containers will be emptied as necessary to prevent trash overflow onto the site and all rubbish will be disposed of at an appropriate off-site location 9, All vegetation which obscures the observation of wildlife movement within the affected areas containing or immediately a4jacent aquatic habitats will be completely removed by hand just prior to the initiation of grading to remove cover that might be used by listed species. The Service-approved biologist will survey these areas, immediately prior to vegetation removal to find, capture and relocate any observed listed species, as approved by the Service, I O All construction activities must cease one half hour before sunset and should not begin prior to one half hour after sunrise. There will be no nighttime construction. 11. Grading and construction will be limited to the dry season, typically May-October, 12, Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used to minimize erosion and impacts to water quality and effects to aquatic habitat. If necessary, a Storm Water Pollution, Prevention Plan (SW`PPP) will be prepared, 13. The applicant will ensure a readily available copy of this biological opinion is maintained by the construction foreman/manager on the 11rqject site whenever earthmoving and/or construction is taking place. Tile name and telephone number of the construction fore trian/manager will be provided to the Service prior to groundbreaking, 14. The construction wea shall be delineated with high visibility temporary fencing at )east 4 feet in height, flagging, or other barrier to prevent encroachment of construction personnel and equipment outside of the construction area. Such fencing shall be inspected and maintained tied daily until completion of the project. The fencing will be removed only when all construction equipment is removed from the site. Ms. Jane M. Hicks le 15, Silt fencing or wildlife exclusion fencing will be used to prevent listed species from entering the project area. Exclusion fencing will be at least 3 feet high and the lower 6 inches of the fence will be buried in the ground to prevent animals from crawling under. The remaining 2.5 feet will be left above ground to serve as a barrier for animals moving on the ground surface. The fence will be pulled taut at each support to prevent folds, or snags. Fencing shall be installed, and maintained in good condition during all construction activities. Such fencing shall be inspected and maintained daily until completion of the project. The fencing will be removed only when all construction equipment is removed from the site. 16. A Service-approved biologist shall ensure that the spread or introduction of invasive exotic plant species shall be avoided to the maximum extent possible. When practicable, invasive exotic plants in the project areas shall be removed. 17. Project sites shall be revegetated with an appropriate assemblage of native riparian wetland and upland vegetation suitable for the area. A species list and restoration and monitoring plan shall be included with the project proposal for review and approval by the Service and the Corps, Such a plan must include, but not be limited to, location of the restoration, species to be used, restoration techniques, time of year the work will be done, identifiable success criteria for completion, and remedial actions if the success criteria are not achieved. 18. If a work site is to be temporarily dewatered by pumping, intakes shall be completely screened with wire mesh not larger than 5 millimeters. Water shall be released or pumped downstream at an appropriate rate to maintain downstream 'flows during construction. Upon completion of construction activities, any barriers to flow shall be removed in a mariner that would allow flow to resume with the least disturbance to the substrate, 19. A Service-approved biologist shall permanently remove, from within the project area, any individuals of exotic species, such as bullfrogs, crayfish, and centrarchid fishes, to the maximum extent possible. The applicant shall have the responsibility to ensure that their activities are in compliance with the California Fish and Game Code. Callippe, Silverspot Butterfly 1. Preconstruction surveys for the larval food plants of callippe silverspot butterfly will be conducted during typical bloom season during a period from January through April. Any larval food plants found within 300 feet of the project footprint will be clearly marked with pin flagging. Flagged areas will be avoided to the maximum extent practicable and if possible, fenced for avoidance. In addition, orange fencing will be placed along the edge of the work area near any larval food plants to prevent workers and vehicles from entering this area. 2. The applicant and contractors will minimize generation and movement of construction- Ms. Jane M. Hicks 19 related dust through BMP's, and WPPP provisions, such as those that would be conditioned by the SFBRWQC13 and Bay Area Air Quality 'Management District. Specifically, contracts would, enforce prudent site watering and application of nontoxic soil stabilizers. The amount of watering will be monitored to ensure polluted runoff from roads does not occur (roads will not be over-watered), Calf1brnia lied -, egg Frog l„ A Service- approved biologist shall survey the work site immediately prior to construction activities. If California red-legged frogs, tadpoles, or eggs are found, the approved biologist shall contact the Service, to deter -nine if moving any of these life-stages, is appropriate. In making, this determination the Service shall, consider if an appropriate relocation site exists as provided in the relocation plan, If the Serviceapproves moving animals, the approved biologist shall be allowed sLifficient time to move California red legged frogs from the work site before work activities begin. Only Service-approved biologists shall participate in activities associated with the capture,, handling, and monitoring of California red-legged frogs. 2. Bare hands shall. be used to capture California. red-legged frogs. Service-approved biologists will not use soaps, oils, ere s, lotions, repellents, or solvents of any sort on their hands within two hours before and during periods when they arc capturing, and relocating individuals. To avoid transferring„ disease or pathogens of handling of the amphibians, Service-approved biologists, will follow the Declining Amphibian Populations, Task Force's "Code of Practice." Central Cafijbrnia Tiger S'alamander I . A Service-approved biologist shall survey the work site immediately prior to construction activities, If Central California tiger salamanders, larvae, or eggs are found, the approved biologist shall contact the Service to determine if moving any of these life-stages is appropriate. In making this determination the Service shall consider if an appropriate relocation site exists as provided in the relocation plan. If the Service approves moving animals, the approved biologist shall be allowed sufficient time to move Central California tiger salamanders from the work site before work activities begin. Only Service-approved biologists shall participate in activities associated with the capture, handling, and monitoring of Central California tiger salamanders. 2, Bare hands shall be used to capture, Central California tiger salarnanders. Service- approved biologists will not use soaps, oils, creams, lotions, repellents, or solvents of any sort on their bands within two hours before and during periods when they are capturing and relocating individuals. To avoid transferring disease or pathogens of handling of the amphibians, Service-approved biologists will follow the Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force's ""ode of Practice."" Ms. Jane M'. Hicks San Joaquin Kit Fox go A qualified Servic�e-approved biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey no more than 30 days before the beginning of ground disturbance or any activity likely to affect San Joaquin kit fox. This measure will be implemented in all off-road construction areas. The biologist will survey the proposed construction area and a 200-foot buffer area around the construction area to identify suitable dens, The biologist will conduct den searches by, systematically walking transacts spaced 3 0-100 feet apart through the survey area. Transect distance should be determined on the basis of the height of vegetation such that 100 percent visual coverage of the project area is achieved. If dens are found during the survey, the biologist will map the location of each den as well as record the size and shape of the den entrance; the presence of tracks, scat, and prey remains; and if' the den was recently excavated. The biologist will also record information on prey availability (e.g., ground squirrel colonies). The status of the den as defined by the Service should also be determined and recorded. Dens will be classified in one of the following four den status categories: a. Potential den: Any subterranean hole within the species' range that has entrances of appropriate dimensions for which available evidence is sufficient to conclude that it is being used or has been used by a San Joaquin kit fox. Potential dens comprise: (1) any suitable subterranean hole; or (2) any den or burrow of another species (e.g,, coyote, badger, red fox, or ground squirrel) that otherwise has appropriate characteristics for San Joaquin kit fox use, b. Known den: Any existing, natural den or artificial structure that is used or has been used at any time in the past by a San Joaquin kit fox. Evidence of use may include historical records; past or current radio telemetry or spotlighting data; San Joaquin kit fox signs such as tracks, scat, andJor prey remains; or other reasonable proof that a given den is being or has been used by a San Joaquin kit fox. c. Natal or pupping den. Any den used by San Joaquin kit fox to whelp and/or rear their pups. Natal/pupping dens may be larger with more numerous entrances than dens occupied exclusively by adults,. These dens typically have more San Joaquin kit fox tracks, scat, and prey remains in the vicinity of the den, and may have a broader apron of matted dirt and/or vegetation at one or more entrances. A natal den, defined as a den in which San Joaquin kit fox pups are actually whelped but not necessarily reared, is a more restrictive version of the pupping den. In practice, however, it is difficult to distinguish between the two; therefore, tor purposes of this definition either term applies. d. Atypical den: Any artificial structure that has been or is being occupied by a San Joaquin kit fox. Atypical dens may include pipes, culverts, and diggings beneath concrete slabs and buildings. Ms. Jane M. I-licks 21 Written results of the surveys will be submitted to the Service within one week of the completion of surveys and prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities likely to afTect San Joaquin kit fox. 2. After preconstruction den searches and before the commencement of construction activities, a qualified Service- approved biologist will establish and maintain the following exclusion zones measured in a radius outward from the entrance or cluster of entrances of each den. a. Potential and atypical dens: A total of 4-5 flagged stakes will be placed 50 feet from the den entrance to identify the den location, K Known den: Orange construction barrier fencing will be installed between the construction work area and the known den site at a mini murn distance of 100 feet from the den. The fencing will be maintained until all construction-related disturbances have been terminated. At that tirne, all fencing will be removed to avoid attracting Subsequent attention to the den. c. Natal/pupping den: The Service will be contacted immediately if a natal or pupping den is discovered at or within 200 feet from the boundary of the construction area, d. Construction and other project activities will be prohibited or greatly restricted within these exclusion zones, Only essential vehicular operation on existing roads and foot traffic should be permitted and articulated to the Service. All other construction activities, vehicle operation,, material and equipment storage, and other surface-disturbing activities will be prohibited in the exclusion zones. e. In cases where avoidance is not a reasonable alternative, limited destruction of potential San Joaquin kit fox dens will be allowed, Potential dens can be removed by careful hand excavation by a Service-approved biologist or under the supervision of a Service- approved biologist, after the dens have been monitored for three days with tracking, medium or a rernote sensor camera and determined to be vacant of San Joaquin kit foxes. if during excavation or monitoring, a potential den is determined to be currently or previously used (e.g., San Joaquin kit fox sign found inside) by San Joaquin kit fox, then destruction of the den or construction in that area will cease and the Service will be notified immediately. 3. Vehicle traffic will be restricted to established roads, construction areas, and other designated areas. 4. Grading activities shall be designed to minimize or eliminate effects to rodent burrows,. Areas, with high concentrations, of burrows and large burrows suitable for San Joaquin kit fox dens shall be avoided by grading activities to the maximum extent possible. In Ms. Jane M. Hicks 22 addition, when concentrations of burrows or large burrows are observed within the site these areas shall be staked and flagged to ensure construction personnel are aware of their location and to facilitate avoidance of these areas. 5. Compensate for the loss of San Joaquin kit foxes and suitable habitat by protecting occupied habitat andJor restoring suitable habitat to establish and maintain Sall Joaquin kit fox presence. 1, Prior to any &,round disturbance in the project area., if feasible, all seasonal wetlands and areas containing, palmate-bracted bird's-beak, and any suitable habitat will be staked or flagged and a temporary barrier (silt fencing, etc.) will be constnicted, CompensationlMitigation Compensation/mitigation in this Programmatic BO is only to minimize adverse effects to the above named 'federally listed species. This section does not cover mitigation for effects/impacts to state listed species or waters regulated by the Corps or SFBRWQM As stated in the Suitability Criteria, compensation should occur within the Conservation Strategy Study Area. Compensation shall be identified and approved prior to project commencernent. Ideally, compensation should be implemented prior to project commencement, If the land acquisition is not acquired and protected prior to project effects, financial assurances will be provided to the Service and a strict timeline for conservation easernent recordation and management will be implemented. Compensation for permanent effects to listed species and habitat can occur through buying credits at a Service-approved conservation/mitigation bank or land acquisition, management, and protection. Species presence must be established and documented on the compensation site. The conservation property will be free of all liens and incompatible leases and casements or they will be terminated or subordinated to the conservation casement. Geological Hazard Abatement Districts will not be allowed to be established on compensation areas, manage compensation sites, or fund endowments for the management of listed species habitat. Compensation sites will follow the Conservation Priorities and mitigation ratios in the Conservation Strategy for the listed species affected by the project and will be subject to success requirements. Compensation for temporary effects is similar to compensation for permanent effects discussed above with the exception that the affected areas need to be restored to pre-prCject conditions within 12 months from the commencement of the activity. In addition to restoration, compensation will occur at a 1,1 ratio at a Service-approved conservation/mitigation bank or through land acquisition, management, and protection. Projects that require longer than 12 months from the commencement of the activity to restore their effects will be considered to have permanent effects and will be required to use the standardized mitigation ratios. Ms, Jane M. Flicks NN Land acquisition can either be in fee title with a permanent conservation easement placed on the property, or through a permanent conservation easement without holding fee title. A Service- approved recorded conservation easement is required and a copy will be provided to the Service prior to project implementation or within the specific approved timefrarne, A Service-approved resource management plan and long - tear" maintenance and monitoring endowment must be established. The applicant is required to obtain the approval ofthe conservation easement holder, land manager, and endowment holder of the compensation area. Appendix F of the Conservation StrateLry provides examples of what the Service requires, for compensation (conservation easement template, management plan template, requirements for off- site compensation, performance securities), The Service periodically revises these documents. Contact the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office for the most recent templates and guidance (916-414-6600; b,ttp://www.fws.gov/sacrameiitoo. Fortin and Notification In order to verify compliance with the Programmatic 130, the project applicant will be required to submit reports during various stages of project implementation, Applicants with projects that have relatively small effects or are limited in scope and duration can request the Service waive this requirement. The Service will be notified immediately in writing if the project is not in compliance with the Programmatic 130 and/or the accompanying letter appending the project to the Programmatic 130. Documentation willl be provided to the Service verifying compliance with, pre-project minimization measures, no later than 14 calendar days before project implementation. The applicant will provide monthly compliance and status reports to the Service during construction documenting: (1) dates that construction occurred; (2) photo documentation of construction and applicable minimization measures, (3) pertinent information concerning, the success of the project: in meeting minimization measures including, status of the compensation; (4) an explanation of failure to meet such measures, if any; (5) known project effects on listed species, if any; (6)occurrences of incidental take of listed species, if any; (7) documentation of employee environmental education; and (8) other pertinent information. Applicants with projects that have relatively small effects or are limited in scope and duration can, request the Service waive this requirement. The applicant will submit a post-construction compliance report prepared by the Service- approved biologist to the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office within 30 calendar days of the date of the completion of construction activity. This report will compile the monthly reports and detail: (1) dates that construction occurred; (2) photo documentation of construction and applicable minimization measures; (3) pertinent information concerning the success of the project in meeting minimization measures including status of the compensation; (4) an explanation off; ilure to meet such measures, if any; (5) known project effects on listed species, if any; (5) occurrences of incidental take of listed species, if any; (7) documentation of employee environmental education; (8,) as built drawings for the project and any compensation/mitigation features; and (9) other pertinent information. Ms. Jane M. Hicks 24 The Service must be notified within one (1) working day of the finding of any injured, listed species or any unanticipated damage to its habitat associated with the proposed project. Injured listed species must be cared for by a licensed veterinarian or other qualified person(s), such as the Service-approved biologist, Notification must include the date, time, and precise location of the individual/incident clearly indicated on a United States Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadrangle and other maps at a finer scale, as req nested by the Service, and any other pertinent information. Dead individuals must be sealed in a sealable plastic bag containing a paper with the date, and time when the animal was found, the location where it was found, and the name of the person who found it, and the bag containing the specimen frozen in a freezer located in a secure site. The Service contact persons are the Coast Bay/Forest Foothills Division Chief of the Endangered Species Program at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office at (916) 414-6600; and the Resident Agent-in-Charge of the Service's Division of Law Enforcement, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W- 2928, Sacramento, California 95825, at (916) 414-6660. I . . ..... .... Projects that are not in compliance with the Programmatic 130 and the accompanying letter appending the prqject to the Programmatic BO will be required to correct the matter(s) immediately and provide additional compensation. The amount of additional compensation will be determined on case-by-case basis but will be subject to the same requirements as the original compensation. The amount of remedial compensation will increase commensurate with the degree of the violation and the amount of time the project is out of compliance, Action Area 'The action area is defined in 50 CFR § 402.02, as "all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action."" For the purposes of the effects assessment, the action area is the Conservation Strategy Study Area encompassing 271,485 acres in eastern Alameda County, California. The western boundary runs along the Alameda Creek watershed boundary which encompasses small portions of the cities of Fremont, Union City, and Hayward, though those jurisdictions were not formally part of the planning process. The northern, southern, and eastern boundaries follow the Alameda County line with Contra Costa County, Santa Clara County, and San, Joaquin County, respectively (Figure 1-1). Analy1ical Framework for the Jeopardy and adverse Modification Analyses .Jeopardy Determination In accordance with policy and regulation, the jeopardy analysis in this Programmatic BO relies on four components: (1) the Status of the Species, which evaluates the longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, callippe silverspot butterfly, California red-legged ftog, Central California tiger salamander, Alameda whipsnake, San Joaquin kit fox, and palmate-,bracted bird's-beak's range-wide condition, the factors responsible for that condition, and their survival and recovery needs; (2) the Environmental Baseline, which evaluates the condition of the eight Ms,. Jane M. Hicks 25 species in the action area, the factors responsible for that condition, and the relationship of the action area to the survival andreeovM of the these, listed animals; (3) the Effects of the Action, which determines the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed federal action and the effects of any interrelated or interdependent activities on the longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, callippee silverspot butterfly, California red-legged frog, Central California tiger salamander, Alameda whips,nake, San Joaquin kit fox and palmate-bracted bird's-beak; (14) the Cumulative Effects, which evaluates the effects of future, non-Federal activities in the action area on them. In accordance with policy and regulation, The jeopardy determination is made by evaluating the effects of the proposed, Federal action in the context of the longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, callippe silverspot butterfly, California red-legged frog, Central California tiger salamander, Alameda whipsnake, San Joaquin kit fox, and palmate-bracted bird's-beak's current status, taking into account any cumulative effects, to determine if implementation of the proposed action is likely to cause an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of these eight species in the wild. 'The, jeopardy analysis in this Programmatic 130 places, an emphasis on consideration of the range-wide survival and recovery needs of the longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, callippe silverspot butterfly, California red-legged frog, Central California tiger salamander, Alameda whipsnake, fan Joaquin kit fox, and palmate-bracted bird's-beak and the role of the action area in their, survival and recovery as the context for evaluating the significance of the effects of the proposed Federal action, taken together with cumulative effects, for purposes of making the jeopardy determination. Adverse MbdVicafion Determinalion Ibis Programmatic BO does not rely on the regulatory defmition of "destruction or adverse modification" of critical habitat at 50 CFI 02.02,. Instead, we have relied upon the statutory provisions of the Act to complete the following analysis with respect to critical habitat. In accordance with policy and regulation, the adverse modification analysis in this Programmatic BO relies on four components: (1) the Status of Critical 11abitat, which evaluates the rangewide condition of proposed critical habitat for the lorighom fairy shrimp,, 'venial pool fa iry shrimp, California red-legged frog, Central California tiger salamander, and Alameda, whipsnake in ternis, of primary constituent elements (PC s, the factors responsible for that condition, and the intended recovery function of the: critical habitat at the provincial and range-wide scale; (2) the Environmental Baseline, which evaluates the condition of the critical habitat in the action area, the factors responsible for that condition, and the recovery role of the critical habitat in the action area; (3 the Effects of the Action, which determines the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed Federal action and the effects of any interrelated or interdependent activities on the PC Es and how that will influence the recovery role of affected critical habitat waits and (4) Cumulative Effects which evaluates the effects of future, non-Federal activities in the action area on the PC Es and bow that will influence the recovery role of affected critical habitat units. Ms. Jane M. Hicks in For purposes of the adverse modification determination, the effects of the proposed Federal action on the longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, California red-legged frog, Central California tiger salamander, and Alameda whipsnake critical habitat are evaluated in the context of the range-wide condition of the critical habitat at the provincial and range-wide scales, taking into account any cumulative effects, to determine if the critical habitat range-wide would remain functional(or would retain the current ability for the PCEs to be functionally established in areas of currently unsuitable but capable habitat) to serve its intended recovery role for the longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, California red-legged frog, Central California tiger salamander, and Alameda whipsnake. The analysis in this Programmatic BO places an emphasis on using the intended range-wide recovery function of longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, California red-legged frog, Central California tiger salamander, and Alameda whipsnake critical habitat and the role of the action area relative to that intended function as the context for evaluating the significance of the effects of the proposed Federal action, taken together with cumulative effects, for purposes of making the adverse modification determination. Status of the Species Lon horn Fm , _ry Slldmp Refer to the Longhorn Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecia longiantenna) 5-Yea r Reviei4, - Summary and Evaluation (Service 2007a) for the current Status of the Species. Longhorn Fai!y Shrimp Critical Habitat A final rule designated approximately 858,846 acres of critical habitat collectively for 4 vernal pool crustaceans and 11 vernal pool plants in 34 counties in California and I county in southern Oregon on August 11, 2005 (Service 2005a). On February 10, 2006, a final rule describing species-specific unit descriptions and maps identifying the critical habitat for each individual species was published (Service 2006a). The rule identifies approximately 13,557 acres within 3 critical habitat units in Alameda, Contra Costa, Merced, and San Luis Obispo counties, California. The PCEs of critical habitat for longhorn fairy shrimp are the habitat components that provide-, (1) topographic features characterized by mounds and swales and depressions within a matrix of surrounding uplands that result in complexes of continuously, or intermittently, flowing surface water in the swales connecting the pools and providing for dispersal and promoting hydroperiods of adequate length in the pools; (2) depressional features including isolated vernal pools with underlying restrictive soil layers that become inundated during winter rains and that continuously hold water for a rninimum. of 23 days, in all but the driest years; thereby providing adequate water for incubation, maturation, and reproduction. As these features are inundated on a seasonal basis, they do not promote the development of obligate wetland vegetation habitats typical of permanently flooded emergent wetlands; (3) sources of food, expected to be detritus occurring in the pools, contributed by overland flow from the pools' watershed, or the results of biological Ms. Jane M. Hicks 27 processes within the pools themselves, such as single-celled bacteria, algae, and dead organic matter, to provide for feeding, and (4) structure within the pools consisting of organic and inorganic materials, such as living and dead plants from plant species adapted to seasonally inundated environments, rocks, and other inorganic debris that may be washed, blown, or otherwise transported into tile pools, that provide shelter. Refer to the final designation of critical habitat for additional information. Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Refer to tile Vernal Pool Faby S77rimp (Branchinecta lynchi) 4"ear Revi",: Suinmarj and Evaluation (Service 2007b) for the current Status of the Species. Vernal Pool Faia Shrimp Critical.Habitat A final rule designated approximately 858,846, acres, of critical habitat collectively for 4 vernal pool crustaceans and I I vernal pool plants in 34 counties in California and I county in southern Oregon on August H, 2005 (Service 2005a). On February 10, 2006, a final rule describing species-specific unit descriptions and maps identifying the critical habitat for each individual species was published (Service 2006a). '17he rule identifies approximately 597,821 acres within 32 critical habitat units in Jackson County, Oregon, and Alameda, Arnador, Butte, ontra Costa, Fresno, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, Napa, Placer, Sacramento, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Shasta, Solano, Stanistaus, Tehama, Tulare, Ventura, and Yuba counties, California. 'File PCEs of critical habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp are the habitat components that provide: (l topographic features characterized by mounds and swales and depressions within a matrix of surrounding uplands that result in complexes of continuously, or intermittently, flowing surface water in the swales connecting tile pools and providing for dispersal and promoting hydroperiods of adequate length in the pools; (2) depressional features including isolated vernal pools with underlying restrictive soil layers that become inundated during winterrairis and that continuously hold water for a minimum of 18 days,, in all but the driest years; thereby providing adequate water for incubation, maturation, and reproduction. As these features are inundated oil a seasonal basis, they do not prornote the development of obligate wetland vegetation habitats typical of permanently flooded ernergent wetlands; (3) sources of food, expected to be detritus occurring in the pools, contributed by overland flow from the pools' watershed, or the results of biological processes within the pools themselves,,, such as single-celled bacteria, algae, and dead organic matter, to provide for feeding; and (4) structure within the pools consisting of organic and inorganic materials,, such as living and dead plants from plant species adapted to seasonally inundated ealvirownents, rocks, and other inorganic debris that may be washed, blown, or otherwise transported into the pools, that provide shelter. Refer to the final designation of critical habitat for additional information. Ms. Jane M. Hicks Callippe Silvers pot,Butterf] 1H Refer to the Callippe Silvers of Butter fly (S)9eyeria callippe callippe) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation (Service 2009a) for the current Status of the Species. Listing Status: The Califoriiia rcd-pegged frog was, listed as a threatened species on May 23, 1996 (61 FR 25813), (Service 1996). Critical habitat was designated for this species on April 13, 2006 (71 FR 19,244) (Service 2006b) and revisions to the critical habitat designation were published on March 17, 2010 (75 FR 12816) (Service 2010). At this time, the Service recognized the taxonomic change from Pana aurora drqytonii to Rana drqytonii (Shaffier et at. 2010). A recovery plan was published for the California red-legged frog on September 12, 2002 (Service 2002). Description: The California red-legged frog is the largest native frog in the western United States (Wright and Wright 1949), ranging from 1.5 to 5.1 inches in length (Stebbins 2003), The abdomen and hind legs of adults are largely red, while the back is characterized by small black flecks and larger irregular dark blotches with indistinct outlines on a brown, gray, olive, or reddish background color. Dorsal spots usually have light centers (Stebbins, 2003), and dorsolateral folds are prominent on the back. Larvae (tadpoles) range from 0.6 to 3.1 inches in length, and the background color of the body, is dark brown and yellow with darker spots (Storer 1925). Distribution: The historic range of the California red-legged frog extended from the vicinity of Elk Creek in Mendocino County, California, along the coast inland to the vicinity of Redding in Shasta County, Califomia, and southward to northwestem Bqja California, Mexico (Fellers 2005; Jennings and Hayes 1985; Hayes and Krempels 1986). The species was historically documented in 46 counties but the taxa now remains in 238 streams or drainages within, 23 counties, representing a loss of 70 percent of its former range (Service 2002). California red-legged frogs are still locally abundant within portions of the San Francisco Bay area and the Central California Coast. Isolated populations have been documented in the Sierra Nevada, northern Coast, and northern Transverse Ranges. The species is believed to be extirpated from the southern Transverse and Peninsular ranges, 'but is still present in Baja California, Mexico ((-DFG 201 1), Status and Natural, History: California red-legged frogs predominately inhabit permanent water sources such as streams, lakes, marshes, natural and manmade ponds, and ephemeral drainages in valley bottoms and foothills up to 4,921 feet in elevation (.leaning's and Hayes 1994, Bulger et al, 2003, Stebbins 2003). However, they also inhabit ephemeral creeks, drainages and ponds with minimal riparian and emergent vegetation. California, red - legged Bogs breed from November to April, although earlier breeding records have been reported in southern localities. Breeding generally occurs in still or slow-moving water often associated with emergent vegetation, such as cattails, toles or overhanging willows (Storer 1925, Hayes and Jennings 1988). Female frogs deposit egg masses on emergent vegetation so that the egg, mass floats on or Ms. Jane M. Hicks near the surface of the water (Hayes and Miyarnoto 1984), Im Habitat includes nearly any area within 1-2, miles, of a breeding site that stays moist and c�ool through the summer, including vegetated areas with coyote brush, California blackberry thickets, and root masses associated with willow and California bay trees (Fellers 2005), Sheltering habitat for California red-legged frogs potentially includes all aquatic, riparian, and upland areas within the range of the species and includes any landscape! feature that provides cover, such as animal burrows, boulders or rocks, organic debris such as downed trees, or logs, and industrial debris. Agricultural features such as drains, watering troughs,,, spring boxes, abandoned sheds, or hay stacks may also be used, Incised stream channels with portions narrower, and depths greater Henan 18 inches also may provide important surrit'ner shchering habitat. Accessibility to sheltering habitat is essential for the survival of California red-legged frogs within a watershed, and can be afactor limiting frog population numbers and survival. , California red-legged frogs do not have a distinct breeding migration (Fellers 2005). Adults are often associated with permanent bodies of water. Some individuals remain at breeding sites year-round, while others disperse to neighboring water features. Dispersal distances are typically less than 0.5-mile, with a few individuals moving tip to 1-2 miles (Fellers 2005). Movements are typically along riparian corridors, but some individuals, especially on rainy nights, move directly from one site to another through normally inhospitable habitats, such as heavily grazed pastures or oak,-grassland savannas (Fellers 20�O . In a study of California red-legged frog terrestrial activity in a mc�sic area of the Santa Cruz Mountains, Bulger el al, (200 3) categorized terrestrial use as migratory and non-migratory. The latter occurred from one to several days and was associated with precipitation, events. Migratory movenients were characterized as the movement between aquatic sites and were most often associated with breeding activities. Bulger et al. (20�03) 'reported that non - emigrating frogs typically stayed, within 200 feet of aquatic habitat 90 percent of the time and were most often associated with dense vegetative cover, i.e,, California blackberry, poison oak and coyote brush, Dispersing frogs in northern Santa Cruz County traveled distances from 0.25-mileto more than 2 miles without apparent regard to topography, vegetation type, or riparian corridors (Bulger et al. 200 . In a study of California red-legged frog terrestrial activity in a xeric environment in eastern Contra Costa County, Tatarian (2008) noted that a 57 percent majority of frogs fitted with radio transmitters in the Round Valley study area stayed at their breeding pools, whereas 43 percent moved into adjacent upland habitat or to other aquatic sites. Her study reported a peak seasonal terrestrial movement occurring in the fall months associated, with the first 0.2-inch of precipitation arid tapering off into spring. Upland movement activities ranged from 3 to 233 feet, averaging 80 feet, and were associated with a variety of refugia including grass thatch, crevices, cow hoof prints, ground squirrel burrows at the base of trees or rocks, logs, and tinder man-made structures; others were associated with 'upland sites lacking reffigia, (Tatarian 2008). The majority of terrestrial movements lasted from I to 4 days; however, one adult female was reported to remain in upland habitat for 50 days (Tatarian 2008). Upland, reffigia closer to aquatic sites were used more often and were more commonly associated, with areas exhibiting Ms. Jane M, Hicks IE higher object cover, e.g., woody debris, rocks, and vegetative cover. Subterranean cover was not significantly different between occupied upland habitat and non-occupied upland habitat. California red-legged frogs are often prolific breeders, laying their eggs during or shortly after large rainfall events in late winter and early spring (Hayes and Miyarnoto 1984). Egg masses containing 2,000 to 5,000 eggs are attached to vegetation below the surface and batch after 6 to 14 days (Storer 1925, Jennings and Hayes 1994). In coastal lagoons, the most significant mortality factor in the pre-hatching stage is water salinity (Jennings et al, 1992). Eggs exposed to salinity levels greater than 4.5 parts per thousand resulted in 100 percent mortality (,Jennings and Hayes 1990), Increased siltation during the breeding season can cause asphyxiation of eggs and small larvae. Larvae undergo metamorphosis 31/2 to 7 months following hatching and reach sexual maturity 2 to 3 years of age (Storer 1925; Wright and Wright 1949; Jennings and Hayes 1985, 1990, 1994). Of the various life stages, larvae probably experience the highest mortality rates, with less than I percent of eggs laid reaching metamorphosis (Jennings et al, 19912). California red-legged frogs may live 8 to 10 years (Jennings et aL 1992). Populations can fluctuate from year to year; favorable conditions allow the species to have extremely high rates of reproduction and thus produce large numbers of dispersing young and a concomitant increase in the number of occupied sites. In contrast, the animal may temporarily disappear from an area when conditions are stressful (e.g., during periods of drought, disease, etc.). The diet of California red-legged frogs is highly variable and changes with the life history stage. The diet of the larvae is not well studied, but is likely similar to that of other rapid frogs which feed on algae, diatoms, and detritus by grazing on the surface of rocks and vegetation (Fellers 2005; Kupferberg 1996a, 1996b, 1997). Hayes and Tennant (1985) analyzed the diets of California red-legged frogs, from Cahada de la Gaviota in Santa Barbara County during the winter of 1981 and found invertebrates (comprising 42 taxa) to be the most common prey item consumed; however, they speculated that this was opportunistic and varied based on prey availability. They ascertained that larger frogs consumed larger prey and were recorded to have preyed on Pacific chorus frog, three-spined stickleback and, to a limited extent, California mice, which were abundant at the study site (Hayes and Tennant 1985, Fellers 2005). Although larger, vertebrate prey was consumed less frequently, it represented over half of the prey mass eaten by larger frogs suggesting that such prey may play an energetically important role in their diets (Hayes and Tennant 1985). Juvenile and subadult/adult frogs varied in their feeding activity periods; juveniles fed for longer periods throughout the day and night, while subadult/adults fed nocturnally (Hayes and Tennant 1985). Juveniles were significantly less successful at capturing prey and all life history stages exhibited poor prey discrimination, feeding on several inanimate objects that moved through their field of view (Hayes and Tennant 1985),. Threats- Habitat loss, non-native species introduction, and urban encroachment are the primary factors, that have adversely affected the California red-legged frog throughout its range. Several researchers in central California have noted the decline and eventual local disappearance of California and. northern red-legged frogs in systems supporting bullfrogs (Jennings and Hayes 199x; 'rwedt 1993 , red swamp crayfish, signal crayfish, and several species of wann water fish including sunfish, goldfish, common carp, and mosquitofish (Moyle 1976; Barry 1992; Hunt 1993; Fisher and Schaffer 1996). This has been attributed to predation, competition, and Ms. Jane M. Hicks 31 reproduction interference:. Twedt (1 993) documented bullfrog predation of juvenile northern red- legged frogs, and suggested. that bullfrogs, could prey on SUbadult, California. red-legged frogs as well. Bullfrogs may also have a competitive advantage over California red-legged frogs. For instance, bullfrogs are larger and plossess, more generalized food habits (Bury and Whelan 1'9,84). In addition, bullfrogs have an extended breeding season (Storer 1933) during which an individual female can produce as many as 20,00 eggs (Emlen 1 977). Furthermore, bullfrog larvae are unpalatable to predatory fish (Kruse and Francis 1977'), Bullfrogs also interfere with California red-legged frog reproduction by eating adult male California red-legged frogs. Both California and northern red-legged frogs have been observed in ample us (mounted on) with both male, and female bullfrogs (Jennings and flayes 1990; Twedt 1993; Jennings 199,3). Thus, bullfrogs are able to prey upon and out-compete California red-legged frogs, especially in sub-optimal habitat. The urbanization of land within and adjacent to California red-legged frog habitat has also affected the threatened amphibian. These declines, are attributed to chamnelization of riparian areas, enclosure of the channels by urban development that blocks, dispersal, and the introduction of predatory fishes and bullfrogs. Diseases may also pose a, significant threat, although the specific effects of disease on the California red-legged frog are not known. Pathogens, are suspected of causing global, amphibian declines (Davidson el al. 2003). Chytridiomycosis, and ranaviruses are a potential threat because these diseases have been found to adversely affect other amphibians, including the listed species (Davidson et aL 2003; Lips el al. 2006). Mao et al. (1999 cited in Fellers 2005) reported northern red-legged frogs infected with an iridovirus, which was also presented in sympatric, threespine sticklebacks in northwestern California. Non-native species, Such as bullfrogs and non-native tiger salamanders that live within the range of the California red-legged frog have been identified as potential carriers, of these diseases (Garner el al. 2006), Humans can facilitate the spread of disease by encouraging, the further introduction of non-native carriers and by acting as carriers themselves, (i.e., contaminated boots, waders or fishing equipment), I-Jurnan activities can also introduce stress by other means, such as habitat fragmentation, which results in the listed species 'being more susceptible to the effects, of disease. Recovery Plan: The recovery plan for the Califorma red-legged frog identifies, eight recovery units (Service 2002). The establishment of these recovery units is based on the determination that various regional areas of the species' range are essential to its survival and recovery. These recovery units are delineated by major watershed boundaries as defined by U.S. Geological. Survey hydrologic units and the limits of its range, The goal of the recovery plan is to protect the long-term viability of all extant populations within each recovery unit. Within each recovery unit, core areas have been delineated and represent contiguous, areas, of moderate to high California red-legged frog densities that are relatively, free of exotic species such as bullfrogs. The goal, of designating core, area: is to protect metapopulations. Thus when combined with suitable dispersal habitat, will allow for the long term viability within existing populations. The management strategy identified within the Recovery Plan will allow for the recolonization of habitats within and adjacent to core areas that are naturally subjected to periodic localized extinctions, thus assuring the long-term survival and recovery, of California red-legged frogs. Ms,. Jane M, Hicks California Ited-Legged Frog, Critical Habitat IN The Service designated critical habitat for the California red-legged frog on April 13, 2006 (Service 2006b) and a revised designation to the critical habitat was published on March 17, 2010 (Service 20 10). At this time, the Service recognized the taxonomic change from Rana aurora draytonii to Rana draylonii (Shaffer et al. 2010). Critical habitat is defined in Section 3 of the Act as. (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) that may require special management considerations or protection and, (2) specific areas, outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. In determining which areas to designate as critical habitat, the Service considers those physical and biological features that are essential to a species' conservation and that may require special management considerations or protection (50 CFR 424.12(b)). The Service is required to list the known PCEs together with the critical habitat description. Such physical and biological features include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) space for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, or dispersal and; (5) generally, habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species, The PC Es defined for the California red-legged frog were derived from its biological needs. The area designated as revised critical habitat provides aquatic habitat for breeding and non-breeding activities and upland habitat for shelter, foraging, predator avoidance, and dispersal across its range. The PCE,s and, therefore, the resulting physical and biological features, essential for the conservation of the species were determined from studies of California red-legged frog, ecology. Based on the above needs and our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and ecology of the species, and the habitat requirements for sustaining the essential life-history functions of the species, the Service determined that the PCEs essential to the conservation of the California red- legged frog are: (1) aquatic breeding habitat defined as standing bodies of fresh water (with salinities less than 7.0 parts per thousand), including: natural and manmade (e.g., stock) ponds, slow-moving streams or pools within streams, and other ephemeral or permanent water bodies that typically become inundated during winter rains and hold water for a minimum of 20 weeks in all but the driest of years; (2) non-breeding aquatic habitat defined as freshwater and wetted riparian habitats, as described above, that may not hold water long enough for the subspecies to batch and complete its aquatic life cycle but that do provide for shelter, foraging, predator avoidance, and aquatic dispersal for juvenile and adult California red-legged frogs. Other wetland habitats that would be considered to meet these elements include, but are not limited to: plunge pools within intermittent creeks; seeps; quiet water refugia during high water flows; and springs of sufficient flow to withstand the summer dry period; (3) upland habitat defined as upland areas adjacent to or surrounding breeding and non-breeding aquatic and riparian habitat up to a distance of I mile in most cases and comprised of various vegetational series such as grasslands, woodlands, wetland, or riparian plant species that provides the frog shelter, forage, and predator avoidance. Upland features are also essential in that they are needed to maintain the Ms. Jane M. Hicks IN hydrologic, geographic, topographic, ecological, and edaphic features that: support and surround the wetland or riparian habitat. These upland, features contribute to the ri I ling and drying of the wetland or riparian habitat and are responsible for maintaining suitable periods of pool inundation for larval frogs and their food sources, and provide breeding, non-breeding, feeding, and sheltering habitat for, juvenile and adult frogs (e.g., shelter, shade, moisture, cooler temperatures, a prey base, foraging opportunities, and areas for predator avoidance), Upland habitat should include structural features such as boulders, rocks and organic debris (e g• downed trees, logs), as well as small nia.trimal burrows, and moist leaf litter and; (4) dispersal habitat defined as accessible upland or riparian dispersal habitat within designated units and between occupied locations within a minimum of I mile of each other and that allows for movement between such sites. Dispersal habitat includes various natural habitats and altered habitats such as agricultural fields, which do not contain barriers (e.g,, heavily traveled road without bridges or culverts) to dispersal, Dispersal habitat does not include moderate- to high- density urban or industrial developments with large expanses of asphalt or concrete, nor does it include large reservoirs over 50 acres in size, or other areas that do not contain those features identified in PCEs 1, 2, or 3 as essential to the conservation of the subspecies. With the revised designation of critical habitat, the Seivice intends, to conserve the geographic areas containing the physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species, through the identification of the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement of the PCEs sufficient to support the life - history functions of the species, Not all life-history fiunctions; require all the P'CEs and not all areas designated as critical habitat will contain all the PCEs. Refer to the final designation of critical habitat for California red-legged frog for additional information, Central California Tiger Salamander Listing Status: On May 23, 2003, we proposed to list the Central California DPS of the tiger salamander as threatened. At that time, we also proposed reclassification of the Santa Barbara County DP'S and Sonoma Count PS from endangered to threatened (68 FR 28647). In the same notice, we also proposed a special rule under section 4(d,) of the Act to exempt take for routine ranching operations for the Central California DPS and, if reclassified to threatened, for the Santa Barbara and Sonoma County D�PSs (68 FR 28668). On August 4, 2004, after determining that the listed Central California population of the California Dl' S of the Central California tiger salamander was threatened (69 FR 47211 ), we determined that the Santa Barbara and Sonoma County populations were threatened as well, and reclassified the Central Califomia tiger salamander as threatened throughout its range (69 FR 47212), removing, the Santa Barbara and Sonoma County populations as separately listed DPS,s (69 FR 47241). In this notice, wive also finalized the special rule to exerript take for routine ranching, operations for the Central California tiger salamander throughout its range (69 FR 47248). On August 18, 2005, as a result of I i tigation o f'tbe August 4, 2004 final nil e on the reclassification of the California tiger salamander DPSs (Centerfir Biological Diversd�y et al. v. United tale Fish and Wildlift Service et' al., C 04-04324 WI,J_A [N,D, Cal. 2+ ] , the District Court of Northern California sustained, the portion of the 2004 rule pertaining to listing the Ms. Jane M. Hicks 34 Central California tiger salamander as threatened with a special rule, vacated the 2004 rule with regard to the Santa Barbara and Sonoma DPSs, and reinstated their prior listing as endangered. The List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in part 17, subchapter B of Chapter 1, title 50 of the CFR has not been amended to reflect the vacatures contained in this order, and continues to show the rangewide reclassi Ms,. Jane M. I-licks 35 that benefits one member while the other is not affected) (Loredo et a/. 1996; Senionsen 1998), California tiger salamanders may also use landscape features such as leaf litter or desiccation cracks in the soil for upland refugia. Burrows often harbor camel crickets and other invertebrates that provide likely prey for the amphibians. Underground refugia also provide protection frorn the sun and wind associated with the dry California climate that can cause excessive drying of amphibian skin, Although California tiger salarnwiders are members of a family of "burrowing" salimianders, they are not known to create their own burrows. This may be dUe to the hardness of soils in the Califomia ecosysterns in which they are found, California tiger salammiders depend on persistent small mammal activity to create, maintain, and sustain sufficient underground refugia for the species. Burrows are short lived without continued small mammal activity and typically collapse within approximately 18 months (Loredo el al. 1996), Upland burrows inhabited by California tiger salamanders have often been referred to as aestivation-sites. However, ``aestivation" implies a state of inactivit , while most, evidence suggests that the animals remain active in their underground dwellings. One study has found that salarnanders move, feed, and remain active in their burrows (Van 14attern 2004), Because adults arrive at breeding ponds in good condition and are heavier when entering the pond than when leaving, researchers have long inferred that they axe feeding while underground. A number of direct observations have confirmed this (Trenharn 2001; Van. flattern 20(14). Thus, ``upland habitat" is a more accurate description of the terrestrial areas used by California tiger salamanders, California tiger salamanders typically emerge from their underground refugia at night during the fall or winter rainy season (November-May) to migrate to their breeding ponds (Stebbins 1985, 1989; Shaffer el al. 1993; Trenham et al. 2000), The breeding period is closely associated with the rainfall patterns in any given year with less adults migrating and breeding in drought years (Lored,o and Van 'uren 1996; Trenham el al. 2000). Male California tiger salamander are typically first to arrive and generally remain in the ponds longer than females. Results from a, 7- year study in Monterey County suggested that males, remained in the breeding ponds for all average of 44.,7 days while females remained for an average of only 11.8 days (Trentham et al. 001 Historically, breeding ponds, were likely limited to vernal pools, but now include livestock stock ponds. Ideal breeding ponds are typically fishless, free of non-native predators, and seasonal or serni-parmanent (Barry and Shaffer 1994; Petranka 1998). While in the ponds, adult California tiger salamanders mate and then the females lay their eggs in the water ('Fwitty 1941; Shat Ter et al. 1993; P'etranka 1998). Egg laying typically reaches a, peak in January (foredo and Van Vuren 1996; Trenham et al., 2000). Fernales, attach their eggs singly, or in rare circumstances, in groups, of two to four, to twigs, grass stems, vegetation, or debris (Storer 1925; Twitty 1441). Eggs, are often attached to objects, such as rocks and boards in ponds with no or limited vegetation (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Clutch sizes from a Monterey County study had an average of 814 eggs (Trenham et al. 2000). Seasonal pools, may not exhibit sufficient depth, persistence, or other necessary parameters for adult breeding during titnCS Of drought ( and Shaffer 1994). After breeding and egg laying is complete, adults leave the pool and return 'to their upland refugia (foredo el al, 199,6; Trenham 1998a). Adult California Ms. Jane M. Hicks 12 tiger salamanders often continue to emerge nightly for approximately the next two weeks to feed amongst their upland habitat (Shaffer et a]. 1993), California tiger salamander larvae typically hatch within 10 to 24 days after eggs are laid (Storer 1925). The larvae are totally aquatic and range in length from approximately 0,45 to 0 . 5 6 inches (Petranka 1998). They have yellowish gray bodies, broad fat heads, large, feathery external gills, and broad dorsal fins that extend well up their back, The larvae feed on zooplankton, small, crustaceans, and aquatic insects for about six weeks after hatching, after which they switch to larger prey (J. Anderson 1968), Larger larvae have been known to consume the tadpoles of Pacific tree frogs, western spadefoot toads, and California red-legged frogs (J. Anderson 1968;1. Anderson 1968), California tiger salamander larvae are among the top aquatic predators in seasonal pool ecosystems. When not feeding, they often rest, on the bottom in shallow water but are also found throughout the water column in deeper water. Young California tiger salamanders are wary and typically escape into vegetation at the bottom of the pool when approached by potential predators (Storer 1925). The California tiger salamander larval stage is typically completed in 3 to 6 months with most metamorphs entering upland habitat during the summer (Petranka 1998). In order to be successful, the aquatic phase of this species' life history must correspond with the persistence of' its seasonal, aquatic habitat. Most seasonal ponds and pools dry up completely during the summer. Amphibian larvae must grow to a critical minimum body size before they can metamorphose (change into a different physical form) to the terrestrial stage (Wilbur and Collins 1973), Larval development and metamorphosis can vary and is often site-dependent. Larvae collected near Stockton in the Central Valley during April varied between 1.88 to 2.32 inches in length (Storer 1925). Feaver (197 1) found that larvae metamorphosed and left breeding pools 60 to 94 days after eggs had been laid, with larvae developing faster in smaller, more rapidly drying pools. Longer ponding duration typically results in larger larvae and metamorphosed juveniles that are more likely to survive and reproduce, (Pechmann et al. 1989; Semlitsch et al. 1988; Morey 1998; Trenham 1998b), Larvae will perish if a breeding pond dries before metamorphosis is complete (P. Anderson 1968; Feaver 1971). Pechniann el al. (1989) found a strong positive correlation between ponding duration and total number ofmetamorphosi ng j uveni les in five salamander species. In Madera County, Feaver (197 1) found that only 11 of 30 sampled pools supported larval salamanders, and 5 of these dried before metarnorphosis could occur. 'Therefore, out of the original 30 pools, only 6 (20 percent) provided suitable conditions for successful reproduction that year. Size at metamorphosis is positively correlated with stored body fat and survival of juvenile amphibians, and negatively correlated with age at first reproduction (Semlitsch et al. 1988; Scott 1994; Morey 1998), Following metamorphosis, juvenile California tiger salamanders leave their pools and move to upland habitat. This emigration can occur in both wet and dry conditions (1.oredo and Van Vuren 1996; Loredo el al. 1996). Wet conditions are more favorable for upland travel but summer rain events seldom occur as metamorphosis is completed and ponds begin to dry. As a result, juveniles maybe forced to leave their ponds on rainless nights. Under dry conditions, juveniles may be limited to seeking upland refagia in close proximity to their aquatic larval pool. These individuals often wait until the next winter's rains to move further into more suitable Ms. Jane M. Hicks 37 upland refugia. The peak emergence of these metainorphs in ponds is typically between mid- June and mid-July (Loredo, and Van Vuren 1996;'Frenham et al. 2000). Juveniles remain active in their upland habitat, emerging from underground refugia duriug rainfall events to d,isperse or forage (Trenham and Shaffer 2005). Depending on location and other development factors, metarriorphs will not return as adults to aquatic breeding habitat for 2 to 5 years (Loredo and Van Vuren 1996; Trenharn et al. 2000), Reproductive success for the California tiger salamander is low. Result,,, from one study suggest that, the average female bred 1.4 times over their lifespan and produced 8-5 young per reproductive effort that survived to metamorphosis (Trenhana et al, 2000). This resulted in the output of roughly 11 metamorphic offspring over a breeding female's, lifetime. 'The primary reason for low reproductive success may be that this relatively short-lived species requires two or more years, to become sexually mature (Shaffer et al. 1993). Some individuals may not breed until they are 4 to 6 years old, While California tiger salamanders rnayr Survive for more than 10 years, many breed only once, and in one study, less than 5 percent of marked juveniles survived to become breeding adults (Treaham 1 8b1. With such low recruitment, isolated populations are susceptible to unusual, randomly occurring natural events as well human -caused factors that reduce breeding success and individual survival, Factors that repeatedly lower breeding success in isolated pools can quickly extirpate a population, Dispersal an(], migration movements made by California tiger salamanders can be grouped into two main categories: (1) breeding migration; and (2) interpond dispersal. Breeding migration is the movement of salamanders to and from a pond from the surrounding upland habitat. After metamorphosis, juveniles move away from breeding ponds into the surrounding uplands, where they live continuously for several years, At a study in Monterey County, it was found that upon reaching sexual maturity, most individuals returned to their natal/ birth pond to breed, while 20 percent dispersed to other ponds (Trepham eta[. 2001). After breeding, adult California tiger salamanders return to upland habitats, where they may live for one or more years before attempting to breed again, (Trenham, et al. 2000), California tiger salamanders are known to travel long distances between breeding ponds and their upland refugia. Generally it is difficult to establish the maximum distances traveled by any species, but salamanders in Santa Barbara County have been recorded dispersing up, to 1.3 miles from their breeding ponds (Sweet 1998). As a result of a 5-year capture and relocation study in Contra Costa County, Orloff (2011) estimated that captured Califomia tiger salamanders were traveling a minimum of'01.5 miles to the nearest breeding pond and that some individuals were likely traveling more than 1 3 miles to and from breeding ponds. California tiger salamanders are also known to travel between breeding ponds. One study found that 20 to 25 percent of tile individuals captured at one pond were recaptured, later at other ponds approximately 1,,9O�O and 2,200 feet away (Trenham, et al'. 2001). In addition, to traveling long distances during juvenile dispersal and adult migration,, salamanders may'resid,e in burrows far from flicir associated breedi ng ponds. Although previously cited information indicates that California tiger salamanders can travel long distances, they typically remain close to their associated breeding ponds. A trapping study W Jane M. Hicks 38 conducted in Solano County during the winter of 2002/2003 suggested that Juveniles dispersed and used upland habitats further from breeding ponds than adults (Trenham, and ShatTer 2005). More juvenile California tiger salamanders were captured in traps placed at 328, 656, and 1,312 feet from a breeding pond instead Of IL64 feet. Approximately 20 percent of the captured juveniles were found at least 1,312 feet from the nearest breeding pond. The associated distribution curve suggested that 95 percent of juvenile California tiger salamanders were within 2,099 feet of the pond, with the remaining 5 percent being found at even greater distances. Preliminary results from the 2003-04 trapping efforts at the same study site detected juvenile California tiger salamanders at even further distances, with a large proportion of the captures at 2,297 feet from the breeding pond (Trenbarn 1998a). Surprisingly, most juveniles captured, even those at 2,100 feet, were still moving away from ponds. In Santa Barbara County, juvenile Santa Barbara County IMPS California tiger salamanders have been trapped approximately 1,200 feet away while dispersing from their natal pond (Science Applications International Corporation, unpublished data). This data shows that many California tiger salamanders travel far while still in the juvenile stage. Post-breeding movements away from breeding ponds by adults appear to be much smaller. During post-breeding emigration from aquatic habitat, radio-equipped adult California tiger salamanders were tracked to burrows between 62 to 813 feet from their breeding ponds (Trenham 2001). These reduced movements may be due to adult California tiger salamanders exiting the ponds with depleted physical reserves, or drier weather conditions typically associated with the post-breeding upland migration period. California tiger salamanders are also known to use several successive burrows at increasing distances from an associated breeding pond. Although previously cited studies provide information regarding linear movement from breeding ponds, upland habitat features appear to have some influence on movement. Trenharn (200 1) found that radio-tracked adults were more abundant in grasslands with scattered large oaks, than in more densely wooded areas. used on radio-tracked adults, there is no indication that certain habitat types are favored as terrestrial movement corridors (Trenharn 2001). In addition, captures of'arriving adults and dispersing new net morphs were evenly distributed around two ponds, completely encircled by drift fences and pitfall traps. Thus, it appears that dispersal into the terrestrial habitat occurs randomly with respect to direction and habitat types, Threati: The Central California tiger salamander is imperiled throughout its range due to a variety of human activities (Service 2004). Current factors associated with declining Central California tiger salamander populations include continued habitat loss and degradation due to agriculture and urbanization; hybridization with the non-native eastern tiger salamander (Ambystoma figrinum) (Fitzpatrick and Shaffer 2004; Riley el al, 2003); and predation by introduced species. Central California tiger salamander populations are likely threatened by multiple factors but continued habitat fragmentation and colonization of non-native salamanders may represent the most significant current threats, Habit-at isolation and fragmentation within many watersheds have precluded dispersal between sub-populations and threatened the viability of metapopulations, (broadly defined as multiple subpopulations that occasionally exchange individuals through dispersal, and are capable of colonizing or "rescuing" extirpated habitat patches). Other threats include disease, predation, interspecific competition, urbanization and population growth, exposure to contaminants, rodent and mosquito control, road-crossing Ms, Jaiie M,, Flicks, RE mortality, and hybridization with non-native salamanders. Currently, these, various primary and secondary threats are largely not being offset by existing Federal, State, or local regulatory mechanisms. The Central California tiger salamander its also prone to chance environmental or demographic events, to which strial I populations are particularly vulnerable, The Bay Area is located within the Central Coast and Livermore vernal pool regions (Keeler- Wolf el al, 19,98). Most of the vernal pools in the Livermore Region in Alameda County have been destroyed or degraded by urban development, agriculture, water diversions,,, poor water quality, and long -teen over gra7ing (Keeler-Wolf et al. 1998). During the 1980s and 1990s, vemal pools were, lost at a 1.1 percent annual rate in Alameda County ('Holland 1998). Due to the extensive losses of vernal, pool complexes and their limited distribution in the Bay Area region, many Central California tiger salamander breeding sites consist of artificial water bodies. Overall, 82 percent (9 4) of the identified water bodies from the California Natural Diversity Database (Cl" DD Central California tiger salamander occurrences in Alameda County are stock, farm, or berm ponds, used by cattle grazing andJor as a temporary water Source for small fw-m irrigation (CDFG 2011.). Without long-term maintenance (sediment removal, berm maintenance, etc.,), the longevity of artificial breeding habitats is uncertain relative to naturally occurring veinal pools that are dependent, on the continuation of seasonal weather patterns (Shaffer in lift. 2003). Shaffer et al, (1993) found that the East Bay counties of, lamed a and Contra Costa supported the greatest concentrations, of Central California tiger salamander. Central California tiger salamander populations in the Livermore Valley are severely threatened by the ongoing conversion of grazing land to subdivisions and vineyards (Stebbins 2,003), Central California tiger salamanders are under increasing pressure from habitat conversion and urbanization, development (i.e, Dublin Ranch, Fallon, Village, Fallon Sports Park,, Staples Ranch, and Shea Center Livermore, vineyards), and infrastructure, utility and safety improvement projects (i.e. I- 580 Eastbound f IOV, 1-580/1'sabel Avenue friterchange, and 1-580/Charro Avenue Interchange). The species' low recruitment and high Juvenile mortality makes it particularly susceptible to habitat, loss, fragmentation, urbanization, and construction related harm and, mortality. California liger Salamander Critical Habitat The Service designated critical habitat for the Central California tiger salamander on August 2'3, 2005 (Service, 2005c). The rule identifies approximately 199,109 acres in 19 counties in California. used on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and ecology of the species, and the relationship of its essential life history ftinctions to its habitat, the Service determined that the Central population of the California tiger salamander requires the following PCEs: (1) standing bodies of fresh water (including natural and manmade (e.g., stock)) ponds, vernal pools, and other ephemeral or permanent water bodies which typically support, inundation during winter rains and hoed water for a minimum ofI 2 weeks in a year of average rainfall; (2) upland habitats adjacent and accessible to and from breeding ponds that contain small mammal burrows or other Ms. Jane M. Hicks 40 underground habitat that California tiger salamanders depend upon for food, shelter, and protection rrom the elements and predation; and (3) accessible upland dispersal habitat between occupied locations that allow for movement between such sites. Refer to the final designation of critical habitat for additional information, Alameda Whipsnak Refer to the Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) 5-Year Revievv: Summary and Evaluation (Service 2011) for the current Status, of the Species. Alameda Whinsnake Critical Habitat On October 2, 2006, the final rule determining critical habitat for the Alailleda whipsnake was published in the Federal Register (Service 2006c), The rule identifies approximately 154,834 acres within six critical habitat units in Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and San Joaquin counties, California. Based oil our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and ecology of the Alameda whipsnake and the requirements of the habitat necessary to sustain the essential life history functions of the subspecies, we have determined that the PCEs for the Alameda whipsnake are: (1) scrub/shrub communities with a mosaic of open and closed canopy: Scrub/shrub vegetation dominated by low-to medium-stature woody shrubs with a mosaic of open and closed canopy as characterized by the chamise, chamise-easmwood rnanzanita, chaparral whitethorn, and interior live oak shrub vegetation series (as identified it) the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995), A Guide to Wildlife Habitats ofCalifomia ((Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988), and California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CDFG 1998)), occurring at elevations from sea level to approximately 3,850 feet. Such scrub/shrub vegetation within these series forms a pattern of open and closed canopy used by the Alameda wh,ipsnake for shelter from predators, terriperat-ure regulation, because it provides sunny and shady locations; prey-viewing opportunities; and nesting habitat, and substrate. These features contribute to support a prey base consisting of western fence lizards and other prey species such as sk inks, frogs, snakes, and birds; (2) woodland or annual grassland plant communities contiguous to lands containing PCE 1: Woodland or annual grassland vegetation series comprised of one or more of the following: blue oak, coast live oak,, California bay, California buckeye, and California annual grassland vegetation series (as identified in the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995), A Guide to Wildlife, Habitats of California (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988), and d California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (C DFG 1998)) are PCE 2. This mosaic of vegetation is essential to the conservation of the Alameda whipsnake because it supports a prey base, consisting of western fence lizards and other prey species such as skinks, frogs, snakes, and birds. This provides opportunities for foraging by allowing snakes to come in contact with and visualize, track, and capture prey (especially western fence lizards along with other prey such as skinks, frogs, birds); short and long distance dispersal within, between, or to adjacent areas, containing essential features (i.e., PCE I or PCE 3); and contact with other Alarneda whipsnakes, for mating and reproduction; and (3) lands containing rock outcrops, talus, and small mammal burrows within or adjacent to PCE 1 and or PCE 2. These areas are essential to the conservation Ms, Jane M, Flicks 41 of the Alameda whipsnake because they are used for retreats (shelter), hibemacula, foraging, and dispersal, and provide additional prey population support functions,, Refer to the final designation of critical habitat for additional information, 5,�an.JogLc ]uin Kit Fox Refer to tin San dbaquinKil Fox ('Vidpes ma•rolis mutica) 5-Year Review.-.5urnmary, and Et,atuation (Service 201 Ob) for the current Status of the Species,. Palrnate-Bratted Bird's-Beak Refer to the Palmale-bracted birds-beak (Cor4,lanlhus palmalus = Chlorvpyt-on palinatuni) -Y aar eview: � "ummary and Ev aluation (Service 2009b) for the current Status, of the Species, Environmental Baseline Urban The Conservation Strategy Study Area encompasses 2,71,485 acres in eastern Alameda County,, California, The cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton are completely included in the Conservation Strategy Study Area and a portion of the cities of Fremont, Union City, and Hayward are included in the Alarneda Creek watershed boundary, Located between the urban areas surrounding the San Francisco Bay and the Central Valley, cast Alameda County;has had considerable growth pressure in the recent past. In 1990, the population was approximately 133,,0100 and will most likely exceed 250,000 by 20 1, O, representing an 88 percent growth (Alameda County Community Development Agency 20102 as cited in the Conservation Strategy (ICF International, 2010))• The Association of Bay Area Goverrinients, has projected that the populations of Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin will grow to 89,600; 75,300; and 56,800 by the year 2015, mid 95,500; 79, 100; and 62,70,0 by the year 2020, respectively (Association of'Bay Area Goverrunents 2006 as cited in the Conservation Strategy (I F" International 201 0)). Alarneda, County has an, urban groxvth boundai-y via voter approved Measure 1) and the general plans of the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin have designated urban growth boundaries,. Development, however, is not precluded from occurring outside of the urban growth boundaries. In general, development outside of an urban growth boundary requires an amendment to a general plan., Open SE)ae,, In cast Alarneda County, California Department of Parks and Recreation owns Bethany Reservoir State Recreation Area (802 acres), Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (3,850 acres), and Lake Del Valle State Recreation Area (5,005 acres) (State of California 2008 as cited in the Conservation Strategry and Figure' -3 of the Conservation Strategy (ICF International 2010) "1. Bethany Reservoir is the northern terininus of the California Aqueduct,, The associated Bethany Reservoir State Recreation Area provides, opportunities, for water recreation, including fishing Ms. Jane M. Hicks 42 and windsurfing as well as biking along the California Aqueduct Bikeway. Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area is located on the eastern edge of the study area and straddles the Alameda/San, Joaquin County line. The park provides active motorized riding areas on a diversity of terrain ranging from rolling hills to steep canyons. Lake Del Valle State Recreation Area surrounds Lake Del Valle and provides hiking, horseback riding, and water recreation. It is also the eastern gateway to the 28-mile Ohlone Trail and is operated by East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD). EBRPD manages regional parks, regional preserves, and trails in the Conservation Strategy Study Area. Regional parks in the Conservation Strategy Study Area are Del Valle Regional Park (5,005 acres), Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park (3,387 acres), and Vargas Plateau Regional Park (1,043 acres) (Figure 2-3 of the Conservation Strategy (IC P' International 20110!)). A regional park must be at least 500 acres, including land and water, and must include scenic or natural resources in at least 70 percent of the park area and have the capacity to accommodate a range of recreational activities, as long as recreational areas are less than 30 percent of the overall park area (EBRPD 1997). Regional preserves in the Conservation Strategy Study Area are Sunol Regional Wilderness (6,881 acres), Ohlone Regional Wilderness (8,714 acres), Brushy Peak Regional Preserve (406 acres), and Mission Peak Regional Preserve (470 acres) (Figure 2-3 of the Conservation Strategy (ICF International 2010)). The primary objective of a regional preserve is to preserve and protect significant natural or cultural resources. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory owns and operates Site 300, located in eastern Alameda and western San Joaquin Counties north of Corral Hollow Road (Figure 2-3 of the Conservation Strategy (ICF International 2010)), for the purpose of conducting unique scientific experiments and explosive tests. The site is approximately 7,000 acres in size, 803 acres of which is in the Conservation Strategy Study Area. Site 300 is inhabited by a diverse assemblage of flora and fauna and less than 5 percent of the property-area is developed. Developed areas with buildings are generally separated from wildland settings with high-security fences. Within the Conservation Strategy Study Area, Livermore Area Recreational and Park District (LARPD) currently owns and operates two open space parks: Sycamore Grove ParkNeterans Park (77'4 acres) and Holdener Park (55 acres); and one open space preserve, Garaventa Wetlands Preserve (24 acres). LARPD owns 507 acres of Brushy Peak Regional Preserve (the remainder, is owned b BRPD), but the entire preserve is managed by EBRPD. Overall, LARPD parks and preserves represent 1,360 acres of natural open space and also owns and manages several trail facilities (LARPD 2008 as cited in the Conservation Strategy (ICF International 2010)). The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUQ owns, leases, and manages 23,000 acres of watershed lands located in Conservation Strategy Study Area (Figure 2-3 of the Conservation Strategy (ICF International 20 10)) in the Alameda Watershed. The remaining 13,000 acres occur in Santa Clara County. While the primary purpose of SFPUC watershed lands is for watershed protection, the agency also uses the watershed lands for several other purposes, including quarry operations, plant nurseries, utilities routing, and water conveyance.. Ms. Jane M, Hicks 43 The entire area provides habitat for a variety of wildlife and is managed tinder a, grazing management plan to enhance native flora and fauna. The Tri-Valley Conservancy oversees conservation easements and manages lands in eastern Alameda County, including north and south Livermore, south Pleasanton, west Altarnont Hills area, and the future Chain of Lakes Recreation Area. The purpose of the Tri-Valley Conservancy is "to permanently protect, the fertile soils, rangelands, open space, and biological resources and to support a viable agricultural economy in the Tri Valley Area" (Tri-Valley Conservancy 2005 as cited in the Conservation Strategy (1CF International 2010)). The Tri-Valley Conservancy protects lands through acquisitions, conservation easements, deed restrictions, conditional transfers, reverter clauses, management agreements, leases, mutual covenants, and donations. The Tri-Valley Conservancy also has ongoing stewardship programs for acquired lands. The, Conservation Strategy Study Area contains thousands acres of private agriculture and rangeland. Most of this land is either in vineyards, used for livestock production, or is in dry land farming, The Conservation Strategy Agriculture and Rangelands land use planning category comprises 167,449 acres (approximately 61.7 percent) of the Conservation Strategy Study Area. Rangeland in the northeastern portion of Alameda County also falls within the Wind Resource Area and many private ranches have existing, wind energy facilities, Please refer to Chapter 2-Evironmental Setting of the Conservation Strategy (ICF International 2010,) for more information on the general physical, biological and habitat based resources, and land use within the Conservation Strategy Study Area, Lon horn Faigy Shrimp Threats to longhorn fairy shrimp in the action area include wind energy, habitat alteration and degradation as a result of development and changes to natural hydrology, recreational activities (e.g., off-bigliway vehicles and hiking), erosion, contamination, environmental disturbances, including severe drought, degradation of habitat from invasive weedy plant species, inappropriate grazing regimes, and other unforeseen events (Service 2005b, 2007a). All of the known localities of this species in the Conservation Strategy Study Area are within the Brushy Peak Preserve and are currently protected (Service 2007a). The Brushy Peak Preserve contains one of the four known populations of longhorn fairy shrimp. The Brushy Peak Preserve is within one of the five Altamont Hills Core Recovery Areas in the Livermore Vernal Pool Region. General recovery criteria include: (1) habitat protection; (2) adaptive management and monitoring; (3) status surveys; (4) research; and (5) participation and outreach. The recovery plan established the following criteria for downlisting the longhorn fairy shrimp in the Altarriont Hills Core, Recovery Areas: (1) 100 percent protection of known occurrences range-wide and (2) 95 percent protection of suitable habitat in this core area. Informal monitoring of known populations of fairy shrimp has occurred within the Brushy Peak Preserve. There are several vernal pools that have longhorn fairy shrimp within the 507-acre Brushy Peak Preserve, which, is owned by the LA RPD and managed by the EBRPD (Steve Ms. Jane M. Hicks Im Bobzien, personal communication, 2007 as cited in Service 2007a), The exact number of vernal pools within this preserve containing this species has not been quantified, The Brushy Peak Preserve contains rock outcrops with multiple indentations that seasonally pool water and support longhorn fairy shrimp. The number of pools supporting longhorn fairy shrimp varies from year to year (Steve Bobzien, personal communication, 2007' as cited in Service 2007a), '['here is also potential for longhorn fairy shrimp to occur in unprotected areas that have not been surveyed for fairy shrimp species, particularly in areas south of the Brushy Peak Preserve (Service 2007a). The Conservation Strategy has modeled areas of suitable habitat within Conservation Zones 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9. However, some habitat may have been too small to be mapped and not captured in the model. The Service has determined it is reasonable to conclude the longhorn fairy shrimp inhabits the action area based on the recent observations of this animal the biology and ecology of the species, and the presence of suitable habitat. Lon horn Faia Shrimp Critical Habitat Longhorn fairy shrimp critical habitat Unit 1l is located within Conservation Zones 5 and 6 in the Conservation Strategy Study Area. Unit 1A in Contra Costa and Unit I B in Alameda County combine for a total of 79,1 acres. Approximately 133 acres occur in Conservation Zone 5 and 3.54 acres in Conservation Zone 6 for a total of 487 acres in Unit I B. Of those, approximately 133 acres in Conservation Zone 5 and 134 acres in Conservation Zone 5 are unprotected, This unit was known to be occupied by longhorn fairy shrimp at the time of listing, is ctuTently occupied, and contains, the following vernal pool and associated upland features that are essential for the conservation of the species: mound and inter-mound topography (PC E 1, P'CE 2) within a matrix of surrounding upland habitat which provide for cyst dispersal and adequate pool hydroperiods, and vernal pool wetland features within a matrix of upland habitat which provide food, shelter, hatching, growth, and reproduction (P'CE 3, PCE 4). These features of the critical habitat, which are present in Unit I B, are essential to the recovery of the species. Vernal Pool pair ShriLnj) Threats to vernal pool fairy shrimp in the action area include habitat loss in the form of habitat alteration and degradation as a result of development, agricultural conversion, and changes to natural hydrology, invasive species, incompatible grazing regimes, including insufficient grazing for prolonged periods; recreational activities (e.g., off-highway vehicles and hiking), erosion, and contamination (Service 2005b, 2007b). The Conservation Strategy Study Area contains two of the five Altaniont Hills Core Recovery Areas and is in the Livermore Vernal Pool Region, The two Core Areas, are located in the Springtown Preserve area in Livermore and within the Brushy Peak Preserve in Conservation Zones 4, 5, and 6. The Brushy Peak Preserve contains known occurrences of vernal pool fairy shrimp in small rock pools on sandstone outcrops (Service 2007b), General recovery criteria include. (1) habitat protection; (2) adaptive management and monitoring; (3) status surveys; (4) Ms., Jane M. Hicks 45 research, and (5) participation and outreach, The recovery plan established the following criteria focr delisting the vernal pool fairy shrimp in the Altamont Hills Core recovery areas: (1) 80 percent protection of Imown occurrences range-wide and (2) 85 percent protection of suitable habitat in this core area. The CNDDB lusts four vernal pool fairy shrimp Occurrences within the Conservation Strategy Study Area (three in Livennore mid one east of Livermore) (CDFG 2011). However, through section 7 consultations the Service is aware of additional occurrences within the Conservation Strategy Study Area. Some of these occurrences, are located in man-made ditches and roadside depressions, as well as in vernal pools and seasonal wetlands, The Conservation Strategy has modeled areas of suitable habitat within Conservation Zones 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9, However, sorne habitat, may have been too small to be mapped and not captured in the model. The Service has determined it is reasonable to conclude, the vernal pool fairy shrimp inhabits the action area based on the recent observations of this animal the biology and ecology of the species, and the presence of suitable habitat, Venial Pool FaLry Shrimp Critical Habitat The vernal pool fairy shrimp Altamont Hills critical, habitat unit is comprised of three subunits (I 9A— I 9C), located in the general vicinity of Mount Diablo and Morgan Territory Regional Park, and comprises approximately 7,892 acres, in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, Vernal pool fairy shrimp critical habitat Unit 19C is located within Conservation Zones, 4 and 5 in the Conservation Strategy Study Area. Approximately 1,37'8 acres occur in Conservation Zone 4 and 77 acres in Conservation Zone 5 for a total of 1455 acres in Unit 19C. Of those, approximately 892 acres in Conservation Zone 4 and 60 acres in Conservation Zone 5 are wiprotectecl. This unit, was known to be occupied by vernal pool fairy shrimp at the time of listing, is currently occupied, and contains the following vernal pool and associated upland features that are essential for the conservation of the species: mound and inter-mound topography (PC 1, PC'E 2) within a matrix of surrounding upland habitat which provide for cyst dispersal and adequate pool hydroperiods, and vernal pool wetland features within a matrix of upland habitat which provide for food, shelter, hatching, grovAh, and reproduction (,PC E 3, PC E 4) . These features of the critical habitat, which are present at the site, are essential to the recovery of the species. Threats to cahippe silverspot butterflies in the action area include illegal collection, habitat loss and degradation from human activities, including off-road vehicle use, trampling by hikers and horses, inappropriate levels of grazing, fire suppression, pesticide use, air pollution,, and invasive exotic vegetation (Service 2009a) The callippe silverspot butterfly is found exclusively within grassy WIN surrounding San Ms. Jane M. Hicks Francisco Bay that support its native host-plant, Viola pe(iunculata (California golden violet or Johnny jump-up) (Service 200,9a). The Conservation Strategy has mapped potential habitat for the callippe silverspot butterfly in all Conservation Zones excluding Conservation Zones 6,, 7, and 10. ER Populations within the Conservation Strategy Study Area have been observed; however, their taxonomic status as S. c. callippe has not been verified, according the 5-Year Review (Service 2009a). These include a population in the hills in the City of Pleasanton (Mattoon in litt. 19,92; LSA Associates 2002) and a population along the watershed to the east of Calaveras Reservoir Oust east of the city of Milpitas) (Arnold 2004a, b). Dr. Arnold noted that the individuals from the Calaveras reservoir population displayed morphological characteristics intermediate between, the callippe silverspot butterfly and Comstock's silverspot butterfly (,5. c,. comstocki); however, Dr. Anioldiudged this population was closer in appearance to the callippe silverspot butterfly (Arnold 2004a, b). Another population was identified with similar intermediate morphological characteristics in the proposed second phase of the Ohlone preserve Conservation Bank,. Threats to Califon is red-legged frogs in the action area include habitat loss and degradation from hunian activities, including development, off-road vehicle use and various forms of recreation, inappropriate levels of grazing, agriculture, flood control maintenance, herbicide and pesticide use, and by non-human activities such as predation by introduced species and/or feral animals (Service 2002, 2010). There are 128 occurrences within or immediately adjacent to the Conservation Strategy Study Area (CDFG 2011). These occurrences are distributed throughout all of the Conservation Zones. The Conservation Strategy has mapped potential breeding and upland habitat throughout the Conservation Strategy Study Area. Based on these occurrences, presence of suitable habitat, and the biology and ecology of the species, the Service has determined it is reasonable to conclude the California red-legged frog inhabits the action area. The Conservation Strategy Study Area is located within the East San Francisco Bay Core Area of the South and East San Francisco Bay Recovery Unit. The recovery plan established the following conservation needs for the East San Francisco Bay Core Area: (1) protect existing populations; (2) control non-native predators; (3) study effects of grazing on riparian corridors, ponds, and uplands (e.g., on EBRPD lands); (4) reduce impacts associated with livestock grazing; (5) protect habitat connectivity; (6) minimize effects of recreation and off-road vehicle use (e.g., Corral Hollow watershed); (7) avoid and reduce impacts of urbanization; and (8) protect habitat buffers from nearby urbanization (Service 2002). Numerous recent developments have reduced habitat and known California red-legged frog populations. Schaefer Ranch in west Dublin; Dublin Ranch and other developments along Tassajara Road; Positano and Jordan Ranch developments within the East Dublin Specific Plan; and Las Positas College build out, business parks and vineyards in North Livermore. Ms. Jane M. Hicks California Rgd-Le 'edFro'YCritjcal,.l­Iabitat IE The Conservation Strategy Study Area is within Califomia red-legged frog, critical habitat units, CCS-2B, ALA -1 A, ALA -11 , and ALA-2 for a total of 148,105 acres. Approximately 21,981 acres are protected and 126,033 acres are unprotected. California red-legged frog critical habitat unit CCS-2B,a subunit of the CC S-2, Mount Diablo Unit, occurs in Conservation Zones 2,,3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Approximately 81 acres occur in Conservation Zone 2, 7,426 acres occur in Conservation Zone 3, 857 acres occur in Conservation Zone 4, 8,343 acres occur in Conservation Zone 5, 13,095 acres occur in Conservation Zone 6, and 842 acres occur in Zone 7. Of those, approximately all the critical habitat lands in Conservation Zones 2 and 3, 774 acres, in Conservation Zone 4, 6,637 acres, in Conservation Zone 5, 12,489 acres in Conservation Zone 6, and 701 acres in Conservation Zone 7 are unprotected. Unit CC -2 totals approximately 48,697 acres of land, and is located in eastern Contra Costa County and northeastern Alameda County, north of Highway 8,0, Subunit CC S,- 2 contains (44,470 acres) the features that are essential for the conservation of the species, The subunit contains, aquatic habitat for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE I and PCE 2), and upland habitat for foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). Subunit, CCS-2B was known to be occupied at the time of listing and is currently occupied. The subunit contains, permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats suitable for breeding„ and upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and food, and provides for connectivity between populations farther south in the interior, Coast Range. Subunit CCS-213 contains some of the highest concentrations of California, red- legged frogs and habitat and could serve as a source for potential reintroduction efforts. Subunit CC ' -2 consists of 4,059 acres of State, 3,088 acres of local government, and 37, 22 acres of private lands and was mapped from occurrences recorded at the time of listing and subsequent to the time of listing. The physical and biological features essential to the conservation of California red-legged frog in Unit CC -2 may require special management considerations or protection due to predation by nonnative species, urbani7ation, overgrazing of aquatic and riparian habitats, and erosion and siltation due to flooding, which may alter aquatic and upland habitats and thereby result in the direct or indirect loss of egg masses or adults,. Approximately 814 acres of California red-legged frog critical, habitat subunit ALA- I A, Dublin Canyon, occurs within Conservation Zone 1. Of'those, 543 acres are unprotected. This subunit is comprised of approximately 3,650 acres of land and is located in northwestern Alameda County, and southern Contra Costa County, north of Highway 580 and west of Dublin, California. Subunit ALA -1A contains the features that are essential for the conservation of the species. 'The subunit contains aquatic habitat for breeding and non-breeding activities (PC E 1 and PCE 2), and upland habitat for foraging and dispersal activities (P,CE 3 and PC E 4). ALA -1 A was known to be occupied at the tune of listing and is currently occupied, The subunit contains permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats that provide for breeding that are comprised of manmade stock ponds, and natural streams, with emergent vegetation, willows, or are surrounded by riparian vegetation, grasslands and oak forest. These aquatic habitats also have adjacent upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and foraging opportunities, Subunits ALA-IA and ALA-] B provide for coruiectivity between populations farther south in the East San Francisco Bay foothills surd represents the southernmost distribution of the California red-legged frogs and its habitat in the East San Francisco Bay region. The subunit consists of 60 3 acres of Local Ms. Jane M. Hicks En government land and 3,047 acres of private land and is mapped from occurrences recorded at the time of listing and subsequent to the time of listing. The physical and biological 'features essential to the conservation of California red-legged fi-o in the ALA- I A subunit may require special management considerations or protection due to removal and alteration of habitat due to urbanization, alteration of aquatic and riparian habitats,, dumping, and erosion and siltation of ponded habitat, which may alter aquatic or upland habitats and thereby result in the direct or indirect loss of egg masses or adults. Approximately 1,829 acres of California red-legged frog critical habitat subunit ALA- I B, Cook Canyon, occurs within Conservation Zone 8. Of those, 834 acres are unprotected. This subunit is comprised of approximately 10,159 acres of land and is located in northwestern Alameda County, south of Highway 580. Subunit ALA- I B contains the features that are essential for the conservation of the species. The subunit contains aquatic habitat for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE I and PCE 2), and upland habitat for foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). ALA -1 B was known to 'be occupied at the time of listing and is currently occupied. The subunit contains permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats comprised of manmade stock ponds and natural streams with emergent vegetation, willows surrounded by riparian vegetation, grasslands and oak forest that provide for breeding, and upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and foraging opportunities., Subunits ALA-] A and AIA-113 provide for connectivity between populations farther north in the East San Francisco Bay foothills and also represents the southernmost distribution of the California red-legged frog and its habitat in the East San Francisco Bay region, ALA-IB consists of 3,667 acres of local government land and 6,7912 acres of private land and is mapped from occurrences recorded at the time of listing and subsequent to the time of listing. The physical and biological features essential to the conservation of California red-legged frog in the ALA -1 B subunit may require special management considerations or protection due to removal and alteration of habitat due to urbanization, alteration of aquatic and riparian habitats, and erosion and siltation of ponded habitat, which may result in direct or indirect loss of egg masses or adults. California red-legged frog critical habitat unit A1L,A-2, Arroyo Valle, occurs in Conservation Zones 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18. Approximately 11,966 acres occur in Conservation Zone 9, 24,937 acres occur in Conservation Zone 10, 92 acres occur in Conservation Zone 11, 8,567 acres occur in Conservation Zone 12, 11,670 acres occur in Conservation Zone 13, 6,631 acres occur in Conservation Zone 15, 23,265 acres occur in Conservation Zone 16, 8,838 acres occur in Conservation Zone 17, and 18,763 acres occur in Conservation Zone 18® Of those, all of the critical habitat lands in Conservation Zones 9, 11, and 13, 24,659 acres in Conservation Zone 10, 8,427 acres in Conservation Zone 12, 1,535 acres in Conservation Zone 15, 14,958 acres in Conservation Zone 16, 4,878 acres in Conservation Zone 17, and 18,363 acres in Conservation Zone 18 are unprotected. This unit is comprised of approximately 153,624 acres of land and is located in southwestern Alameda County, south of Highway 580 at Altarriont Pass southeast into San Joaquin County and southwest into Santa Clara County near Arroyo Hondo and Calaveras Reservoir. Unit ALA-2 contains the features that are essential for the conservation of the species. The unit contains aquatic habitat for breeding and non-breeding activities (PCE I and PCE 2), and upland habitat for foraging and dispersal activities (PCE 3 and PCE 4). ALA-2 was known to be occupied at the time of listing and is currently occupied. The unit contains Ms. Jane M, Hicks 49 permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats comprised of natural ponds and streams and manmade stock ponds with emergent vegetation, wi]IOWS Surrounded by riparian vegetation, grasslands and oak forest that provide for breeding, and upland areas for dispersal, shelter, and foraging opportunities,. The unit provides for connectivity between populations farther north and south in the interior Coast Range. 'The unit consists of 6,892 acres of Federal, 3,932, acres of State, 39,525, acres of local government, and 10 ,276 acres of private lands and is mapped from occurrences recorded at, the time of listing and subsequent to the time of listing. 'The physical and biological features essential to the conservation of Cali fomia red-legged frog in the ALA-2 unit may require special management considerations or protection due to urbanization, alteration of aquatic and riparian habitats, and erosion and siltation of ponded habitat, which may alter aquatic or upland habitats and thereby result in the direct or indirect loss of egg masses or adults, Central California Ti r Sal der Threats to Central California tiger salamanders in the action area include habitat destruction, degradation, and fragmentation due to urban development and conversion t, a intensive agriculture, off-road vehicle use and various forms of recreation inappropriate, levels of grazing, exposure to various contaminants, rodent population control efforts, mosquito control, hybridization with normative tiger salamanders and predation by introduced species and/or feral animals (Service 2004b). 'There are 150 occurrences within or immediately adjacent to the Conservation Strategy Study Area (CDFG 2011). 'These occurrences are, distributed throughout most of the Conservation Zones. 'The Conservation Strategy has mapped potential breeding and upland habitat throughout the Conservation Strategy Study Area. Based on these occurrences, presence of suitable habitat, and the biology and ecology of the species, the Service has determined it is reasonable to conclude the Central California tiger salamander inhabits the action area. Numerous recent developments have reduced habitat and known Central California tiger salamander populations. Dublin Ranch and other developments along Tassajara Road; P'ositano and Jordan Ranch developments within the East Dublin Specific plan; and Las Positas College build out, business parks and vineyards in North Livermore,. The entire Central California tiger salamander critical habitat unit 18, Doolan Canyon Unit, is located within Conservation Zone 3. This unit contains approximately Ij 78 unprotected acres and is, essential to the conservation of the species because it is needed, to maintain the current geographic and ecological distribution of the species in the Central Valley Geographic Region. At the time of designation, two extant occurrences of the species were found in this unit. Unit 18 is south of the Contra Costa Comity line near Collier Canyon Road on the east and the south, and the City of Dublin on the west. Land ownership is private, Threats that require special management, considerations for this unit include urban developments, agricultural land conversions, and associated infrastructure, including road construction which could destroy or degrade aquatic habitat essential for breeding and rearing; destroy, degrade, or fragment upland Ms. Jane M. Hicks 50 habitat essential for growth,, feeding, resting, and aestivation; or destroy, degrade, or fragment habitat essential for dispersal and cormectivity, Portions of Unit 18 are being proposed to be added to the City of Dublin's Sphere of Influence for development. At the same time, the City of Livermore is proposing to add the same lands to their Sphere of Influence for open space protection. Alameda Whipsn Threats to Alameda whipsnakes in the action area include urban development and habitat loss and fragmentation, water development projects, predation, colonization of non-native plants species, inappropriate grazing, and ofd road vehicle use and various forms of recreation (Service 2011), There are 19 occurrences within the Conservation Strategy Study Area (CDFG 2011). These occurrences are listed as sensitive in the CN`DDB and the specific locations will not be discussed in this Programmatic 130. The Conservation Strategy was not able to model parameters for Alameda whipsnake habitat. Instead, the Conservation Strategy used the draft recovery units and designated critical habitat for mapping potential habitat in Conservation Zones 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. used on these occurrences, presence of suitable habitat, and the biology and ecology of the species, the Service has determined it is reasonable to conclude the Alameda whipsnake inhabits the action area. The Conservation Strategy Study Area contains portions of draft Recovery Unit 2, (Oakland-Las Trampas) in Conservation Zone 1, portions of draft Recovery Unit 3 (1-layyard- Pleasanton Ridge) in Conservation Zone 8, portions of draft Recovery Unit 4 (Mount Diablo-Black Flills) in Conservation Zones 4 and 51, all of draft Recovery Unit 7 (Niles Canyon-Sunol Corridor) in Conservation Zones 14 and 15, and 75 percent of draft Recovery Unit 5 (Sunol-Cedar Mountain) in Conservation Zones 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, and I& A little over one-third of draft Recovery Unit 2 and almost the entirety of the western border of this unit are in public ownership. However, significant development pressure continues from the north, southwest, and east (Service 2011). Approximately one third of draft Recovery Unit 3 is owned by EBR,PD. However, very few of these EBRPD-owned parcels are contiguous or located adjacent to urban development; therefore; they provide little protection from the development pressures associated with adjacent urban areas and transportation corridors (Service 2011). Draft Recovery Unit 7 was designated to provide habitat linkage between draft. Recovery Units 3 and 5, across Interstate 680. More than three quarters of this, unit is in public ownership; SFPUC is the largest landowner and E,BRPD owns several parcels in the western portion of the unit (Service 2011). Draft Recovery 'Unit 4 contains one of the most isolated populations of Alameda whipsnakes and more than two- thirds is within the Fast Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Plan (Service 21111), Approximately one quarter of draft Recovery Unit 5 is within public ownership; SFP,IJC, EBRPD, City of Fremont, Santa Clara County, and Cal ifornia Department of Park and Recreation are the largest public land owners within the unit, Current development pressure within and adjacent to this unit is primarily associated with the Cities of Pleasanton and Livermore along the northwestern border and the Cities of Fremont and Milpitas along the western, border. Ms,. Jane M. Hicks Alarneda Whipsnake Critical Habitat a The Conservation Strategy Study Area is within Alameda whipsnake critical habitat units AWS- 3, AWS-5A, and AWS-513 for a total of 53,260 acres. Approximately 1, 3,,722 acres are protected and 39,538 acres are unprotected, Approximately 14,916 acres of Alameda whipsnake critical habitat unit AWS-3, Hayward Pleasanton Ridge, occur in Conservation on 8 and 12 occur in Conservation Zone 14. Of those,,, approximately all, the critical habitat lands in Conservation Zone 14 and 1.0,1 4 acres are unprotected. Unit 3 is located, immediately to the west of Interstate 6 and to the, south of Interstate 580 and totals 25,966 acres, Land ownership includes 404 acres of EBRPD land and 25,562 acres of privately owned land, Unit 3 contains the mosaic of scrub and chaparral vegetation and rocky outcrops (PC'E 1, PC E 3 considered essential to the conservation of the subspecies, "r he unit also includes variation in vegetation patch size, abundant edge between grassland and woodland, and a minimal arnount of development or planned development. The area supports scrub and rock outcrop features essential for Alameda whipsnake. The Alameda whipsnake records within this unit are associated with Gaviota rocky sandy loams in particular, which likely provide talus (P CE 3), and appear to coincide in aerial imagery to scrub or chaparral vegetation preferred byAlameda whipsnake. Vegetation is largely ofoak woodland community of'variable densities (PCE 2) and statures (trees, shrubs) interspersed with grassland. Sorne peripheral portions of habitat around this unit were not included, as critical habitat due to the, high degree of development-related disturbwice and fragmentation of the habitat. "llie unit is included in the designated critical habitat because it contains features essential to the conservation of the Alameda whipsnake, is currently occupied by the subspecies; and represents the Southwestern portion of the subspecies range and one of the five population centers. The special management actions that may be required throughout this unit include management of controlled burns and grazing, trespass, unauthorized trail and road construction, durnping, and/or feral animals, and other activities or situations associated with the urban or recreational interface. Alameda whipsnake critical habitat unit AWS-5A, Cedar Mountain, occurs in Conservation Zones 9, 10, 12, 13, and 18. Approximately 185 acres occur in Conservation Zone 9, 11,046 acres occur in Conservation Zone 10, 2,191 acres occur in Conservation Zone 12, 8,913 acres occur in Conservation Zone 13, and 366 acres occur in Zone 18, Of those, approximately all the critical habitat lands in Conservation Zones 10, 12, 13 and 18, and, 184 acres in Conservation Zone 9 are unprotected. Unit 5A is located east of Lake Del Valle along Cedar Mountain Ridge and Crane Ridge to Corral Hollow west of Interstate 580 and totals, 24,723 acres. Land ownership within this unit includes approximately 2,492 acres, of department of Energy land, 246 acres of EBR,?D land, and 21,986 acres are privately owned. 'The vegetation pattern within this unit consists, of various woodland, scrub, and/or chaparral communities on northeast- facing slopes (PCE 1, PCE 2). Rock bearing soils which are, associated with multiple Alameda whipsnake records (e.g. Vallecitos rocky loam) as well as rock lands are abundant, indicating the presence of PCE 1 Open, grassland - dominated communities are prominent on southwest-facing slopes, lout' there, is also a significant component of woodland habitat on these slopes. Significant areas of vegetation types known to support Alameda whipsnake are present, including coastal oak, charnise-chaparral, mixed chaparral, blue-oak-foothill pine woodland, blue oak woodland, Ms. Jane M, Hicks, IN valley oak woodland, and montane hardwood. In most instances, the boundaries for critical habitat designation correspond to natural breaks, in plant communities, habitat quality, and/or landform (rid,gelines, water features). A moderate number of light duty, roads (e.g., paved or unpaved lightly used) are present within the unit, although there are very few structures or other land modifications. Special management, such as prescribed burns, may be, required for portions of the unit with dense vegetation. The special management actions that may be required throughout this unit include management of grazing, trespass, unauthorized trail and road construction, dumping, and/or feral animals, and other activities or situations associated with urban or recreational interface. The unit is included in designated critical habitat because it contains features essential to the conservation ofthe Alameda whipsnake, is currently occupied by the subspecies, and represents the southernmost and easternmost distribution of Alaineda whipsnake and one of five population centers for the subspecies. Alameda whipsnake critical habitat unit AWS-513, Alameda. Creek, occurs in Conservation Zones 15, 16, and 17. Approximately 6,457 acres occur in Conservation Zone 15, 35 acres occur in Conservation Zone 16, and 9,141 acres occur in Conservation Zone 17, Of those, approximately 1,388 acres of the critical habitat lands in Conservation Zones 15, 18 in Conservation Zone 16, and 5,286 acres in Conservation Zone 17 are unprotected. 'This unit is located northeast of Calaveras Reservoir, south of the town of Sunol, including the area along Waubab Ridge in Alameda County and Oak Ridge in Santa Clara County and totals 18,214 acres. Land ownership within this unit includes approximately 361 acres of R.PD lands and 17,854 acres in private lands. Vegetation is a mix of blue oak - -foot gill pine and annual grassland with a significant amount of woodland patches. Coastal live oak is present in the vicinity of Lleyderi Creek, Soil types in which Alameda whipsnakes are found dominate the unit. This unit contains six Alameda whipsnake records documented between 1972 and 2 O (Swaim, 2005a). Significant areas of vegetation types known to support Alameda whipsnake are present, including coastal oak, chainise-chaparral, mixed chaparral, blue oak - foothill pine woodland, blue oak woodland, valley oak woodland, and montane hardwood interspersed with rock outcrops or talus (P'CEs 1, 2, 3). The boundaries for critical habitat designation correspond to natural breaks in plant communities, soil type, and or landform. A moderate number of light roads are present within the unit, although there are very few structures or other land modifications. Development within or adjacent to the unit is minimal. As a result of this low development pressure, the survey efforts for the Alameda whipsnake in this unit have not been as extensive as in the other, units. Special management, such as prescribed bums, may be required for portions of the unit with dense vegetation. Other special management actions which may be required throughout this unit includes management of grazing, unauthorized trail and road construction, dumping, and/or feral animals, control and other activities or situations associated with urban or recreational interface. The unit is included in designated critical habitat because it contains features essential to the conservation of the Alameda whipsnake, is currently occupied, and represents the southernmost distribution of Alameda whipsnake and one of the five population centers for the subspecies. San Joaggiri Kit Foz; Threats to San Joaquin kit foxes in the action area include loss and modification of habitat, due to agricultural conversion, infrastructure construction, and urban development, pesticides and Ms. Jane M. flicks W rodenticides, road mortality and off-road vehicle use, conipetition, and predation (Service 1998, 201 Ob), There are 17 occurrences within the Conservation Strategy Study Area (CDFG 2011), These occurrences are distributed in the northeastern Conservation Zones with an outlier in Conservation Zone 14, Alameda and Contra Costa counties are the northern extent of the San ,Joaquin kit fox range, The Conservation Strategy has mapped suitable habitat throughout the Conservation Strategy Study Area, Based on these occurrences, presence of suitable habitat, and the biology and ecology of the species, the Set-vice has determined it is reasonable to conclude the San Joaquin kit fox inhabits the action area. Portions of the Conservation Strategy Study Area are located within the San Joaquin kit fox recovery satellite population S1. In addition to protection of core areas, protection of at ],east three satellite populations is required for downlisting and protection of additional satellite populations, with three or more showing stable or increasing populations, during one precipitation cycle is required for delisting. According to the recent 5-year review (Service 201 Ob) the trend for the Sl population has declined with no known breeding, The recovery plan (Service 199'8) lists protecting habitat in the northern, northeastern, and northwestern segnients, of the range and existing connections between habitat in those areas and habitat south as a recovery action. Numerous developments and activities, have reduced, and/or fragmented habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox in the Conservation Strategy Study Area, Dublin Ranch and other developments along Tassajara Road;, Positano and Jordan Ranch developments within, the East Dublin Specific Plan; and Las Positas College build out, business parks and vineyards in North Livermore, commercial and private racetracks and off-road vehicle parks, energy and water infrastructure projjects, and agricultural conversion. R,qlalatg-Bracted Bird"s,-Beak Threats to palmate- bracted bird's-beak include habitat loss in the fonn of habitat alteration and degradation as a result of changes to natural hydrology and salinity, invasive species, incompatible grazing regimes, off-road vehicle use, and development (Service 1998, 2009b). There is one occurrciice within the Conservation Strategy Study Area in SpringtoNvn Alkali Sink Preserve in the City of Livermore (CDFG 201 1 The Population varies in size front year to year, Portions of the Springtown Alkali Sink, Preserve are protected; however local residents use the area for off -road bicycling, dog walking, and various other activities in both the protected and tmproteeted areas. The Conservation Strategy did not model habitat due to the limited occurrence and habitat and" the vast amount documentation of that one occurrence. Based on the documentation of the occurrence over the years, presence of suitable, habitat, and the biology and ecology of the species, the Service has determined it is reasonable to conclude the palmate- bracted bird's-beak inhabits the action area. Ms. Jane M. Flicks Effects of'the Proposed Action M The following effects analysis is based on the effects of Covered Activities on federally listed species. Project(s) appended to this Programmatic BO must adhere to the minimization measures described in the Description of the Action, Implementation of the minimization measures may have some adverse effects but will likely have greater beneficial effects as a result of creation, restoration and enhancement of habitat for these species. Because many of the effects resulting from the Covered Activities may apply to more than one species and the specific projects under the Covered Activities have not been described, the effects are described below are discussed generally. Project specific effects to listed species and their critical habitats will be described individually when appended to this Programmatic BO. Llabi;4 Loss F ra mentation and De adatigg Habitat alteration consists of changes made to the environment that adversely affect ecosystem function, although not perhaps completely or penrianently (Dodd and Smith 2003). Habitat alteration includes the physical conversion of natural habitat to unnatural habitat (loss), the breaking of large, contiguous blocks of habitat into smaller patches (fragmentation), the increasing separation of blocks of habitat from one another (isolation), and the changes in a habitat that effects its composition, structure, or function (degradation) (Noss et aL 1997). habitat alteration includes physical, chemical, and biotic changes. Projects listed in the Description of the Action of this Programmatic BO will result in habitat alteration; however, implementation of the measures described i Ms, Jane M. Hicks 55 depression and a lack of adaptive flexibility. Smaller populations also become more vulnerable to randorn fluctuations, in reproductive and mortality rates, and are more likely to be extirpated by random environmental factors. When a sub-population becomes extirpated, habitat fragmentation reduces the chance of recolonization, from any remaining populations, Deleterious, effects of habitat fragmentation and conversion of natural habitats to other uses often extend beyond, project footprints resulting in "edge effects." The biological integrity of habitats adjoining development can be diminished by adverse effects of noise, lighting, irrigation, exotic plant and animal introduction, predators, parasitism, disturbance from human activities, changes in fire regimes., and other factors, The severity of these effects depends, on distance to land alteration boundaries, source of disturbance, and the affected species. Species, that are particularly vulnerable: to edge effects require large patches of habitat that are relatively free from edge effects., Movement and dispersal corridors, are important for alleviating over-crowding and intraspecific competition, and also they are important for facilitating the recolonization of areas where the animal has been extirpated. Movement between population centers maintains gene flow and reduced genetic isolation, Genetically isolated populations are at greater risk of deleterious genetic effects such as inbreeding, genetic drift,, and founder effects. The survival of wildlife species in fragmented habitats may ultimately depend on their ability to move among patches to access necessary resources, retain genetic diversity, and maintain reproductive capacity within populations (Hilty and Merenlender 2004; Petit el al, 1995; Buza el al. 2001 ) Effects of habitat fragmentation can be minimized by maintaining linkages (,Soule 1986; Saunders et al. 1991, Beirer and Noss 1999). Linkages are connections between larger blocks of habitat that allow for wildlife, movement, recruitment, and colonization between different core biological areas. Linkages are important for allowing species to move or disperse from their natal areas to sites where they may reproduce. Linkages that provide for successful movement between core population areas, reduce genetic isolation and allow for recruitment into areas where, populations have been extirpated, due to natural or anthropogenic disturbances or stochastic events (Soule and Simberloff 19 6; Lande 1988). Several factors influence the effectiveness of habitat linkages including, length, width, and species targeted for use (Meffe and Carrol 1998). When large blocks of habitat remain intact, the rate of successful dispersal between core, population areas is higher. Al a minimum, dispersal habitat within linkages should provide some level of foraging and, limited protection from predators, When the distance between core populations of a species is greater than the dispersal distance for individuals, effective linkages must provide live-in habitat. It is important to recognize that the effectiveness of any habitat linkage, varies considerably by species. Linkages, are critical to the design and function of any conservation, area. The Conservation Strategy was designed to incorporate the large scale goal and objectives of natural communities down to the species specific goals and objectives. The multi-scale approach: was developed to incorporate diversity, linkages, natural communities, and species specific conservation goals and objectives. This approach stepped down to conservation priorities that protect key features identified for each Conservation Zone and will ininimize the effects from Ms. Jane M. Hicks project related habitat loss and fragmentation. in Additionally, the preservation and restoration of habitat will minimize the effects of habitat lost as a result of projects appended to this, Programmatic BO. Compensation for effects to occupied and suitable habitat will be in the form of preserving occupied sites or established sites with the same affected species. The location of the compensation may be anywhere appropriate within the Conservation Strategy Study Area as depicted in Appendix C and as described in the Conservation Strategy. Conservation easements, adaptive management plans and endowment funding will increase the probability of populations to be viable in the long term and will be protected in perpetuity, The Conservation Strategy addresses project-level mitigation for potential impacts to species and habitats throughout the eastern part of the county and provides a coordinated approach for local conservation efforts beyond those required by regulatory requirements. The combination of project-level mitigation and voluntary conservation will help to ensure that the effects from habitat loss and fragmentation are minimized in the Conservation Strategy Study Area. Construction Construction work within the specific project footprint, access areas, and staging areas can result in direct mortality or injury to individuals, harassment of the animals, and entrapment. Mortality or injury to species can occur from being crushed by earth moving equipment and worker foot traffic. Individuals in burrows may be killed or injured by filling or grading activities. Work activities, including vibration, dust, noise, contaminants, and lighting may cause individuals to leave the work site and surrounding areas. This disturbance and displacement may increase the potential for predation, desiccation, competition for food and shelter, or strike by vehicles on roadways. Implementation of the minimization measures like preconstruction surveys, exclusion fencing, etc,, as described in the Conservation Strategy and this Programmatic BO will minimize these effects to listed species. Preconstruction surveys and the relocation of individuals may reduce injury or mortality. However, the capturing and handling of these species to remove them from a work area if they become trapped may result in the mortality or injury of individuals. These effects would be reduced or prevented by the use of a Service - approved biologist, Minimization. Measures and Conservation Activities The Conservation Strategy"s standardized avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and compensation requirements will result in consistent and effective protection of listed species in the Conservation Strategy Study Area. The standardized mitigation ratios as described in Appendix C ensure the protection of occupied habitat at a greater rate than what is lost. The ratios with the correction factor are intended to protect high quality, occupied habitat within close proximity to the project site and if applicable, within the same critical habitat unit. Standard mitigation/compensation using the guidance Ms. Jane M. Hicks M provided in Chapter 5 of the Conservation Strategy combined with the required conservation easement, management plan, and endowment to implement the management plan will minirnize the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation to listed species. Mitigatiort/compensation also includes purchase of appropriate credits from approved rni tigation banks. Erdiancement and restoration projects may adversely affect individuals or temporarily affect habitat as described in the Construction section above. However, the long term, benefits of restoration and conservation will provide listed species protected and managed habitat in, perpetuity. Conservation will improve protection for listed species and their habitats, improve habitat quality, increase species population size, increase extent of protected habitat, and increase connectivity for species between occupied areas. General Effects to Lon their Critical Habitats Ground-disturbing Covered Activities, have the potential to result in direct mortality, life cycle disturbance, and reduce habitat quality for the longhorn fairy shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp. Shrimp cysts could be buried by soil moved into vernal pools, swales, or other habitat during ground-disturbing, activities. In addition,, upland habitat and swales around a vernal pool and within a vernal pool complex are essential to the hydrological biological integrity of the vernal pool and complex, Vernal pool habitat indirectly affected would include all habitat supported by upland areas and all habitat otherwise damaged by cffi cts to the watershed, introduced species, human intrusion,, or pollution caused by a project, Wbere the reach of these indirect effects cannot be determined, definitively, the Service considers all areas within 250 feet of a vernal pool to be indirectly affected. If any habitat within a vernal pool complex is impacted, then all remaining habitat within the complex is considered indirectly affected, Examples of potential indirect effects from Covered Activities include possible disruption of hydrological integrity within a vernal pool, sandstone outcropping, or other suitable habitat within the associated upland habit-at, or within the vernal pool complex, Other potential indirect effects to vernal pool habitat could result ftom dust generated during covered activities and subsequently deposited within vernal pools adjacent to work sites. Water and habitat quality could be reduced by a variety of indirect effects associated with Covered Activities. Covered Activities have the potential to spread invasive weeds that could reduce habitat quality within vernal pools or their associated uplands. Implementation of the Conservation Strategy and the additional minimization measures described in the Programmatic BO will reduce the potential for these effects and contribute to recovery goals for the species, Approximately 267 acres of longhorn, fairy shrimp critical habitat (Jnit I B in the Conservation Strategy Study Area are unprotected. Approximately 952 acres of vernal pool fairy shrimp critical habitat Unit 19C are unprotected. 'rhe Service and Corps cannot predict where projects will be constructed, and some may be constructed inside designated longhorn fairy shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp critical habitat. Projects appended to this Programmatic BO will discuss effects,, species effects, effects on PC Es and bow that will influence the recovery role of a5ected critical habitat units, appropriate avoidance and minimization measures as described in this document and the Conservation Strategy, and ways to ensure, that the recovery, role of critical habitat units is maintained. Compensation will be a combination of preservation and Ms, Jane A Hicks W restoration/creation of habitat. The requirements (conservation easement, endowment, and management plan) and minimum ratio for compensation/mitigation for effects to individuals and habitat for both species will ensure preservation of habitat that provides overall improved management and enhancement of the sites, General Effects to Callippe Silvers of Butterfly Ground disturbing activities could affect grasslands that support the larval host plant for callippe silverspot butterfly, cause the loss of individuals, and remove nectar plants (eg. California buckeye, thistle species) used by adults, Dust generated from construction activities could degrade the quality of habitat by smothering larval host plants. Due to the short life span of adults, which emerge and breed within a period of only a few weeks, there is no predictable period during the year when the host plants would not support either larvae at some stage of development, or newly deposited eggs. Therefore, direct mortality of callippe silverspot butterfly eggs or larvae could occur if the plants were affected. Ground disturbance also could reduce the number of stable holes and cracks that larvae use during diapause, which would result in increased risk of predation. 'Larvae could be crushed by foot or vehicle traffic, or grazing livestock. Soil could inadvertently fill cracks in the soil where larvae occur. Spills of hazardous materials such as paint or engine fuel could contaminate habitat and make it unsuitable or could poison butterflies in the area. Prescribed bums could result in injury or mortality of larvae, and damage to host plants (Mollenbeck et al. 2009), although long- term efTects of prescribed bums are expected to result in a net benefit through elimination of invasive plants that outcompete the larval food plant. Grazing could potentially affect the species through trampling, of larvae and herbivory of food plants, However, most of the grasslands mapped as suitable habitat are currently grazed. Beneficial or adverse effects, of grazing will be determined on a project by project basis. Measures to avoid and minimize effects to the species would involve preconstruction surveys for host plants and avoiding disturbance in areas that support host plants when feasible. Implementation of the Conservation Strategy and the additional minimization measures described in the Programmatic BO will reduce, but not eliminate, the potential for these effects. Conservation measures to minimize vegetation removal and direct injury, destruction, or removal of larvae, eggs, and host plants would include preconstruction surveys; installing exclusion fencing; providing worker awareness training; monitoring; limiting work areas; and confining activities to designated work areas. The risk of effects from spills of hazardous materials will be avoided through limiting maintenance activities to designated areas and implementation of toxic- spill prevention measures. The minimum ratio for compensationJmitigation for effects to individuals and habitat will ensure preservation of habitat and critical habitat consistent with the goals and objectives of the Conservation Strategy and the criteria to recover the species. General Effects to California to Red-Legged Frog and its Critical Habitat California red-legged frogs require both terrestrial and aquatic environments and migrate between the two habitat types, therefore, they can be particularly sensitive to the effects of Ms. Jane M. Hicks 59 uTbanization or other growth-related changes that perinanently alter or expose either of these environments. New roads, and urbanization can create barriers between aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Indirect effects, that affect streams or ponds, including increased runoff of urban pollutants, spread of normative plants, and spread of nonnative predators, can adversely affect California red-legged frogs. Amphibians can be affected by sedimentation, changes in water quantity and temperature, and road runoff, Sedimentation increases turbidity thereby reducing the amount of light in the water column and primary nutrient production. Significant sedimentation may also change streambed characteristics. Changes in hydrology can favor nonnative predatory species. Human activities, or impacts that increase as the human population grows can also indirectly affect California red-legged frogs. These effects include light pollution, human disturbance!, increase of urban - adapted predators (skunks and raccoon), increased numbers of domestic predators (dogs and cats), introduction of other noniiative predators (e.g., bullfrogs), increased vehicle-related disturbance, and increased risk of wildfire. Implementation of the Conservation Strategy and the additional minimization ineasures described in the Programmatic will, reduce, but not eliminate, the potential for these effects. Approximately 543 acres of California red-legged frog critical habitat subunit ALA-1 A, 834 acres of subunit ALA- I B and 96,548 acres of unit ALA-2, and 28,108 in unit CCS-2 in the Conservation Strategy Study Area are unprotected. The Service and Corps cannot predict where projects will be constructed, and some may be constructed inside designated critical habitat, Projects appended to this Prograinniatic BO will discuss, species effects, effects on PCEs and how that will influence the recovery role of affected critical habitat units, appropriate avoidance and mini mi zation measures as described in this document and the Conservation Strategy, and ways to ensure that the recovery role of critical habitat units is maintained,, Implementation of the Conservation Strategy and additional minimization measures will protect and manage occupied habitat in perpetuity and contribute to recovery goals for the species, California red-legged frog compensation areas will contain both suitable aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Compensation areas or restored habitat will have measures in place to minimize or eliminate populations of exotic aquatic predators such as bullfrogs. Compensation areas will be located within habitat currently occupied by California red-legged frogs. The minimum ratio for compensation/mitigation for effects, the species and loss of habitat is 2.5:1 and may increase to 3.5: I or higher depending on the location of the project, and compensation sites, project effects, and quality of habitat at both sites, The requirements (conservation easement, endowment, and management plan) and minimum ratio for compensation/mitigation for effects to individuals and habitat will ensure preservation of habitat that provides overall improved management and enhancement of the sites, These measures will assist in conserving blocks of contiguous habitat and linkages to other conserved areas for the species., General Effects to Central Cali forniaJiger Salamander and its Critical Habitat Central California tiger salarnanders require both terrestrial and aquatic environments and migrate between the two habitat types, therefore, they can be particularly sensitive to the effects of urbanization or other growth- related changes that permanently alter or expose either of these environments. New roads and urbanization can create barriers between aquatic and terrestrial Ms. Jane M. Hicks ZI habitat. Indirect effects, that affect streams, or ponds, including increased runoff of urban pollutants, and spread of nonnative predators, can adversely affect Central California tiger salamanders. Amphibians can be affected by sedimentation, changes in water quantity and temperature., and road runoff. Changes in hydrology to longer inundation periods can favor normative predatory species. Human activities or impacts that increase as the human population grows can also indirectly affect, Central California tiger salamanders. These effects include light pollution, human disturbance, increase of urban-adapted predators (skunks and raccoon), increased numbers of domestic predators (dogs and cats), introduction of other nonnative predators (e.g., bullfrogs), increased vehicle-related disturbance, and increased risk of wildfire. Implementation of the Conservation Strategy and the additional minimization measures described in the Programmatic BO will reduce, but not eliminate, the potential for these effects. All 1,178 acres of Central California tiger salamander critical habitat unit 18 in the Conservation Strategy Study Area are unprotected. The Service and Corps cannot predict where projects will be constructed, and some may be constructed inside designated critical habitat. Projects appended to this Programmatic BO will discuss species effects, effects on PC Es and how that will influence the recovery role of affected critical habitat units, appropriate avoidance and minimization measures as described in this document and the Conservation Strategy, and ways to ensure that the recovery role of critical habitat units is maintained, Implementation of the Conservation Strategy and additional minimization measures, will protect and manage occupied habitat in perpetuity. Central California tiger salamander compensation areas will contain both suitable aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Compensation areas and/or restored habitat will have measures in place to minimize or eliminate populations of exotic aquatic predators such as bullfrog. Compensation areas will be located within currently occupied habitat. The minimum ratio for compensation/mitigation for effects the species and loss of habitat is 2.5:1 and may increase to 44;1 or higher depending on the location of the project and compensation sites, project effects, and quality of habitat at both sites, The requirements (conservation easement, endowment, and managerrient plan) and minimum ratio for compensation/mitigation for effects to individuals and habitat will ensure preservation of habitat that provides overall improved management and enhancement of the sites. These measures will assist in conserving blocks of contiguous habitat and linkages to other conserved areas for the species, . . ... . ..... Activities associated with projects appended to this Programmatic BO will result in the loss of suitable Alameda whipsnake habitat and the harm, harassment, injury, and death of individuals. There is increased potential for predation by non-native predators, fragmentation and isolation of suitable Alameda whipsnake habitat and migration corridors by development, lack of sufficient buffers between suitable habitat and adjacent development, and disturbance by increased human activity in the area. Alameda whipsnakes, could be injured or killed by new roadways adjacent to suitable habitat, and by increased recreation (horseback riding, hiking, bicycling, and off-road vehicle use), Ms. .lane M. Hicks 61 Approximately 10, 146, acres of Alameda whipsnake critical habitat unit AWS-3, 22,700 acres of unit AWS A and 6,692 acres of unit AWS-513 in the Conservation Strategy Study Area are unprotected. Tile Service and Corps cannot predict where projects will be constructed, and some may be constructed inside designated critical habitat. Projects appended to this Programmatic BO wit] discuss species effects, effects on PC Es and how that will influence file recovery role of' affected critical habitat units, appropriate avoidance and minimization measures as described in this document and the Conservation Strategy, and ways, to ensure that the recovery, role of critical habitat units is maintained. Implementation of the Conservation Strategy and additional minimization ineasures will minimize adverse effects to individuals and protect and manage occupied habitat in perpetuity and contribute to recovery goals for the species. Compensation areas will be located within currently occupied habitat. Management plans for conservation areas will address grazing practices and vegetation management for the benefit of the Alameda whipsnake, The minimum ratio for compensation/mitigation for effects to species and loss of habitat is 2,5:1 arid inay increase to 4:1 or higher depending on the location of the project and the compensation, effects, and quality of habitat, (see Appendix C and D of this Programmatic 130). The requirements (conservation easement, endowment, and management plan) and minimum ratio for compensation/mitigation for effects to individuals and habitat will ensure preservation of habitat that provides overall in-tproved mwiagement and enhancement of the sites. These measures will assist in conserving, blocks of contiguous habitat arid linkages to other conserved areas for the species, General Effects to San j2gq yin j it f "'oar Tire Conservation Strategy Study Area represents an area of connectivity to the northernmost extension of the species' range in Contra Costa County, Maintaining this connectivity is critical for maintaining San Joaquin kit foxes in Alameda County. Development of movernent corridors and expansion of development and energy projects in the Altamont(fills will substantially reduce the San Joaquin kit fox's ability to persist in the northern part of their range., The Conservation Strategy provides goals and objectives to maintain, enhance and protect suitable habitat and corridors, Ground disturbing activities have the potential to adversely affect individual San Joaquin kit foxes. San Joaquin kit foxes in their dens could, be crushed or harmed by equipment and vehicles driving over the occupied dens. Vehicles or equipment could strike San Joaquin kit foxes when they are out of their burrows. San Joaquin Kit foxes, could be attracted to prey that is displaced from the ground disturbing activities sites, and thus be exposed to an elevated potential for injury, mortality, or predation, Individuals in dens, adjacent to work-sites Could be directly affected by noise and vibration from construction disturbance activities. Compensation areas for San, Joaquin kit fox will be located within the species' present range within the Conservation Strategy Study Area in areas that are generally considered occupied habitat,. Compensation areas will be selected to contribute to maintenance of large habitat blocks and maintain connectivity of remaining San Joaquin kit fox habitat in the San ,Joaquin Valley, Ms. Jane M. Hicks 62 consistent with the Recover Planfor Up land Species of the San Joaquin Valley (LISFWS 1998). Compensation. areas will provide permanent habitat protection and management to compensate for disturbances to suitable habitat. The minimum ratio for compensation/mitigation for effects to the species and loss of habitat is 3 ; I and may increase to 3,51 or higher depending on the location of the project and the compensation,, project effects, and quality of habitat of both sites (see Appendix C and D of this Programmatic BO). The requirements (conservation easement, endowment, and management plan) and minimum ratio for compensation /mitigation for effects to individuals and habitat will ensure preservation of habitat that provides overall improved management and enhancement of the sites, These measures will assist in conserving blocks of contiguous, habitat and linkages to other conserved areas for the species and contribute to recovery goals for the species. Soil excavations or other ground disturbances in or near occupied palmate-bracted biTd's-beak habitat could affect this listed plant due to a permanent loss of soil structure, soil water-holding capacity, soil fertility, or loss of cryptogamic biological soil crusts and other microhabitat- features essential to this species. Soil excavations or other ground disturbances in occupied habitat are likely to fragment the occurrence, which could isolate individuals and affect genetic variability within that plant population. Occupied habitat might be permanently degraded if the disturbance site is invaded by non-native weedy plant species following the ground-disturbing activities. Weedy invasive species could compete with palmate-bracted bird's-beak for space, soil moisture, and nutrients, and could extirpate the species from the site over time. Any construction dust generated from ground-disturbing covered - activities in or adjacent to occupied habitat may adversely affect plant-photosynthesis, respiration, transpiration, pollination, and seed -set during that growing season, which would adversely affect the number of plants germinating in the next and subsequent growing seasons. Compensation lands for effects to palmate-bracted bird's -beak will be located in areas that include occupied habitat. The specific conservation goals are to protect the only known extant population and conduct annual surveys to better document contraction and expansion of the population. The minimum ratio for compensation/mitigation for efTects to the species and loss of habitat is 5:1 and may increase depending on the location of the project and the compensation, effects, and quality of habitat (see Appendix C and D of this Programmatic BO). The requirements (conservation easement, endowment, and management plan) and minimum ratio for compensation/mitigation for effects to individuals and habitat will ensure preservation of habitat that provides overall improved management and enhancement of the sites. These measures wil,l assist in conserving blocks of contiguous habitat for the species and contribute to recovery goals for the species. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, Tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section Ms. .lane M. Hicks 63 because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of'the Act. The global average temperature has risen by approximately 0.6 degrees Cels,ius during, the 20th Century (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001, 2007; Adger el al 2007). There is an international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed has been Caused by human activities (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001, 2007; Adger et at 2007), and that it is "very likely" that it is largely due to manmade emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (Adger el aL 2007). Ongoing climate change (Inkley el al. 2004; Kerr 2007; Adger, et al. 2007; Kanter 200" 7) likely imperils these listed species, and the resources necessary for their survival. Since climate change threatens to disrupt annual weather patterns, it may result in a loss of their habitat and/or prey, and/or increased numbers of their predators, parasites, and diseases. Where populations, are isolated,, a changing climate may result in toe-al extinction, with range shifts precluded by lack of habitat, After reviewing the current status of the species, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects,, it is the Service's biological opinion that projects which meet the qualifications for this Programmatic BO are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, call ippe si Iverspot butterfly, California red-legged frog, Central California tiger salamander, Alameda whipsnake, or San Joaquin kit fox. Although critical habitat for the longhorn fitiry shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, California red-legged frog, Central California tiger salamander, and Alameda whi,psnake will be affected, none will be destroyed or adversely modified by the the projects that meeting, the qualifications of the Progranuriatic BO. This determination is based on the Description of the Action that provides numerous measures by reference and additional rninitnization, measures that would be implemented to rninimi7e adverse effects of the fixture proposed projects on listed species and their critical habitats. Implementing the Conservation Strategy, including the standard mitigation /compensation ratios, ensures more occupied habitat will be conserved than affected. Section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes of the Endangered Species Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities that can be implemented to further the purposes of the Act, such as preservation of endangered species habitat, implementation of recovery actions, or development of information or data bases., The Service recommends the following actions: I The Corps, through the applicant should assist the Service in implementing recovery actions identified in the Recovery PlanJor the Cal�jb"fia Red-leg ged Frog ("Service '2002), 2. The Corps through the applicant should, assist the Service in developing and Ms. Jane M. Hicks M. implementing recovery actions for the an Joaquin kit fox identified in the Recovely Plan for Upland Species qf the San Joaquin Valley, Calijbrnia (Service 1998) . 3. The Corps through the applicant should assist the Service in developing and implementing recovery actions identified in the Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecos ems oj'Calijbrnia and Southern Oregon (Service 2005b). yst 4. Sightings of any listed or sensitive animal species should be reported to the NDDB of the CDFG. A copy of the reporting form and a topographic map clearly marked with the location the animals were observed also should be provided to the Service. In order for the Service to be kept infonned of actions, minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or benefiting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation of any conservation recommendations. I Oki 0"0 1 IfEll I This concludes of formal consultation on the implementation of the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy, As provided in 50 CF R 402,16, reinitiating of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if. (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals of of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in this biological opinion ; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must immediately cease, pending, reinitiation. If you have any questions regarding this biological opinion, please contact Kim Squires, Senior Endangered Species Biologist, or Ryan 0fah, Coast Bay/Forest Foothills Division Chief, at the letterhead address, telephone (91 6,) 414-6600, or electronic mail at Kim—Squires cdfwsgov or Ryan 01ahC fvvs,gov. 61= Susan K. Moore Field Supervisor Ms,. Jane M. Hicks N Adger, P,, Aggarwal, S,, Agrawala, J,Alcarno, A. Allah, O. Anisimov, N. Arnell, M. Bo o, O.Caiuiani, T. Carter, G, Cassa, U. Confalonieri, R. CCruz, E.,de Alba Alcaraz, W, Eastrefing, C. Field,, A. Fischlin, B. Fitzharris, C.G. Garcia, C. Ha arson, 1-1. Harasawa, K. Hennessy, S,Iiuq, R, Jones, L. K. Bogat4j, D. Karoly, R. Klicin, Z. KUndzewicz, M. Lai, R. Lasco, G. Love, X, L,u, Cl. Ma grin, L,,J, Mata, R. McLean, B. Menne, G. Midgley, N. Mirnura, M,Q. Mir a, J. Moreno, L. Mortsch, 1. Niang-Diop, R. Nichols, B. Novaky, L. Nurse, A. Nyon, M, Oppenheimer, J. Palutikof, M. Parry, A. Patwardhan, P'. R. Lankao, C. Rosenzweig, S. Schneider', S. Semcnov,J. Smith, J. Stone, J van Yperscle, D, Vaughan,, C. "o el, Wilbanks, P,Wong, S. Wu, and G, ''ohe. 07, Working (1roup 11 Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007: Climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Brussels, Befgium. Anderson, J. D, 1968, Comparison of the food habits, of,4mbystoina macrodiict))Itim-sigill,,Iti,im, Ambystoma macrotlactylum croceum, and Amlvsloma ligr,inum cal?fbrniense, Berpetologica 24(4): 273-284. Anderson, P. R. 1968. The reproductive and developmental history of the California tiger sakuunder. Masters thesis, Department of Etiology, Fresno State College, Fresno, California, 82 pages. Arnold, R. A. 2004a. Alarneda Watershed HC P Projject- Survey report for the Bay checkerspot and call ippe silvers of butterflies. Prepared for Jennifer Stoltz, Biologist, San Francisco Public Utilities, Commission, Burlingame, California dated September 2004. 2,004b. Calaveras reservoir capital improvement project- Survey report for the Bay checkers of and callippe silvers of butterflies. Prepared for Jennifer Stoltz, Biologist, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Burlingwrie, California dated September 2004, Barry, S. 1992. Letter to Marvin L. Plenert, Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, regarding proposed listing. Barry, Sr I and H, B. Shaffer, 1994, The Status of the Califoraia Tiger Salamander (AmbYVoma ,calllbrnien:se,) at Lagunita: A 50-year update, Journal of Herpetology 28(2). 159 -164. Bulger, J. B., 'l' I Scott Jr.,, and R. B, Seymour. 2003, Terrestrial activity and conservation of adult Califomia red-legged frogs Rcan a ourora rAq)�Ionii in coastal forests and grasslands. Biological Conservation 110:85-95. Bury, R.13 and J.A. Whelan. 1 84. Ecology and management of the bullfrog. Fish and W'ildlife Service Resource Publication 155. Ms. Jane M. Hicks Buza, L., A. Young and P. Thrall, 2000. Genetic erosion, inbreeding and reduced fitness in fragmented populations of'the endangered tetraploid pea Swainsona, recta. Biological Conservation 93:177-186. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1998. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships. Wildlife, and Habitat Data. Analysis Branch. California Department of Fish and Game, State of California. littp://w-ww.dfg.ca,gov/whdab/htnil/wildlife—habitats.html, Sacramento, California. 2011. RA: FIND. California Natural Diversity Data Base, Natural Heritage Division, Sacramento, California. Dodd, Jr., C.K. and L.L. Smith, 2003. Habitat destruction and alteration: historical trends and future prospects for amphibians. Pages 94-112 in R.D. Semlitsch (editor). 1995. Amphibian Conservation. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 324 pages, M East Bay Regional Park District. 1997. East Bay Regional'Park District Master Plan. Oakland, California. Available: http://www.ebparks.org/files/RPM—Plan97.pdf Emlen, S. T 1977, " ouble Clutching" and its possible significance in the bullfrog, Copeia 1977(4):749 -751. Feaver, P. E. 1971. Breeding Pool Selection and Larval Mortality of Three California Amphibians: Ambystoma figrinum californiense Gray, Hyla regilla Baird and Girard and Scaphiopus hammondi hart mondi Girard. Master's thesis, Department of Biology, Fresno State College, Fresno California. 58 pages. Fellers, G. 2005. Rana draytonii Baird and Girard, 1852b California red - legged frog. Pages 552-554 in M. Lannoo, (editor). Amphibian declines the conservation status of United States species. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. Fisher, R. N., and H. B. Schaffer. 1996. The Decline of Amphibians in California's Great Central Valley. Conservation Biology 10(5):1387-1397. Hayes, M. P., and M. R. Jennings. 1988. Habitat Correlates of Distribution of the California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boy1ii): Implications for Management. Pages 144-158 in R. Sarzo, K. E. Severson, and D. R. Patton (technical coordinators). Proceedings of the Symposium on the Management of Amphibians, Reptiles, and Small ManuTials in North America. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Range and Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, General Technical Report (RM- 166): 1 -458. Ms. Jane M, Hicks 67 Hayes, M. R and D. M. K-rempells, 1986, Vocal Sac Vaiiation among F'rogs of the Genus Rana from "Western North, Arnerica. Copeia 1986(4)-927'-,936, Hayes, M. P. and M, M. Miyatnoto. 1984, Biochemical, Behavioral and Body Size Differences between Rana aurora aurora and R. a. drqylonii. Cope i a 1984(4):101 -1022. Hayes, M. P., and M. R. Tennant. 1985., Diet and Feeding Behavior of the California Red- Legged Frog, Rana aurora drqylonii (Ranidac). 'Southwestern Naturalist 30(4): 601-605. Hilty, J. A. and A.1 . Merenlender. 00t 4. Use of Riparian Corridors and Vineyards by Marrunalian Predators in Northem California. Conservation Biology 18(l):126-135. I-Iolland, R. F. 1998. Changes in the Great Valley Vernal Pool Distribution from 1989 to 1997. California, Department of Fish and Game, Sacrarnento, California, 18 pages. Ilunt, L. 1993. Letter to Marvin L. Plenert, Regional Director, U, S, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, regarding proposed listing. ICF International. 201 O. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. Filial Draft. San Jose, California. Prepared for East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Steering Committee, Livermore, California I[nkley, D. B., M. 0. Anderson, A.R, Blaustein, V.R. Burkett, B. Fclzcx,-,, B. Griffin, J. Price, and T.L Root. 2004. Global climate change and wildlife in North America. Wildlife Society Technical Review 04-2. Intergovemmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001., Climate Change 01: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (I loughton, U., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer., P.J.,van der Linden, X Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson [editors]). Canibridge University Press,, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, New York, 881 pp. Available at li'ttp://www.ipee,ch/, 2007. Climate Change 2007, The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of'Working; Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Alley, R., T. Berntsen, N.L. Bindoff, Z. Chen, A. Chidthaisong, P. Friedlingstein, J. Gregory, G. Hegerl, M. Heimann, B. Hewitson, B, Hoskins, F. Joos, J, Jouzel, V, Kattsov, U. ].,ohniann, M. Manning, T. Matsuno, M. Molina, N. Nicholls, J. Overpeck, D. thin, G, Raga, V. Ramaswamy, I den, M, Rusticucci, S. Solomon, R. Somerville, T.F.Stocker, P. Stott, R.F. Stouffer, P. Whetton, R,A, Wood, D, Wratt. 21 pages. Available at ht.tp://www.ipcc.cli/. Jennings, M.R. 1993, , Letter to Peter C, Sorensen, U.. . Fish and Wildlife, Service, Sacramento, California. Ms. Jane M. Hicks W Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1985, lire -1.900 overharvest of California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora draytond): The inducement for bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) introduction. Herpetological Review 31(l).94-103. 1990. Final report of the status of the California red-Icgged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) in the Peseadero Marsh Natural Preserve. Final report prepared for the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California, through Agreement (4-823- 9018). Department of Herpetology, California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, California. 30 pages. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California, California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California, 255 pages. Jennings, M.1 ., M, P. Hayes, and D. C. Holland, 1992. A petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to place the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the western pond turtle (Clemmyv marmorata) on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 21 pages. Kanter, J. 2007. Scientists detail climate changes, Poles to Tropics. New York Times. April 10, 2007. Keeler-Wolf, T,,, D. R. Elam, K. Lewis, and S. A. Flint. 1998. California Venial Pool Assessment Preliminary Report, State of California, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California Kerr, R. A. 2007, Global Warming in a Changing World. Science, New Series 316(5822)., 188- 190 (Apr. 13, 2007). Kruse, K. C. and M. G Francis. 1977. A predation deterrent in larvae of the bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106(3):248-252. Kupferberg, S. J. 1996a. Hydrologic and geomorphic factors affecting conservation of a river- breeding frog (Rana boylii). Ecological Applications 6: 1322-1344. 1996b. The ecology of native tadpoles (Rana boylii and Hyla regilla,) and the impacts of invading bullfrogs (Rana catesheiana) in a northern California river. PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, California. 1997, Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) invasion of a California river: the role of larval competition. Ecology 78(6) :1736 -1751. Lande, R. 1988, Genetics and Demography in Biological Conservation. Science 241:1455- 1460. Ms, Jane M. Hicks 69 Loredo, L, and D. Van Vuren, 1996. Reproductive Ecology of a Population of the California Tiger Salamander. Copeia4-895-901. Loredo, I., D. Van Vwren and M. L. Morrison. 19�96. Habitat Use and Migration Behavior of the California Tiger Salamander, Journal of Herpetology 30(2): 2 -285. Mayer, K. E , and W, F. Laudenslayer, Jr. 1988, A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of Califorma. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 166 pages. Meffe, G. K., and C., R, Carroll, 1997, Principles of Conservation Biology (second edition). Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, Massachusetts. Mollenbeck, V., G. Hermarui, and T. Fartmann. 2009. Does prescribed burning mean a threat to the rare sat nine butterfly Hipparchiafiigi? Larval-habitat preferences give the answer, Journal of Insect Conservation 13(l):77-87. Morey, S. R. 1998, 'Pool Duration Influences Age and Body Mass at Metamorphosis in the Western Spadefoot Toad: Implications for Vemal Pool Conservation. Pages 86-91 in Witham, C.W., E.T. Bauder, D. Belk, W.R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff (editor). Ecology, Conservation, and Management, of Vernal Pool Ecosystems - Proceedings, from a 1996 Conference, California, Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California. 1998. Moyle, P. B. 1976. Fish introductions in California: history and impact on native fishes, Biological Conservation 9(l): 10 1 - 118. Noss, 1.Tµ., K A, O'Counell., and D, D. Murphy. 1997. The Science of Conservation Planning. Habitat Conservation under the Endangered Species, Act. Island Press, Washington, D.C, Orloff, S. G 2011. Movement Patterns and Migration Distances in an [Jpland Population of California Tiger Salamander (Ambysionia calalbrniense), Herpetological Conservation and Biology (2),266-276. Pechniann, J. H. K., D, E, Scott, J. 'W. Gibbons, and R. D. Seinlitsch, 1989. � Influence of Wetland Hydroperiod on Diversity and Abundance of Metamorphosing Juvenile Amphibians. Wetlands Ecology and Management 1(l):3-1 1. Petit, 1-1, D.K Petit, andT.E. Martin, 1995. Landscape-level management of migratory birds: looking past the trees to see the forest. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:420-429. Petranka, J. W. I99 , Salamanders of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Primacy, R.B. 1998,. Essentials of Conservation Biology. Second Edition. Sinaur Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. Ms. Jane M. Hicks ka Riley, S. P. D., H. B. Shaffer, S. R. Voss, and B. M. Fitzpatrick. 2003. Hybridization Between a Rare, Native Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) and its Introduced Congener. Biological Applications 13(5): 1263-1275. Sawyer, J.0., and T. Keeler-Wolf 1995. A Manual of C alifornia Vegetation. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California. Saunders, D.A., R.J. Hobbs, and CA, Margules. 1991 . Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 5:18-32. Scott, D. E. 1994, The Effect of Larval Density on Adult Demographic Traits in .gym bystoma opacum. Ecology 75,:13,83-1396. VM11 , ff#0,L#jj(A Semonsen, V. J. 1998. Ambystoma calif6rniense (California tiger salamander) Survey Technique. Herpetological Review 29.96., Shaffer, H. B., Rn N. Fisher, and S. E. Stanley. 1993. Status Report: the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Final report for the California Department of Fish and Game. 36 pages plus figures and tables. Shaffer in litt. 2003. Peer Review Letter, October 30, 2003; updated from Peer Review Letter, September 21, 2001 Shaffer, H. B. and P. C. Trenham. 20�04. Ambystoma californiense Gray, 185 3,. California tiger salamander. Pages 6,05 in L,annoo, M. (editor). Amphibian declines. The Conservation Status of United States Species. University of Califomia Press, Berkeley, California. 2005. Shaffer, H. B., G B. Pauly, J. C. Oliver, and P. C. Trenharn. 20,04, The Molecular Phylogenitics of Endangerment: Cryptic Variation and Historic Phylogeography of the California Tiger Salamander, Ambystonia californiense. Molecular Ecology 13: 3033- 049. Shaffer, H. B., GM. Fellers, S. R, Voss, C. Oliver, and Cab. Pauley. 2010. Species boundaries, phylogeography, and conservation genetics of the red-legged frog (Rana auroraldraytonfi) complex. Molecular ecology 13: 2667-267T Shaffer, MI. 1981. Minimum Populations Sizes for Species Conservation. Bioscience 1 °:131 -134. Soule, A E. (editor) 1986, Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. Ms. Jane M, Hicks 71 Soule, M. E., and D. Siniberloff. 1 6. What do genetics and ecology tell us about the design of nature reserves? Biological Conservation 35:19-40. Stebbins, R. C. 1 85,. A field guide to western reptiles, and arnphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 1989,, Declaration of R,C. Stebbins in support of petition of writ of mandate,,, Sierra Club and Richard Pontuis ip, Gilroy City Council, Shappell Industries et al. Santa Clara County Superior Court. Match 16, 1989. 11 pages plus exhibits. 12003. A field guide to western reptiles, and amphibians, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. Storer, 11. 1925. A, synopsis of the airiphibia of California. University of California Publications in Zoology 27:1-1-342, 1933. Frogs and their commercial use. California Department of Fish and Game 19(3).203-213 Sweet, S. 1998., Letter, to Dwight Harvey, U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service with a report titled "Vineyard Development Posing an Imminent Threat to Araby tonic calijbr niense in Santa Barbara County, California." University of California, Santa Barbara, California. Tatarian, P. J. 2008. Movement patterns of California red-legged frogs (Rana drqyfonii) in an inland California envirojarnent., Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(2):155-169. Trenharn, P, 1998a. Radio Tracking Information, University of California, Davis, California. 19,98b. Demography, Migration, and Metapopulation Structure of Pond Breeding Salamanders. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Davis, Califomia, 70f11 Terrestrial Habitat Use by Adult California Tiger Salamanders. Journal of Herpetology 35(2):3 43-346., Trenham, P. C., and 1.:13. Shaffer. 2005. �-Uriphibian Upland Habitat Use and its Consequences for Population Viability. Ecological Applications 1,5:11158 -1168. Trenham,P. C,, IT B, Shaffer, W. D. Koening and M. R,, Stromberg. 2000. Life History and Demographic Variation in the California Tiger Salamander (Anikysloina calffbrniense), Copeia 2000(2): 365-377, Trenharn, R C., W. D. Koenig, and 1-1. B. Shaffer, 20101. Spatially Autocorrelated Demography and Interpond Dispersal in the Salamander Am ystoma calijbrniense, Ecology 82, 3519- 353�0. Ms. Jane M. Hicks is Twedt, B. 1993, A comparative ecology of Rana aurora Baird and Girard and Rana catesbeiana Shaw at Freshwater Lagoon, Humboldt County, California. Master of Science thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California, 53 pages plus appendix. Twitty, V. C. 1941. D'ataon the Life History ofAmby stoma tigrinum calaforniense Gray. Copeia 19,41 (1):1-4. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status, for the California Red-Legged Frog, Federal Register 61:25813-25833. 1998. Final Recovery Plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Portland, Oregon. 1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California. 2002, Recovery Plan for the Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonfi), Portland, Oregon, 173 pages. 2002b. Draft Recovery Plan for Cbaparral and Scrub Community Species East of San Francisco Bay, California. Portland, Oregon. 306 pages. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Listing of the Central California Distinct Population Segment of the California Tiger Salamander; Proposed Rule, Federal Register 68:28648-28670. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the California Tiger Salamander; and Special Rule Exemption for Existing Routine Ranching, Activities; Final Rule, Federal Register 69:47212-47248, 2005a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for Four Vernal Pool Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal Pool Plants in California and Southern Oregon; Evaluation of Economic Exclusions From August 2003 Final Designation; Final Rule. Federal Register 70:4692 -46999 2005b. Recovery plan for vernal pools ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. Portland, Oregon. xxvi + 606 pages. f005c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants-, Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Tiger Salamander, Central Population,, Final Rul Federal Register 70:49380-49458. 1 Ms. Jane M. flicks Im 2006a, Endangered and Threatened Wildlifie and, Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Four Vernal Pool Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal Pool Plants; Final Rule,. Federal Register- 71: 7'118-7316. 2006b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog, and Special Rule Exemption Associated With Final Listing for Exisfing Routine Ranching Activities; Final Rule, Federal Register 71 19244-19346. 2006c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Alameda Whipsnake, Final Rule, Federal 11 egis,ter71 :58176-5823 1. 12007a, Longhorn Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecto longiantenna) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Sacramento, California, 2007b. Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Brtinchinecta llinchi) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Sacramento, California. 2009a, Callippe silverspot butterfly (Speyeria callippe callippe) 51-Year Review: Summary, mid Evaluation. Sacramento, California. 2009b. 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Palmate-bracted bird's -beak (C.'orqvlizn,thu.vpaim,atus=Chlorol yronpa,ln?atuin), Sacrarnento,Califomia. 2010. Endangered and Threatened 'Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog, Federal Register'75: 128, 16-12959. 201 Ob. San Joaquin Kit Fox (1/ulpes macrotis mutica) 5-Y= Review, Suinniary and Evaluation, Sacrarnenu:), California. 2011. Alaineda W'hipsnak-c (Masticol)his lateralls euryxanthus) 5-Year Review: SwTunary and Evaluation. Sacramento, California. Van pattern, M. Q 20ll4, Underground Ecolo&ly and Natural History of the Cali forniaTiger Salamander. Master of Science thesis. San Jose State University, San Jose, California, Wilbu,r, H. M. and J, R Collins, 1973, Ecological Aspects of Amphibian, Metamorphosis. Science (n.s.) 182(4119): 1305-1314. Wright, A. H. and A. A., Wright. 1949. Handbook of Frogs and Toads of the United States and Canada. Comstock Publishing Company, Inc:., Ithaca, New York. 64 0 pages, Ms. Jane M. Hicks II M I I A 4m. U W Ms. Jane M. Hicks Immol, hw RESOLUTION NO. XX -12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE EAST ALAMEDA COUNTY CONSERVATION STRATEGY AS GUIDANCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING FOR PROJECTS AFFECTING HABITAT AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IN EASTERN ALAMEDA COUNTY WHEREAS, species and habitat conservation programs and project mitigation in the Tri - Valley area occur incrementally on a case by case basis; and WHEREAS, the result is piecemeal mitigation that can be more time consuming, expensive, and less effective at preserving and connecting the open space and natural communities found in Eastern Alameda County; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in conjunction with the California State Department of Fish & Game and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, encouraged local cities and other pertinent agencies and districts in the Tri- Valley area to participate in the development of an East Alameda County Conservation Strategy to streamline permitting and resource agency review; and WHEREAS, the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy is a regional approach to conservation that will facilitate the connection of Tri - Valley open space and habitat in the Alameda Creek watershed with adjacent natural areas and watersheds in Contra Costa, San Joaquin, and Santa Clara Counties; and WHEREAS, the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy is intended to facilitate the coordination and acceleration of project mitigation for land use, transportation, and infrastructure projects; and WHEREAS, a City Council Staff Report dated August 21, 2012, and incorporated herein by reference, described the goals and purpose of the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy and its benefit to the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy at a noticed Public Meeting on August 21, 2012, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony described herein and used its independent judgment to evaluate the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy and Staff's recommendation to accept the Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby accepts the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (included as Exhibit A to this Resolution) as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects affecting habitat and endangered species in Eastern Alameda County. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21St day of August 2012 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk G: \EACCS \CC Reso EACCS.docx Mayor 2 OCTOBER zoic EAST ALAMEDA COUNTY CONSERVATION STRATEGY FINAL DRAFT Alameda County Congestion Management Agency Alameda County Resource Conservation District Alameda County Waste Management Authority California Department of Fish and Game City of Dublin City of Livermore City of Pleasanton County of Alameda East Bay Regional Park District Natural Resources Conservation Service San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 'CF Zone 7 Water Agency N iE PNAI IONAI FINAL DRAFT EAST ALAMEDA COUNTY CONSERVATION STRATEGY PREPARED FOR: East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Steering Committee 100 North Canyons Parkway Livermore, CA 94551 Contact: Mary Lim 925.454.5036 PREPARED BY: ICF International 2841 Junction Avenue, Suite 114 San Jose, CA 95134 Contact: Troy Rahmig 408.434.2244 October 2010 'CF INTERNATIONAL 0 ICF International. 2010. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. Final Draft. October. (ICF 00906.08.) San Jose, CA. Prepared for: East Alameda • County Conservation Strategy Steering Committee, Livermore, CA. Contents Listof Tables ........................................................................................................... ............................... vi Listof Figures ........................................................................................................ ............................... viii Chapter1 Introduction .............................................................................. ............................... 1 -1 1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... ............................1 -1 1.1.1 Overview ............. ..... : ....................................................................................................... 1 -1 1.1.2 Background ......... ........................ ......................... ............................................................ 1 -2 1.1.3 Purpose ............... .................................................................. ........................................... 1 -3 1.2 Overview of the Planning Process ..: ................... ............................................................. 1 -4 1.2.1 Steering Committee ............................................................................. ............................1 -4 1.2.2 Users Advisory Group .......................................................................... ............................1 -5 1.2.3 Public Outreach and Involvement ....................... ............................................................ 1 -6 1.3 Scope of Conservation Strategy ................................................... .................................... 1 -7 1.3.1 Study Area ............. ............................................................... ............................................ 1 -7 1.3.2 Regulatory Scope ............................ ...................... .......................... ..... ............................ 1 -8 1.3.3 Focal Species .............................................. ............. ................... ...................................... 1 -8 1.4 Regulatory Setting .............................................................................. ...........................1 -11 1.4.1 Federal and State Endangered Species Laws ............................................ ..................... 1 -11 1.4.2 Other Federal and State Species Laws ................................................ ...........................1 -17 1.4.3 National Environmental Policy Act ..................................................... ...........................1 -19 1.4.4 California Environmental Quality Act ........................... .................... ............................. 1 -20 1.4.5 Federal and State Wetland Laws and Regulations ............................. ...........................1 -20 1.5 Document Organization ................ ................................................................................. 1 -22 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting .................................................................. ............................2 -1 2.1 Introduction ........................... ............................... ..... ...................................................... 2 -1 2.2 Land Use .................... ....................................................................... ... ............................. 2 -2 2.2.1 Existing Conditions ................................................... .... ....... ............ ....... .... ...................... 2 -2 2.2.2 Land Use Categories ............................................................................ ............................2 -3 2.2.3 Land Use Controls .......................... ........................ ....... ................... .... ..... ....................... 2 -7 2.2.4 Open Space (Public Lands and Private Easements) ................ --- ...... .... --- ....... ....... ....... 2 -9 2.3 Physical Resources ................................................... ........... ........... ..... ....... ............. .... ... 2 -15 2.3.1 Location .............................................. ....... .... ............... ..... ............. ..... ....... ............ ........ 2 -15 2.3.2 Topography .................................... ............. ...... ..... ........................................................ 2 -15 2.3.3 Geology and Sails ... ........................ .... .................... ........... ............. .... ..... ... .................... 2 -16 2.3.4 Climate ................................................................................................ ...........................2 -19 • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy i October 2010 - iCF 00906.06 . 2.3.5 Hydrology ............................................................................................ ...........................2 -21 - 2.4 Biological Resources ............................................. ......................................................... 2 -23 2.4.1 Methods .............................................................................................. ...........................2 -23 2.4.2 Biological Diversity in the Study Area .................................................. .......................... 2 -31 2.4.3 Natural Communities and Land Cover Types ...................................... ...........................2 -32 2.4.4 Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Linkages ................. .................................................. 2 -76 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy ............................................................... ............................... 3 -1 3.1 Overview ........................................................................................... ............................... 3 -1 3.2 Project -Level Use of the Strategy ........................................................ ............................3 -3 3.2.1 Standardized Mitigation ...................................................................... ............................3 -4 3.2.2 Impact /Mitigation Scoring of Focal Species Habitat ............................ ............................3 -5 3.3 Independent Conservation Actions .. ......... ........... ............ ............................................... 3 -6 3.4 Methods and Sources .......................................... ........... ........ ......................................... 3 -6 3.4.1 Conservation Gap Analysis.. ...... .......................... ........................................................... 3-7 3.4.2 Geographic Units of Conservation ....................................................... ............................3 -8 3.5 Conservation Goals and Objectives ..................................................... ............................3 -9 3.5.1 Landscape -Level Goals and Objectives ............................................... ...........................3 -10 3.5.2 Natural Community —Level Goals and Objectives .................. ........................................ 3 -12 • 3.5.3 Focal Species Goals and Objectives ........ ...... ......... ..... ... ................... .. . .......................... 3 -40 Chapter 4 Conservation Zones ................................................................... ............................... 4 -1 4.1 Conservation Zone 1 ............................................................................ ............................4 -3 4.1.1 Background ........................... ................................. .............. ............................................ 4 -3 4.1.2 Conservation Priorities ........................................................................ ............................4 -4 4.1.3 Summary .............................................................................................. ............................4 -4 4.2 Conservation Zone 2 ........................ .......... .... ...... ........... .......... ......... ....... ....................... 4 -4 4.2.1 Background .......................................................................................... ............................4 -4 4.2.2 Conservation Priorities . ............................. .......................................... .......... .................. 4 -5 4.2.3 Summary ...................... ....................................... ............................................................. 4 -6 4.3 Conservation Zone 3 ............................................................................ ............................4 -6 4.3.1 ' Background .................. ....................................................... ..... ....... ........... ...................... 4 -6 4.3.2 Conservation Priorities ........................................................................ ............................4 -6 4.3.3 Summary .............................................................................................. ............................4 -7 4.4 Conservation Zone 4 ............................................................................ ............................4 -8 4.4.1 Background .......................................................................................... ............................4 -8 4.4.2 Conservation Priorities .......... .......................................................................................... 4 -8 4.4.3 Summary ................................................... ....................................................................... 4 -9 • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy ii October 2010 • ICF 00906.05 4.5 Conservation Zone 5 ............................................... ...................................... ................. 4 -10 • 4.5.1 Background ..................... ............................................................................................... 4 -10 4.5.2 Conservation Priorities ....................................................................... ...........................4 -11 4.5.3 Summary ............................................................................................. ...........................4 -12 4.6 Conservation Zone 6 ........................................................................... ...........................4 -13 4.6.1 Background ......................................................................................... ...........................4 -13 4.6.2 Conservation Priorities ....................................................................... ...........................4 -13 4.6.3 Summary ............................................................................................. ...........................4 -15 4.7 Conservation Zone 7 .............................................. ........................................................ 4 -15 4.7.1 Background ............................................................. ................... .................... ................ 4 -15 4.7.2 Conservation Priorities ........................... ....................................................................... 4 -16 4.7.3 Summary .................................................. ...................................................... ................ 4 -17 4.8 Conservation Zone 8 ........................................................................... ...........................4 -17 4.8.1 Background .... ................................................................................................................ 4 -17 4.8.2 Conservation Priorities ....................................................................... ...........................4 -17 4.8.3 Summary ............................................................................................. ...........................4 -18 4.9 Conservation Zone 9 ............. ....................................................... ....... ...........................4 -19 4.9.1 Background ........................ .... . ................................................................. ....................... 4 -19 4.9.2 Conservation Priorities ........................................ ............................... ...........................4 -19 • 4.9.3 Summary ............. .. ......................................................................................................... 4 -21 4.10 Conservation Zone 10 ......................................................................... ...........................4 -21 4.10.1 Background ............... ............... ........................................................................... ..... 4 -21 4.10.2 Conservation Priorities, ........................................................................................... 4-22 4.10.3 Summary ...................................................................................... ...........................4 -24 4.11 Conservation Zone 11 ......................................................................... ...........................4 -25 4.11.1 Background ..................................................... .......... ... ............................................ 4 -25 4.11.2 Conservation Priorities ................................. ........................................................... 4 -25 4.11.3 Summary .................................. .............. ................................................................. 4 -26 4.12 Conservation Zone 12 ............................................... ............... .................................. .... 4 -26 4.12.1 Background ........................ .......................................................... . ........................... 4 -26 4.12.2 Conservation Priorities ............................ ......... ................................................... .... 4 -27 4.12.3 Summary ...................................................................................... ...........................4 -28 4.13 Conservation Zone 13 ................................................ ............ ........................................ 4 -28 4.13.1 Background ................................................................................... ...........................4 -28 4.13.2 Conservation Priorities ................................................................. ....:......................4 -29 4.13.3 Summary ..................................... ......................... .......... ......................................... 4 -30 L� East Alameda County Conservation Strategy iii October 2010 ICF 00906,08 • 4.14 Conservation Zone 14 ......................................................................... ...........................4 -31 4.14.1 Background ................... ........................................................................................... 4 -31 4.14.2 Conservation Priorities ................................................................. ...........................4 -31 4.14.3 Summary ................................ .......................................... ....................................... 4 -32 4.15 Conservation Zone 15 ............................................................. ....................................... 4-33- 4.15.1 Background ................................................................................... ...........................4 -33 4.15.2 Conservation Priorities ........................................................ .................................. ..4 -33 4.15.3 Summary ....................................... ................................................................... ....... 4 -35 4.16 Conservation Zone 16 ......................................................................... ...........................4 -35 4.16.1. Background ......... .......... : .......................................................................................... 4 -35 4.16.2 Conservation Priorities .............. ......................................... ..................................... 4 -35 4.16.3 Summary ..................................................... .......................... ....... ........................... 4 -37 4.17 Conservation Zone 17 ......................... ........................................................................... 4 -38 4.17.1 Background ................................................................................... ...........................4 -38 4.17.2 Conservation Priorities ............. ............................................................................... 4 -38 4.17.3 Summary ...................................................................................... ...........................4 -39 4.18 Conservation Zone 18 ..................................................................... ............................... 4 -40 4.18.1 Back ground ................................................................................... ...........................4 -40 • 4.18.2 Conservation Priorities ......................................................... ................................... 4 -40 4.18.3 Summary ...................................................................................... ...........................4 -41 Chapter 5 Conservation Strategy Implementation ..................................... ............................... 5 -1 5.1 Overview ........................................................................................... ............................... 5 -2 5.2 Implementation Structure ........................................................... .... ..... ... ... ......... ....... ... ..5 -3 5.2.1 Implementation Committee ................... .................. ....... .... .................... ........................ 5 -3 5.2.2 Public Advisory Committee., ....................................................................... .................... 5-5 5.2.3 Annual Meeting .... ................................................... ........... ......... ... ..... ........ .................... 5 -5 5.2.4 Data Tracking and Reporting.... ............................................................. ......................... 5-6 5.3 Funding . ................................................. ............ .................. ............... . ............................ 5 -9 5.4 Participating Entities ............................................................................ ............................5 -9 5.4.1 Local Governments ........................................................... .............. .... ..... ........................ 5 -9 5.4.2 State and Federal Resource Agencies ................................................. ...........................5 -10 5.4.3 Special Districts and Agencies ....... ....... ....... ..... .......... .... ....... ......................................... 5 -10 5.5 Project -by- Project Regulatory Compliance ......................................... ...........................5 -11 5.5.1 National Environmental Policy Act ..................................................... ...........................5 -11 5.5.2 California Environmental Quality Act ................................................. ...........................5 -11 5.5.3 Federal Endangered Species Permitting ................. ........... ................. ........................... 5 -12 • 5.5.4 State Endangered Species Permitting ....... ..... ...... .... ...................................................... 5 -14 ' East Alameda County Conservation Strategy iv October 2010 ICF 00906.08 5.5.5 Federal Clean Water Act Permitting .............. ............................................. ................... 5 -14 • 5.5.6 Clean Water Act Section 401 and the Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act ........ 5 -14 5.5.7 State Streambed and Lake Alteration Agreement ......................... ................................ 5 -15 5.6 Conservation through Mitigation ....................................................... ...........................5 -15 5.6.1 Roles and Responsibilities of Project Applicants ..... ...................................................... 5 -16 5.6.2 Land Acquisition for Mitigation ... ........................... ....................................................... 5 -18 5.6.3 Conservation Easements for Mitigation ............................................. ...........................5 -20 5.6.4 Conservation or Mitigation Banks ........................................... ...................................... 5 -24 5.6.5 New Concepts for Mitigation Planning .................................... ...................................... 5 -25 5.7 Conservation Actions Unrelated to Mitigation — Voluntary Conservation Actions .......5 -26 5.7.1 Existing Stewardship Programs ........................ .............................................................. 5 -27 5.7.2 New Stewardship Programs and Tools ............................................... ...........................5 -29 Chapter6 Literature Cited .............................................. .............................. ............................ 6 -1 6.1 Printed References ............................................................................... ............................6 -1 6.2 Personal Communications .................................................................. ...........................6 -21 Appendix A Wildlife Species List Appendix B Plant Species List Appendix C Glossary Appendix D Species Accounts Appendix E Mitigation Score Sheets Appendix F Conservation Easement Toolkit Appendix G Water Quality Objectives for Use in Designing and Implementing Projects with Impacts to Creeks or Wetlands East Alameda County Conservation Strategy v October 2010 ICF 00906.08 . 4 -1 Natural Land Cover Protection Goals for Conservation Zone 7 East Alameda County Conservation Strategy vi October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Tables Appear at the end of chapters in which they are named. 1 -1 Species Proposed for Inclusion as Focal Species for the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -1 Simplified Land Use Planning Designations from Local General Plans 2 -2 Summary of Open Space in the Conservation Strategy as of October 2010 2 -3 Comparison of East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Land Cover Classification to Other State and Local Classification Systems 2 -4 Land Cover Types and their Extent in the Study Area 3 -1 Conservation Goals for Land Cover within the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Study Area 3 -2 General Avoidance and Minimization Measures to Reduce Effects on Focal Species 3 -3 Species-Specific AMMs 3 -4 Standardized Mitigation Ratios for Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp in the EACCS Study Area 3 -S Standardized Mitigation Ratios for Longhorn Fairy Shrimp in the EACCS Study Area 3 -6 Standardized Mitigation Ratios for Callippe Silverspot Butterfly in the EACCS Study Area 3 -7 Standardized Mitigation Ratios for California Red - Legged Frog in the EACCS Study Area 3 -8 Standardized Mitigation Ratios for California Tiger Salamander in the EACCS Study Area 3 -9 Standardized Mitigation Ratios for Alameda Whipsnake in the EACCS Study Area 3 -10 Standardized Mitigation Ratios for Non- Listed Species in the EACCS Study Area 3 -11 Standardized Mitigation Ratios for San Joaquin Kit Fox in the EACCS Study Area 3 -12 Standardized Mitigation Ratios for Focal Plant Species in the EACCS Study Area 4 -1 Natural Land Cover Protection Goals for Conservation Zone 1 4 -2 Natural Land Cover Protection Goals for Conservation Zone 2 4 -3 Natural Land Cover Protection Goals for Conservation Zone 3 4 -4 Natural Land Cover Protection Goals for Conservation Zone 4 4 -S Natural Land Cover Protection Goals for Conservation Zone S 4 -6 Natural Land Cover Protection Goals for Conservation Zone 6 . 4 -1 Natural Land Cover Protection Goals for Conservation Zone 7 East Alameda County Conservation Strategy vi October 2010 ICF 00906.08 4 -8 Natural Land Cover Protection Goals for Conservation Zone 8 4 -9 Natural Land Cover Protection Goals for Conservation Zone 9 4 -10 Natural Land Cover Protection Goals for Conservation Zone 10 4 -11 Natural Land Cover Protection Goals for Conservation Zone 11 4 -12 Natural Land Cover Protection Goals for Conservation Zone 12 4 -13 Natural Land Cover Protection Goals for Conservation Zone 13 4 -14 Natural Land Cover Protection Goals for Conservation Zone 14 4 -15 Natural Land Cover Protection Goals for Conservation Zone 15 4 -16 Natural Land Cover Protection Goals for Conservation Zone 16 4 -17 Natural Land Cover Protection Goals for Conservation Zone 17 4 -18 Natural Land Cover Protection Goals for Conservation Zone 18 4 -19a Modeled Suitable Habitat (acres) for Focal Invertebrate Species 4 -19b Modeled Suitable Habitat (acres) for Reptile and Amphibian Species 4 -19c Modeled Suitable Habitat (acres) for Focal Bird Species 4 -19d Modeled Suitable Habitat (acres) for Focal Mammal Species 4 -19e Modeled Suitable Habitat (acres) for Focal Plant Species 4 -20 Critical Habitat (acres) for Federally Listed Focal Species 0 East Alameda County Conservation Strategy vii October 2010 ICF 00906.08 0 Figures Appear at the end of chapters in which they are named. 1 -1 Study Area 1 -2 How the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Will Work 2 -1 East Alameda County Simplified Land Use Planning Designations from Local General Plans 2 -2 Criteria for Open Space Types 2 -3 East Alameda County Open Space (Public Lands and Private Easements) 2 -4 East Alameda County Topography 2 -5 East Alameda County Soils 2 -6 East Alameda County Unique Soil Resources 2 -7 Watersheds 2 -8 2 -9 • 3 -1 3 -2 3 -3 3 -4 • East Alameda County Land Cover Pond Density Conservation Zones Grassland Land Cover Chaparral and Coastal Scrub Land Cover Conifer Woodland and Oak Woodland 3 -5 Aquatic Land Cover 3 -6 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Standardized Mitigation Reference Map 3 -7 Longhorn Fairy Shrimp Standardized Mitigation Reference Map 3 -8 Callippe Silverspot Butterfly Standardized Mitigation Reference Map 3 -9 California Red - Legged Frog Standardized Mitigation Reference Map 3 -10 California Tiger Salamander Standardized Mitigation Reference Map 3 -11 Plants and Non- Listed Wildlife Species Standardized Mitigation Reference Map 3 -12 Alameda Whipsnake Standardized Mitigation Reference Map 3 -13 San Joaquin Kit Fox Standardized Mitigation Reference Map East Alameda County Conservation Strategy viii October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 1 Introduction Table of Contents 1.1 Introduction ....................... .................................................................... 1 -1 1.1.1 Overview ............................................................. ............................1 -1 1.1.2 Background .......................................................... ............................1 -2 1.1.3 Purpose ............................................................... ............................1 -3 1.2 Overview of the Planning Process ............................. ............................1 -4 1.2.1 Steering Committee ............................................ ............................1 -4 1.2.2 Users Advisory Group .......................................... ............................1 -5 1.2.3 Public Outreach and Involvement ....................... ............................1 -6 1.3 Scope of Conservation Strategy ................................. ............................1 -7 1.3.1 Study Area ........................................................... ............................1 -7 1.3.2 Regulatory Scope .............................................. ............................... 1 -8 1.3.3 Focal Species ....................................................... ............................1 -8 1.4 Regulatory Setting .................................................... ...........................1 -11 1.4.1 Federal and State Endangered Species Laws ..... ...........................1 -11 1.4.2 Other Federal and State Species Laws ............... ...........................1 -17 1.4.3 National Environmental Policy Act ..................... ...........................1 -19 1.4.4 California Environmental Quality Act ................. ...........................1 -20 1.4.5 Federal and State Wetland Laws and Regulations ........................1 -20 1.S Document Organization ............................................ ...........................1 -22 1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 Overview The East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (hereafter, Conservation Strategy) is intended to provide an effective framework to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources in eastern Alameda County, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts resulting from infrastructure and development projects. The Conservation Strategy will focus on impacts on biological resources such as endangered and other special- status East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1 -1 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 1 Introduction • species as well as sensitive habitat types (e.g., wetlands, riparian corridors, rare upland communities). The federal, state, and local entities listed below have prepared this Conservation Strategy in partnership: • Alameda County (County); • Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA); • Alameda County Waste Management Authority; • Alameda County Resource Conservation District (ACRCD); • California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); • City of Dublin; • City of Livermore; • City of Pleasanton; • East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD); • Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS); • San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB); • Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7); and • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). • The Conservation Strategy will enable local projects to comply with state and federal regulatory requirements within a framework of comprehensive conservation goals and objectives, and be implemented using consistent and standardized mitigation requirements. Section 1.3.1 provides a detailed description of the Conservation Strategy study area. 1.1.2 Background Local agencies in eastern Alameda County have until now primarily conducted threatened and endangered species permitting for urban growth, infrastructure development, and operations and maintenance activities with the Resource Agencies (USFWS, CDFG, SFRWQCB) on a project -by- project basis. This has often resulted in project delays, inconsistencies during the review process, and piecemeal mitigation for special- status species and natural communities. The City of Livermore and Zone 7 held early discussions with USFWS and CDFG to determine the best course of action for the region. USFWS and CDFG identified a need for a comprehensive regional conservation strategy. Initial discussions ruled out a habitat conservation plan (HCP) as a tool to provide this strategy because of the growth controls in place in the county and the three cities. Because of these growth controls, local agencies expect relatively low • levels of future residential and commercial development on natural lands that East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1 -2 October 2010 ICF 00906.06 Chapter 1 Introduction would typically fund a large part of HCP implementation. Instead, a regional • conservation strategy that would not result in incidental take permits for threatened or endangered species, as is the case in an HCP, was recommended as the best tool to reach the common goals. Other local land use and resource agencies joined the process in order to address impacts from infrastructure and development projects in a comprehensive manner. Since it was anticipated that the majority of mitigation that resulted from the Conservation Strategy would occur on private lands, the NRCS and ACRCD joined the planning process as well. This was enabled in part through a CALFED Bay -Delta Program grant that the ACRCD received in 2007 to support the planning process and components of Conservation Strategy implementation. A Steering Committee was then formed to guide the planning process. 1.1.3 Purpose The primary purpose of this Conservation Strategy is to provide a baseline inventory of biological resources and conservation priorities that will be utilized by local agencies and resource agencies during project -level planning and environmental permitting. To this end, the Conservation Strategy describes how to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on selected focal special- status species and sensitive habitats. By implementing the Conservation Strategy, local agencies can more easily address the legal requirements relevant to these • species. Projects and activities that will benefit from this Conservation Strategy include urban and suburban growth and a variety of road, water, and other needed infrastructure construction and maintenance activities. Because this Conservation Strategy will not result in permits, but rather serve as guidance for project -level permits, individual projects may need to implement different or more avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures than what is outlined here. To avoid this from happening, the Resource Agencies have participated in the development of this Conservation Strategy with the intent that it becomes the blueprint for all mitigation and conservation in the study area. This Conservation Strategy is designed to serve as a coordinated approach to conservation in the eastern portion of Alameda County. This Conservation Strategy not only addresses project -level mitigation for potential impacts to species and habitats throughout the eastern part of the county, but also provides a broader, coordinated approach for local conservation efforts beyond those required by mitigation. In turn the strategy will capitalize on existing stewardship practices that are a long tradition in the county and encourage new means for those practices to persist. This includes identification of important . conservation priorities in the county that are supported by local stakeholders and resource agencies and the importance on not just protection of those resources, but management as well. This Conservation Strategy will achieve the specific goals listed below. is East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1 -3 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 1 Introduction • ■ Set priorities for mitigation and conservation to contribute to the protection of special- status species and sensitive habitats in eastern Alameda County. ■ Improve corridors and linkages between other conservation planning efforts (HCPs /NCCPs) inside and adjacent to the EACCS Study Area. ■ Set goals to document, protect, and enhance native biological and ecological diversity in the study area. ■ Establish a set of standards to preserve, enhance, restore, manage, and monitor native species and the habitats and ecosystems upon which they depend. ■ Streamline and simplify the issuance of permits for future project proponents in the study area by indicating clear standards for lawful incidental take' of species listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and by setting clear mitigation ratios for focal species and sensitive habitats. • Standardize avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and compensation requirements of the ESA, CESA, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other applicable laws and regulations relating to biological and natural resources within the study area, so that public and private actions will be governed equally and • consistently, thus reducing delays, expenses, and regulatory duplication. ■ Provide a less costly, more efficient project review process that will result in more productive conservation than the current project -by- project, species - by- species compliance process for special- status species and sensitive habitat. • Restore natural communities that have been degraded or lost over time where possible. • Introduce creative solutions to making land management activities which benefit focal species more feasible through incentives for and the education of the private lands community. 1.2 Overview of the Planning Process 1.2.1 Steering Committee The Steering Committee comprises the Resource Agencies and a representative from each local agency (funding partner) that is likely to have a need to mitigate Toke as defined by the ESA means "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." Irvcidentnl take is take that is incidental to, and not intended as part of, an • otherwise lawful activity. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1 -4 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 1 Introduction public projects within the study area in the foreseeable future or support • implementation of the Conservation Strategy through on the ground conservation. A list of local agencies and Resource Agencies that were represented on the Steering Committee is shown in the opening paragraph of this document. During the planning process, the Steering Committee made decisions regarding the budget, management, and administration of the consultant contract. The Steering Committee directed the Conservation Strategy project and made decisions regarding public outreach, including convening the Users Advisory Group (UAG) (see Section 1.2.2, below). Decision - making by the Steering Committee was by consensus. The Steering Committee met once a month with additional meetings as needed at their discretion. 1.2.2 Users Advisory Group The UAG was convened to review and provide real -time feedback to the Steering Committee and consultants on work products. The UAG was comprised of technical and nontechnical representatives from those entities that intend to use the strategy, such as local public agencies, USFWS, CDFG, Corps, SFRWQCB, developers, landowners, and environmental and conservation groups. The Steering Committee solicited participation in the UAG through mailings to individuals and groups that live or operate in eastern Alameda County. One information meeting was held to discuss the scope of the • Conservation Strategy and the purpose of the UAG. Those interested in joining the UAG then completed an application. Those applications were reviewed by the Steering Committee and all that applied were asked to join the UAG. The Steering Committee conducted additional outreach to groups that were underrepresented on the UAG to create a group that was balanced and representative of interests in eastern Alameda County. UAG members served as the point of contact for the group they were representing. The duties of the UAG included, but were not limited to, the following: reviewing, discussing, and providing comments on work products from the consultant; providing suggestions and advice of work products to the Steering Committee; and serving as a conduit between the Conservation Strategy planning process and their respective constituencies. The UAG met approximately every 6 weeks during the planning process. The UAG consists of 27 individuals (plus several alternates) representing various interests. Groups represented on the UAG include: o Alameda Creek Alliance; ■ Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission; ■ AudubonSociety — OhloneChapter; Is California Coastal Conservancy; is East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1 -5 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 1 Introduction • a California Native Plant Society -East Bay Chapter (EBCNPS); o Fletcher Conservation Properties; ■ Friends of Livermore; ■ Friends of Springtown Preserve; ■ Friends of the Vineyards; ■ Greenbelt Alliance; ■ Hacienda Business Park; ■ Home Builders Association of Northern California; ■ Individual Rural Landowners; ■ Lawrence Livermore Laboratories; ■ Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD); ■ Robert Harris & Associates; ■ Save Mount Diablo; ■ San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC); ■ Sierra Club; • a The Nature Conservancy; and ■ Tri- Valley Conservancy. 1.2.3 Public Outreach and Involvement To address general public inquiries about the Conservation Strategy, the Steering Committee convened a public outreach subcommittee to coordinate outreach efforts and direct the work of the consultant. The most direct form of public outreach that occurred during the planning process was through the UAG. The Steering Committee hosted three public meetings at key points during the planning process to better inform the public about the process and to identify opportunities for the public to become involved. In addition, two outreach events were sponsored by the ACRCD to provide a forum for rural landowners to ask questions about and provide feedback on the planning process. Public outreach and review was facilitated through a variety of channels, including: • Conservation Strategy factsheet; • list of frequently asked questions; ■ landowner workshops hosted by ACRCD; • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1-6 October 2010 ICIF 00906.08 Chapter 1 Introduction ■ Conservation Strategy website with project updates, materials posted for • review, and Steering Committee contacts; ® noticed updates to boards and councils delivered by Steering Committee representatives from each local agency; and r public meetings at key project milestones occurred in: Q May 2009 to review data and conservation goals, o September 2009 to review conservation priorities and draft strategy, and o September 2010 to review Public Release Draft of strategy, including Standardized Mitigation Ratios and Focal Species Habitat Evaluation Tools. 1.3 Scope of Conservation Strategy This section introduces key elements of the Conservation Strategy: geographic scope (study area), regulatory scope, and focal species. 1.3.1 Study Area The study area lies within Alameda County (Figure 1 -1). Alameda County has a land area of 525,540 acres; the study area encompasses 271,485 acres, or approximately 52% of the county. The study area completely includes the cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton. The boundary of the study area was based on political, ecological, and hydrologic factors (Figure 1 -1). The western boundary of the study area runs along the Alameda Creek watershed boundary. This watershed boundary encompasses small portions of the cities of Fremont, Union City, and Hayward, though those jurisdictions were not formally part of the planning process. The northern, southern, and eastern boundaries of the study area follow the Alameda County line with Contra Costa County, Santa Clara County, and San Joaquin County, respectively. The study area includes a portion of the Central Valley and Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) watersheds in the northeastern corner of the study area. Outside of the urban areas the study area is largely a mix of grassland and woodland, with some intermittent scrub. Most of the study area is subject to some level of grazing as ranching is the bellwether if this part of the county. The study area includes two other areas where large scale conservation plans are being developed during the Conservation Strategy planning process. The SFPUC is preparing a habitat conservation plan (Alameda Watershed HCP) for its watershed lands in the Alameda Creek watershed. The Alameda Watershed HCP study area includes nearly 48,000 acres in southern Alameda and northern Santa Clara Counties. The portion of that study area in Alameda County is • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1 -7 - October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 1 Introduction • entirely within the Conservation Strategy study area. In addition, the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Conservation Plan (an HCP and a natural community conservation plan [NCCP]) is under development in eastern Alameda County and southeastern Contra Costa County. The portion of that planning area that is in Alameda County is entirely within the Conservation Strategy study area. 1.3.2 Regulatory Scope The Conservation Strategy does not directly result in permits for any participating local agency. Instead, the Conservation Strategy is a tool to inform decisions during standard environmental permitting processes for projects that occur in the study area (Figure 1 -2). However, the USFWS anticipates the development of a programmatic biological opinion for their listed species. In the future the Conservation Strategy could be used for the basis of a HCP, should the need arise. The regional inventory of biological resources presented in the Conservation Strategy allows projects to be reviewed by local agencies and resource agencies with a standardized regional context and with consistency across multiple projects. The standardized avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for species and natural communities will give local agencies, project proponents, and regulators more certainty of regulatory expectations and costs. This approach is expected to streamline permitting, • reducing the overall cost of the permitting process and allowing the focus to be on conservation within the study area rather than a prolonged negotiation process. Furthermore, the Conservation Strategy will allow mitigation to be consolidated, facilitating better conservation and improved management reducing overall costs. In addition, the conservation priorities outlined in the Conservation Strategy will allow conservation groups to focus their efforts in the study area and encourage collaboration on conservation initiatives. • 1.3.3 Focal Species The Conservation Strategy creates a framework to protect native biological diversity, habitat for native species, natural communities, and local ecosystems in eastern Alameda County. The Conservation Strategy will conserve a wide range of natural resources, including native species that are common and rare, while focusing conservation efforts on species that are the focus of standard regulatory processes. The Conservation Strategy addresses 19 listed and nonlisted species, called(ocol species (Table 1 -1). These focal species comprise 13 wildlife species and 6 plant species. The Conservation Strategy provides a framework for long -term. conservation and management of these species and the habitats that support them. The 19 focal species were identified using an initial assessment of the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1 -8 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 1 Introduction occurrence, threat, and conservation opportunities of 132 special- status species is (see "Species Evaluation," below). The Conservation Strategy includes measures to protect all 19 focal species as if they are currently listed as endangered or threatened under ESA and /or CESA (see "Definition of Special- Status Species," below). Therefore, if any nonlisted focal species becomes listed in the future, it is anticipated that additional conservation within the study area should not be required. 1.3.3.1 Species Evaluation To determine which species would be focal species under the Conservation Strategy, a comprehensive list of 132 special- status species that occur or may occur in the study area was compiled (Appendices A and B). This list was developed by reviewing the following sources: • California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (2009); • CNPS (2008) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California; • CDFG lists of special animals and special plants (California Department of Fish and Game 2009a and 2009b); III an animal species list obtained from the USFWS website for Alameda County (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008); and ■ personal communication with local experts, including wildlife agency staff and representatives of local environmental groups including CNPS, Ohlone Chapter of the Audubon Society, EBRPD, and Alameda Creek Alliance. 1.3.3.2 Definition of Special - Status Species Special- status species are defined as plants and animals that are legally protected under ESA, CESA, or other regulations, and species that are considered sufficiently rare by the scientific community to qualify for such listing. Special - status plants are species with one or more of the following characteristics: ■ listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under ESA (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.12 [listed plants] and various notices in the Federal Register [FR] [proposed species]); ■ candidate for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA (73 FR 7515- 75244, December 10, 2008); a listed or candidate for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under CESA (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 670.5); • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1 -9 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 1 Introduction • m listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.); e determined to meet the definitions of rare or endangered under CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380); ■ considered by CNPS to be "rare, threatened or endangered in California" (Lists 16 and 2 in California Native Plant Society 2010) or vascular plants, bryophytes, and lichens listed as having special status by CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game 2OO9b); and /or m listed by CNPS as plants about which more information is needed to determine their status and plants of limited distribution (Lists 3 and 4 in California Native Plant Society 2008) that may be included on the basis of local significance or recent biological information. Special- status animals are species with one or more of the following characteristics: • listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA (50 CFR 17.11 [listed animals] and various notices in the Federal Register [proposed species]); • candidate for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA (73 FR 7515- 75244, December 10, 2008); • determined to meet the definitions of rare or endangered under CEQA • (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380); • listed or candidate for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under CESA (14 CCR 670.5); • wildlife species of special concern to CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game 2008); • fully protected species under the California Fish and Game Code Section 3511 (birds), Section 4700 (mammals), Section 5515 (fish), and Section 5050 (reptiles and amphibians); and /or • species with no formal special status but thought by experts to be rare or in serious decline and to warrant special status based on recent information. • 1.3.3.3 Focal Species Criteria For each special- status species with potential to occur in the study area (Appendices A and B), information was gathered on its status, population trends, distribution, threats, conservation potential, and management efforts. The following criteria were then applied to each species to determine whether it would be a focal species. To be a focal species, a species typically had to meet all four of the following criteria. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1 -10 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 1 Introduction Range: The species is known to occur or is likely to occur within the • Conservation Strategy study area, based on credible evidence, or the species is not currently known in the study area but is expected to occur in the study area in the foreseeable future (e.g., through range expansion or reintroduction to historic range). Status: The species meets at least one of the following statutory criteria: N listed under the ESA as threatened or endangered, or proposed for listing; ® listed under CESA as threatened or endangered or a candidate for such listing; In listed under the Native Plant Protection Act as rare; or ■ expected to be listed under ESA or CESA in the foreseeable future. Potential for listing is based on current listing status, consultation with experts and wildlife agency staff, evaluation of species population trends and threats, and best professional judgment of the biologists working on the Conservation Strategy. Impact: The species or its habitat would be adversely affected by activities or projects that may result in take of the species. Data: Sufficient data on the species life history, habitat requirements, and occurrence in the study area are available to adequately evaluate and develop • conservation measures to mitigate impacts that result from future projects to levels specified by regulatory standards. 1.4 Regulatory Setting 1.4.1 Federal and State Endangered Species Laws 1.4.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) administer the ESA. ESA requires USFWS and NMFS to maintain lists of threatened and endangered species and affords substantial protection to listed species. NMFS's jurisdiction under ESA is limited to the protection of marine plants and animals, and anadromous fishes;' all other species are subject to USFWS jurisdiction. ` Anwh onrousfishes are fish that spend part of their life cycle in the ocean and part in fresh water. NMFS has jurisdiction over anadromous fish that spend the majority of their life cycle in the ocean. Pacific Lamprey. although anadromous, would be under USF WSjurisdiction if it were listed in the future because, although anadromous, it spends the majority of its life cycle in freshwater. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1 -11 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 Chapter 1 Introduction • USFWS and NMFS can list species as either endangered or threatened. An endangered species is at risk of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA Section 3[6]). A threatened species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (ESA Section 3[191). Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of any fish or wildlife species listed under ESA. Take, as defined by ESA, means "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." Harm is defined as "any act that kills or injures the species, including significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering" (50 CFR 17.3). Section 9 prohibits removing or reducing to possession, or maliciously damaging or destroying listed plant species from areas under federal jurisdiction and includes prohibiting removal, cutting, digging up, damage, or destruction where the action takes place in violation of any state law or regulation. ESA and its implementing regulations do not provide for exemption from these prohibitions; however, listed plants are subject to the regulatory obligations of section 7 of the ESA. Some plants are included in the Conservation Strategy in order to meet regulatory obligations under ESA Section 7 and to comply with CESA. The ESA includes mechanisms that provide exceptions to the Section 9 take prohibitions. These are addressed in Section 7 for federal actions and Section • 10 for nonfederal actions. Section 7 Section 7 of the ESA requires all federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat critical to such species' survival. To ensure that its actions do not result in jeopardy to listed species or in the adverse modification of critical habitat', each federal agency must consult with USFWS or NMFS, or both, regarding federal agency actions that may affect listed species. Consultation begins when the federal agency submits a written request for initiation to USFWS or NMFS, along with the agency's biological assessment of its proposed action, and their determination that the proposed action "may affect but is not likely to adversely affect" or "may affect and is likely to adversely affect" listed species. If the initiation package is complete, USFWS or NMFS concurs or does not concur with the federal action agency's determination. If USFWS or NMFS concurs that the action will not likely adversely affect the listed species, the action may be conducted without further review under ESA. Otherwise, USFWS or NMFS must prepare a written biological opinion describing how the agency's ' Critical habitat is defined as specific geographic areas, whether occupied by listed species or not, that are • determined to be essential for the conservation and management of listed species, and that have been formally described in the Federal Register. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1 -12 _ October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 1 Introduction action mayor may not jeopardize the continued existence of a species or result is in the adverse modification of critical habitat. If the biological opinion concludes that the proposed action would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify its critical habitat, the opinion will suggest "reasonable and prudent alternatives" that would avoid that result. If the biological opinion concludes that the proposed action would take a listed species but would not jeopardize its continued existence, the biological opinion will include an incidental take statement. Incidental take is take that is "incidental to, and not intended as part of, an otherwise lawful activity" (64 CFR 60728). The incidental take statement specifies an amount of take that is allowed to occur as a result of the action and may require reasonable and prudent measures to minimize the effect of the take. Any project with a federal lead agency or federal involvement (e.g., a federal permit, federal funding, or a project on federal land) must obtain its take authorization through Section 7 rather than Section 10 and an HCP. Section 10 Until 1982, state, local, and private entities had no means to acquire incidental • take authorization as could federal agencies under Section 7. Private landowners and local and state agencies risked direct violation of the ESA no matter how carefully their projects were implemented. This statutory dilemma led Congress to amend Section 10 of the ESA in 1982 to authorize the issuance of an incidental take permit to nonfederal project proponents upon completion of an approved conservation plan. The term conservation plan has evolved into HCP. In cases where federal land, funding, or authorization is not required for an action by a nonfederal entity, the take of listed fish and wildlife species can be permitted by USFWS and /or NMFS through the Section 10 process. Private landowners, corporations, state agencies, local agencies, and other nonfederal entities must obtain a Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit for take of federally listed fish and wildlife species "that is incidental to, but not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities." The take prohibition for listed plants is more limited than for listed fish and wildlife. Under Section 91a)(2)(B) of the ESA, endangered plants are protected from "removal, reduction to possession, and malicious damage or destruction" in areas that are under federal jurisdiction. Section 9(a)(2)(B) of the ESA also provides protection to plants from removal, cutting, digging up, damage, or destruction where the action takes place in violation of any state law or regulation or in violation of a state criminal trespass law. Thus, the ESA does not prohibit the incidental take of federally listed plants on private or other • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1 -13 October 2010 ICIF 00906.08 Chapter 1 Introduction • nonfederal lands unless the action requires federal authorization or is in violation of state law. Thus, Section 10 incidental take permits are only required for wildlife and fish species. However, the Section 7(a)(2) prohibition against jeopardy applies to plants, and issuance of a Section 1O(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit cannot result in jeopardy to a listed plant species. The HCP must specify the following mandatory elements (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service 1996): • impacts that will likely result from the taking of covered species; • steps the applicant will take to monitor, minimize, and mitigate such impacts to the maximum extent practicable; • funding that will be available to implement such steps; • procedures to be used to deal with unforeseen circumstances ;° • alternative actions to such taking the applicant considered and the reasons why such alternatives are not proposed to be utilized; and ■ such other measures that the Director [of the Department of Interior or Commerce] may require as being necessary or appropriate for purposes of the Conservation Strategy (50 CFR 17.22(b)). The following criteria must be met in order for USFWS and /or NMFS to issue a • section 1O(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit: • taking will be incidental; • impacts of the taking will be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable; • adequate funding will be ensured; • taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild; or • other such measures that USFWS and /or NMFS may require as being necessary or appropriate for purposes of the HCP (50 CFR 17.22). An HCP is intended to satisfy these requirements. Prior to the approval of an HCP, USFWS and /or NMFS are required to undertake an internal Section 7 consultation, because issuance of an incidental take permit is a federal action (see discussion of ESA in "Section 7," above.) Elements specific to the Section 7 process that are not required under the Section 10 process (e.g., analysis of effects on designated critical habitat, analysis of effects 4 Unforeseen circumstances are changes in circumstances affecting a covered species or geographic area covered by • the HCP that could not reasonably have been anticipated by the plan developers, and that result in a substantial and adverse chanee in the status of a covered species. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1 -14 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 1 Introduction on listed plant species, and analysis of indirect and cumulative effects on listed species) are included in an HCP to meet the requirements of Section 7. While the Conservation Strategy is not an HCP, the discussion of these regulatory documents are relevant since there are three HCP's currently being developed within the Conservation Strategy study area. The Conservation Strategy does provide a regional approach to conservation which is a similar approach for an HCP. The Conservation Strategy does not provide an estimate of impacts to species or their habitats during a designated period of time as an HCP would, nor does it provide a specific mitigation program to offset those estimated impacts. Those are required elements of an HCP that are not part of the Conservation Strategy. 1.4.1.2 California Endangered Species Act CESA prohibits take of wildlife and plants listed as threatened or endangered by the California Fish and Game Commission. Take is defined under the California Fish and Game Code (more narrowly than under ESA) as any action or attempt to "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill." Therefore, take under CESA does not include "the taking of habitat alone or the impacts of the taking.i' Rather, the courts have affirmed that under CESA, "taking involves mortality." Like ESA, CESA allows exceptions to the prohibition for take that occurs during otherwise lawful activities. The requirements of an application for incidental take under CESA are described in Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code. Incidental take of state - listed species may be authorized if an applicant submits an approved plan that minimizes and "fully mitigates" the impacts of this take. This Conservation Strategy provides information on state - listed species that would be used by project proponents and local jurisdictions to determine whether a proposed project could result in take of a state listed species. In addition, avoidance and minimization measures and mitigation practices outlined in the Conservation Strategy would be referenced by the project proponent when creating a plan that minimizes and fully mitigates the impacts of the project. By utilizing preapproved mitigation practices and focusing mitigation in conservation priority areas described in the Conservation Strategy, CESA permit compliance would be streamlined. 1.4.1.3 Natural Community Conservation Planning Act California's Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCPA) (California Fish and Game Code, Section 2800 et seq.) was enacted to implement broad- 5 Environmental Council ofSocromento r. City ofSocrramenlo, 142 Cal. App. 4th 1013 (2006). East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1 -15 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 • • • Chapter 1 Introduction • based planning that balances appropriate development and growth with conservation of wildlife and habitat. Pursuant to the NCCPA, local, state, and federal agencies are encouraged to prepare NCCPs to provide comprehensive management and conservation of multiple species and their habitats under a single plan, rather than through preparation of numerous individual plans on a project -by- project basis. The NCCPA is broader in its orientation and objectives than ESA and CESA, and preparation of an NCCP is voluntary. The primary objective of the NCCP program is to conserve natural communities at the ecosystem scale while accommodating compatible land use. To be approved by CDFG, an NCCP must provide for the conservation of species and protection and management of natural communities in perpetuity within the area covered by permits. Conservation is defined by the NCCPA and the California Fish and Game Code as actions that result in the delisting of state - listed species. Thus, NCCPs must contribute to the recovery of listed species or prevent the listing of nonlisted species rather than just mitigate the effects of covered activities. This recovery standard is one of the major differences between an NCCP and an HCP prepared to satisfy ESA or CESA. To approve an NCCP under the NCCPA, CDFG must make the following series of findings. • The NCCP must be consistent with the NCCPA. • • The NCCP must provide for the conservation and management of the covered species (conservation here is defined to mean that the NCCP must contribute to species recovery). • The NCCP must protect habitat, natural communities, and species diversity on the landscape level (definitions of these and other NCCP terms are provided in Appendix C, "Glossary "). • The NCCP must conserve the ecological integrity of large habitat blocks, ecosystem function, and biodiversity. • The NCCP must support sustainable populations of covered species. • The NCCP must provide a range of environmental gradients and habitat diversity to support shifting species distributions. • The NCCP must sustain movement of species among reserves. • Mitigation and conservation must be roughly proportional to impacts in timing and extent. • Funding for conservation, monitoring, and adaptive management must be adequately assured. Although the Conservation Strategy is not an NCCP, the discussion of these regulatory documents are relevant since the proposed Altamont Wind Resources Conservation Plan, which is an NCCP, is currently in process in the Conservation Strategy study area. The Conservation Strategy does not provide • an estimate of impacts to species or their habitats during a designated period of East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1 -16 October 2010 ICIF 00906.05 Chapter 1 Introduction time as an NCCP would, nor does it provide a specific mitigation program to • offset those estimated impacts and contribute to the recovery of species. Further, the Conservation Strategy does not have a formal scientific advisory process, as is required for an NCCP. The Conservation Strategy does have a stakeholder process, through the UAG, which is something that is required to prepare an NCCP. The Conservation Strategy does provide a regional approach to conservation, as an NCCP would, and approaches conservation through focal species and their habitats at both a local and regional scale. This is similar to the approach required in NCCPs. 1.4.2 Other Federal and State Species Laws 1.4.2.1 Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 as amended (MBTA), implements various treaties and conventions between the U.S., Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Under the MBTA, it is illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to federal regulations (16 United States Code [USC] 703). The • regulatory definition of take, as defined by 50 CFR 10.12, means to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trop, capture, or collect, or attempt hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect. As such, take under the MBTA does not include the concepts of harm and harassment as defined under ESA. The MBTA defines migratory birds broadly; all covered birds in this Conservation Strategy are considered migratory birds under the MBTA. USFWS provides guidance regarding take of federally listed migratory birds (Appendix 5 in the HCP Handbook [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service 1996]). According to these guidelines, an incidental take permit can function as a Special Purpose Permit under the MBTA (50 CFR 21.27) for the take of all ESA - listed covered species in the amount and /or number and subject to the terms and conditions specified in an HCP. Any such take will not be in violation of the MBTA (16 USC 703 -12). The following focal species in the Conservation Strategy are protected by the MBTA: m golden eagle, ® western burrowing owl, and a tricolored blackbird. None of these species are currently listed under ESA or CESA therefore, take cannot be authorized or permitted. Focal bird species, as well as other migratory birds not listed as focal species by the Conservation Strategy, will benefit from seasonal restrictions on construction, restrictions on removal of East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1 -17 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 1 Introduction • nesting habitat during the nesting period, and other conservation measures described in this Conservation Strategy. Individual project applicants will be responsible for compliance with the MBTA for migratory birds. 1.4.2.2 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) prohibits the taking or possession of and commerce in bald and golden eagles with limited exceptions. Under the Eagle Act, it is a violation to "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, transport, export or import, at any time or in any manner, any bald eagle commonly known as the American eagle, or golden eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg, thereof." Take is defined to include pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy, molest, and disturb. Disturb is further defined in 50 CFR Part 22.3 as "to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior." Recent revisions to the Eagle Act authorizes take of bald eagles and golden • eagles under the following conditions: (1) where the take is compatible with the preservation of the bald eagle and golden eagle; (2) take is necessary to protect an interest in a particular locality; (3) take is associated with but not the purpose of an otherwise lawful activity; and (4) for individual instances of take, the take cannot be avoided; or (5) for programmatic take, the take is unavoidable even though advanced conservation practices are being implemented (50 CFR 22.26). Permits issued under this regulation usually authorize disturbance only; however, in limited cases a permit may authorize lethal take that results from but is not the purpose of an otherwise lawful activity. 1.4.2.3 California Fully Protected Species In the 1960s, before CESA was enacted, the California legislature identified specific species for protection under the California Fish and Game Code. These fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time, and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of bird species for the protection of livestock. Fully protected species are described in Sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fish) of the California Fish and Game Code. These protections state that "no provision of this code or any other law shall be construed to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take any fully protected [bird], [mammal], [reptile or amphibian], [fish]." This Conservation Strategy includes conservation measures - to avoid taking fully protected species as defined by the California Fish and East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1 -18 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 1 Introduction Game Code. The only fully protected species listed as focal species by the • Conservation Strategy is golden eagle. Other fully protected species expected to occur in the study area include, but are not restricted to: • American peregrine falcon, • bald eagle, • white - tailed kite, and • ring - tailed cat (ringtail). 1.4.2.4 California Fish and Game Code 3503 (Bird Nests) Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code makes it "unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nests or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto." The Conservation Strategy contains conservation measures to avoid and minimize such take to the maximum extent practicable in order to comply with Section 3503. Individual project applicants will be responsible for compliance with Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code for bird nests. 1.4.2.5 California Fish and Game Code 3503.5 • (Birds of Prey) Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the take, possession, or destruction of any birds of prey or their nests or eggs "except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto." The only birds of prey covered by the Conservation Strategy are golden eagle and western burrowing owl (Table 1 -1). Golden eagle is fully protected; therefore, no take of individuals is allowed. The Conservation Strategy contains conservation measures to avoid take of golden eagle and avoid and minimize take of western burrowing owl in order to comply with Section 3503.5. Individual project applicants will be responsible for compliance with Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code for birds of prey. 1.4.3 National Environmental Policy Act NEPA requires federal agencies to include in its decision - making process appropriate and careful consideration of all environmental effects of a proposed action and of possible alternatives. Documentation of the environmental impact analysis and efforts to avoid or minimize the adverse effects of proposed actions must be made available for public notice and review. This analysis is documented in either an environmental assessment or an environmental impact • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1 -19 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 1 Introduction isstatement. Project proponents must disclose in these documents whether their proposed action will adversely affect the human or natural environment. NEPA's requirements are primarily procedural rather than substantive in that NEPA requires disclosure of environmental effects and mitigation possibilities but includes no requirement to mitigate. 1.4.4 California Environmental Quality Act CEQA is similar to but more extensive than NEPA in that it requires that significant environmental impacts of proposed projects be reduced to a less - than- significant level through adoption of feasible avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures unless overriding considerations are identified and documented that make the mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible. CEQA applies to certain activities in California undertaken by either a public agency or a private entity that must receive some discretionary approval from a California government agency. Future projects that occur in the Conservation Strategy study area must also comply with CEQA at the project level through local jurisdictions. It is expected that the avoidance and minimization measures, mitigation standards, and conservation actions outlined in this Conservation Strategy will be sufficient to • inform biological resource issues that arise during the project -level CEQA process in the future. Avoidance and minimization measures as well as standardized mitigation practices for focal species and sensitive habitats would be used to develop mitigation. Many of the conservation measures will also benefit other special- status species (i.e., species that are not focal species under the Conservation Strategy); such measures may be sufficient to meet CEQA standards for these other species as well. 1.4.5 Federal and State Wetland Laws and Regulations 1.4.5.1 Clean Water Act Section 404 The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law that protects the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters, including lakes, rivers, wetlands, and coastal waters. Programs conducted under the CWA are directed at both point source pollution (e.g., waste discharged from outfalls and filling of waters) and nonpoint source pollution (e.g., runoff from parking lots). Under Section 402 of the CWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state agencies set effluent limitations and issue permits governing point- source discharges of wastes to waters. The Corps, applying its regulations under • guidelines issued by EPA, issues permits under CWA Section 404 governing East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1 -20 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 1 Introduction under what circumstances dredged or fill material may be discharged to waters. • Section 402 and 404 permits are the primary regulatory tools of the CWA. EPA has oversight over all CWA permits issued by the Corps. The Corps issues two types of permits under Section 404: general permits (either nationwide permits or regional permits) and standard permits (either letters of permission or individual permits). General permits are issued by the Corps to streamline the Section 404 process for nationwide, statewide, or regional activities that have minimal direct or cumulative environmental impacts on the aquatic environment. Standard permits are issued for activities that do not qualify for a general permit (i.e., that may have more than a minimal adverse environmental impact). Although the Conservation Strategy will not provide permits under Section 404 of the CWA for impacts on wetlands or other waters, Section 404 permitting is expected to be streamlined substantially as a result. Issuance of a Section 404 permit often requires the Corps to consult with USFWS and /or NMFS to comply with Section 7 of the ESA. This consultation would address the federally listed species that could be impacted as the result of changes to or loss of wetland habitat. The USFWS will write a Programmatic Biological Opinion for activities that need Section 404 permit issuance and are within the Conservation Strategy study area. 1.4.5.2 Clean Water Act Section 401 and the Porter- • Cologne Water Quality Control Act Under CWA Section 401, states have the authority to certify federal permits for discharges to waters understate jurisdiction. States may review proposed federal permits (e.g., Section 404 permits) for compliance with state water quality standards. The permit cannot be issued if the state denies certification. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Boards) are responsible for the issuance of Section 401 certifications. The Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act is the primary state law concerning water quality. It authorizes the State Board and Regional Boards to prepare management plans such as regional water quality plans to address the quality of groundwater and surface water. The Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act also authorizes the Regional Boards to issue waste discharge requirements defining limitations on allowable discharge to waters of the state. In addition to issuing Section 401 certifications on Section 404 applications to fill waters, the Regional Boards may also issue waste discharge requirements for such activities. Because the authority for waste discharge requirements is derived from the Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act and not the CWA, waste discharge requirements may apply to a somewhat different range of aquatic resources than do Section 404 permits and Section 401 water quality - East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1 -21 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 1 Introduction • certifications. Applicants that obtain a permit from the Corps under Section 404 must also obtain certification of that permit by the Regional Board. The Conservation Strategy does not include certifications under Section 401 or waste discharge permits under the Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act. These authorizations, if required, must be obtained separately. 1.4.5.3 Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement CDFG has jurisdictional authority over streams, lakes, and wetland resources associated with these aquatic systems under California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. CDFG has the authority to regulate work that will "substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake." Activities of any person, state, or local governmental agency, or public utility are regulated by CDFG under Section 1602 of the code. CDFG enters into a streambed or lakebed alteration agreement with the project proponent and can impose conditions on the agreement to ensure no net loss of values or acreage of the stream, lake, associated wetlands, and associated riparian habitat. • The lake or streambed alteration agreement is not a permit, but rather a mutual agreement between CDFG and the project proponent. Because CDFG includes under its jurisdiction streamside habitats that may not qualify as wetlands under the CWA definition, CDFG jurisdiction may be broader than Corps jurisdiction. is A project proponent must submit a notification of streambed alteration to CDFG before construction. The notification requires an application fee for streambed alteration agreements, with a specific fee schedule to be determined by CDFG. Many of the concerns raised by CDFG during streambed alteration agreement negotiations are related to special- status species. Activities covered by this Conservation Strategy that need a streambed alteration agreement are expected to partially or fully meet the standards of the streambed alteration agreement through compliance with this Conservation Strategy. 1.5 Document Organization This document is organized into the following six chapters: • Chapter 1, "Introduction," • Chapter 2, "Environmental Setting," • Chapter 3, "Conservation Strategy," • Chapter 4, "Conservation Zones," East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1 -22 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 " Chapter 1 Introduction ■ Chapter 5, "Conservation Strategy Implementation," and is ■ Chapter 6, "Literature Cited." Chapter 2 provides information on existing natural resources within eastern Alameda County. Chapter 3 presents the conservation principles and approaches central to this Conservation Strategy and describes expected outcomes for focal species when the Conservation Strategy is implemented. Chapter 4 discusses the 18 conservations zones developed for this Conservation Strategy. Chapter 5 describes mitigation and land protection efforts integral to the success of the Conservation Strategy, as well as for the implementation oversight process. Chapter 6 provides a listing of the sources cited in the document or consulted in its preparation. The report also contains the following appendices: • Appendix A, "Wildlife Species Considered for Inclusion as Focal Species in the East Alameda Conservation Strategy," • Appendix B, "Plant Species Considered for Inclusion as Focal Species in the East Alameda Conservation Strategy," • Appendix C, "Glossary," • Appendix D, "Species Accounts," • Appendix E, "Focal Species Impact /Mitigation Scoring Sheets," • • Appendix F, "Conservation Easement Toolkit," ❑ Conservation Easement Template ❑ Management Plan Guide and Annotated Outline D Review Criteria for Section 7 Off -site Compensation ■ Appendix G, "Water Quality Objectives for Use in Designing and Implementing Projects with Impacts to Creeks or Wetlands. "_ • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1 -23 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 m O N m a d O z 9 y N C U CN u CG d F N O U Y m 0 Y m v s I- ro L d Y LNJ V Y ° m c m a a N y h L7 L v v k. N v N a L7 y a d i c r r r r r r r r r Y r I 1 I I W [i n e a 4 E O a0D � C G z z r I I [xl [u :l Y Q `m a � o .N U y T ❑ a a � Usln°' C R a a Q N r r T C d u r r w i 'yCX V � � I v 'O i C C L L A y cr G G N T ce iv G C fE t1% O N U � N bmp N C N C a d o m¢ ry d U A c c m t b L E n. C 7 G C O G r r r r r r r r r Y r I 1 I I W [i n e a 4 E O a0D � C G z z r I I [xl [u :l Y Q `m a � o .N U y T ❑ a a � Usln°' C R a a Q > r r r r r T O u u r r w i 'yCX V � � I i YC U d cr G G N T ce iv G C fE t1% O N U � N bmp N C N C a d o m¢ v Q > a c W L W L Y n. C 7 G C O G > r r I r r r r r z r r r I I I � V V � � I i � o w v c v � b0p u bmp N 0. a V L' c 0 m A E L a y � C O d @ O � a� N o N G v� 4 L L . v � O w r r r r I F F� Cs. Q C y Qa a y ti 3 b O c � Q � r 'u. O � L JN+ Vf y ° N L 3 y � b °b ° aLi m c m ° 0 0 a a Y Q O N Y Y m ca 3 N ° a u � k o.Z�N y N� FL r Z r z I F Y o y u Y ro .nc V b C G � O d Y � U N O 0 N m a w C C O u H ti d .c 0 Z u y C V v d E a o u O 0 u v L � F L d N V ■F] v m e m a I� 6. Z V � d a`S N y A L b [i y v V v a y m r r } v 0 Z } E } } ou o d m L ap. } ti v W a o C u y V O d O y O L L fd u pu H 7 N N F F 7 OV � OD L h uO. d ALE c m Q E p 9 ttf v yyv a+ V v> v c m d Ep'�p o O O v E v O Oq may' � O O U C 3 E m vf0 d o u v v v d N C .L F o vi w'u O C G o Ob A u o yV. up V aL V V U 6 A2 zvao a� L r r } I I a O' V V rn h V V � m m CO 9 O Y iO m C u O 3 L7 Q F 4 I V V F C] i] 3 O c a O 7 L G E u p i G � v r C v v 0 Z } } } } } } r } } I I a O' V V rn h V V � m m CO 9 O Y iO m C u O 3 L7 Q F 4 I V V F C] i] 3 O c a O 7 L G E u p i G � v r C v v 0 Z r r L O £ O } r c v a A ti L k Y p C U E � � fd A Q £ H ❑ O v d d OV � OD L h uO. d O y C p 9 ttf v yyv a+ V � y v d C O O v E v a d N C C1C u o vi w'u O C AL E C 0 i A u o yV. up V aL V V U 6 A2 u v F la } r r } r I V V I r } } r } I h LL r } } r r v 0 Z r r L O £ O } r c v a A ti L k Y p C U O fd A Q £ H r } } r r v } r r r r r r O } r c v a A ti ti H LL p 9 ttf O d G p, a iG d C a C m o E C 0 i A u o yV. up V aL V L N v U f0 V C v v v Z Em r } } r r r } r r r r r r } } r r r r r N H N r-1 OJ G] (Q CO e-I � ti ti H LL O d G p, a iG d C a C m y i c e E A i vIQ O]m V U U aL V M O m • m N o. • v 7 C C O • U ri ti GJ a f U 0 z � J C V v u N u u O O 5 C r r L t� t F u L _N V F N J G ir U in u L U i fi �I c c a F O c u C d 09 CJ C 3 y F L O r L d G. 0 U h U F CJ p Cl a N � C 0. v :J Y>, J 3- n F U O O U i F C O v } } } } m ti d " L Q t0 a U U v a L L o � c L C v c > � 0 4 is a t1 v U U 'o a u u c CI 61 N Q U QN u r � � v i =' r m � - L � N o � c s o O N +. F t _ U J U L Y O u U N � O v o 'u O v N L i U � 7 _ u c u a u � w ^ v ti N O i YO U U Cl CJ QI G d ct d L d v O v t tS N F v L L; J a c U QN u � o O u u r ti L; J a c v n N N N C N CJ V O'J i L N C � U 5G O V 0 CJ N � L U c — � E r �� ❑ r G u �_ h u _o t0 U ou G - fC I V C C C 'U u C '✓i N L N C U 1 I _ . . _ .� ❑ 5 E �n a m v � } z � o O u u r ti L; J CJ U � L U c — � t0 U d G - fC I C p U O 1 I @ r r T v N Z Z AbWA03 mar ers z 7 J N • m/y j �• ° a _ r �FS vC r _ _ r • r R _ EO r r 4 _/' � 'may✓ 'Y° m �� � -1 ^ids ` � / �"'' �t r Lill 00 C r Ell � e• (` A l L m v V r1Ja u N O1"O T T d Q a n. Q Y ILLa G d � Vi C] O_ Q O 0 v O.0 ✓ d V Y ` 3 d N N au c Q 1Q to LU 2Q QZ YO V ko AbWA03 mar ers z 7 J N • m/y j �• ° a _ r �FS vC r _ _ r • r R _ EO r r 4 _/' � 'may✓ 'Y° m �� � -1 ^ids ` � / �"'' �t r Lill 00 C r Ell � e• (` A l |� � 7 � ■ � § \ � E j � ■J �2 �f \\ m 0 n 0 � » \D �\n D� tA § e A 0 \ § ■ 5{ / §ƒ (D < - m � 0 2] 3 § /1+�� °��3 � 2 r) 0 i ƒ m ° _ mil (D �> ( M , � _ (A 3 E n - ¥ § \ § \CD ° ` E7 �\ / / ` 2 ƒ) (\ \ 98 - _ 7 \ \\ ... - \% / \ 2� /(/2( \ _ ! >r \ / 0Ln M r!�» \ 2 2 ? ) [ M 41 ] , / \kip (D m 7 a 7 >� g - 3t{ § c [ I ° ` `° 2 (D & - r)o 3 o \ /} \ r m „ \ § ( k \ tA (D : / � 0 L•i�Y:ffiX�U)!F7 0 Wz iagoloo l-Z R691eng uoilemasuoo Aunoo epaweiy lse3 paseq s! „'aalejlS uo!;eAaasuo:)„ 'E ja;deq:) ga!gnn uodn saA!hafgo pue sleo2 le3!9oloiq aq; jo; lxaluo:) Ajessaoau a4; ap!AOad suo!has saajnosai leal2olo!q pue'saainosai le:)!sAgd'asn pue! aq;'jag4a2ol -eaae Apnls ayl ui sapads le:)o; pue'sadAl IanO3 puel'sa!l!unwwoa lein;eu'A;!sJaA!p le:)!2OIO!q ;o uo!ssms!p a sapnpuj uO!has sa:)mosai le:)!2olo!q agl •eaje Apnls a4l ;o A2olojpA4 pue 'alew!p 'sllos pue A2o!oa2'A4dea2odol aql ;o uo!lezual:)eJeg:) a sap!AOjd uo!has swinosai le:)!sA4d ayl •eaje Apnls aq; u!4 ;!M 2u!leaado sapua2e luawa2euew aaeds uado pue asn puel jofew 94; }o fAa!AUano ue sap!AOid legl uo!uas asn puel a sapnpui ja;dego s!4l -A2alea ;S uO!leAaasuO:) aq; o ;;uenalaa aje ;eq; eaje Apnls aq; u!gl!m sa:)anosai le:)!2olo!q pue le:)!sAgd a4l saqu:)sap Ialde4:) s!ql uoil3npoa;ul Z•Z 9L- Z""" ... " " "' ... " ... ' ......... sa2e�u!l ab!IPI!M PUB AIIA!pauuo:) lel!geH b'b'Z ZE-Z "..... " " " " " "" ... sadAl aano:) puel pue sa! ;!unwwoo lein ;eN £'b'Z i£- Z ............ ............................... eajy ApnlS a43 u! AI!sJaA!Q IMIS01O!8 Z'b'Z £ Z- Z ................ ................................................ ........................sPO4ION T'b'Z E Z- Z ............................................. ............................... sa »nosaa lv!2Olo!9 b'Z TZZ ............................................................... ....................... A2olapAH S'E'Z 6T- Z ... .. ......... ....... ....... ...................................... ........................ alew!lD b'E'Z 9T-Z ........................................... ............................... sl!oS pue A2oloaD E'E'Z ST- Z ... ......................................................... .. .....................A4dei2odol Z'E'Z ST- Z .................................................................. ................ . ...... uo!le:)ol T'E'Z sl- Z ......................................................... ......................sa:)jnosaa le:)!sA4d FZ 6-Z'*** ... ' ' ° (slu9wase3 alenud pue spuel o!lgnd) ands uado b'Z'Z L- Z ............................................ ............................... slaluoD asn PUEn E'Z'Z E- Z ..... ................................................ . .................. sauosa;eD asn Puel Z'Z'Z Z- Z ........................................... ............................... suO!l!puOJ 2u!ls!x3 T'Z'Z Z- Z ................................................................. ............................... asn Puel Z'Z T- Z ............................................................... . .............. ............. uo!pnpoalul T'Z slualuo3 ;o ages Hu1140S leluauauoainu3 Z aa}degD u E J Chapter 2 Environmental Setting 2.2 Land Use This section examines existing land use conditions and land use plans in east Alameda County. This section provides history and context for land use in the study area; reviews existing land use conditions and relevant land use plans; presents the criteria used to determine land use categories; and discusses significant existing open spaces in the study area and an open space type classification system. 2.2.1 Existing Conditions East Alameda County encompasses 271,485 acres (approximately 424 square miles) and represents 52% of Alameda County, which has a land area of 525,540 acres (approximately 821 square miles). Alameda County is located north of Santa Clara County, west of San Joaquin County, and south of Contra Costa County (see Figure 1 -1 for the regional location of the study area). East Alameda County is situated east of the San Leandro Hills and Walpert Ridge (Corbett 2005). The cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, a portion of the city of Hayward, and surrounding unincorporated areas are the major developed areas of east Alameda County (Alameda County Community Development Agency 2002). The cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton are completely included in the study area. According to the most recent Census data, the population of east Alameda County is approximately 171,652, about 12% of the population of the entire county, which is 1,443,741 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). In east Alameda County, Livermore has the most residents, with a population of 80,723(City of Livermore 2009); followed by Pleasanton, with a population of 68,755 (City of Pleasanton 2009a); and Dublin, with a population of 46,934 (City of Dublin 2009a). Located between the urban areas surrounding the San Francisco Bay and the Central Valley, east Alameda County has had considerable growth pressure in the recent past. In 1990, the population was approximately 133,000 and will most likely exceed 250,000 by 2010, representing an 88% growth (Alameda County Community Development Agency 2002). The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has projected that the populations of Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin will grow to 89,600; 75,300; and 56,800 by the year 2015, and 95,500; 79,100; and 62,700 by the year 2020, respectively (Association of Bay Area Governments 2006). Dublin was incorporated in 1982 (City of Dublin 2O09b), Livermore was incorporated in 1876 (City of Livermore 2009), and Pleasanton was incorporated in 1894 (City of Pleasanton 2009a). Dublin was incorporated to accommodate the increasing demand for commercial and residential development in the area, and has experienced a more recent increase in growth compared to Livermore East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -2 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting and Pleasanton, which have grown steadily since incorporation (City of Dublin 20O9b). Recent growth in the region and the subsequent impacts on residents' quality of life are major concerns for the region (Alameda County Community Development Agency 2002). The County and Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin maintain a strong commitment to protecting the natural and agricultural resources within and surrounding their respective jurisdictions. Reflecting this vision, the County and Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton have each adopted an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), while Dublin has adopted Planning Area Boundaries as an ultimate build -out line. More detail on the open space policies and UGBs is provided in Sections 2.2.4 and 2.2.3.1 below for each participating jurisdiction. 2.2.2 Land Use Categories Understanding the current land use patterns and potential future land uses in the study area were an important step in developing the strategy discussed in Chapter 3. This understanding, in conjunction with an assessment of the biological resources in the study area allowed for the development of a conservation strategy that is informed by the current land use patterns in the county. Furthermore, land use designations aid the process by informing agencies as to the areas that are currently protected, areas that are likely to be • affected, and areas where conservation will need to occur. The general plans for the cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton and Alameda County were used to identify the future extent and location of urban and rural development in the study area. Land use designations vary across jurisdictions and are in many more categories than necessary for conservation planning purposes, so the designations were simplified and standardized. The process by which a land use map was developed and how land use categories for the Conservation Strategy were assigned is described below. 2.2.2.1 Land Use Methodology Land use planning designations for Alameda County and the cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton were used to develop a single land use map for the Conservation Strategy. Future land uses were assumed to be consistent with the County's general and specific plans (East County Area Plan [2002[; South Livermore Valley Area Plan [adopted by Alameda County Board of Supervisors on February 3, 1993]); and the general plans for the City of Dublin [2008], City of Livermore [2004], and the City of Pleasanton [2OO9b]). The County's general and specific plans project future land use to 2010, and the Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton general plans project future land use to 2025. Using these • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -3 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • projections for this strategy is appropriate given the strength of each jurisdiction's commitment to constraining future growth within established UGBs (see Section 2.2.3 below for a discussion of local land use controls). One hundred five land use planning designations from the four land use authorities were aggregated into the following three simplified land use planning categories: • Urban /Developed; • Private agriculture, and /or Rangelands; and • Public Lands. Development of these categories was guided by the nature of the potential activities that will require a discretionary permit within each land use category and their relative impact on biological resources. For example, the many urban land use categories (e.g., commercial, industrial, mixed use) were combined into a single land use category, "Urban /Developed," because all of the land uses result in similar effects on biological resources. Table 2 -1 shows general plan land uses and the land use categories to which they were converted for this strategy. Some land use designations were split into two or more of the land use categories for this strategy. • 2.2.2.2 Generalized Land Use Categories Historically, agriculture has played a major role in the economy of Alameda County (Alameda County Community Development Department 2008). Agriculture continues to be an important part of modern east Alameda County, as the majority of land is used for agriculture, primarily ranching (Alameda County Community Development Agency 2007). Other land uses include residential, industrial, commercial, open space, parklands, public watersheds, and mixed use. Many of these land uses also incorporate grazing, which results in some overlap in land use designations. Generalized land use and planning designations are shown on Figure 2- 1.This map depicts land use designations that include both developed and undeveloped areas (for actual land cover, see Section 2.4.1.1). The Urban /Developed land use planning category includes all industrial, commercial, mixed use, institutional, public facilities, public /quasi - public, circulation, and major educational facilities land use designations. The study area is 271,485 acres, of which 42,088 acres (approximately 15.5 %) are categorized as Urban Development. The Agriculture and Rangelands land use planning category includes lands that are actively used for or have been used in the recent past (fallow) for • agricultural production. In the study area, most of this land is either in East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -4 October 2010 OF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting vineyards, used for livestock production, or is in dry land farming. The Agriculture and Rangelands land use planning category comprises 167,449 acres (approximately 61.7 %) of the study area. The Public Lands land use planning category includes lands that are used for park or recreation purposes. This category includes lands that are considered publicly owned open space or regional parks that may contain some trails but do not have extensive park facilities or amenities. This category comprises 61,949 acres (approximately 23 %) of the study area. It should be noted that many of these public lands are rangeland and are grazed by livestock. The Public Lands land use category does not encompass all open space lands in the study area. For example, many private conservation easements or small public open space areas are designated as different land use categories in planning documents. Others are currently used as rangelands, and thus appear under the Agriculture and Rangeland designation on Figure 2 -1. Section 2.2.4 discusses existing open space in the study area. Special Land Use Designations There are other areas within the study area that have special designations by state (Williamson Act; see discussion below), or under county or city general plans. These are overlay designations that are additive to the underlying • jurisdictional general plan designations. The areas are shown in Figure 2 -1 and include County Resource Management, Livermore Resource Management, Pleasanton Wildlands, and Wind Resource Area. Williamson Act lands are described but not shown on Figure 2 -1. County Resource Management This includes areas outside the County UGB, east of the city of Dublin and the area surrounding SFPUC watershed lands in the southwestern part of the study area (Figure 2 -1). This designation is intended mainly for land designated for long -term preservation as open space but may include low intensity agriculture, grazing, and very low- density residential use. Allowable uses include agriculture, grazing, recreational, and open spaces (Alameda County Community Development Agency 2002). Livermore Resource Management This area is located north of Livermore and east of the city of Dublin (Figure 2- 1). It overlaps with lands designated as County Resource Management (Alameda County Community Development Agency 2002). It is intended mainly for land designated for long -term preservation as open space, but may include low - intensity agricultural or residential uses. The Resource Management designation provides for agricultural uses, recreational uses, habitat protection, watershed management, public and quasi - public uses, secondary residential units, active • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -5 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • sand and gravel and other quarries, reclaimed quarry lakes, and similar and compatible uses. This designation is also applied to areas unsuitable for development because of public health and safety hazards or environmentally sensitive features. One single - family home per parcel is allowed provided that all relevant development standards are met (City of Livermore 2004). Pleasanton Wildlands This area is located south of the city of Pleasanton, bordered by Interstate (I -) 680 on the west and extending south to San Antonio Reservoir (Figure 2 -1). This area is outside of the city of Pleasanton; it is within Alameda County and is under County jurisdiction. The area includes lands identified as wildlife corridors and valuable plant and wildlife habitats such as arroyos, the San Antonio Reservoir area, highly vegetated areas, and other natural areas necessary to maintain significant populations of plant and animal species. Wind Resource Area Alameda County, along with the Golden Gate Audubon Society and several private wind energy companies, are currently developing a regional conservation plan for the wind resource area. This area is located in the northeastern part of Alameda County, extending to the Contra Costa and San Joaquin County lines on the north and east, and through the Altamont Hills to • the west (Figure 2 -1). This area has special designation due to existing wind energy facilities and the intention to continue to develop and utilize wind resources in the future. This designation is primarily to facilitate real estate disclosures about existing wind energy facilities and the potential for future- wind facility uses. The designation also restricts changes in land use that are incompatible with future wind energy generation (Alameda County Community Development Agency 2002). California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) The purpose of the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (California Government Code 51200 - 51295), commonly known as the Williamson Act, is to provide incentives, through reduced property taxes, to deter the early conversion of agricultural and open space lands. In return for the preferential tax rate, the landowner is required to sign a contract with the county or city agreeing not to develop the land for a minimum 10 -year period. Contracts are automatically renewed annually unless a party to the contract files a notice of nonrenewal or petitions for cancellation. All lands defined by the state as "prime farmland, other than prime farmland, and open space land" are eligible for coverage by a Williamson Act contract. Land classified as other than Prime Farmland or open space land can be placed under contract if it is located in an area designated by a county or city as an agricultural preserve. Approximately 24% of Alameda County is under Williamson Act contract. Nearly all of that is in • the study area and comprises nonprime agricultural land. There are several East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -6 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting parcels of prime farmland south of Livermore. Nearly all of this is under • permanent agricultural conservation easements held by the Tri- Valley Conservancy. However, on July 28, 2009, the Governor of California signed the austere 2009- 2010 Budget Act (Assembly Bill 1, Fourth.Extraordinary Session and various associated bills), which drastically affected the Williamson Act. During this budget term, counties and cities will not be reimbursed by the state for property taxes not received as a result of land that is not developed. This enactment is a strong disincentive for counties and cities to continue their Williamson Act programs, and to enter into any additional contracts. The repercussions of the 2009 -2010 Budget Act may impact Williamson Act lands in Alameda County. 2.2.3 Land Use Controls The existing boundaries of urban growth are discussed below forth county and each participating city. 2.2.3.1 Boundaries to Urban Growth The establishment of an UGB is an important mechanism utilized by cities and • counties to encourage growth within a specified area to avoid urban sprawl. Development within an UGB reduces impacts on farmland, wildlife habitat, energy consumption, and pollution. The UGB also creates buffers between communities. Areas outside of the UGB may not be suitable for development due to significant natural resources, agricultural uses, or issues related to public health and safety. Conversely, some areas within the UGB may not be suitable for development for the same reasons. The following sections describe UGBs established in Alameda County and the cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton. Alameda County Measure D was passed in November 2000 by the Alameda County electorate. The measure, called the Save Agriculture and Open Space Lands Initiative, amended segments of Alameda County's general plan, which includes the East County Area Plan (ECAP) (Alameda County Community Development Agency 2002). The Initiative had several purposes: to preserve and enhance agriculture and agricultural lands; to protect natural resources, wildlife habitats, watersheds, and open space lands of Alameda County; and to limit suburban sprawl. • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -7 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • To accomplish these goals, Measure D amended the general plan to establish the County's UGB. The County's UGB focuses urban -type development in and near existing cities (Alameda County Community Development Agency 2002). Urban development within the UGB allows for efficient delivery of public services and utilities, avoiding increased costs to taxpayers and impacts to the environment (Alameda County Community Development Agency 2002). Measure D applies to all areas of Alameda County, providing the UGB was established after the adoption of this measure. General and specific plans for cities within Alameda County have been amended, or will be amended, to comply with Measure D. Since Pleasanton's UGB was adopted in 1996, prior to the passage of Measure D, it is exempt from this requirement. The County UGB in the Conservation Strategy study area encompasses the cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton (Figure 2 -1). Dublin The general plan for the city of Dublin designates Planning Area Boundaries to limit the development that occurs outside of the city limits (City of Dublin 2008). The planning area limits are defined by the Primary Planning Area Boundary, the Eastern Extended Planning Area Boundary, and the Western Extended Planning • Area Boundary (City of Dublin 2008). The Primary Planning Area is entirely within the city limits of Dublin. The Eastern Extended Planning Area (approximately 4,200 acres) utilizes a Development Elevation Cap Policy, which does not allow development above 770 feet without a new specific plan or an amendment to the current general plan (City of Dublin 2008). The Eastern Extended Planning Area is the largest remaining area in Dublin available for development. An Urban Limit Line for the Western Extended Planning Area (approximately 500 acres) was adopted in November 2007 and follows the existing city limit line. The Urban Limit Line was defined to protect natural resources in the hills west of Dublin. Development outside the Urban Limit Line is not permitted without an amendment to the land use designation in the city's general plan (City of Dublin 2008). Livermore The city of Livermore is entirely within an UGB (City of Livermore 2004). The UGB was established in order to protect agricultural and natural resources and to prevent future urban development outside Livermore (City of Livermore 2004). The UGB was finalized after two initiatives were passed. The first, passed by local voters in March of 2000, is the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative, which defines the UGB around the southern portion of the city (City of Livermore 2004). The second, passed by the Livermore City Council in • December of 2002, is the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative, East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -8 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting and defines the UGB around the northern portion of Livermore (City of • Livermore 2004). Pleasanton The city of Pleasanton defines an UGB in the general plan, passed by voters in 1996 (City of Pleasanton 2009b). Areas outside of the Pleasanton UGB are designated unsuitable for development due to important natural resources, agricultural resources, parks and recreation, regional significant wildlands, or scenic ridgelines (City of Pleasanton 2009b). The UGB is also used to protect public health and safety and to create a buffer between communities. Although the UGB is intended to permanently designate areas where development will not occur, there are provisions under the initiative that allow for adjustments (City of Pleasanton 2009b). If a proposed amendment is otherwise consistent with the general plan; would not have a significant adverse affect on agriculture, wildlands, or scenic ridgeline views; is contiguous with existing urban development; would not induce further adjustments to the UGB; and would provide for urban public facilities and services in an efficient and timely manner, the adjustment to the UGB may be granted (City of Pleasanton 2009b). 2.2.4 Open Space (Public Lands and Private Easements) Alameda County and the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin are closely connected to the surrounding natural landscapes. As described above, the Public Lands land use planning category provides an incomplete picture of open space areas within the study area. Missing are private conservation easements and small public lands that may be important conservation areas. It is critical to understand the location and biological values of all open space in the study area so that the Conservation Strategy can identify gaps in local protection and help to fill those gaps. The following section provides an overview of existing open space within the study area. 2.2.4.1 Existing Conditions For the purposes of this study, open space land in East Alameda County consists of public lands or private lands within existing protections through conservation easements or deed restrictions (see "Open Space Classification" section below for further explanation and examples). Public and private open space lands in the study area are subject to a variety of resource - management regimes. As a result, the level of habitat protection varies amongst the existing open space, providing different habitat for the focal species and natural communities. • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -9 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • Management for natural resources on these lands helps support focal species and other native species and maintains the functions of natural communities. Because some of these existing open space lands will be relied upon to support the Conservation Strategy, existing open space need to be distinguished by their value to the strategy. To do this, open space areas have been categorized as described below. The value of protected open space areas for focal species and natural communities is greatest when land use protections and stewardship are in place in perpetuity. Type 1 open space lands (see "Open Space Classification" below for definition of land types) are considered lands protected in perpetuity. The value of open space for the strategy is similarly improved when a natural resource management plan is in place and adequate funding exists to maintain or enhance populations or natural communities. Open space areas that do not have land use protections in perpetuity but do have ecological protection as their primary management goal may still support the Conservation Strategy. However, because of the lack of permanent and irrevocable protections and adequate stewardship funding, there is a risk of changes in land use or resource management emphasis in the future. The categories that fall under this are Type 2 Open Space lands. The following classification of open space was developed to account for • differences in land use protections and resource management emphasis and to assist in the development of the Conservation Strategy. 2.2.4.2 Open Space Classification The protection and resource management status of open space lands has been evaluated and classified based on the level of land use protection and the general level of ecological management. Each open space unit within the study area was assigned to one of four resource management types (Type 1, 2, 3, or 4) using the decision - making process shown in Figure 2 -2. The location of all open space categories is shown on Figure 2 -3. The amount of land protected as open space is summarized in Table 2 -2. Type 1 Open Space is permanently protected public or private land subject to conservation easement or deed restriction, where the primary purpose and management goal of the land is for ecological protection. This is considered the most protection. Examples of Type 1 Open Space include the areas under conservation easement at Brushy Peak Regional Preserve, the Ohlone Conservation Bank, or other private lands subject to a conservation easement. Many of these areas are managed using livestock grazing. Type 2 Open Space includes public lands where the primary intent of land management is for ecological protection but the land is not subject to • irrevocable protection such as a conservation easement or deed restriction. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -10 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting Type 2 Open Space lands could become changed to Type 1 lands, or reduced in • protection to become Type 3 or 4 lands. Examples of Type 2 Open Space include Ohlone and Sunol Wilderness, the portion of Brushy Peak Regional Preserve not under conservation easement, Sycamore Grove Park, and Springtown Alkali Sink. Many of these areas are managed using livestock grazing. Type 3 Open Space involves public lands that may contain some land uses other than ecological protection. These lands would include parklands classified as parks, open space, or special protection units where something other than ecological protection is designated as the primary use (e.g., recreation, watershed protection). Type 3 could also include private lands under agricultural easement to preserve livestock grazing or dry land farming. Also included would be the undeveloped portions of watersheds under ownership or management by a public agency, including SFPUC, California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Zone 7, and Alameda County Water District (ACWD). Other large examples of Type 3 Open Space includes Site 300 (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory), Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area, and Del Valle Regional Park. This area is considered least protected out of the other types. Public access is varied. It could potentially be more protected to become Type 2 lands or these lands could be sold for development. Recreation activities in these parks are often not conducive to management of natural resources. Type 4 Open Space consists of developed portions of public lands, such as Camp Parks Military Reservation, that retain some ecological value. It includes public golf courses, some landscaped areas, and developed neighborhood parks. Type 4 would also include private lands under agricultural easements to preserve vineyards, orchards, or other cultivated agriculture. Of the 271,485 -acre study area, 67,976 acres (25 %) are currently protected as open space (Types 1 through 4) (Table 2 -2). These areas range from urban parks to county and state parks of varying size. Protected open space also includes private or public lands protected by conservation easements or deed restrictions. It should be noted that while the open space designations were assigned based on the level of protection on each parcel, these designations are not representative of the type and quality of management that occurs there. In other words, a parcel that is designated as Type 4 Open Space could well be managed better and more consistently than a parcel that is designated as Type 1 Open Space. 2.2.4.3 Protection and Resource Management Status of Open Space Lands Open space lands in the study area are managed by several different agencies for a variety of purposes. The following section provides an overview of local land management agencies with holdings in the study area and the major open space units that they manage and operate. • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -11 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • California Department of Parks and Recreation In east Alameda County, California Department of Parks and Recreation owns Bethany Reservoir State Recreation Area (802 acres), Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area (3,850 acres), and Lake Del Valle State Recreation Area (5,005 acres) (State of California 2008; Figure 2 -3). Bethany Reservoir is the northern terminus of the California Aqueduct. The associated Bethany Reservoir State Recreation Area provides opportunities for water recreation, including fishing and windsurfing as well as biking along the California Aqueduct Bikeway. Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area is located on the eastern edge of the study area. The park straddles the Alameda /San Joaquin County line. The park provides active riding area on a diversity of terrain ranging from rolling hills to steep canyons. Lake Del Valle State Recreation Area surrounds Lake Del Valle and provides hiking, horseback riding, and water recreation. It is also the eastern gateway to the 28 -mile Chlone Trail. This park is operated by EBRPD. East Bay Regional Park District The EBRPD offers and maintains 1,700 square miles (over 100,000 acres) of regional parks in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. EBRPD maintains 14 regional parks, 19 regional preserves, nine regional recreation areas, 13 regional shorelines, and 15 regional trails (East Bay Regional Park District 1997). EBRPD is currently in the process of preparing an HCP for several of their park lands in Contra Costa County. EBRPD manages approximately 85,000 acres of regional parks, which are typically large parklands with high biological value that also have recreational opportunities. To be considered under this classification under EBRPD standards, a regional park must be at least 500 acres, including land and water, and must include scenic or natural resources in at least 70% of the park area (East Bay Regional Park District 1997). Regional parks also have the capacity to accommodate a range of recreational activities, as long as recreational areas are less than 30% of the overall park area (East Bay Regional Park District 1997). Regional parks in the study area are Del Valle Regional Park (5,005 acres), Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park (3,387 acres), and Vargas Plateau Regional Park (1,043 acres) (Figure 2 -3). Regional preserves, including wilderness areas, are ecologically valuable areas with significant natural or cultural features (East Bay Regional Park District 1997). A regional preserve may include such essential features as open space, wilderness, scenic beauty, flora, or fauna; or archeological, historic, or geological resources (East Bay Regional Park District 1997). Regional preserves have irrevocable protection within the EBRPD (some regional preserves also have irrevocable conservation easements associated with them). Regional preserves in the study area provide important protections for focal species and • natural communities targeted by this Conservation Strategy. Regional preserves East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -12 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting in the study area are Sunol Regional Wilderness (6,881 acres), Ohlone Regional • Wilderness (8,714 acres), Brushy Peak Regional Preserve (406 acres), and Mission Peak Regional Preserve (470 acres) (Figure 2 -3). Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300 Site 300, located in eastern Alameda and western San Joaquin Counties north of Corral Hollow Road (Figure 2 -3), is owned and operated by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for the purpose of conducting unique scientific experiments. Research includes explosives tests and fabrication, reactions of materials under high pressure and temperature (shock physics), and hydrodynamic tests, among others (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 2008a). The site is approximately 7,000 acres in size, 803 acres of which is in the Conservation Strategy study area. Site 300 is inhabited by a diverse assemblage of flora and fauna. From its southern boundary within the Corral Hollow Creek floodplain, the property rises in a series of southeast - northwest trending ridges to nearly the northern perimeter. Several ephemeral streams flow through Site 300 during the wet winter months and discharge into Corral Hollow Creek at the southern boundary of the site. Most flow is direct runoff with a very small contribution from both intermittent and perennial springs (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory • 2008b). Less than 5% of the property -area is developed. Developed areas with buildings are generally separated from wildland settings with high- security fences, and very few of these developed areas provide habitat for native flora and fauna. The most common vegetation types found at Site 300 are California annual grassland, native grassland, coastal sage scrub, and oak woodlands. California annual grassland covers about 5,647 acres of the property. The native perennial grassland community is dominated by pine (one- sided) bluegrass and purple needlegrass and covers about 723 acres of the property. Stands of native grasslands are confined mainly to the northern half of the facility. Occurrence of native grass- dominated vegetation appears to be associated with annual controlled burning. Another major vegetation community, coastal sage scrub, occurs in the southwestern part of the site and covers approximately 108 acres (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 2008b). Livermore Area Parks and Recreation District Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD) defines open space parks and preserves as "larger land areas with outstanding natural or cultural features warranting conservation for their natural value, educational benefit and enjoyment by the public' (Livermore Area Recreation and Park District 2008). Within the study area, LARPD currently owns and operates two open space • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -13 October 2010 OF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • parks: Sycamore Grove Park /Veterans Park (774 acres) and Holdener Park (55 acres); and one open space preserve, Garaventa Wetlands Preserve (24 acres). LARPD owns 507 acres of Brushy Peak Regional Preserve (the remainder is owned by EBRPD), but the entire Preserve is managed by East Bay Regional Park District (Livermore Area Recreation and Park District 2008). Overall, LARPD parks and preserves represent 1,360 acres of natural open space (Livermore Area Recreation and Park District 2008). LARPD also owns and manages several trail facilities. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Watershed Lands The SFPUC owns, leases, and manages 63,000 acres of watershed lands across three counties in California (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 2008). The Alameda Watershed, which is split between Santa Clara and Alameda Counties, includes 36,000 acres of SFPUC watershed lands, of which 23,000 acres are located in Alameda County (Figure 2 -3; San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 2008). The Alameda Watershed is used primarily for water storage and supply from two major reservoirs: San Antonio and Calaveras. Water supplies for Calaveras Reservoir originate from local runoff. San Antonio Reservoir is supplied by local sources as well as water from the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct that transfers water from the Sierra Nevada. While the primary • purpose of SFPUC watershed lands is for watershed protection, the agency also uses the watershed lands for several other purposes, including quarry operations, plant nurseries, utilities routing, and water conveyance. The entire areas is managed under a grazing management plan to enhance native flora and fauna. This watershed is valuable for wildlife and plant life, supporting more than 17 types of natural communities (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 2008). SFPUC is currently preparing an HCP for operations and maintenance within its Alameda Watershed lands. Tri- Valley Conservancy The Tri - Valley Conservancy oversees conservation easements and manages lands in eastern Alameda County, including north and south Livermore, south Pleasanton, west Altamont Hills area, and the future Chain of Lakes Recreation Area. The purpose of the Tri - Valley Conservancy is "to permanently protect the fertile soils, rangelands, open space, and biological resources and to support a viable agricultural economy in the Tri Valley Area" (Tri - Valley Conservancy 2005). The Tri - Valley Conservancy protects lands through acquisitions, conservation easements, deed restrictions, conditional transfers, reverter clauses, management agreements, leases, mutual covenants, and donations. The Tri - Valley Conservancy also has ongoing stewardship programs for acquired lands. The Tri - Valley Conservancy got its start in 1994 in southern Livermore with the approval of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan (City of Livermore • 1993) and the dedication of numerous agricultural easements on vineyards to East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -14 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting ensure this land use persisted in that area. The original purpose of the Tri - Valley Conservancy has expanded to other areas of the Tri- Valley region, including the north Livermore Valley (Tri - Valley Conservancy 2008). The Tri - Valley Conservancy now operates throughout most of the study area in Livermore, Dublin, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Sunol. 2.3 Physical Resources This section describes the physical setting of the study area, including location, topography, geology and soils, and hydrology. Sources used to map and describe the physical setting of the study area are listed below: • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data on topography and hydrology (U.S. Geological Survey 1999), • geologic maps of the area (California Department of Conservation 1990), • soil survey information (Welch 1981; Welch et al. 1966), • serpentine and alkaline soils derived from soil survey information (Welch 1981; Welch et al. 1966), • aspect and slope derived from USGS data on topography and hydrology (U.S. Geological Survey 1999), and • watershed data from California Interagency Watershed Map (CalWater version 2.2.1) (California Interagency Watershed Mapping Committee 1999). Topography, hydrology, and soil data were downloaded from agency websites and imported into ArcMap, where files were clipped and converted into the projection for the study area. 2.3.1 Location The study area covers approximately 271,485 acres in the eastern portion of Alameda County. The study area is bounded by the Contra Costa County line to the north, the San Joaquin County line to the east, the Santa Clara County line to the south, and the ridgeline of the East Bay Hills to the west. The western boundary of the study area is the western boundary of the Alameda Creek watershed. 2.3.2 Topography The topography of the study area is extremely variable, ranging from steep ridges of the northern Diablo Range in the east to rolling hills of the East Bay East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -15 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 • • r L J Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • Hills in the west to expansive valleys in the north - central and northeast portions of the study area. Elevations in the study area range from 3,840 feet along Valpe Ridge in the Diablo Range to 10 feet in the extreme northeast corner of the study area, near the Delta- Mendota Canal. Other important low points in the study area include the Sunol Valley at approximately 125 feet above mean sea level and the extensive Livermore Valley, ranging from 400 to 500 feet and containing the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin. Notable peaks and other high points in the study area include Cedar Mountain at 3,675 feet,. Man Ridge at 3,500 feet, and Wauhab Ridge at 3,200 feet, all of which are located within the northern Diablo Range in the southeast portion of the study area (Figure 2 -4). 2.3.3 Geology and Soils 2.3.3.1 Regional Geologic Context The Conservation Strategy area is located within the central portion of the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province. In the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area), the Coast Ranges Province is characterized by a series of northwest- trending en- echelon ridges and valleys bounded by active faults of the San Andreas system, which forms the boundary between the Pacific and North American tectonic • plates (Norris and Webb 1990). From west to east, these faults include the San Gregorio, the San Andreas, the Hayward- Rodgers Creek, Calaveras, Concord - Green Valley, Greenville, and Ortigalita, together with a number of smaller structures. 2.3.3.2 Geology of the Study Area The study area can be divided into four distinctive geologic domains: the East Bay Hills, northern Diablo Range, Livermore Valley, and Mount Diablo uplift. The northwest - trending East Bay Hills are located on the western edge of the study area and are bounded on the west by the Hayward fault and on the east by the Calaveras fault. The Hayward fault zone is a complex deformational front that shows an overall right - lateral sense of separation but includes fault strands characterized as west - vergent thrusts, steeply dipping east - vergent thrusts, and vertical or near - vertical faults (Crane 1995). At the latitude of the study area, the central portion of the East Bay Hills uplift exposes deep marine sedimentary rocks of Cretaceous age, variously mapped as the Panoche Formation (Wagner et al. 1991) and as yet unnamed sandstone and shale (Graymer et al. 1996). Along the east flank of the uplift, the primarily right -slip Calaveras fault juxtaposes markedly different geologic formations. On both sides of this fault zone, the substrate is a complexly faulted and folded terrain. To the immediate west of the Calaveras fault zone along the plan area boundary; the substrate is • largely composed of shallow marine sandstone, conglomerate, and shell breccia East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -16 October 2010 Cl` 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting of the Miocene Briones Formation. East of the Calaveras fault, surface • exposures consist of surficial alluvial and landslide deposits of Holocene age (Graymer et al. 1996). The southern and eastern portion of the plan area encompasses the northern Diablo Range, which is the easternmost principal uplift of the central Coast Ranges province. The structure of the Diablo Range is broadly antiformal, with a core of Franciscan rocks such as Eylar Mountain terrain (sandstone, siltstone, conglomerate and chert), Melange terrane, and Undivided Franciscan greenstone (Graymer at al. 1996), flanked by younger sedimentary strata (Norris and Webb 1990). The Altamont Hills, in the northeastern -most corner of the plan area, are characterized by the sands, pebbles, and white sandstone of the Miocene -Age Neroly Formation and Cierbo Formation, as well as interbedded deep marine sandstone and shale of Late Cretaceous age. South and west of the Altamont Hills, the structure of the Diablo Range is largely influenced by the presence of the northwest - striking Ortigalita fault, just east of the range's crest. The area directly on the fault juxtaposes conglomerate and sandstone of the Panoche Formation (Great Valley Group) against Franciscan bedrock (Wagner et al. 1991; Graymer et al. 1996). The Panoche Formation is overlain by an east - dipping sequence of clastic sedimentary strata ranging in age from Eocene through Quaternary of marine and shell marine origin (Sullivan and Waters 1980). The Livermore Valley, containing the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, lies • south and west of the Diablo Range and east of the East Bay Hills. This valley, an east -west trending valley, unique to this area, is a deep alluviated depression (011enburger 1986) containing sediments deposited as part of the Livermore Gravels Formation. The Greenville fault forms the eastern border of this valley, separating it from the western foothills of the Diablo Range. It is postulated that the Greenville Fault is connected to the Concord Fault at depth by a buried "blind" thrust fault system (Wetlands Research Associates 2004). It is this interaction of the Greenville and Concord Faults that has created the Mount Diablo uplift, a presently active (Crane 1995), Late Quaternary tectonic feature located in the north - central portion of the study area. The bedrock structure of the Mount Diablo uplift is composed of rocks of the Miocene Green Valley/ Tassajara Formation and is postulated to contain deposits of the Livermore Gravels Formation (Graymer et al. 1996). The core of the Mount Diablo uplift, located just north of the plan area, contains older Franciscan rocks, flanked by east- and westward - younging sedimentary strata of Eocene through Pliocene age. 2.3.3.3 Soils Because of the geologic, microchmatic, and topographic diversity of the study area, the soils are also very diverse, and a large number of individual soil units have been mapped. These have been organized into four soil associations East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -17 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • consisting of soil units of similar texture and composition and related derivation. Following is a general overview of soil characteristics in the study area, by geographic position (Soil Conservation Service 1966) (Figure 2 -5). m East Bay Hills. Soils in the moderately sloping to very steep areas of the East Bay Hills are mainly silt loam soils assigned to the Millsholm —Los Gatos — Los Osos association. Soils in the more gently sloping easternmost portion of these hills are clay loams and gravelly loams of the Positas- Perkins association. 0 Northern Diablo Range. The portion of the Diablo Range that falls within the study area is characterized by clay soils of the Altamont - Diablo association to the north and various rocky foams of the Vallecitos- Parrish association to the south. m Livermore Valley. The Livermore Valley floodplain supports very gravelly soils assigned to the Yolo- Pleasanton association, interspersed with loams and clays of the Rincon -San Ysidro association. e Mount Diablo Uplift. The soils of the Mount Diablo uplift are largely clays of the Altamont - Diablo association cut by creek beds containing clay and loam of the Clear Lake — Sunnyvale association. Of particular importance from a conservation perspective are the study area's serpentine and alkali soils. Serpentine soils are typically very shallow, nutrient- poor (i.e., containing low levels of nitrogen, potassium, phosphorous, and molybdenum essential for normal plant growth), and high in magnesium, and may contain elevated levels of the heavy metals chromium and nickel that are toxic to many plant species (Kruckeberg 1954, 1984). Water availability in serpentine soils may also be limited (Davis et al. 1997). As a result, serpentine soils support limited and highly specialized floras and vegetation associations that often include a high number of endemic (i.e., largely or entirely restricted to serpentine soils) and special - status species (Kruckeberg 1984, Safford et al. 2005). The only serpentine soil found in the study area is eroded Henneke rocky loam soil type. These soils are found only in the southern portion of the study area, with large deposits in the northern Diablo Range, in areas such as Cedar Mountain, and in smaller areas found in the East Bay Hills (Figure 2 -6). Another soil type that can support rare and sometimes endemic flora is alkali soils. Alkali soils are created through the process of alkalization —the accumulation of exchangeable sodium in soils. This accumulation generally occurs when water evaporation or absorption pushes the soil solution to a point where calcium and magnesium are no longer soluble and the relative proportion of sodium increases as a result (Richards 1954). As a result of this relatively high level of sodium, alkali soils support a number of endemic and special- status species. Alkali grasslands and alkali wetlands occur only on alkali soils and contain a variety of halophytic plant species (species adapted to high salinity levels). Alkali soils of the plan area include the Pescadero clay and Solano fine • sandy loam, which are found only in the northeastern portion of the study area East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -18 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting (Figure 2 -6). There are approximately 4,234 acres of alkali soils within the study • area, most of which exist in small exposures scattered throughout the northeastern portion of the study zone, particularly in drainages or depressions. However, there are two large expanses of alkali soils that support unique wetland and grassland habitats in the study area: Springtown Alkali Sink, located just north and east of the city of Livermore, and the Mountain House Grasslands and Wetlands complex in the northeast corner of the study area. The characteristics of both of these unique areas are discussed later in this chapter in Section 2.4.3.6, "Wetlands." 2.3.4 Climate Climatically,.the study area is intermediate between the moderate, marine Mediterranean conditions of the Bay Area and the more marked seasonality of the interior Central Valley. The study area is characterized as a standard Mediterranean climate in that it has extended periods of precipitation during the winter months and virtually no precipitation from spring through autumn. For the period January 1903— December 2008, average annual maximum temperature in Livermore was 73.2° F; average minimum was 45.5° F. During that same period, the warmest month is July and the coolest is January (Western Regional Climate Center 2009). The wet season generally extends from November through April, while rainfall • from May through October tends to be minimal. Annual average rainfall varies significantly due to topography and related orographic and rain shadow effects. The average annual rainfall varies in the study area and fluctuates depending on elevation and aspect. For example, at Calaveras Reservoir, in the southwest corner of the study area, average annual precipitation was 20.10 inches for the period August 1959 —June 1977; in Livermore for the period of January 1903 — December 31, 2008 average annual precipitation was 14.22 inches (Western Regional Climate Center 2009). Just outside of the study area to the east, average annual rainfall In Lone Creek Canyon was 7.65 inches for the period October 1943 —June 1969 (Western Regional Climate Center 2009). However, average rainfall figures can be somewhat misleading because, in addition to seasonal variation, droughts in California are not uncommon. Snow may occur in the mountains in the southern half of the study area, where the headwaters for the watersheds are located, but it melts quickly and does not provide significant flow in the late spring to early summer. 2.3.4.1 Global Climate Change Global climate change is the observed increase in mean global temperature due to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, primarily carbon dioxide, as a result of human industrialization (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -19 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • Global climate change is also predicted to include secondary global effects such as sea -level rise and changing weather patterns. Current global and regional trends suggest that climate change is likely to have an effect on the study area. However, current or near -term forecasting technology for modeling changes in climate at the regional or county scale is not effective. Most global climate models predict temperature increases. The change in temperature over the past century is a global average of 0.6 °C (33 °F). To make predictions of future climate change, the baseline is set using the historical average from 1961 to 1990. A temperature increase as high as 6 °C (42.8 °F) is predicted under climate change scenarios (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007), temperatures during the twenty -first century are predicted to increase from 2 to 3 °C (35.6- 37.4 °F) along the western, southern, and eastern continental edges to more than 5 °C (41 °F) in the northern region. California - based models project average annual temperatures to rise by 3 °C (37.47) during the next 50 years (Hayhoe et al. 2004, Cayan et al. 2008). There is considerable uncertainty on whether precipitation will increase or decrease over the next half century as a result of climate change. Model predictions for California range from a 6 millimeter (0.24 inch) decrease in precipitation to a 70 millimeter (2.8 inch) increase (Hayhoe et al. 2004). Consequently, it is likely that the climate in the study area would shift to be either warmer and wetter or • warmer and dryer. Second, range and distribution of species and natural communities may shift (Parmesan 1999; Pimm 2001; Walther et al. 2002; Easterling et al. 2000). (Range is the area over which a species occurs or potentially occurs, whereas distribution refers to where a species is located within its range.) This is of particular concern for narrowly distributed species that already have restricted ranges due to urban growth or altitudinal gradients. Also, increases in disturbance events, such as fire or flooding, could increase the distribution of disturbance - dependent land cover types, such as annual grassland within the study area (Brown and Hebda 1998; Lenihan et al. 2003; Fried et al. 2004; California Climate Change Center 2006; Rogers and Westfall 2007). An increase in the frequency and intensity of disturbance could increase the likelihood that these events will harm or kill individual covered species, many of which are already quite rare. Events that occur with unpredictable or random frequency (called stochastic events) such as those described above can have an inordinately negative effect on rare species. Third, the number or density of individuals found in a particular location may change. This may be triggered in large part by changes in resource availability associated with an increase or decrease in precipitation (Martin 1998; Dukes and Mooney 1999; Walther et al. 2002; Lenihan et al. 2003; Millar et al. 2006; Pounds et al. 2006). Changes such as these may benefit one species at the • expense of another. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -20 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting Fourth, over a longer time period, species may change in outward appearance and behavior. Changes in climate may favor different adaptive strategies or appearances that may lead to genetic shifts (Davis and Shaw 2001). 2.3.5 Hydrology The Alameda Creek watershed is by far the largest watershed in the county, covering more than 635 square miles (including 77% of the county), and stretching from Mount Diablo (Contra Costa County) in the north, to Mount Hamilton in the south (Santa Clara County), to Altamont Pass in the east. The general drainage pattern is east to west through three major arroyos: Arroyo las Positas, Arroyo Mocho, and Arroyo del Valle. These arroyos join Arroyo de la Laguna in Pleasanton, which drains the Livermore Valley in a southerly direction approximately 18 miles to San Francisco Bay via Niles Canyon and Alameda Creek outside of the study area (Zone 7 Water Agency 2006) (Figure 2 -7). Runoff from the northern region flows to tributaries of Alameda Creek. Runoff from much of the southern part of the watershed is either collected and stored in Calaveras and San Antonio Reservoirs, which are part of San Francisco's water system (SFPUC owns 36,000 acres of the watershed), or is collected in Lake Del Valle. Most of the watershed is undeveloped, and is either in private rangelands • or public lands. Only about 7% of the total acreage of the watershed is developed. For about 39 miles, Alameda Creek flows from its headwaters on the northwestern slopes of the Diablo Range in Santa Clara County to south San Francisco Bay. Headwater elevations are close to 4,000 -feet, with stream gradients downstream through the upper reaches varying from between 1 and 5 %. Alameda Creek is an intermittently perennial stream in the upper watershed, but in the Sunol Valley, where principal stream channels are broad and the substrate Is characterized by deep, coarse alluvium, a high rate of infiltration results in dry reaches during the summer months. Many of the tributaries that supply flows to Alameda Creek are historically intermittent and can be isolated from the mainstem beginning in early to midsummer (Welch et al. 1961). This is especially true of streams, both natural and channelized, that drain the Livermore Valley. For example, the natural hydrology of the Alameda Creek watershed has been altered by water supply activities as well as by development and flood control. Discharges from quarries in the Pleasanton area contribute intermittent flow in Arroyo de la Laguna, which joins Alameda Creek just upstream of Niles Canyon (Gunther et al. 2000). Most of the flow for Arroyo de la Laguna comes from releases from Lake del Valle, as well as flow from Arroyo los Positas, San Ramon creek, and Alamo Creek. Arroyo de la Laguna is the main tributary that feeds into Alameda Creek from the northwest (Figure 2 -7). Arroyo de la Laguna's • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -21 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • channel drains approximately 400 square miles of Alameda Creek watershed in the Tri- Valley region (Alameda County Resource Conservation District 2006). Arroyo Mocho is a tributary of Arroyo de la Laguna, and its headwaters are located southeast of Livermore (Alameda Creek Alliance 2009). Arroyo Mocho has intermittent perennial flow due to fault zone seepage (Smith 1998) and the Zone 7 Artificial Recharge program that releases water from the South Bay Aqueduct into Arroyo Mocho and recharges groundwater resources (RMC 2006). This in turn has disrupted the natural hydrologic regime in Arroyo Mocho and permanently altered the ecology of the stream downstream of Livermore. The Upper watershed is unaffected by Zone 7's artificial releases; and the "hydrologic regime" remains mostly "natural ". Arroyo Valle joins Arroyo de la Laguna from the north. Flows in Arroyo Valle below Lake Del Valle are regulated by DWR's dam operations (i.e., "flood releases" and Zone 7's and ACWD's "water rights" releases; whereas above the Lake the flow regime is "natural ". Sinbad Creek drains the valley created by Sunol Ridge and Pleasanton Ridge (Leidy et al. 2003). It is 7.5 miles long and drains a 6.44 -mile area, joining Arroyo de la Laguna 0.5 mile upstream of Alameda Creek (Herron et al. 2004). Arroyo Las Positas is the major drainage feature through the Livermore Valley, • draining approximately 7,000 acres. The creek originates in the Altamont Hills and continues in a westerly direction, following 1 -580 to the confluence with Arroyo Mocho, also a tributary to Alameda Creek. Arroyo Seco drains into Arroyo Las Positas from the north (Oakland Museum of California 2009). Arroyo Los Positas is a gaining stream in its upper reaches providing for perennial flows along its entire length. Stonybrook Creek is a tributary to Alameda Creek. The Stonybrook Creek watershed lies within Alameda County, about 7 miles east of Hayward. The watershed runs north to south and has a drainage area of 6.9 square miles. Elevations within the basin range from 160 feet at its mouth to 2,191 feet. Its mouth joins Alameda Creek in Niles Canyon, approximately 13 river miles upstream from San Francisco Bay (Love 2001). Upper Alameda, La Costa and Indian Creeks and Arroyo Hondo occur south of San Antonio Reservoir. Indian and La Costa Creeks both flow northward and terminate at the San Antonio Reservoir (Leidy et al. 2003) (Figure 2 -7). Calaveras Reservoir sits in the southwestern portion of the watershed, in both Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, while San Antonio Reservoir is to the north in Alameda County (SFPUC 2007). Three major reservoirs have a significant impact on present hydrologic conditions in Alameda Creek. Del Valle Reservoir was completed in 1968 and is operated as a component of DWR's State Water Project (SWP). Del Valle • Reservoir is managed as regulatory storage for the South Bay Aqueduct and for East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -22 October 2010 CF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting flood control and recreation. Del Valle Reservoir captures the entire flow of the Arroyo Valle watershed. ACWD and Zone 7 each have storage rights in Del Valle Reservoir of 7,500 acre -feet (af). The Del Valle watershed connects to Arroyo de la Laguna in the Livermore Plain. Part of the ACWD storage may be released to Arroyo Del Valle Creek, where it flows to Arroyo de la Laguna and Alameda Creek for recharge in the Niles Cone area. ' SFPUC completed San Antonio Reservoir in 1965 on San Antonio Creek, 1.5 miles upstream of its confluence with Alameda Creek. San Antonio Reservoir stores water from the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct and the SWP. It also captures all flows from the headwater streams of San Antonio Creek. SFPUC completed Calaveras Reservoir in 1925, but hydrologic conditions may have been altered as early as 1913 when construction of the dam began. Calaveras Dam is located about 0.8 mile upstream of the Alameda Creek confluence. Calaveras Reservoir captures the flow from Calaveras Creek and the large Arroyo Hondo tributary watershed. In addition, flows from upper Alameda Creek are diverted about 3 miles upstream of the Calaveras Creek confluence through the Alameda Creek Diversion Dam tunnel into Calaveras Reservoir. Calaveras Reservoir spills relatively infrequently, about once in 5 years on average, and spills are relatively small, averaging 275 cubic feet per second (Hagar et al. 1993). 2.4 Biological Resources • 2.4.1 Methods 2.4.1.1 Land Cover Mapping One of the primary data sources for the Conservation Strategy is a detailed map of land cover types within the study area based on the geographic information system (GIS). A land cover type is defined as the dominant character of the land surface discernible from aerial photographs, as determined by vegetation, water, or human uses. Land cover types are the most widely used units in analyzing ecosystem function, habitat diversity, natural communities, wetlands and streams, and covered species habitat. Data sources, mapping standards, and the classification and interpretation of land cover types are discussed below. Data Sources The following are the primary sources of information for the land cover mapping in the study area: East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -23 October 2010 OF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • ■ true -color aerial photographs (1.5 foot - resolution) flown in November 2005 (acquired from AirPhoto USA); e digital ortho photography (1 -meter [3.3 -foot) resolution) flown in January 2005 (acquired from National Agriculture Imagery Program); and a digital art ho photography (4 -inch resolution) flown in 2007 (acquired from Zone 7). J The ancillary data sources listed below were used to obtain information not available in the primary sources and to check the mapped information for accuracy: e wetlands in north Livermore and Alameda County from the Vasco - Laughlin Resource Conservation Plan (Jones & Stokes 2001); m Alameda Rare Plants data provided by California Native Plant Society; e Review of the land cover data layer in the north Livermore area by CNPS, especially with regard to polygons characterized as alkali meadow and scald, alkali wetland, valley sink scrub, seasonal wetland, and California annual grassland; ■ rare species occurrence point data from CNDDB (2009) [some land covers could be verified by the presence of associated rare plants]; ® local roads provided by the Environmental Science Research Institute (2008); m serpentine and alkaline soils derived from soil survey information (Welch 1981; Welch et al. 1966); and ® land cover data from the SFPUC Alameda Creek watershed HCP, digitized in 2003 and based on 2001 aerial photos. In addition to using existing data sets, ICF International staff conducted field visits in accessible portions of the study area to develop and verify land cover mapping. An initial field visit was conducted on January 25, 2008, to develop the land cover classification and to perform preliminary verification of aerial photograph signatures. Other field visits were conducted in August and September 2008 to verify land cover types and consistency of mapping and to collect additional data for land cover type descriptions. Initial mapping was verified by visual inspection from locations accessible by public roads and roads on state -owned and private lands. Areas were selected for field verification on the basis of the land cover types that were difficult to distinguish in aerial photos and accessibility. Once field visits were conducted, land cover mapping was revised on the basis of field findings. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -24 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting Land Cover Type Classification A classification system for land cover types was developed for the study area based primarily on CDFG's widely used classification system (California Department of Fish and Game 2003a, 2007), which in turn is based on the vegetation classification system developed for the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler -Wolf 1995). Additional input was obtained from field visits by ICF International staff and based on experience in mapping similar habitats in adjacent counties. The land cover classification system (Table 2 -3) was developed with input from vegetation and wildlife specialists familiar with the study area. The land cover classification was developed with the criteria listed below. ® Each land cover type must be distinguishable on the digital aerial photography based on a unique and consistent signature, or with the use of ancillary data such as soil types or geologic substrate. m Each land cover type should be useful to the Conservation Strategy in terms of defining the location and extent of an important vegetation type, habitat for covered species, or unique natural community. in The land cover type classification should be compatible with existing local, regional, and national land cover classification schemes when possible while reflecting the unique nature of many vegetative communities in Alameda • County. A list of land cover types is given in Table 2 -3. A comparison of land cover types and common statewide and regional vegetation classification systems is presented in the same table (Table 2 -3). An effort was also made to ensure that the land -cover classification of this Conservation Strategy was as consistent as possible with that of the other large conservation plans, including the East Contra Costa County HCP /NCCP and the Alameda Watershed HCP. Mapping Procedures ArcGIS 9.0 software was used to create a GIS dataset of land cover types. The land cover classification also defined the minimum mapping unit that was used for each land cover type. Minimum mapping units are the smallest area mapped for each type. Minimum mapping units range from 0.25 acre for wetland and riparian land cover types to 10 acres for most other land cover types. This range of minimum mapping units is sufficient for regional conservation planning and balances the need for high resolution (smaller minimum mapping unit) with schedule and budget limitations (larger minimum mapping unit). Minimum mapping units are also limited by the resolution of the imagery and the distinctiveness of the land cover signature relative to adjacent land cover. • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -25 October 2010 CF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • A 10 -acre minimum mapping unit was used for all land cover types, except for the land cover types noted below: • all wetland and aquatic types, which were mapped at a 0.25 -acre minimum mapping unit; • rock outcrops, which had no minimum mapping unit (but due to aerial photo resolution had a likely minimum mapping unit of 0.1 -0.25 acre); and • riparian woodlands, which were mapped at a 0.2S -acre minimum mapping unit. The mapping process involved digitizing polygons on screen (a process known as heads -up digitizing) from the primary aerial photographs described above, followed by limited field verification. Polygons were digitized for areas with distinct image signatures that met minimum mapping unit requirements. Digitizing was completed on screen by ICF staff. Digitizing was conducted while viewing the aerial imagery at mapping scales of 1:4,800 or 1:6,000. Staff was provided with grids of 0.25 acre and 10 acres to assist in maintaining the minimum mapping units during digitization. Once digitized, polygons were assigned to land cover types on the basis of the criteria in the land cover type definitions (described below under each land covertype). • During the mapping process, polygons with uncertain land cover types were flagged for verification. First, polygons were reviewed in -house by a senior botanist. However, in some cases, heavy shadows on the aerials photograph made desktop verification difficult. In these cases, upon completion of mapping, staff verified these ambiguous polygons in the field where access was available. Serpentine bunchgrass grassland and serpentine chaparral were mapped based on the intersection of annual grassland and chaparral, respectively, with the serpentine soils and geology layers that support those natural communities. Ancillary information was used to supplement the land cover information acquired by aerial photograph interpretation. Wetland data from the Vasco - Laughlin Resource Conservation Plan was used to verify and augment the wetlands mapping, especially for the alkali wetlands in the northern part of the study area. Data from Zone 7 was used as the stream layer for the study area. In addition, draft maps were presented to the Steering Committee and UAG. Within those groups, experts familiar with the vegetation in the study area provided feedback to increase the level of detail for certain land cover types in the study area, such as blue oak and valley oak woodlands, alkali grasslands, alkali wetlands, valley sink scrub, and sycamore alluvial woodlands. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -26 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting Accuracy Assessment Afield accuracy assessment was performed to quantify the reliability of the oak woodlands (i.e., valley oak versus blue oak); coastal scrub, and chaparral land cover types. (A formal accuracy assessment could not be conducted for all land cover types due to the inaccessibility of large areas of the study area and limitations of project budget.) Field verification was conducted by two staff members, including one botanist. Field verification was performed by visual observation of land cover units from publicly accessible roads, sometimes using binoculars and views from vantage points where possible. A polygon was classified in one of three ways. The first classification was "no change," meaning the polygon was mapped correctly. The second classification was "error," indicating a misinterpretation from the aerial imagery. The third classification was "change," indicating a land use change that occurred after the aerial photographs were taken. • As a result of the accuracy assessment, it was determined that the vast majority of oak woodlands in the area are dominated by blue oak. Valley oak woodlands in this area are difficult to discern during desktop mapping, and at the minimum mapping unit. Therefore, all oak woodlands in the Conservation Strategy study area were mapped as blue oak woodland land cover category. However, during plan implementation, valley oak woodlands may be located and mapped on • specific parcels; therefore, this land cover category was retained, and is described below. 2.4.1.2 Focal Species Ecology and Distribution Species accounts of each of the 19 focal species (Table 1 -1) are provided in Appendix D. These accounts summarize listing status, distribution in the study area, ecological information, and threats in the study area and the region. The accounts represent the best available scientific data for each species on which to base this Conservation Strategy. The species accounts are not intended to summarize all biological information known about a species. Rather, each account summarizes scientific information that is relevant to the species in the study area. The biological data in these accounts form the basis for the conservation strategy presented in Chapter 3. Land cover types are the basic unit of evaluation for habitat modeling, analyzing potential impacts, and developing conservation strategies for focal species. Most focal species are associated with one or more distinctive land cover types. These land cover type associations, plus other habitat features, were used to develop habitat distribution models for 13 of the 19 focal species. These habitat • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -27 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting 10 associations provide additional information on the potential for species distribution and conservation needs in the study area. 2.4.1.3 Distribution of Potential Habitat Habitat distribution models were developed for select focal species to predict where in the study area species are more likely to occur based on known habitat requirements. These models have been used to assist in filling the gaps in survey information for focal species and to assist in developing the Conservation Strategy for each species by highlighting the areas that have habitat attributes that support the species needs.' Habitat distribution models for 13 of the focal species are described in detail in the respective species account (and shown in Appendix D). Methods used for all models are described below. Because of model limitations (see "Model Limitations' below), predictive models could not be developed for 6 of the 19 covered species. For longhorn fairy shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp, available location data and the resolution of the land cover mapping were insufficient to precisely identify potential habitat. For the callippe silverspot butterfly, the number of known occurrences within the study area was so low and the habitat requirements so general that habitat potential could not be modeled with confidence. For these • species, range maps were produced based on expert knowledge of potential habitat rather than developing predictive habitat models using habitat associations. Livermore Valley tarplant and recurved larkspur did not require modeling due to the fact that suitable habitat within the study area is well known and highly restricted. Central California coastal steelhead does not currently occur in the study area due to barriers downstream of the study area in Alameda Creek. A potential habitat map was created to show habitat potential for this species should barriers be removed (rather than a suitable habitat map). Model Structure and Development Methodology The 13 habitat models described in the species accounts were designed to estimate the extent and location of key habitat characteristics of each species and to be repeatable and scientifically defensible, while remaining as simple as possible. The models are spatially explicit, GIS- based, "expert opinion models' based on identification of land cover types that provide important habitat for these species. Land cover types were identified as suitable habitat based on the known or presumed habitat requirements and use patterns of each species. ' Habitat distribution models have been developed on a regional scale using regional data. The models are • intended for use in regional planning and do not provide accurate site - specific species information. For project planning, model results must always be field- verified. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -28 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting When supported by appropriate data, the models also incorporate physical • parameters, including: • elevation limits, using an absolute limit when data supported a clear limit; • soil type; • slope; and • distance to highways and other urban development. Further, in some cases, perimeter zones that were used to designate habitat are defined by a certain distance from a land cover type. For example, the California tiger salamander model identifies upland habitat for underground habitat and dispersal. Upland habitat was designated based on its distance from potential breeding sites (e.g., ponds, wetlands). Determinations of suitable land cover types and additional physical parameters were based on available data from peer- reviewed scientific literature; survey reports; environmental documents; and local knowledge of the species, if available. When data were inconclusive or contradictory, general values were assumed in estimating suitable habitat. See below for a discussion of the model limitations. Focal Species Locations Documented occurrences of focal species within the study area were used to validate and refine the models. Sources of occurrence data are listed below: ® CNDDB (2009); Tricolored Blackbird Portal (Information Center for the Environment, University of California, Davis 20O9).The majority of species occurrence records come from the CNDDB (CNDDB 2009). CNDDB records represent the best available statewide occurrence data but are limited in their use for conservation planning, as discussed below. California Natural Diversity Database Limitations CNDDB records rely on field biologists to voluntarily submit information on the results of surveys and monitoring. As a result, the database is biased geographically toward areas where surveys have been conducted or survey efforts are greater (many areas have not been surveyed at all and this is not reflected in the database). The database mayalso be biased toward species that receive more survey effort. For example, there have been more surveys for California red - legged frog than other special- status wildlife because it is a listed species. Conspicuous diurnal species such as raptors likely receive greater survey effort than nocturnal species such as American badger. Plants typically • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -29 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • receive less survey effort than wildlife. Additionally, negative survey results are not reflected in the database. Data that are reported to the CNDDB are done so with varied precision. Some occurrences are very well documented with explicit locations (e.g., global positioning system [GPS] coordinates), while others are reported with more general location information. CNDDB staff qualitatively categorized each occurrence record into one of two categories: specific and nonspecific (California Natural Diversity Database 2009). Aspecific occurrence has sufficient information to be located on a standard USGS 7.5- minute quadrangle map. This information may be based on political or natural features but has been very well described by the observer. These occurrences are mapped by CNDDB as points with an 80 -meter (262.5 -foot) radius or as specific polygons when information allows. A nonspecific occurrence is a species occurrence that has been documented by the observer in very general terms. Sometimes the precise location is unclear or lacks critical information that does not allow it to be mapped accurately. These occurrences are mapped by CNDDB as circular features with a radius of 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, or 1.0 mile. These occurrences can also be mapped with non- specific polygons, such as the boundary of a park where an occurrence is known • to occur. Model Limitations The precision of the habitat distribution models is limited by several factors, including the 10- acre /0.25 -acre minimum mapping units used to map each land cover type. Areas of suitable habitat smaller than the mapping thresholds were not mapped and could therefore not be incorporated into the models. This constraint limited the degree of resolution of some habitat features potentially important to some species. For example, models developed for species which use wetland habitat likely underestimate the amount of habitat available on the landscape since small and seasonal wetland can often be overlooked during aerial photo interpretation. Plus, with a minimum mapping unit of 0.25 acre, many of those small patches of aquatic habitat would then be categorized as the surrounding habitat category (typically annual grassland or oak woodland), thus not adequately showing the maximum extent of aquatic habitat for that species. The habitat distribution models were limited to distinguishing habitat uses based on key life history requirements such as breeding, foraging, or dispersal that are tied to land cover types. The data do not allow for further distinctions of habitat quality on a regional scale. To account for these limitations, conservative estimates of habitat parameters were used. This approach tends • to overestimate the actual extent of suitable or required habitat for this species, East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -30 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting but is consistent with current conservation planning practices when data are 40 limited (Noss et al. 1997). In general the habitat models simply show where a species is more likely to occur than not, based on the basic life history requirements that have been reported in the scientific literature. 2.4.2 Biological Diversity in the Study Area 2.4.2.1 General Overview Species richness, a measure of the number of species in a defined region, is the most readily available measure of diversity and is generally accepted as an index of biological wealth of a region. The number of species that are endemic or unique to a geographic region can provide a measure of biological distinctiveness that is recognized as another measure of biological wealth. When Nature5erve, a nonprofit organization that provides scientific data for conservation efforts, examined the diversity and endemism of species for all 50 states in the United States, California ranked first in both categories (Stein 2002). The Bay Area Open Space Council is currently in the process of carrying out the Uplands Goals Project, a science -based effort to identify upland habitats, linkages, compatible uses and ecological processes required to preserve natural resources in the Bay Area (Bay Area Open Space Council 2004). A unique combination of climate, geography, and topography make California • one of the most biologically diverse areas in the world. California is home to several of the nation's biological "hotspots" and has been identified as one of 25 "hotspots" of biodiversity worldwide (Stein et al. 2000). With a geography that is bordered by the Pacific Ocean, includes San Francisco Bay, and expands eastward into the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, the Bay Area is one of only six global hotspots of species rarity in the United States (California Department of Fish and Game 2003b). Nine counties comprise the Bay Area and account forjust over 18,000 km', (6,950 miles') or nearly 5 %, of the state. Within that 5 %, 64 of the 194 natural communities occur (Wild 2002). This accounts for 33% of the natural communities in California. These natural communities were mapped by the California Gap Analysis project, a coordinated effort between the University of California, Santa Barbara and the USGS Biological Resources Division to assess the status of biodiversity in California. More than a dozen major rivers flow into the Central Valley (which comprises the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys) from the Sierra Nevada, southern Cascade, and Coast Ranges, and these rivers flow into the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers converge in the Delta, a vast network of wetlands that ultimately empties into the Pacific Ocean via the San Francisco Bay (California Department of Fish and Game 2003b). From the south, several more rivers and creeks flow directly into San Francisco Bay and the bay itself is lined with tidal wetlands and marshes. These aquatic resources • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -31 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 • l J Chapter 2 Environmental Setting alone support over 200 species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians (California Department of Fish and Game 2003b). This interface with the San Francisco Bay, coupled with an assortment of upland habitat types with exceptional soil diversity and topography, makes the Bay Area a critical element in the biodiversity of California and of the world. East Alameda County has important statewide examples of oak woodlands (California Department of Fish and Game 2O03a) and vernal pool complexes (California Department of Fish and Game 1998). Although species counts and analyses specific to the study area have not been performed, these national and statewide studies strongly suggest that the biological diversity within the study area is high in most plant and animal groups relative to other parts of California and the United States. The highest density of nesting golden eagles in the world has been reported in the Diablo Range (Hunt and Hunt 2006). Grasslands are also dominant in east Alameda County, and they connect other ecological communities, such as oak woodlands and vernal pools. Serpentine habitats in the area support serpentine endemic plants (e.g. Cedar Mountain). The following sections further discuss biodiversity and describe the various natural communities and land cover types of the Conservation Strategy. 2.4.3 Natural Communities and Land Cover Types Natural communities are defined by the vegetative communities within them. Accordingly, the vegetative communities, or land cover types, within each natural community are described below and shown in Figure 2 -8. This Conservation Strategy includes seven natural communities, as defined by the groups of land cover types in Table 2 -3: • grassland; • chaparral and coastal scrub; • oak woodland; • conifer woodland; • riparian forest and scrub; • wetlands; and • open water. In addition, two broad categories of nonnatural land cover types are defined and described below: e cultivated agriculture; and ■ developed. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -32 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting The description of each natural community provides information on historical • land cover, associated wildlife, ecosystem function, and threats. Each of the 37 land cover types used in this Conservation Strategy is discussed in one of the natural communities, as shown in Tables 2 -3 and 2 -4. When data are available, vegetation associations are also described for each land cover type. Vegetation associations are distinct units of plant communities defined by the dominant species of plants that are consistently found on the landscape. The results of the land cover mapping are summarized in Table 2 -4 and described below for each land cover type. See Figure 2 -8 for the land cover map using all land cover types. 2.4.3.1 Grassland Grassland consists of herbaceous vegetation dominated by grasses and (orbs. Grassland in the study area is classified into the six land cover types below: • California annual grassland; • nonserpentine native bunchgrass grassland; • serpentine bunchgrass grassland; • alkali meadow (including alkali scalds); • valley sink scrub; and • rock outcrop. CDFG considers serpentine bunchgrass grassland, alkali meadow, and valley sink scrub as sensitive biotic communities (CNDDB 2009). Rock outcrops are most prominent in grassland communities in the northern portion of the study area, and serpentine seep is typically associated with grasslands; therefore, they are both discussed in this natural community. Grassland Land Cover Types Within the study area, California annual grassland was identified by its smooth, pale signature on aerial photograph, lacking the dark green signatures of woody plants taken during the summer months. Native grasslands could not be distinguished reliably from annual grasslands on the available imagery. Alkali meadows and scalds were mapped using a two -step process. First, heads up digitizing was used to determine where stands of annual grassland occur within the study area. Then, alkaline soils were overlayed with the stands of annual grassland in GIS to predict the presence of alkali meadows. Alkali meadows occur on alkaline soils of the Pescadero, Solano, Marvin, and Reyes soil series (Soil Conservation Service 1966). Finally, botanists from East Bay CNPS review several land cover polygons in the north Livermore area for accuracy. The land • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -33 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • cover type of several of these polygons were modified based on the field experience of those individuals. California Annual Grassland California annual grassland occupies an estimated 116,828 acres (43 %) of the study area (Table 2 -4). This land cover type is found throughout the study area but is concentrated in the areas south of Pleasanton, northeast of Livermore, and in the eastern third of the study area between Livermore and the Alameda /San Joaquin County line (Figure 2 -8). California annual grassland is an herbaceous plant community dominated by nonnative annual grasses (Holland 1986, Sawyer and Keeler -Wolf 1995). In the study area, annual grassland was mapped where grasses and forbs dominate the land cover and where trees and shrubs comprise less than 10% canopy cover. The dominant species are mostly nonnative grasses from the Mediterranean basin, such as soft chess, red brome, wild oats, ripgut brome, and rat -tail fescue). In the spring, many of the annual grasslands are interspersed with a variety of native wildflowers typical of the inner Coast Ranges. Commonly found species of wildflowers in these grasslands include lupine, fiddleneck, popcornflower, California poppy, owl's clover, and clarkia (Jones & Stokes 2003). In some areas, nonnative weedy vegetation, such as • thistles, mustards, and a variety of other weedy forbs, are also common. Focal plant species that may be found in this land cover type include big tarplant and Congdon's tarplant. Focal wildlife species that could occur in California annual grasslands include San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, California red - legged frog, California tiger salamander, golden eagle, tricolored blackbird, and American badger. Alameda whipsnake may use grasslands adjacent to chaparral or scrub for movement. California red - legged frog and California tiger salamander breed in aquatic habitats (e.g., ponds) within grasslands, and use grasslands as movement and underground refugia habitat. Grassland provides potential habitat in the study area for all life stages of the federally endangered callippe silverspot butterfly (see the species account in Appendix D for more information). Several species of birds also use annual grasslands as important foraging habitat. • Nonserpentine Native Bunchgrass Grassland Nonserpentine native bunchgrass grasslands are patchily distributed in the study area and generally occur as small patches within the larger annual grassland complex. Accordingly, nonserpentine native bunchgrass grasslands contain an abundance of nonnative annual grasses mixed with perennial grasses and forbs. Native grassland could not be distinguished from annual grassland on aerial photographs of the study area. Consequently, this land cover type was mapped as annual grassland. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -34 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting Nonserpentine native bunchgrass grasslands are considered a sensitive biotic • community and are dominated by native perennial bunchgrasses, such as purple needlegrass and Sandberg bluegrass. This community type likely occurred throughout most of the county in areas now characterized by annual grassland, urban development, and cultivated agriculture. The extent of nonserpentine native bunchgrass grassland in the study area is unknown, though occurrences of this community have been reported near Bethany Reservoir and at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300 (on the border with San Joaquin County) (Jones & Stokes 2003). Additional stands have been reported near Brushy Peak Regional Preserve, in Sunol- Ohlone Regional Wilderness, and on private ranchlands south of Pleasanton (East Bay California Native Plant Society file information). Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland Serpentine bunchgrass grassland occupies approximately 241 acres (0.09 %) of the study area (Table 2 -4). This land cover type is found strictly on serpentine soils or bedrock. In the study area, there are two primary stands of serpentine bunchgrass grassland: one just north of Calaveras Reservoir west of Alameda Creek, and another northeast of there on Apperson Ridge (Figure 2 -8). Serpentine grassland is considered a sensitive biotic community by CDFG. This • unique type of open grassland occurs on soils derived from serpentine parent materials. The ultramafic rocks from which serpentine soils are derived are rich in magnesium, nickel, and heavy metals that may be toxic to plants and poor in calcium, nitrogen, and other nutrients required for normal plant growth (Kruckeberg 1984). Serpentine grassland is found at scattered locations in the North and South Coast Ranges and in the Sierra Nevada (Holland 1986), although most of the documented occurrences of serpentine grassland are in the Bay Area (CNDDB 2009). The floristic composition of serpentine grassland is quite heterogeneous, both within and between sites, and dependent on both soil chemistry and the interaction of environmental factors such as slope exposure (McNaughton 1968), disturbance (Hobbs 1985; Hobbs and Mooney 1985, 1991), and annual variation in rainfall (Dobkin et al. 1987; Hobbs & Mooney 1991). Serpentine grassland is generally a mosaic of perennial bunchgrass stands and mixed assemblages of perennial and annual grasses and herbaceous wildflower species (McCarten 1987). Characteristic grass species in serpentine grassland include purple needlegrass, one -sided bluegrass, California melic, squirreltail, big squirreltail, prairie junegrass, California oatgrass, and annual fescue (Hobbs and Mooney 1985; Holland 1986; McCarten 1987; Hooper and Vitousek 1998; California Natural Diversity Database 2009). Wildflowers, most commonly California goldfields, tidy -tips, owl's - clover, California poppy, hayfield tarweed, and rosinweed, often form conspicuous patches of color within the grassland matrix. The flora is composed primarily of native species (although nonnative • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -35 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • species such as soft chess can also be common) and is generally more diverse than the flora of grasslands on nonserpentine substrates (McNaughton 1968). Serpentine grassland provides habitat for many plants that are endemic or near - endemic to serpentine soils, such as Sharsmith's onion. Alkali Meadow and Scalds Alkali meadow and scald is relatively rare in the study area. It is found on 977 acres (0.4%) in the northeast corner of the study area in scattered patches north of Livermore and in the Altamont Pass region (Table 2 -4). The most notable areas where this land cover occurs include the Springtown Alkali Sink and the northeast corner of the study area between Bethany Reservoir and the Alameda /Contra Costa County line (Figure 2 -8). Dominant species in alkali meadows include saltgrass, wild barley, and alkali ryegrass. The associated herb cover consists of halophytes, including saltbush, alkali heath, alkali weed, alkali mallow, and common spikeweed. Alkali meadow (alkali grassland) community type is considered a significant natural community by CNDDB because of its rarity and the pressing threats to the remnant communities from land use conversion, invasive species, and changes in hydrologic regime within the watershed. Focal plant species that may be found • in this land cover type include San Joaquin spearscale, recurved larkspur, Congdon's tarplant, palmate - bracted bird's -beak, and Livermore Valley tarplant. Valley Sink Scrub Valley sink scrub, also known as alkali sink scrub, was mapped on 410 acres (0.15%) of the study area. It generally occurs in the northern half of the study area, most notably in the Springtown Alkali Sink and adjacent to Frick Lake just northeast of Livermore, and in the northeast corner of the study area between Bethany Reservoir and the Alameda /Contra Costa County line in the Mountain House Alkali Grasslands and Wetlands complex. Valley sink scrub could also occur in any of the locations mapped as alkali meadow and scald, and the land cover should be mapped at the parcel scale during project review. This community develops where clay -rich alkaline soils are seasonally saturated because of a shallow water table, low surface runoff, and slow infiltration (Bittman 1985). Valley sink scrub is rare compared with its historical extent, and most of the remaining occurrences are highly degraded (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). This habitat is considered sensitive by CDFG ( CNDDB 2009). Valley sink scrub is dominated by a discontinuous shrub layer of iodine bush and alkali seepweed. The herbaceous layer consists of a patchwork of barren, salt- encrusted scalds and alkali grassland vegetation. Focal plant species that may occur in valley sink scrub include San Joaquin spearscale, palmate - bracted bird's • beak, and Livermore Valley tarplant. Focal wildlife species that may occur or are East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -36 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting known to occur in valley sink scrub include San Joaquin kit fox and western • burrowing owl. California red - legged frogs and California tiger salamanders may use valley sink scrub for upland habitat or as habitat or for movement corridors. Rock Outcrop Rock outcrops are a rare land cover type, totaling 99 acres (0.04%) of the study area) (Table 2 -4). They are primarily found in annual grasslands although they also can be present in chaparral and oak woodlands. This land cover type is likely underrepresented in the land cover map because these features are difficult to see on aerial photographs, particularly if they occur underneath a chaparral or woodland canopy. Accordingly, many small areas of rock outcrops are likely included in the chaparral /scrub, grassland, and oak woodland land covertypes. Rock outcrops are frequently encountered in grasslands. These outcrops are exposures of bedrock that typically lack soil and have sparse vegetation. Within the study area, several types of rock outcrops are present and are derived from sedimentary, volcanic, and metamorphic sources. Rock outcrops identifiable on aerial photographs were mapped based on their unique aerial photograph signatures. Rock outcrop signatures appear as textured areas with mottled coloring that contrasted in color and texture with the surrounding cover types on aerial photographs. There was no minimum mapping unit. The greatest • concentrations of rock outcrops occurs in the north central part of the study area, just east of Brushy Peak Regional Preserve, in the Sunol- Ohlone Regional Preserve, and on private lands on Cedar Mountain. Rock outcrops host common wildlife species such as western fence lizard and western rattlesnake. These species may use outcrops for basking and as foraging areas. Common birds include rock wren, and several species of raptors (e.g., prairie falcon) use rock outcrops for nesting or perching. In addition, the rock outcrops in the study area support unique seasonal pools, one of the few places in California where the rare longhorn fairy shrimp occurs. The rock outcrops that are known to support this species are shown in Figure D -5 in Appendix D. Ecosystem Functions The grassland types within the study area function as a dominant natural community, linking small and large patches of all other natural communities in the landscape such as oak woodland, riparian and aquatic communities, northern mixed chaparral /chamise chaparral, and northern coastal scrub /Diablan sage scrub. Rock outcrops, vernal pools, and seeps are contained within the larger matrix of grasslands, and in some cases, the functions and threats to the integrity of these land cover types differs from the larger grassland matrix. This section primarily addresses the grassland types. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -37 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • Differences, where relevant, are noted fort he land cover types contained within grasslands. Grasslands provide critical upland habitat for a variety of amphibians dependent on adjacent aquatic habitats such as ponds and seasonal wetlands. These amphibians move through grasslands during the rainy season to disperse to other aquatic sites, and may find refugia within grasslands during the dry season. Grasslands are important for burrowing rodents such as ground squirrels and gophers. Rodent burrows, in turn, provide habitat for a variety of other species, including burrowing owls and amphibians seeking refugia. The diverse and abundant rodent community supports an assemblage of raptors that feed on them, including golden eagle, northern harrier, and white - tailed kite. Grasslands also help maintain water quality through soil retention and by filtering out sediment and nutrients from runoff. They provide surface runoff areas, wildlife habitat, and forage for grazing livestock. The key characteristics of grassland habitat that contribute to these functions are a high cover of herbaceous vegetation and a low to absent cover of woody vegetation. The replacement of native grasses and herbs by fast - growing nonnative annual grasses and herbs has affected ecosystem function in grasslands. Unlike • perennial grasses, annual grasses generally do not develop extensive, long -lived root networks. These Fong -lived root networks are important to the function of the grassland ecosystem for a number of reasons, including protection of the topsoil from erosion and provision of habitat for a wide variety of soil microorganisms that create the base of the grassland food web. The production of plant biomass within grasslands has also shifted seasonally. In the past, native perennial grasses continued to grow actively into early summer and emerge from a period of dormancy early in fall. In contrast, nonnative annual grasses tend to dry out in late spring or early summer and germinate anew in fall. This shift has dramatic effects on the seasonal availability of forage for native herbivores such as insects and rabbits (and to a lesser extent, mule deer), as well as the type of seeds and cover available for smaller mammals. The key natural disturbances that have shaped and continue to influence grassland composition and extent are fire and grazing. It is important to note that these two management tools should be utilized together to be most effective. Without some grazing pressure grassland can build up heavy biomass loads which in turn create very hot fires. Those hot fires can be detrimental to the seed bank as well as above ground vegetation. Periodic fire is an important influence on the grassland community. Historically, fires from both lightning strikes and human ignition, as well as soil conditions, kept woody vegetation from invading grassland and converting it into chaparral or oak woodland in higher elevation sites. At lower elevations, grassland was likely always the dominant vegetation community, kept open by,native grazers such as tule elk • and pronghorn, as well as by drought and fire. Prescribed burning has become East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -38 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting an important management tool in grasslands and other natural communities. • However, this technique is becoming increasingly difficult to implement due to cost, safety concerns from expanding urban and rural development, and difficulty obtaining permits because of air quality requirements. Grassland is considered a fire - tolerant community. The direct effect of fire on grassland is to remove essentially all of the aboveground biomass. Fires in grasslands are therefore described as stand - replacing fires. The immediate effect of this biomass removal on annual grasses is negligible, as they have typically completed their growth cycle before fires occur (Howard 1998). Perennial bunchgrasses suffer a temporary loss of foliage, but regenerate immediately through tillering and regrowth of green foliage that typically remains in the center of grass tussocks (Steinberg 2002). The immediate effect of a fire in grasslands is typically an increase in annual forb germination and flowering and an increase in overall productivity in response to the light and nutrients made available by the removal of the thatch layer (Harrison et al. 2003). In the 2 to 3 years following a fire, the elimination of the thatch layer may shift the species composition of grasslands towards annual forbs and small - seeded species such as purple needlegrass and little quaking grass (Howard 1998, Steinberg 2002). In the absence of grazing, however, a thatch layer will reestablish in approximately 3 years, and this effect will disappear. Burning appears to have little long -term effect on annual grassland (Heady 1988, Paysen et al. 2000, Kyser and Di Tomaso 2002). In grasslands that are already dominated by nonnative annual grasses, nonnatives may increase their dominance following fire by outcompeting natives for the newly available space and light. In many parts of the study area fire suppression continues. Current methods to mimic the natural disturbance that would be caused by fire include grazing, mowing, and prescribed burns. Those management techniques are discussed briefly in Chapter 3. 2.4.3.2 Chaparral and Coastal Scrub Chaparral shrub communities are found throughout California on rocky, porous, nutrient - deficient soils and on steep slopes up to 2,000 meters (6,561.7 feet) in elevation (Keeley 2000), These communities are dominated by densely packed and nearly impenetrable drought- adapted evergreen woody shrubs, 1.5 -4 meters (5 -13 feet) tall, that possess small, thick, leathery sclerophyllous leaves (Hanes 1988, Keeley 2000). Herbaceous and arboreal growth forms are often lacking or play minor roles in this community (Keeley 2000). Chaparral species have both deep and shallow roots that allow them to tap water in several soil layers (Schoenherr 1992). The deep roots also allow chaparral to tolerate summer drought conditions and stay active during this period of water stress. Chaparral is divided into two land cover types in the study area: ■ northern mixed chaparral /chamise chaparral; and • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -39 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • ■ mixed serpentine chaparral. Collectively chaparral and coastal scrub communities consist of approximately 3.4% of the study area (Table 2 -4). CDFG considers the latter a sensitive biotic community (CNDDB 2009). Northern coastal scrub, in comparison, to chaparral scrub is generally characterized by low shrubs, usually 0.5 -2 meters (1.6 -6.6 feet) tall with soft non- sclerophyllous leaves, and interspersed with grassy openings (Holland 1986). Although coastal scrub is found in both northern and southern California, the form and variety of species varies greatly between the two regions. Coastal sage scrub in southern California is characterized by drought - deciduous shrubs that lose their leaves with the onset of and summer conditions. In southern California, this community lacks a significant herb layer. Northern coastal scrub is characterized by the absence of drought- deciduous shrubs and the presence of an herb -rich community, which is likely a result of plentiful annual rainfall and regular summer fog (Heady et al. 1988, California Partners in Flight 2004). Northern coastal scrub is also less diverse floristically than coastal sage scrub and shrubs are generally taller and more densely spaced (California Partners in Flight 2004). The range of this northern coastal scrub can be defined as a narrow coastal strip from southern Oregon to Point Sur in Monterey County (Holland 1986; Heady et al. 1988). Because the range of • northern coastal scrub is limited by climate, the Conservation Strategy study area supports some of the easternmost stands in the state. • Chaparral and northern coastal scrub land cover types provide core habitat for Alameda whipsnake. Alameda whipsnakes use these land cover types for breeding, foraging, and thermoregulation. Contiguous stands are necessary to support viable populations of Alameda whipsnakes throughout its range. Chaparral and northern coastal scrub land cover types provide upland habitat for California red - legged frogs, and foraging habitat for golden eagles. San Joaquin kit fox and American badger will move through and forage in scrub land cover types with low densities of shrub canopy cover. Areas with higher densities of shrubs are less suitable for both of those species. Chaparral and Northern Coastal Scrub Land Cover Types Northern Mixed Chaparral /Chamise Chaparral Northern mixed chaparral /chamise chaparral occupies an estimated 2,684 acres, or approximately 1 %, of the total study area (Table 2 -4). This land cover type is found in the southeastern part of the study area. The largest stands are along Cedar Mountain Ridge southeast of Lake Del Valle and then further southeast between Mines Road and the Alameda /San Joaquin County line (Figure 2 -8). East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -40 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting Northern mixed chaparral /chamise chaparral is classified by Holland (1986) as • "broad- leaved sclerophyll shrubs, 2 -4m tall, forming dense, often nearly impenetrable vegetation... [with] usually little or no understory vegetation [and] often considerable accumulation of leaf litter." Northern mixed chaparral /chamise chaparral appeared darker green in color on aerial photos than other chaparral types in all seasons, and frequently occupied larger areas. Ideally, chamise chaparral could be split into a separate land cover type but it could not be distinguished on the aerial photograph from northern mixed chaparral. Dominant shrubs in this community in the study area are chamise, manzanita, scrub oak, and ceanothus. Other important species are toyon, coffeeberry, madrone, California bay, birchleaf mountain - mahogany, poison -oak, bush monkey flower, and California yerba santa. Some chaparral stands may be almost entirely composed of dense stands of chamise (Holland 1986). Northern mixed chaparral may intermingle with northern coastal scrub /Diablan sage scrub, foothill pine and oak woodlands, and mixed oak woodland and forest. There seems to be a close association between northern mixed chaparral/ chamise chaparral and foothill pine and oak woodland in the study area. Mixed Serpentine Chaparral • Mixed serpentine chaparral occupies an estimated 3,788 acres (1.4 %) of the study area in at least 54 distinct patches (Table 2 -4). Nearly all of the mixed serpentine chaparral is found along Cedar Ridge, between Cedar Mountain and the Alameda /Santa Clara County line. These stands are large and seem relatively contiguous on aerial photos. The site specific condition of the habitat or continuity of the land cover has not been confirmed. A small patch of mixed serpentine chaparral is located just north of Calaveras Reservoir on the west side of Alameda Creek. This patch is small and isolated, though there are patches of northern coastal scrub /Diablan sage scrub in the area (Figure 2 -8). Mixed serpentine chaparral consists of fire - adapted shrubs found on serpentine soils (California Partners in Flight 2004). Serpentine chaparral is generally more open than other chaparral types, and shrubs tend to be shorter and have leaves that are reduced, curled, or thickened (Hanes 1988, California Partners in Flight 2004). Dominant shrubs in this community in the study area are very similar to those discussed for northern mixed chaparral/ chamise chaparral, above. A common indicator shrub on serpentine soils is leather oak. Northern Coastal Scrub /Diablan Sage Scrub Northern coastal scrub /Diablan coastal scrub occupies an estimated 2,700 acres (1 %) of the study area (Table 2 -4). Though this land cover type is spread throughout the southern part of the county, most of it is concentrated in the • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -41 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • south central part. The larger stands are located on or near SFPUC Alameda watershed lands. There are a few patches spread through the Pleasanton Hills between Pleasanton and Union City (Figure 2 -8). Northern coastal scrub /Diablan sage scrub is composed primarily of evergreen shrubs with an herbaceous understory in openings. This land cover type is usually found at elevations below 300 feet (California Partners in Flight 2004). On aerial photographs, northern coastal scrub /Diablan sage scrub appeared a distinctive shade of pale turquoise -green in summer images and pale tan in fall and winter images; this land cover type typically occurs on south facing slopes, often in relatively small stands interspersed with annual grassland and oak woodland. Northern coastal scrub /Diablan sage scrub communities are dominated by California sagebrush and black sage, with associated species including coyote brush, California buckwheat, poison -oak, and bush monkey flower (Holland 1986). Northern coastal scrub /Diablan sage scrub occurs on both serpentine and nonserpentine substrate; however, northern coastal scrub that occurred on mapped serpentine soils was mapped as mixed serpentine chaparral. The dominant woody plants in this land cover type are nearly the same among different soil types. • Ecosystem Functions • Northern coastal scrub /Diablan sage scrub may intermingle with northern mixed chaparral /chamise chaparral, coastal prairie (grassland), and mixed evergreen forest (Heady et al. 1988) and serve as an important corridor for wildlife. In addition, small mammals tend to forage on grassland species that are close to shrub canopies because they afford greater protection (Keeley 2000). Because sage scrub species are less woody than chaparral species and tend to direct their energy to leaf growth, the structure of coastal scrub communities tends to be open with an herbaceous ground layer (California Partners in Flight 2004). This open structure is important to the white - crowned sparrow and the sage sparrow. Allen's hummingbird and the orange- crowned warbler are also, associated with this land cover type. The leaves of sage scrub contain important nutrients for herbivorous insects, more so than northern mixed chaparral /chamise chaparral. Peak leaf nutrient levels in scrub appear to coincide with the height of bird breeding season and may be an important food source (California Partners in Flight 2004). California sage and black sage, members of both northern coastal scrub /Diablan sage scrub and northern mixed chaparral /chamise chaparral communities, are important food resources for small mammals, reptiles, and bird species. In addition, both communities have a relatively low proportion of nonnative species due to dense shrub canopies, soil types, and dry conditions, and thus are important resources to wildlife. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -42 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting The fire - following fortis associated with northern mixed chaparral /chamise • chaparral are abundant for 1 or more years after a fire and provide high - quality habitats for a diversity of insects and other wildlife. The unique flora of postfire chaparral contributes to its trait of supporting the highest concentration of special- status plants of any community in California (California Native Plant Society 2001). Many species that inhabit chaparral also inhabit adjacent grassland and oak woodlands; however, some birds and mammals are found largely in the dense cover and shade of mature chaparral stands. Many of the plants in the chaparral and northern coastal scrub communities have evolved to be dependent on periodic fire for regeneration (Holland 1986, Hanes 1988, Schoenherr 1992). In fact, communities dominated entirely by chamise cannot sustain themselves in the absence of fire (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). Some species of chaparral have peeling bark or volatile oils that promote fire ( Schoenherr 1992). Many of the dominant shrubs, such as manzanita and ceanothus, have adapted to fire by resprouting from basal burls or woody root crowns following a fire event. Other species have seeds that require fire to initiate growth (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002, Rundel and Gustayson 2005). Regrowth is triggered by removal of the overstory, typically by fire. Chemicals in smoke and charred wood also stimulate germination in a wide variety of native forbs that lie dormant as seeds in the soil for decades before a fire. Fire occurrence that is too frequent, however, can lead to the elimination of these communities altogether and promote annual grassland • succession. 2.4.3.3 Oak Woodland One of the most common natural communities in the study area (22.1 %), oak woodland is dominated by upland hardwood trees, usually various species of oaks. The oak - dominated land cover types that occur in the study area are listed below: • blue oak woodland, • valley oak woodland, • coast live oak forest and woodland, and • mixed evergreen forest /oak woodland. These land cover types were defined as part of the oak woodland natural community, an upland tree - dominated community with at least 10% cover of hardwood tree species. Oak savannah land cover was not mapped as a separate category. Oak savannah is a transition land cover between grassland and oak woodland where oak trees are widely spaced and canopy cover is less than 10 %. This community is common in the study area but due to the subjective nature of describing this land cover type when interpreting aerial photos, land covers were either categorized into grassland or oak woodland. Due to the density of • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -43 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • trees being less than 10% oak savannahs were categorized as grassland. CDFG considers blue oak woodland and valley oak woodland sensitive biotic communities (CNDDB 2009). Oak Woodland Land Cover Types With the exception of blue oak woodland and valley oak woodland, the different oak woodland land cover types showed quite different signatures on aerial photographs, in terms of color and texture, and each typically occupied different landscape positions. Blue oak woodland and valley oak woodland were initially mapped as separate land cover types; however, during field verification of mapping efforts it was determined that there were inconsistencies in how valley oak woodland was mapped. It should be noted that in most areas species of oak are mixed though one species can be dominant. Since stands of valley oak woodland and black oak woodland were not able to be mapped using aerial photos, it will be necessary to ground truth oak stands that will either be affected by activities in the future or will serve as mitigation offsets. Oak woodland- associated wildlife species addressed by the Conservation Strategy include California tiger salamander, California red - legged frog, Alameda • whipsnake, golden eagle, and western burrowing owl. Alameda whipsnake may use oak woodland for movement between chaparral or coastal scrub habitats. California tiger salamanders use the grassy understory of open woodlands for dispersal or refuge and aquatic sites for breeding. The California red - legged frog uses this habitat type for breeding, foraging, and refugia. Golden eagles use woodlands and forest edges, when associated with dependable food supply, for roosting, nesting, and foraging. San Joaquin kit foxes may use this community for movement through the study area, though areas of high oak density would be less suitable. The ecotone between oak woodlands and annual grassland does provide movement habitat for San Joaquin kit fox and American badger. The western burrowing owl uses open woodlands with low- stature vegetation for foraging and burrowing. Some of these grasslands sites could be adjacent to oak woodlands. Blue Oak Woodland Blue oak woodland and forest occupies approximately 26,321 acres, or 9.7 %, of the study area (Table 2 -4). It is present in scattered locations in the southern half of the study area. This land cover typically occurs in the low to mid - elevation hills in slightly drier microclimates. Large stands of blue oak woodland occur on both west and east sides of Lake Del Valle, in the hills south of Pleasanton, and along the ridges in the south - central and southeastern portions of the county (Figure 2 -8). There is potential for valley oak woodlands to be intermixed with blue oak woodland in all of these places, depending on the local • site conditions. Though it is not mapped as a separate land cover, valley oak East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2-44 October 2010 ICF 00906.06 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting woodland is discussed below to highlight its unique attributes and differences from blue oak woodland. Blue oak woodland was identified by the color of the canopy: pale to midgreen in summer imagery, in contrast to coast live oak, and leafless in winter. The canopy of blue oak woodland could be closed or relatively open. Aspect was important in distinguishing blue oaks from other deciduous oak species: blue oak woodland in the study area typically occurred on south - facing aspects; however, ridgetop stands of large, well- spaced blue oaks also occurred and could be difficult to distinguish from valley oaks. Blue oak woodland is dominated by blue oak, a highly drought - tolerant species adapted to growth on thin soils in the dry foothills. Blue oaks grow slowly in these soils and may take decades to reach maturity. They generally occur on sites that are drier and have lower levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and organic matter than those where valley oak or coast live oak are found (Griffin 1973, Baker et al. 1981). Although blue oaks can become established on south - facing slopes during wetter years or where mesic conditions are present, they are generally found on north - facing slopes (Griffin 1971). However, in the central California Coast Ranges, blue oak woodland is more common on south - facing slopes (Miles and Goudey 1997). California buckeye and foothill pine are associate tree species in this community. The understory varies from shrubby to open, with a composition similar to that • of the adjacent nonnative grassland. Understory species typically include annual grasses, hollyleaf cherry, poison -oak, and coffeeberry. Blue oak woodland is considered a sensitive community by CDFG when the following species are present: blue oak, valley oak, and coast live oak /grass (CNDDB 2009). Valley Oak Woodland Valley oak woodland is mapped as blue oak woodland on Figure 2 -8. Due to difficulty differentiating between blue oak woodland and valley oak woodland and other mixed oak woodland alliance, these land cover types were all classified as blue oak woodland. During field verification, there were no standard rules that could be applied to the data set or the heads up digitizing that would allow this valley oak woodland to be mapped accurately. It should be noted that valley oak woodland could occur anywhere that blue oak woodland is mapped. Field verification would be necessary to confirm which type of oak woodland was present and what percentage consisted of valley oaks. For potential locations of valley oak woodland in the study area, see "Blue Oak Woodland," above. Although valley oak is typically found in alluvial soils in California, it also occurs in nonalluvial sites on broad ridgetops and midslope benches. Valley oak woodland is characterized by a fairly open canopy of mature valley oaks with a • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -45 October 2010 ICIF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting grassy understory, generally on valley bottoms and north- facing slopes (Griffin 1971, Holland 1986, Sawyer and Keeler -Wolf 1995). Valley oak woodlands often form a mosaic with annual grasslands, and are also found adjacent to other land cover types, including mixed oak woodland, blue oak woodland, and riparian woodland types. Valley oak woodland is generally denser on valley bottoms where the tree roots can penetrate to the groundwater, and less dense on ridges where trees need wider spacing to develop larger root systems (Griffin 1973). Trees in the valley oak community are typically mature and well spaced. They are usually the only trees present in this open- canopy woodland and have no shrub layer, and the understory is dominated by nonnative annual grasses. As with most oak communities, regeneration typically is episodic, occurring periodically in "mast years" when acorn production is high and some acorns germinate by avoiding acorn predators such as acorn woodpeckers and California ground squirrels. Creeping wild rye, poison -oak, mugwort, and California rose are common native species in riparian portions of valley oak woodland. Coast Live Oak Woodland and Forest Coast live oak woodland and forest occupies approximately 1,221 acres, or • 0.5 %, of the study area (Table 2 -4). The largest stands occur on the western side of the study area in the Pleasanton Hills just north of State Route 84 and south of Livermore between Arroyo Mocho and Lake Del Valle. There are also scattered patches on the ridges in the southwestern portion of the study area (Figure 2 -8). The coast live oak woodland and forest land cover type mostly includes stands of coast live oak, although California bay is often a major component, and other live oaks and scattered deciduous trees are often present. Coast live oak woodland and forest was identified by its closed canopy and even dark green color that was the same in all seasons, and by its landscape position, occurring generally on north - facing valley slopes and valley bottoms. There was often an abrupt transition between annual grassland and coast live oak woodland, with coast live oak woodland occupying valley slopes and annual grassland occurring on the surrounding ridges. Coast live oak woodland also often occurred adjacent to other oak woodland types. Grasses and herbs are common in this land cover type. Other species found in this land cover type include coffeeberry, bush monkey flower, redberry buckthorn, and California sagebrush (Allen et al. 1989). In addition, California blackberry, bugle hedge nettle, wood fern, and poison -oak can be present. Across the Central Coast Ranges, stands occur at lower elevations (200 -3,250 • feet, mean 1,205 feet) on north and northeast aspects. Slopes are generally East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -46 October 2010 ICF 00906.06 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting steep (36% on average), and parent material is primarily sedimentary sandstone and shale, with loam soils (Allen et al. 1989). Mixed Evergreen Forest /Oak Woodland Mixed evergreen forest /oak woodland is one of the most common woodland communities in the study area, occupying 32,497 acres, or 12 %, of the study area (Table 2 -4). It is present throughout the southern half of the study area. The largest contiguous stands are in the Pleasanton Hills, between Pleasanton and Union City, and along north facing slopes on the ridges of the south - central part of the study area (Figure 2 -8). Mixed evergreen forest /oak woodland is characterized by a diverse overstory often dominated by coast live oak. This land cover type contains a mix of co- dominant oaks such as coast live oak, blue oak, and valley oak. The canopy of this land cover type is generally more open and includes some deciduous species. In addition to the array of dominant oaks in this land cover type, a number of both broad - leafed evergreen and deciduous trees are present, including California bay, madrone, California buckeye, and black oak (Holland 1986; Sawyer and Keeler -Wolf 1995). Where shrubby, the understory consists of patches of toyon, poison -oak, and scrub oak. Where more open, the understory typically consists of annual grasses and shade - tolerant perennials, such as yerba Santa and common snowberry. Ecosystem Functions Oak woodlands perform a variety of ecological functions, including nutrient cycling, water storage and transport, and wildlife habitat (Giusti et al. 2004). Oak woodlands share many of the same functions as the adjacent grassland and chaparral communities. However, the structure and food provided by the dominance of oak trees in this community distinguish it from the other natural community types. Oak woodland is one of the most biologically diverse communities in California, providing essential habitat for approximately 2,000 plant; 5,000 insect; 80 amphibian and reptile; 160 bird; and 80 mammal species (Merelender and Crawford 1998). Large acorn crops and a diverse insect fauna provide high - quality food for a wide variety of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Dense oak woodlands provide cool, shady refugia for wildlife during the hot, dry summer, and more sparse oak woodlands offer raptors ideal hunting perches. Open - canopy oak woodlands provide upland habitat for California tiger salamander, which live in burrows in the grassland understory or beneath isolated oaks. These oak woodlands also provide nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of bird species. The grassland understory provides habitat for fossorial rodents such as ground squirrels and gophers, which are prey for red- 0 East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -47 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting tailed hawks, coyotes, and great horned owls. Rodent burrows, in turn, provide habitat for a variety of other species, including burrowing owls and amphibians. Oak woodland is a fire - adapted ecosystem, and fire has likely played a large role in maintaining this community type in the study area. Fire creates the vegetation structure and composition typical of oak woodlands, and this natural community has experienced frequent, low- severity fires that maintain woodland or savannah conditions. In the absence of fire, the low or open understory that characterizes the land cover type is lost. Ultimately, closed- canopy oak forests are replaced by shade - tolerant species because oaks cannot regenerate and compete in a shaded understory. Soil drought may also play a role in maintaining open -tree canopy in dry woodland habitat Recruitment of young oak trees into the population is an ongoing issue in much of California. Recruitment is often suppressed by livestock grazing and can also be influence by populations of non - native pigs. Acorns are an important food source for non - native pigs and grubbing in oak woodlands can uprooted seedlings and saplings. A recent influence on oak woodlands is sudden oak death. The disease, first identified in 1995, has since spread to 12 counties and killed tens of thousands of oaks. Research indicates that coast live oaks and black oaks appear to be the • most susceptible to this disease (Rizzo et al. 2003). Sudden oak death, caused by the pathogen Phytophthora romorum, is a serious threat to oak woodlands and mixed evergreen forests in northern California. The pathogen can kill adult • oaks and madrone; California bay, buckeye, and maple host the pathogen without being killed by it. Blue oak and valley oak have not shown symptoms of the pathogen. Sudden oak death has been confirmed in San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara Counties. As of April 2009 there are no confirmed locations of sudden oak death in the study area. However, there are confirmed locations just outside the study area near Castro Valley and surrounding Upper San Leandro Reservoir. It is unknown whether climatic or other factors will limit the spread of sudden oak death in the study area. 2.4.3.4 Conifer Woodland In addition to hardwood - dominated upland land cover types, conifer - dominated land cover types also occur in the study area. The three conifer - dominated communities listed below occur in the study area: • foothill pine —oak woodland, • Coulter pine woodland, and • Sargent cypress woodland. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -48 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting Conifer Woodland Land Cover Types • Foothill Pine —Oak Woodland Foothill pine —oak woodland occupies approximately 22,695 acres, or 8.4 %, of the study area (Table 2 -4). This land cover type dominates the southeastern corner of the study area, from Crane Ridge, north of Cedar Mountain, east to the Alameda /San Joaquin County line and south to the Alameda /Santa Clara County line (Figure 2 -8). In addition, there are patches of this land cover type throughout the southwestern part of the study area, including some sparse patches in the Pleasanton Hills and throughout the ridges on SFPUC Alameda watershed lands. Foothill pine —oak woodland was identified by the obvious signatures on aerial photographs of well- spaced emergent foothill pine crowns, which appear pale gray -green with clear shadows over the lower canopy of contrasting darker green evergreen oaks. Foothill pine —oak woodland often occurred along valley floors within chaparral communities in the eastern foothills, and also occurred adjacent to other oak woodland land cover types and on serpentine soils. Found at elevations ranging from 200 -2,100 feet, foothill pine integrates with blue oal< and mixed oak woodlands at higher elevations, forming the foothill pine —oak woodland land cover type. Here, the canopy is dominated by emergent foothill pine with a typically dense understory of scattered shrubs, often those found in adjacent chaparral and scrub communities, and nonnative annual grasses and forbs. Oaks become more prevalent at lower elevations, often forming a closed canopy layer below the emergent pines, and the understory lacks an appreciable shrub layer. In the foothills to the east, associated canopy species include blue oak, interior live oak, coast live oak, and California buckeye (Griffin 1977). Closer to the coast, coast live oak, valley oak, blue oak, and California buckeye are typically found. Associated shrub species include ceanothus species, bigberry manzanita, California coffeeberry, poison -oak, silver lupine, blue elderberry, California yerba santa, rock gooseberry, and California redbud. Coulter Pine Woodland Coulter pine woodland occupies approximately 74 acres, or 0.03 %, of the study area (Table 2 -4). Within the study area, Coulter pine woodlands occur on slopes at elevations ranging from 900 -3,400 feet. These woodlands are bordered by mixed evergreen forest /oak woodland, blue oak woodland, and California annual grassland. Three small stands of Coulter pine woodland occur in the southern portion of the study area. One stand is located in the Sunol Regional Wilderness, south of Maguire Peaks between Gear Road and Welch Creek; another occurs along • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -49 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • Indian Creek south of Wauhab Ridge. The third stand is on Rocky Ridge near the southern portion of Lake Del Valle (Figure 2 -8). Coulter pine is common in the mountains of southern California and Baja California, Mexico. The study area represents the northern extent of the species' range. Small stands of this species are also found in Contra Costa, Marin, and Sonoma Counties. Coulter pine is typically dominant in these closed canopy stands. Other tree species that are commonly associated with Coulter pine woodlands include bigcone Douglas -fir, black oak, canyon live oak, coast live oak, interior live oak, foothill pine, or ponderosa pine. The shrub layer can range from sparse to dense and the ground layer is typically sparse. Topographically, Coulter pine woodlands occur in uplands on all aspects. The soils tend to be shallow and well drained (Sawyer and Keeler -Wolf 1995). Sargent Cypress Woodland Sargent cypress woodland has been mapped from one location in the study area and occupies approximately 653 acres, or 0.2 %, of the study area (Table 2 -4). This large stand is located on the north side of Cedar Mountain and ranges from approximately 2,000 -3,400 feet in elevation (Figure 2 -8). This stand is bordered by mixed serpentine chaparral, foothill pine —oak woodland, blue oak woodland, and mixed evergreen forest /oak woodland. Sargent cypress woodland is likely is overestimated on Cedar Mountain. In order to ensure that all of the land cover was captured, the area was mapped as one single polygon. Ground truthing was not possible, with except for viewing areas through binoculars from a distance. A more detailed map of the distribution of Sargent cypress woodland on Cedar Mountain would be beneficial to inform protection and management of this species and land cover type. E Sargent cypress is found in disjunct stands throughout many of the coastal counties of California. The stand in the study area may be highly disjunct from other stands. The nearest similar large stands occur in Marin County on Mount Tamalpais and in the Santa Lucia Mountains of Monterey County. Sargent cypress is a common or dominant species in this stand. Other species that may be associated with Sargent cypress woodland include bigberry manzanita, valley oak, leather oak, silk tassel, California bay, foothill pine, interior live oak, and knobcone pine. Because of the inaccessibility of the Sargent cypress stand in the study area, exact species associates are uncertain. Sargent cypress woodland stands typically occur on ultramafic soil, and trees are generally less than 15 meters (49.2 feet) tall. The tree canopy of these stands is typically open and the shrub layer ranges from sparse to dense. The most common shrub in Sargent cypress woodlands is leather oak. The ground layer is typically sparse (Sawyer and Keeler -Wolf 1995, Barbour et al. 2007). East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -50 October 2010 ICF 00900.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting Ecosystem Functions • Similar to oak woodland, these forests and woodlands provide food, nesting, and cover to a variety of wildlife. However, the structure and food resources that conifer - dominated forests provide make them a valuable resource. Evergreen oaks such as coast live oak, as well as California bay, madrone, and foothill pine, provide year round shelter unlike the largely deciduous vegetation of riparian forest and scrub. A largely continuous, dense leaf canopy and abundant tree cavities act to shade wildlife, provide habitat for nesting and offer protection from predators. In addition, thick layers of leaf litter, ephemeral ponds, and wetlands can provide secondary habitat for soil invertebrates and amphibians by offering protection from desiccation and foraging habitat. Mixed evergreen forest /oak woodland lacks drought adaptations and generally grows in more mesic habitats, typically on north- facing slopes (Griffin 1971, 1973). Survival of coast live oak appears to be higher for seedlings growing under a shrub canopy, apparently as a result of more mesic soil conditions under the shade of shrubs (Callaway and D'Antonio 1991; Muick 1991; Plumb and Hannah 1991; Parikh and Gale 1998). Coast live oak, the dominant species in this land cover type, has acorns that germinate relatively slowly and have a low rate of root elongation, which limits the ability of seedlings to survive under more xeric conditions (Matsuda and McBride 1986). The root system of coast • live oaks consists mostly of lateral roots, a configuration that does not favor survival under xeric conditions (Callaway 1990). A major factor influencing the distribution of conifer woodland land cover types is fire intensity and frequency. Throughout California the combination of logging and burning at the end of the nineteenth century resulted in the conversion of conifer - dominated forests to chaparral and oak - dominated woodlands. Periodic stand replacing fire is necessary to boost seed generation in many conifer species. 2.4.3.5 Riparian Forest and Scrub Riparian vegetation in the study area was classified into four land cover types: • mixed willow riparian scrub, • sycamore alluvial woodland, • mixed riparian forest and woodland, and a desert olive scrub. At the state level, riparian plant communities are considered sensitive because of habitat loss and their value to a diverse community of plant and wildlife L East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -51 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • species. Additionally, CDFG has identified them as a sensitive natural community (California Department of Fish and Game 2003a). Riparian forest and scrub provide habitat for several focal wildlife species, including the California red - legged frog, foothill yellow - legged frog, and Alameda whipsnake. California red - legged frog uses riparian habitat type for breeding, foraging, and refugia. Foothill yellow - legged frog utilize aquatic habitat for thermoregulation, foraging, and avoidance of predators. Alameda whipsnake use riparian forest and scrub habitats for movement during dispersal. No focal plants are strictly associated with riparian forest and scrub land cover types. Riparian Forest and Scrub Land Cover Types Within the study area, riparian forest and scrub land cover types were identified primarily by their landscape position along creeks and around open water bodies. Several common riparian trees species — willows, cottonwood, and sycamore— appeared to hold their leaves after they turn color in fall, and early winter imagery clearly.showed these distinctive yellow crowns, either in pure stands or mixed with the dark green canopies of coast live oak and bay in more mixed riparian woodland. The plant assemblage and width of riparian corridors • found along the banks and floodplains of rivers and streams vary. Dominant influencing factors include the steepness of the channel, the frequency of disturbance, and the hydrologic regime present. • Sycamore Alluvial Woodland Sycamore alluvial woodland occupies 597 acres comprising 17 distinct polygons in the land cover data set, which is about 0.2% of the total study area (Table 2- 4). Each polygon represents a separate stand of sycamore alluvial woodland. The primary stands are along Alameda Creek, just southeast of San Antonio Reservoir, and south of Livermore along Arroyo Valle in Sycamore Grove Park (Figure 2 -8). Sycamore alluvial woodland was readily identified by the large, well- spaced sycamore crowns. In early winter aerial imagery, the large pale branches and halo of fallen golden - yellow leaves were visible. The landscape position, on broad alluvial valley floors, was also indicative of this land cover type. The sycamore alluvial woodland land cover type is generally present on broad floodplains and terraces along low gradient streams with deep alluvium. Areas mapped as sycamore alluvial woodland are generally open canopy woodlands dominated by California sycamore, often with white alder and willows (Solix spp.). Other associated species include bigleaf maple, valley oak, coast live oak, and California bay. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -52 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting The understory is disturbed by winter flows, and herbaceous vegetation is • typically sparse or patchy. Typically, plants such as willows, coyote brush, mule fat, California buckeye, blackberry, Italian thistle, poison -oak, common chickweed and bedstraw populate the streambanks. Although it occurs along streams, sycamore alluvial woodland undergoes extreme variation in water availability. During the rainy season, the stream channel and adjacent terraces are subject to flooding. During the summer drought, the streams are generally dry, and little moisture is available in the stony substrate. The alluvial substrate contains little soil and is nutrient poor. Flooding also subjects sycamore alluvial forest to frequent disturbance. However, this disturbance appears to benefit regeneration of western sycamores. Regeneration from seed appears to occur in pulses correlated with large flood events (Shanfield 1984). Trees that are damaged by flooding can also resprout from the roots and trunk (Shanfield 1984). Anthracnose, a fungal disease, can defoliate the trees in springtime (Holstein 1984). Heavy cattle grazing may inhibit recruitment of sycamore seedlings, although recruitment may occur under light grazing in favorable (wet) years (Smith 1989). Mixed Riparian Forest and Woodland Mixed riparian forest and woodland occupies approximately 2,323 acres, which is about 0.9% of the total study area (Table 2 -4). Mixed riparian forest and • woodland is found in association with streams throughout the study area. Stands of this land cover include sections of Arroyo de la Laguna as it passes Pleasanton, Arroyo Los Positas and Arroyo Mocho as they pass through Livermore, the upper reaches of Tassajara Creek, and several other stream courses in the study area (Figure 2 -8). Mixed riparian forest and woodland land cover types are similar to willow riparian forests and woodlands in species occurrences. They are found in and along the margins of the active channel on intermittent and perennial streams. Generally, no single species dominates the canopy, and composition varies with elevation, aspect, hydrology, and channel type. This land cover type captures much of the riparian woodland and forest in the study area and includes several associations that could not be distinguished on the aerial photographs. The major canopy species throughout the study area are California sycamore, valley oak, coast live oak, red willow, and California bay. Associated trees and shrubs include California black walnut, other species of willow, California buckeye, Fremont cottonwood, and bigleaf maple. Focal species associated with this land cover type are the same as sycamore alluvial woodland and mixed willow riparian scrub. CJ East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. 2 -53 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting iMixed Willow Riparian Scrub Mixed willow riparian scrub occupies an estimated 664 acres in 39 unique stands, which is about 0.24% of the total study area (Table 2 -4). Mixed willow riparian scrub occurs in and along the margins of the active channel on intermittent and perennial streams. In the study area, the most contiguous reach of willow riparian forest and scrub occurs along Arroyo Mocho, just southeast of Livermore, and along Arroyo Valle as it passes through Livermore (Figure 2 -8). In the east Bay Area, streamside habitat dominated by shrubby willows is classified as Central Coast Riparian Scrub (Holland 1986). Although red willow and arroyo willow remain the most common dominant canopy species in this habitat, the name of the land cover has been changed to mixed riparian forest and scrub to better reflect the conditions within the study area. Understory development in willow scrub or forest land cover types is dictated by canopy density. Where the canopy is more open and dominated by trees or scattered willow scrub, an understory of shrubs and herbs is present. A range of conditions exists among the mixed willow riparian scrub community. Yellow willow, red willow, arroyo willow, and narrowleaf willow are the dominant canopy species in this habitat. Scrub communities typically consist of is scattered willows and mule fat occurring in and along the margins of open sandy washes. Understory development in this land cover type is controlled by canopy density. California red - legged frog and foothill - yellow legged frog utilize this land cover year -round for breeding and movement, though some of the stream course that pass through urban areas are less suitable. Alameda whipsnake uses riparian forest and scrub habitats for movement during dispersal. No covered plants are strictly associated with riparian forest and scrub land cover Types. Riparian corridors in general are important as movement habitat for nearly all terrestrial species. These communities serve to connect the landscape as they move through other land cover types. Ecosystem function While riparian land cover types occupy a very small percentage of the total land cover in the study area, they are particularly important because they are among the most structurally complex and richly diverse habitat types in terms of plant and animal associations. Riparian communities support both terrestrial and aquatic species by providing movement corridors across the landscape and both nesting and foraging habitat. For example, California red - legged frog may be found in sycamore • alluvial woodland year- round, while California tiger salamander and foothill East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -54 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting yellow - legged frog may move through this land cover type. Riparian communities can also support high levels of invertebrate production; provide moist, cool refugia during the hot, dry summer; have moderate stream temperatures; help armor streambanks; and support the aquatic food chain by means of input of vegetative and other detritus. Denser canopies reduce direct solar radiation to streams and creeks, thereby lowering water temperatures and may increase habitat value for aquatic wildlife. However, algal growth, which increases aquatic insects, requires a partially open canopy for light. Increased light also improves feeding efficiency of steelhead in fast water. Differences in vegetative structure between riparian communities lead to varying effectiveness in providing these ecosystem functions. For example, mixed willow riparian scrub, with its lower vegetation structure, is often less effective in reducing stream temperatures than riparian woodland. On the other hand, it may provide better nesting and foraging habitat for migratory passerine birds that prefer the dense thicket habitat provided by scrub. Riparian communities are shaped by their proximity to water and by periodic flooding that maintains the structure and composition of this land cover type. Wet- season flooding replenishes alluvial soils that are deficient in minerals and organic matter. Flooding also subjects riparian forest to frequent disturbance that benefits regeneration of certain species, including California sycamore, white alder, and black willow. Regeneration from seed appears to occur in pulses correlated with large flood events (Shanfield 1984). Additionally, trees • that are damaged by flooding can resprout from the roots and trunk (Shanfield 1984). Flood and drought cycles of natural streams tend to result in a mosaic of structure and composition in riparian plant communities. This mosaic may be lost in altered flow regimes downstream of reservoirs. 2.4.3.6 Wetlands Wetland habitat includes areas subject to seasonal or perennial flooding or pending, or that possess saturated soil conditions and that support predominantly hydrophytic or "water- loving' herbaceous plant species. Because wetlands are periodically waterlogged, the plants growing in them must be able to tolerate low levels of soil oxygen associated with waterlogged or hydric soils. The presence of flood - tolerant species is often a good indication that a site is a wetland even if the ground appears to be dry for most of the year (Barbour et al. 1993), or if hydrologic influences are less obvious. Wetland habitat in the study area is classified into three land cover types; vernal pools are described under seasonal wetlands: in perennial freshwater marsh, ■ seasonal wetland, and ® alkali wetland. • Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -55 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • In general, wetlands represent a sensitive biotic community due to their limited distribution and importance to special- status plant and wildlife species statewide. Wetland Land Cover Types Within the study area, wetlands were identified and mapped on the basis of their aerial photograph signatures and landscape positions that would support wetland hydrology. In late season (May — July) aerial imagery, wetlands appear greener than surrounding annual grassland. The minimum mapping unit for all wetland land cover types was 0.25 acre. Wetland subtypes were distinguished based on the color and texture of the signature on aerial photos. On early spring (February — May) aerial imagery, perennial freshwater marsh appeared pale brown and rough in texture because the emergent plants (cattails and bulrushes) have died back and not yet stated to grow. In contrast, seasonal wetlands appeared dark green, but they are difficult to distinguish from the surrounding annual grassland, which also appears dark green at this time of year. In early winter imagery, both types of wetlands appear dark green, the color of the seasonal wetlands contrasting with the adjacent annual grasslands, which at that time of year appeared brown. • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory data layer was examined and compared with the aerial photographs to assist in the recognition of additional wetland areas, as was ICF International file data on wetlands that have been delineated north of Livermore. Perennial Freshwater Marsh Within the study area, perennial freshwater marsh occupies an estimated 62 acres at only 12 sites, which is 0.02% of the total study area (Table 2 -4). The perennial freshwater marsh occurs primarily in small patches along stream courses or drainages as they pass through the valley floor (Figure 2 -8). Perennial freshwater marsh is likely to have been underestimated in the land cover mapping due.to the small size of these features and the difficulty of distinguishing marsh from the surrounding grassland on the spring aerial photos. Some perennial freshwater marsh is also difficult to distinguish from seasonal wetland during winter. Perennial freshwater marsh is dominated by emergent herbaceous plants (reeds, sedges, grasses) with either intermittent flooded or perennially saturated soils. Freshwater marshes are found throughout the coastal drainages of California wherever water slows down and accumulates, even on a temporary or seasonal basis. A freshwater marsh usually features shallow water that is often clogged with dense masses of vegetation, resulting in deep peaty soils. Plant species common to coastal and valley freshwater marsh • predominantly consist of cattails, bulrushes, sedges, and rushes. Dominant East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -56 October 2010 (CF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting species in perennial freshwater wetland in the study area include rabbitsfoot • grass, nutsedge, willow weed, and watercress. Dominant species in nontidal freshwater marsh are narrow - leaved cattail, rice cutgrass, bur -reed, alkali bulrush, and perennial peppergrass. Focal.species that may be found breeding in the perennial freshwater marsh land cover type include tricolored blackbird and California red - legged frog . Seasonal Wetlands Within the study area, seasonal wetlands occupy an estimated 547 acres in an estimated 80 distinct sites, which is 0.2% of the total study area (Table 2 -4). These seasonal wetlands occur primarily in the northern half of the study area, particularly north of Livermore. Seasonal wetlands also occur in association with riparian land cover along Arroyo Las Positas and Altamont Creek. This land cover type often occurs adjacent to alkali wetland. These two land cover types were differentiated based on the underlying soils in the land cover mapping (Figure 2 -8). Seasonal wetlands are likely underrepresented in the land cover map because of their typically small size and isolated locations, and difficulty in interpreting the photographic signature of individual features. However, large seasonal wetland complexes (i.e., groups of many small pools or wetlands) were easily visible on aerial photos. Seasonal wetlands are freshwater wetlands that support bonded or saturated • soil conditions during winter and spring and are dry through the summer and fall until the first substantial rainfall. The vegetation is composed of wetland generalists, such as hyssop loosestrife, cocklebur, and Italian ryegrass that typically occur in frequently disturbed sites, such as along streams. Common species in seasonal wetlands within the study area include watercress, water speedwell , and smartweeds (Jones & Stokes 2001). See the sections below on the Springtown Alkali Sink and Mountain House Alkali Grasslands and Wetlands for more details on the largest seasonal and alkali wetland complexes in the study area. Vernal Pools Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that pond water on the surface for extended durations during winter and spring and dry completely during late spring and summer due to an underlying hardpan. This hardpan restricts the percolation of water and creates a "perched" seasonal water source. These ephemeral wetlands support rare and unique flora and fauna that are adapted to the drastic changes in hydrologic regime. They support specialized flora largely composed of native wetland plant species and fauna with life histories enabling them to tolerate the wide range of conditions in vernal pool communities. Vernal pools in eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties occur in distinctive topography with low depressions mixed with hummocks or mounds. These East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -57 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • depressions fill with rainwater and runoff from adjacent areas during the winter and may remain inundated during the spring to early summer (Tri- Valley Conservancy 2008). Vernal pools are most prevalent in California annual grasslands east and north of Livermore and in the northeast corner of the study area, northeast of Bethany Reservoir. Vernal pools are located in the grassland immediately west and north of the Springtown alkali sink, and adjacent to Cayetano Creek near its confluence with Arroyo Las Positas (Tri - Valley Conservancy 2008). Alkali Wetlands Within the study area, alkali wetlands occupy an estimated 717 acres, which is 0.4% of the total study area (Table 2 -4). These wetlands occur primarily in the northern half of the study area, particularly along stream channels where alkali soils occur. Larger alkali wetland complexes occur in the Springtown Alkali Sink, north of Livermore, and just south of Bethany Reservoir near Mountain House (Figure 2 -8). Alkali wetlands support ponded or saturated soil conditions and occur as perennial or seasonally wet features on alkali soils. Alkali wetlands were mapped where wetlands occurred in association with alkali soils (Figure 2 -6). The vegetation of alkali wetlands is composed of halophytic plant species • adapted to both wetland conditions and high salinity levels. Typical species include those common to both seasonal and alkali wetlands, such as salt grass, alkali heath, and common spikeweed. Alkali wetlands provide function and value for wildlife similar to those provided by seasonal wetlands. The array of wildlife species found in seasonal wetlands is also found in alkali wetlands. See the sections below on the Springtown Alkali Sink and Mountain House Alkali Grasslands and Wetlands for more details on the largest alkali wetland complexes in the study area. Springtown Alkali Sink The Springtown Alkali Sink is a biologically unique area that supports several state- and federally listed plant and wildlife species (Kohlmann et al. 2008). It encompasses approximately 1,150 acres at the northern edge of the city of Livermore and adjacent Alameda County. The sink is a topographic depression in which salts have_ concentrated; these salts, and the unique and complex surface and groundwater hydrology of the region, support an unusually high diversity and density of sensitive biotic communities and special- status species. Boundary of the Sink Historically, Springtown Alkali Sink occupied an irregularly shaped area of more than 3,000 acres. The historical boundaries of the sink can be determined • through historical aerial photos and the extent of the saline - alkaline soils (Soil East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -58 October 2010 Cl` 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting Conservation Service 1966; Coats et al. 1988). The sink formerly extended west • to the intersection of Hartford Avenue and North Livermore Avenue, east to Frick Lake, south almost to 1 -580, and north almost to the "May School Road" line (a line formed by extending May School Road to the east). The extent of the sink has been greatly reduced by residential development in the south and agricultural operations in the north. High - quality habitats are currently found in two disjunct areas on either side of Vasco Road. This boundary is based largely on the extent of saline - alkaline soils of the Pescadero and Solano soil series, which indicates the historical extent of the sink. The larger of the two areas of the sink stretches from Ames Road in the east to North Livermore Avenue in the west. This area also includes a small watershed upstream of the intersection of Raymond Road and Ames Street that contains saline- alkaline soils and special- status species, and supports the hydrology of the sink. East of Vasco Road, the sink includes a high density of wetlands and special- status species, and the saline - alkaline soils along Brushy Peal Tributary. The most prominent feature in this area is Frick Lake, the only large saline vernal pool known to exist in the county. Hydrology of the Sink The sink is influenced by both surface and groundwater flows into the basin from fresh and saline sources. Surface flows to the sink come from seven south- • and southwest - draining subbasins (Jones & Stokes 2003). The largest subbasins are those containing Brushy Peak Tributary and Altamont Creek; these contribute saline - alkaline flows from the east and northeast. The remaining six subbasins are considerably smaller than the Brushy Peak — Altamont Creek subbasin. In the past, the Brushy Peak — Altamont Creek subbasin contributed by far the largest proportion of surface water and groundwater entering the sink's wetland and saline - alkaline habitats (Coats et al. 1988; Phillip Williams & Associates 1988; Questa Engineering Corporation 1998). Because of significant modifications to Altamont Creek and grading related to residential development, a greater proportion of the surface water and groundwater entering the sink's lowland habitats now comes from subbasins to the north and northwest, particularly the subbasin that contains North Livermore Avenue ( Questa Engineering Corporation 1998). At present, the most prominent hydrologic feature in the sink is Frick Lake, located in the area's northeastern corner. Frick Lake is a seasonally ponded basin that covers about 24 acres at high water. The lake is primarily fed by incidental precipitation and by runoff from rangelands to the east: Minor amounts of runoff also enter the lake from the north and south. Vegetation surrounding the lake suggests that its water is saline. Neither the chemistry nor the origin of the lake has been studied to date. Frick Lake may have formed as uplift along the Greenville Fault blocked westward - flowing drainages at the rangefront, pooling water behind a local topographic high; although Laughlin • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -59 October 2010 ;CF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • Road follows the west margin of the lake, it was likely built on an existing elevated surface and does not appear to confine the lake. The sink also contains a high density of seasonal wetlands and vernal pools. These pools fill with water in the winter and slowly dry during spring. The pools are formed in depressions within a mosaic of "hogwallow" or "mima mound" topography. The pools are fed by surface runoff in the complex microtopography and small channels that wind through the sink. These pools support a high diversity of aquatic and semiaquatic organisms, as described below. The sink also receives significant influx of salts and flows just below the surface in a shallow groundwater layer. This shallow layer occurs from the surface to between 6 and 10 feet deep, above a semiconfining claypan /hardpan (Phillip Williams & Associates 1988; Questa Engineering Corporation 1998). Near the surface, groundwater flows into the sink through buried channels that may have been historical stream channels. These subsurface channels enter the sink from the northwest, north, and northeast. Although not well studied, they appear to extend as far west as North Livermore Avenue, as far north as Manning Road, and as far east as Laughlin Road ( Questa Engineering Corporation 1998). These subsurface channels appear to play a major role in water budget and salt balance of the sink (Lamphier & Associates and SWA Group 2000), and point to • the importance of preserving the groundwater hydrology within the larger watersheds of the sink. Biotic Communities of the Sink 40 Biotic communities within the sink consist of valley sink scrub, alkali grassland, and California annual grassland. All three of those land cover types are described above under "Grassland," in Section 2.4.3.1. Special- Status Species of the Sink The sink is unique, in part, because of its concentration of special- status species. Probably the most unique of these species is palmate - bracted bird's beak, listed as endangered under the ESA and CESA. Other special- status plant species that occur in the sink include brittlescale, San Joaquin spearscale, hispid bird's -beak, and Livermore Valley tarplant. Special- status wildlife species known to occur in the sink include California red - legged frog, California tiger salamander, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and western burrowing owl. San Joaquin kit fox may occasionally use the eastern portion of the sink. Recent Changes and Continuing Threats Recent land use changes have significantly reduced the extent of the sink and reduced its quality and functioning. Some of these changes continue to pose East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -60 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting threats to the continued existence of the habitats and special- status species in the sink. Land Use Changes to the Sink Land use changes to the sink probably began with agricultural operations in the area, mostly livestock grazing, around the time of the California Gold Rush (i.e., circa 1850). By 1940, aerial photos show rural roads, including Raymond Road, Hartford Avenue, Vasco Road, and Laughlin Road, surrounding the sink (Jones & Stokes 2003). Vasco Road bisected the sink in 1940 as it does today, but all stream channels, including Altamont Creek and Brushy Peak Tributary, appear intact. Agricultural operations, including dryland farms, also surrounded the sink by 1940. No development occurred in the center of the sink until 1968, when the first of many residential subdivisions were built in and around the sink (Coats et al. 1988). With the increase in residents, the sink also experienced significant degradation from a variety of anthropogenic effects, including off - highway vehicles (OHVS); brush clearing for fire breaks; noise and light pollution from adjacent neighborhoods; and predation from pets, particularly house cats. Activities such as OHV use and brush clearing have been discontinued, but others, such as mountain bicycles, pets, and light and noise pollution, continue to degrade the functions of the sink. In the recent past a proposal was put forward to locate several acres of irrigated agriculture upstream of the sink. A change in land use of this magnitude would likely alter the hydrology of the sink • even further. Hydrologic Changes to the Sink Altamont Creek was historically a shallow, braided channel that likely flooded parts of the sink's lowlands on an annual or biannual basis. This flooding provided important surface water and salt inputs to the sink. Altamont Creek was historically fed both by surface runoff and by outflow of shallow groundwater in the upland portions of the subbasin. In 1968 and again in 1985, Altamont Creek was widened, deepened, and channelized to increase its flood conveyance capacity (Coats et al. 1988). As a result, Altamont Creek no longer floods on an annual or biannual basis. Its current estimated flood cycle is 20 years (Questa Engineering Corporation 1998). Consequently, it now delivers significantly less surface water and soluble salts to wetlands and saline - alkali habitats in the lowland portions of the sink than it did in the past. Beginning in 1968 and continuing through the 1980s, development has had significant impacts on drainage in the sink. For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, a number of small surface drainages were diverted. This caused gullies to form locally, lowered local groundwater levels, and reduced surface water flow into the lowland sink. Historical patterns of groundwater flowing into the sink may have been altered by recent development. Grading associated with residential development between Broadmore Street and Vasco Road may have reduced or diverted shallow subsurface flow into the sink from the watershed to • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -61 October 2010 IUIZ11 ➢1-IMI M Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • the east, although subsurface flow from the north remains largely intact. Development has also likely reduced groundwater recharge by increasing the paved area in the basin and decreasing infiltration. Moreover, when Altamont Creek was channelized for flood control purposes, it was also substantially deepened. As a result, Altamont Creek may now intercept the shallow unconfined aquifer and drain groundwater that would otherwise enter the southern portion of the sink. Mountain House Alkali Grasslands and Wetlands The only site in Alameda County (besides the Springtown Alkali Sink) that supports alkali soils and intact stands of valley sink scrub and alkali grassland is an area of approximately 267 acres in the northeastern corner of the county referred to as the Mountain House Alkali Grassland and Wetlands complex. The site occurs near the intersection of Kelso and Bruns Roads between the Delta - Mendota Canal and the California Aqueduct. A small portion of the site extends into adjacent Contra Costa County. In alkali grassland, dominant grasses include saltgrass and wild barley. The associated herb cover consists of halophytes, including saltbush, alkali heath, seepweed, alkali weed, saltmarsh sand spurry, and common spikeweed. Stands of iodine bush are also present, indicating valley sink scrub. Perennial wetlands • at the site are abundant, dominated by stands of cattail, American bulrush, and rabbitsfoot grass. No formal biological surveys of this site have been conducted, so it is unknown whether special- status plants or wildlife are present. Special - status species that could occur on the site include San Joaquin spearscale, heartscale, California tiger salamander, California red - legged frog, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. Cattle grazing occurs on the site but appears to be having only moderate impacts. Light to moderate livestock grazing may be beneficial to alkali grassland species because cattle reduce the cover of nonnative plants. Further study of this site is warranted to determine whether special- status species occur. Ecosystem Functions Wetland functional values are provided through several physical and biological processes (National Research Council 2001). Perennial and seasonal wetlands function as essential habitat for amphibians that depend on aquatic environments for reproduction and juvenile development. These wetlands also provide high levels of insect production, which in turn creates a major food source for amphibians, birds, and other insectivorous species. The cyclical nature of inundation and drought in seasonal wetlands allows these systems to support a unique suite of highly adapted biota. Perennial wetlands are permanent water sources during the dry season in an otherwise arid landscape and thus function as essential habitat for a wide variety of water - dependent • wildlife. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -62 October 2010 Cl` 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting Wetlands also perform important functions with regard to physical processes. For example, wetlands play an important role in regulating biogeochemical cycles such as the nitrogen cycle. Wetlands also mediate flows in local streams and springs by providing temporary surface water storage and gradual recharge to local aquifers. On a small scale, wetlands in the study area also reduce erosion and sedimentation by reducing surface runoff. Marshes recharge groundwater supplies and moderate streamflow by providing water to streams. This is an especially important function during periods of drought. The presence of marshes in a watershed helps to reduce damage caused by floods by slowing and storing floodwater. As water moves slowly through a marsh, sediment and other pollutants settle down to the bottom of the marsh. Marsh vegetation and microorganisms also use excess nutrients for growth that can otherwise pollute surface water such as nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer. 2.4.3.7 Open Water Open water land cover types consist of open water or aquatic habitats such as lakes, reservoirs, rivers, canals, and ponds (including quarry and stock ponds) that do not support emergent vegetation. Open water habitat in the study area is classified into five land cover types: • ® pond, • quarry pond, • reservoir, • stream, and • canal /aqueduct. Open water land cover types were historically less prevalent than they are currently. With the exception of stream land cover, lakes, reservoirs, and ponds did not exist in the study area until they were built to support livestock and provide a water supply for the human population. Open Water Land Cover Types Pond There are estimated to be 686 ponds that occupy approximately 413 acres (0.15%) of the study area (Table 2 -4). Ponds are scattered evenly through the study area, particularly in areas surrounded by California annual grassland, where grazing is likely to occur (Figure 2 -8). Ponds are important habitat networks that facilitate species movement and increase breeding diversity. • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -63 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • Ponds are small (less than 20 acres) perennial or seasonal water bodies with little or no vegetation. If vegetation is present, it is typically submerged or floating. Ponds may occur naturally or may be created or expanded for livestock use (stock ponds). All ponds discernible on aerial photographs were mapped. Ponds were easily discernible on the basis of two distinctive aerial photograph signatures. One signature— smooth, uniform, and dark black— indicates deeper and less turbid ponds. The other signature —light gray- brown — generally indicates a shallower or more turbid pond. The latter signature was more difficult to discern on the aerial photographs. Where discernible, this land cover type was mapped to the high water line. Some wetland land cover types were likely included as ponds if vegetation was sparse or not visible on photos. The minimum mapping unit was 0.25 acre. Additional ponds not discernible through the aerial photograph analysis are likely located through the study area. The majority of the ponds in the study area are most often stock ponds that provide water to grazing livestock. Lands historically used for grazing, but currently protected as open space, also contain historical stock ponds in disrepair that may be a result of not using grazing as a management tool. Plants often associated with ponds include floating plants such as duckweed (Lemno spp.) or rooted plants such as cattails, bulrushes, sedges, rushes, watercress, and water primrose. Stock ponds are often surrounded by pasture with grazing • livestock. Immediately adjacent to the stock pond, soil may be exposed due to the continued presence of livestock. Stock ponds without grazing may be overgrown and surrounded by wetland vegetation including willows, cattails, reeds, bulrushes, sedges, and tules, thus reducing habitat value for wildlife. Focal species that use ponds during all or part of the year include California tiger salamander, California red - legged frog, and tricolored blackbird. These species rely on ponds and browsing animals for breeding sites. No focal plants are associated with ponds. Quarry Pond Quarry ponds occupy approximately 1,246 acres (0.46%) of the study area (Table 2 -4) in 53 sites. Quarry ponds were differentiated from nonquarry ponds in aerial photos due to their location within quarries and their lack of vegetation. Quarry ponds are concentrated in eastern Pleasanton and western Livermore and along Alameda Creek, in the Sunol Valley (Figure 2 -8). The majority of quarry ponds lack vegetation because of a number of factors, Including frequent fluctuations in water level, high levels of turbidity, and steep slopes. Quarry ponds that maintain constant water levels or that have been removed from active use (i.e., are fallow) have vegetation associations similar to those of other ponds. They may have a dense cover of tules, cattails, or willows along the pond margins, with limited emergent vegetation in the deeper interior • sections. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -64 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting The age and size of a quarry pond influences its biological productivity and • potential to support wildlife and plant species. Like other aquatic resources, reclaimed or late -stage quarry ponds may provide foraging and resting habitat for a variety of wildlife species. These late -stage quarry ponds can support fish, waterfowl, and invertebrates. However, because most of the quarry ponds in the study area are in use and subject to high levels of turbidity and extreme fluctuations in water level, they do not support habitat for wildlife or plants. However, quarries in general can support breeding amphibians. Quarrying operations for sand, aggregate, and gravel in the study area are located on wide alluvial floodplain terraces. Accordingly, development of quarry ponds can have a profound effect on the local hydrologic cycle and associated stream habitat and biota. the quarry ponds in the Sunol Valley tend to be deep and appear to be dug well below the depth of the local water table. Thus, these ponds may lower the local water table, reducing groundwater inputs into the stream and reducing available soil moisture for riparian plants. The effects of this hydrologic alteration may be compounded by groundwater intercepting and collecting in the quarry pond before it reaches the stream channel. Lowered local groundwater levels would also affect the stream by increasing surface water losses to groundwater during the dry season. No focal species use quarry ponds in the study area as habitat, though western burrowing owls could use berms and levees around the edge of quarry ponds if California ground squirrels were present. The ability of this land cover type to support focal species is subject to its primary purpose and management directives. Reservoir Reservoirs cover 1,886 acres (0.69 %) of the study area (Table 2 -4). Reservoirs are open water bodies, larger than 20 acres, that are managed for water storage, water supply, flood protection, and /or recreational uses. These features were easily targeted on aerial photographs based on the smooth, uniform, dark signatures of open water. Where discernible, reservoirs were mapped to the high water line. The high water line was observed on the aerial photographs as either obvious rings of sparse vegetation or an open water signature. The major reservoirs in the study area are San Antonio, Calaveras (partially in the study area), Lake del Valle, Chain of Lakes, and Bethany. San Antonio Reservoir, impounded by the James H. Turner Dam, was constructed in 1964 and is located 1.5 miles upstream of San Antonio Creek's confluence with Alameda Creek, San Antonio Reservoir can store approximately 50,500 of of water from a number of sources, including Alameda Creek, the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, and the SWP. Calaveras Reservoir was completed in 1925 and is located on Calaveras Creek, 0.8 mile upstream of its confluence with Alameda Creek. This reservoir is currently maintained at 30% of capacity because of • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -65 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • seismic concerns. At full capacity, this reservoir can store approximately 96,900 of of water. Lake del Valle is located approximately 5 miles south of Livermore. The lake is created by Del Valle Dam, which was placed on Arroyo del Valle. This lake receives water from the local watershed and the SWP and provides water for the South Bay Aqueduct. At full capacity, this reservoir can store approximately 77,100 of of water (DWR 2001). Bethany Reservoir is located about 10 miles northwest of Tracy in Alameda County. The reservoir serves as a forebay for the South Bay Pumping Plant and a conveyance facility in this reach of the California Aqueduct. At full capacity, this reservoir can store approximately 4,804 of of water (DWR 2001). Plants often associated with reservoirs include those plants common to deep water systems. Algae are the predominant plant life found in the open waters of reservoirs. Depending on reservoir temperature, water level, and other environmental conditions, algal blooms may occur, resulting in thick algal mats on the surface of the reservoir. If the reservoir edges are shallow, plant species similar to those found in ponds may be present. If the reservoir has steeper edges, water depth and fluctuations in reservoir height may prevent the establishment of vegetation. Upland and riparian trees that were not removed • during the construction of the reservoir, or that were planted afterwards, may be present around the perimeter of the reservoir. Focal species that could use the margins of reservoirs, or the inlets where streams flow into reservoirs, include California red - legged frog and tricolored blackbird. Stream The stream land cover type covers 244 miles within the study area (Table 2 -4). Major streams in the study area include Alameda Creek, San Antonio Creek, Arroyo Valle, Arroyo Macho, Arroyo Las Positas, Altamont Creek, and Tassajara Creek (Figure 2 -7). Streams can be unvegetated along their banks or support various types of riparian vegetation. Streams that support riparian vegetation were categorized into one of the three riparian land cover types. For a complete picture of the extent of streams in the study area the stream and riparian land covers should be considered together. The stream land cover type includes perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral watercourses characterized by a defined bed and bank. Perennial streams support flowing water year -round in normal rainfall years. These streams are often marked on USGS quadrangle maps with a blue line; and are known as blue -line streams. In the semiarid Mediterranean climate of the study area with its wet and dry seasons, perennial streamflows are enhanced in the dry season • through groundwater aquifer contributions, flows from shallower springs /seeps, East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -66 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting and reservoir releases. Intermittent (seasonal) streams carry water though most of the wet season (November — April) and are dry through most or all of the dry season (May— October) in a normal rainfall year. More specifically, in the wet season, intermittent streamflow occurs when the water table is raised, or rejuvenated, following early season rains that fill shallow subsurface aquifers. Intermittent flows can also be considered as the baseflows between storm events that continue on through much of the winter season. Ephemeral streams carry water only during or immediately following a rainfall event. The stream land cover type is most closely associated with riparian plants (see the "Riparian Forest and Scrub" section above for discussion of riparian land cover types). The riparian plant composition and width of the riparian corridor vary depending on channel slope, magnitude and frequency of channel and overbank flows, and the frequency /duration of flooding flows that inundate the broader floodplain. Willows may become established in- channel in areas of sediment deposition, unless suppressed by intensive grazing. Woody debris, such as fallen trees that are submerged in streams, provides good habitat and shelter for fish and aquatic invertebrates. Stream systems provide habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates, which are an important food source for local and downstream populations of fish, birds, and other animals. Alameda Creek in the study area is used by rainbow trout. Further downstream, below the flood control drop structure (Bay Area Rapid • Transit weir) adjacent to the Quarry Lakes Regional Recreation Area and outside of the study area, central California coast steelhead and Central Valley fall -run Chinook salmon have been observed. Central California coast steelhead use streams with suitable depths, velocities, and temperatures for juvenile rearing and feeding. Juvenile Central Valley fall -run Chinook salmon use the margins of rivers and streams after emerging from gravels to feed. They also use overhanging vegetation and substrate for cover. Focal species that rely on stream land cover include California red - legged frog, foothill yellow - legged frog, and tricolored blackbird. Alameda whipsnake and San Joaquin kit fox could use the riparian corridors adjacent to stream habitats for movement corridors. Canal /Aqueduct Canal /aqueduct land cover type covers 198 acres (0.07 %) of the study area (Table 2 -4). Both the California Aqueduct and the South Bay Aqueduct run through the northeast corner of the study area (Figure 2 -8). Due to the nature of these human -made structures, canals and aqueducts are often managed for minimal vegetation to enhance the flow of water through the channels. They also convey a large amount of water and contain deep water with swift flow year- round. While these canals and aqueducts can serve as loafing habitat for some waterfowl species, they generally do not have much habitat value. In addition, because these waterways are so wide and deep, they create barriers to movement on the landscape for terrestrial species. • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -67 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • No focal species use the canal /aqueduct land cover type a s h abitat. Ecosystem Functions Open water land cover types perform a variety of functions in both biological and physical terms. Biologically, water is the most critical component required to support the life cycle of all aquatic and terrestrial species. Open water land cover types support the species at the lowest level of the food chain — algae. Aquatic invertebrates feed on algae and other plant debris in streams, ponds, and reservoirs. In turn, these invertebrates become food for fish, birds, bats, and other insect - feeding species. The cycle continues up the food chain, supporting species of the highest trophic levels, including large carnivores and humans. Physically, stream systems, most notably natural stream systems, provide the essential conduits to convey flows, sediments, and nutrients across the watershed. Streams transport weathered minerals and eroded sediments from upper watershed source areas through intermediate watershed positions ultimately to lower watershed depositional areas or discharges beyond the watershed. While the general, and classical, characterization of watersheds into upper erosional, middle transitional, and lower depositional areas may often • hold true, in greater detail, all areas of the watershed can witness erosion, transport, or storage functions. Nutrients from exposed soil and decomposed organic matter are also carried downstream with the sediment, across the valley floor, and finally into the estuary. Alluvial soils, high in organic content and nutrients, are excellent for agriculture. Sediment influx to estuaries helps maintain a marshland buffer along the shoreline that supports a myriad of wildlife. Streams provide ecosystem functions and values much greater than the proportion of the landscape they occupy. Streams provide habitat for a wide array of aquatic insects that, in turn, function as food for amphibians, birds, and other insectivorous species. Perennial streams function as permanent water sources in an otherwise dry landscape. Streams also provide movement corridors between different terrestrial communities. In this way, networks of ephemeral, seasonal, and perennial streams link chaparral /scrub, oak woodland, riparian woodland, and grassland habitats. These links are not only important for the movement of wildlife, but also represent the fastest means of transporting energy and nutrients through a watershed. Thus, it is through stream networks that organic matter and minerals are transported from the highlands and deposited in the lowlands. Stock ponds enhance all other habitats in terms of value for wildlife. Ephemeral ponds in particular, typically provide adequate breeding conditions for California tiger salamander and California red - legged frogs. Since these ponds dry in the • summer, they are not suitable for non - native amphibians such as bullfrogs or East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -68 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting fish. However, if ponds dry too early (June) they will not be wet long enough for CTS or CRLF to complete their breeding cycle. Many upland species rely on streams and ponds as water sources, especially during the dry summer months. Quarry ponds have little ecological value and contribute few ecological services. Quarrying operations can be sources of sediment in a watershed, as well as raising water temperature in streams downstream of water release points. This in turn can have a negative effect on native stream species, including migratory fishes. Reservoirs are typically sediment sinks, obstructing the natural sediment transport of streams. Through natural processes, streams erode sediment from streambanks and move it downstream. In an unimpeded setting, sediment carried from the upper watershed is deposited along the length of the stream, thus creating an equilibrium of eroded and deposited sediment. When a dam is built across a stream, all but some of the finest sediment transported from the upper watershed drops out of suspension in the reservoir, where velocities are too low to maintain the sediment load. The resulting effect is that downstream reaches are sediment- starved, and no new sediment is available to replace eroded sediment downstream of the dam. This results in the stream downcutting and deepening and also results in a reduction in gravels suitable for steelhead and salmon spawning downstream of reservoirs. In addition, large reservoirs fill with and store large amounts of turbid storm runoff. Settling of the finer clay and silt particles may take months, resulting in persistent releases of turbid water in winter and early spring. The slowly settling materials may also result in much higher turbidities near the bottom outlet valve than in the surface waters. While the natural streams upstream of reservoirs rapidly clear between storms, the streams downstream of reservoirs may be persistently turbid and interfere with steelhead and salmon feeding in winter and spring, reducing their growth and potential ocean survival. In addition, the slowly released fine sediments may result in silty substrate below the reservoirs, reducing survival of eggs in spawning gravels and abundance of insects. In addition, because the reservoirs are deep and store cool winter runoff, the water released out of the bottom of the reservoir can be much cooler than the surface water and also cooler than the stream upstream of the reservoir in late spring and summer. The primary function of canals and aqueducts is to transport water for agricultural irrigation and for urban and suburban uses. The modification of channels results in a more linear alignment and does not allow a channel to meander as it would in its natural state. This results in higher flows and potential scour of the stream channel (e.g. Arroyo Mocho). Engineered channels are often constructed with high levees or channel walls. High walls keep flows within the channel and protect property that has been built adjacent to the stream. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -69 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • 2.4.3.8 Cultivated Agriculture Cultivated agriculture encompasses all areas where the native vegetation has been cleared for irrigated agricultural use or dryland farming. This natural community does not include rangeland, which is characterized as an agricultural land use (most rangeland in the study area is classified as annual grassland and considered above in Section 2.4.3.1, "Grassland "). The irrigated agriculture community is classified into four land cover types: • orchard, • vineyard, • developed agriculture, and • cropland. In all of these cases, the land may have been in production in the past but showed little or no sign of crop production currently (e.g., fallow fields). In some instances, these land cover types were indistinguishable on aerial photographs (e.g., newly planted orchards strongly resemble row crops). In such cases, the area in question was mapped as cropland. • Cultivated Agriculture Land Cover Types Orchard Orchards are those areas planted in fruit - bearing trees. Orchards were distinguished on the basis of tree cover, canopy characteristics, and distinctive production rows. Most orchards in Alameda County are olive orchards. Orchards comprise an estimated 203 acres of the study area (0.1%) at 11 distinct sites (Table 2 -4). There are two fallow orchards in western Pleasanton (Figure 2 -8). The remaining orchards in the study area are located south of Livermore, intermixed with vineyards. Some focal species may be found in orchards. For example, where natural open spaces abut, some individual San Joaquin kit foxes or American badgers may move through orchards. Orchards are less suitable as denning habitat for these species. Several species of birds, including western burrowing owl, tricolored blackbird, and golden eagle may forage around the edges of orchards. California red - legged frog and California tiger salamander may disperse through orchards between areas of more suitable habitat. Vineyard Vineyards are identified on the basis of a row production pattern and canopy • characteristics. Vineyards appeared similar to orchards on the aerial East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -70 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting photographs but were characterized by more closely spaced rows with a • smaller, less dense vegetation canopy. Vineyards occupy 2,684 acres of the study area (1.0%) (Table 2 -4). Vineyards are mostly located south of Livermore, though some vineyard development is also starting north of Livermore (Figure 2 -8). Vineyard development in natural habitats substantially degrades wildlife habitat. Some focal species are sometimes observed in vineyards (e.g., foraging and movement). In some areas, nonnative weedy vegetation, such as thistles, mustards, and a variety of other weedy forbs, may be found. Developed Agriculture Developed agriculture was identified by the presence of large agricultural buildings, such as greenhouses and shadehouses (associated with nurseries), corrals, wineries, barns /sheds, or housing. Aerial photographic signatures were generally distinctive because of their large agricultural structures or high densities of livestock. This land cover type occupies 526 acres (0.2%) of the study area in small patches scattered throughout the study area (fable 2 -4). Focal species that may be found in this land cover type include western burrowing owl (e.g., in some of the larger corrals that may be less intensively used), golden eagle, tricolored blackbird (foraging), San Joaquin kit fox, and American badger. This land cover • can similarly be used by California red - legged frog and California tiger salamander as upland or movement habitat. Cropland Tilled land not appearing in the aerial photographs to support orchard or vineyard was mapped as cropland. Cropland Is the most common of the farmland land cover types in the low -lying areas of the study area, occupying 7,923 acres (2.9%) (Table 2 -4). Croplands are abundant throughout the Livermore Valley north and south of the city of Livermore (Figure 2 -8). Row -crops are those areas tilled and cultivated for agricultural crops such as corn, grain, strawberries, peppers, and pumpkins. These row -crops can also be converted to other agricultural uses. Fallow fields include fields that were not in production at the time of aerial photos, but may be utilized for grain, row - crops, and hay and pasture in subsequent years. Hoy and pasture include both dryland settings and irrigated areas. The key difference between hay production and pasture is that crops are harvested onsite and consumed offsite (hay is also cut, bailed, and trucked offsite), whereas pasture is consumed by livestock onsite. Common vegetation includes fast - growing forage grasses, such as wild oats and Italian ryegrass, as well as irrigated legumes such as alfalfa, sweet clover, and true clover. In some areas, • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -71 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting nonnative weedy vegetation, such as thistles, mustards, and a variety of other weedy forbs, are also common. Focal species expected to be found in this land cover type are tricolored blackbird, western burrowing owl, callippe silverspot butterfly, and golden eagle, all of which forage in grain crops and pastures. Western burrowing owls may also breed in agricultural settings if ground squirrel burrows are present. San Joaquin kit fox may move through this land cover type if it occurs near suitable grassland areas. California tiger salamander and California red - legged frog disperse through croplands to reach suitable breeding and upland habitat. Ecosystem Functions This land cover type has relatively low value for native plants and wildlife in terms of habitat that supports full life cycle needs of focal species. Nonetheless, cultivated agriculture does provide some benefit, although species composition and habitat value depends heavily on the planting cycle. For example, cropland has a higher value for terrestrial mammals (e.g., black - tailed jackrabbit) and herbivorous birds (e.g., red - winged blackbird) near harvest time, when the standing crop is mature and produces a quantity of food (e.g., fruit, seeds), than it does after the harvest when the cropland is fallow. Agricultural production • methods can also have an impact on wildlife use. For example, production practices such as clean farming, where farm edges are maintained as vegetation -free areas, reduce cover and movement opportunities for wildlife; on the other hand, wildlife friendly forming, where native cover crops and hedgerows are used between crops and on farm edges, can increase opportunities for wildlife use in croplands. In addition, cultivated agricultural lands often play a key role in providing connectivity between larger open space areas, especially in urbanized areas such as the Livermore Valley. Maintaining connectivity between patches of natural land cover that provide habitat supports a diversified genetic pool due to the ability of populations to disperse, comingle, and interbreed. Cultivated agriculture also often is associated with streams used for irrigation that may support riparian vegetation, trees (planted as windbreaks), and shrubs. These areas may provide habitat to songbirds, raptors, amphibians, and reptiles, as well as provide a movement corridor for other species. 2.4.3.9 Developed Developed land cover types were mapped and described for the study area in order to describe the extent and distribution of modified lands. Developed areas were classified into the land cover types listed below: • Is urban - suburban, East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -72 October2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • rural - residential, r • landfill /solid waste, • golf courses /urban parks, • ornamental woodland; and • ruderal. Developed land cover types were mapped on the basis of their distinct signatures on aerial photographs and are readily distinguishable from naturally occurring signatures in any terrain. The minimum mapping unit for all developed land cover types was 10 acres. Developed Land Cover Types Developed land cover types cover 35,469 acres (13.1 %) of the study area (Table 2 -4). Developed areas comprise all types of development for residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, landfill, landscaping, and recreational uses (e.g., sites with structures, paved surfaces, horticultural plantings, golf courses, and irrigated lawns). Developed sites were mapped on the basis of their distinct signatures on aerial photographs. Developed areas are often characterized by geometric or regular shapes and are readily distinguished from • naturally occurring signatures in any terrain. Urban - Suburban Urban - suburban areas comprise 28,973 acres (10.7 %) of the study area (Table 2 -4). The major urban - suburban area in the study area includes the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin. The urban - suburban land cover comprises areas where the native vegetation has been cleared for residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, or recreational structures, and is defined as one or more structures per 2.5 acres. These include areas that have structures, paved and impermeable surfaces, horticultural plantings, and lawns smaller than 10 acres (irrigated lawns larger than 10 acres were mapped as urban parks). Many small, rural residential areas were observed in the study area. Such areas were mapped as urban if they exhibited at least 10 acres of buildings, turf, and pavement. Rural residential areas of less than 10 acres that were adjacent to or surrounded by agriculture and /or natural land cover types were mapped as the adjacent land cover type. Vegetation found in the urban - suburban land cover type is usually in the form of landscaped residences, planted street trees (i.e., elm, ash, liquidambar, pine, palm), and parklands. Most of the vegetation is composed of nonnative or cultivated plant species. C� East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -73 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting It is less likely that focal species would be found in urban - suburban areas. The exception would be western burrowing owl, which sometimes thrives in suburban areas that have been cleared for development (prior to development occurring). In addition, the alkali wetlands that occur in north Livermore (adjacent to urban development) support may alkali wetland species, including the palmate - bracted bird's beak. Rural Residential Rural residential areas comprise 3,198 acres (1.2%) of the study area (Table 2 -4). Rural residential areas are mainly located in the foothills that surround the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin (Figure 2 -8). The rural residential land cover type is similar to the urban - suburban type except that it is typically much less dense (defined as less than one structure per 2.5 acres) and usually contains extensive landscaping and /or irrigated lands (including small areas of pasture). Several covered species may be found in urban - suburban areas. Mobile species such as golden eagle, western burrowing owl, tricolored blackbird, San Joaquin kit fox, or American badger may move through rural residential land cover if it occurs adjacent to or near natural habitat. Similarly, California tiger salamander • may utilize areas that have open grasslands and are near suitable breeding sites. Callippe silverspot butterfly will move through rural residential areas to disperse between patches of grassland. • Landfill The landfill land cover type comprises 536 acres (0.2%) of the study area (Table 2 -4). There are 14 landfills within the study area, only five of which are currently active (Figure 2 -1). The two largest active landfills are the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility and the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill. The Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility has a 2,130 -acre permitted facility boundary and a 472 -acre permitted disposal area. The Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill has a 326 -acre facility boundary and a 222 -acre permitted disposal area (California Integrated Waste Management Board 2009). Landfills are those areas where vegetation has been cleared and large amounts of soil have been moved for solid waste disposal. Typically, these areas are excavated pits into which refuse is placed and compacted. After a landfill is closed and capped, it may be returned to natural habitats through planting and management. Only active landfills were mapped in this category. Although inactive landfills were mapped as either ruderal or the natural land cover type in the surrounding area, often annual grassland, much of their area may be capped and not support ground- burrowing mammals. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -74 October 2010 OF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting Landfills are highly disturbed areas while in use. They often attract some wildlife, such as gulls, crows, pigeons, and rats. Golf Courses /Urban Parks Urban parks and golf courses comprise 2,759 acres (1.0%) of the study area Table 2 -4). Urban parks are located within cities in the study area and tend to be smaller in scale than a county or regional park. Many serve as neighborhood or community parks. Urban parks and golf courses are located throughout the urbanized areas of the study area (Figure 2 -8). Golf courses and urban parks are composed predominantly of nonnative vegetation and provide limited habitat for native wildlife. Urban parks are unlikely to support any focal species. Golf courses on the fringe of urban areas are known to support California tiger salamander, California red - legged frog, western burrowing owl, or tricolored blackbird, particularly if ponds are present on or near the golf course. Habitat quality in and around golf courses is typically of lower quality because golf course apply fertilizers and other chemical treatments that may run off into waterways and onto adjacent lands during rain events. Ornamental Woodland The ornamental woodlands land cover type comprises only 40 acres (0.01 %) of • the study area (Table 2 -4). Ornamental woodland was mapped primarily in areas surrounded by development, where the signatures on aerial photographs and locations did not meet the characteristics of oak or riparian woodlands. Ornamental woodland was included as a separate land cover type because some stands could provide habitat for raptors or other migratory birds. Ornamental woodlands are those areas where ornamental and other introduced species of trees, including eucalyptus, have been planted or naturalized and dominate, forming an open to dense canopy. While ornamental woodland land cover does not provide appropriate habitat for most focal species, this land cover type may support breeding raptors, including the golden eagle. Ruderal This land cover type is relatively common in the study area (4,798 acres; 1.8 %) and generally occurs on the edges of or within developed areas (Table 2 -4). Areas mapped as ruderal are disturbed areas characterized by sparse nonnative, typically weedy vegetation. Most ruderal areas are vacant parcels surrounded by developed areas (Figure 2 -8). Additional areas mapped as ruderal include most of the lands around gravel quarry ponds between Pleasanton and Livermore. Some areas mapped as ruderal may actually be cropland that has been left fallow for a year or more. Ruderal areas that have not experienced • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -75 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • substantial disturbance (e.g., disking) for a number of years may develop into annual grasslands. The minimum mapping unit for the ruderal land cover type was 10 acres. Where vegetation is present, ruderal land cover is dominated by a mixture of nonnative annual grasses and weedy species, such as black mustard, thistles, and wild radish, that tend to colonize quickly after disturbance. Wildlife common to ruderal habitats can include species closely associated with urban development, such as house sparrow, European starling, rock dove, western scrub -jay, black - tailed jackrabbit, raccoon, opossum, striped skunk, and house mouse. Focal species such as the western burrowing owl often use ruderal habitats in the Bay Area for both nesting and overwintering habitat. However, ruderal habitats frequently become overgrown with vegetation, which becomes fire - prone, dense, matted, and uninhabitable for wildlife species. 2.4.4 Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Linkages This section explains the importance of habitat connectivity and wildlife linkages (also known as wildlife corridors), summarizes potential wildlife linkages that may exist in the study area, and discusses focal and other species that might use and be affected by the fragmentation of these corridors. • Urban sprawl, roads, conversion of wildlands, and other anthropogenic influences are fragmenting habitat throughout California. Habitat fragmentation is one of the greatest threats to biodiversity because it impedes or prevents the exchange of individuals and genetic material among populations of wildlife and plants, thereby reducing genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is important in a population because it increases the chances that individuals can survive catastrophic events such as fire, disease, drought, or invasion by nonnative species. Moreover, entire populations may disappear by chance or from a catastrophic event. Habitat fragmentation may prevent suitable habitat from being recolonized from healthy populations after such an event. For larger species of mammals, long- distance movement and dispersal is an important aspect of their basic biology and is critical for their long -term survival. Habitat connectivity and wildlife linkages are particularly important in the current setting of climate change; species need to disperse to find suitable habitat they can tolerate, which is fluctuating due to shifting climate patterns. Maintaining and preserving wildlife corridors is critical to the persistence and survival of many species (California Wilderness Coalition 2001). For the purposes of this strategy, wildlife linkages are defined as habitat areas that may allow for the long- distance movement of wildlife from one area to another. Linkages can be anything from a narrow strip of habitat that functions as a tunnel or conduit (i.e., only permit movement but not breeding or foraging) to a large area of intact habitat that is used for movement or dispersal and • other life functions. There are two main reasons a species may need to use East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -76 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting wildlife linkages. Some species require linkages for periodic migrations among r different habitat types used for breeding, birthing, feeding, or roosting. Wildlife movement from one important habitat area to another may vary from daily to seasonal migration depending on the species. The second need for a linkage is the permanent immigration or emigration of individuals among habitat patches, allowing for gene flow and recolonization after local extinction (Beier and Noss 2000; Hilty et al. 2006; Groom et al. 2006). Linkage requirements differ greatly from species to species. Specific characteristics of linkages, such as dimensions, location, and quality of habitat, can influence wildlife use. Wider linkages are more effective than narrower linkages (Merenlender and Crawford 1998, Hilty and Merelender 2004; Hilty et al. 2006; Groom et al. 2006). In addition, linkages that do not include adequate buffers from the urban interface or disturbed areas are not used as often. A linkage that does not function properly can become a "death trap' either by isolating individuals from a core population or by not delivering them to habitat that meets basic requirements for survival and reproduction (Groom et al. 2006). All of the focal species, to some degree, rely on habitat linkages to maintain populations and their genetic integrity. However, some of the more mobile focal species rely on habitat linkages extensively for movement. For example, San Joaquin kit fox moves through the Altamont Hills between populations in the southern portion of its range and Contra Costa County. Golden eagle also moves extensively through the study area during migration and for local foraging while resident in the area. The Pacific Flyway, which diverges into east Alameda County, is an important migration movement corridor for raptors and other bird species. Bobcat and cougar also commonly traverse this area in search of food. These species are examples of relatively long- distance movement that requires consideration of habitat linkages at a larger scale. In contrast, California tiger salamander and California red - legged frog move over smaller distances, often from pond to pond or wetland to stream. Their movement needs must therefore be considered at a more local scale, within the study area. Based on an assessment of the movement needs of the focal species and in order to assess and ultimately conserve connections at the scales discussed above, three categories of linkages are discussed below: • grassland corridors in east Alameda County, • aquatic - upland connectivity throughout the study area, and • riparian /stream connectivity throughout study area. • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -77 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • 2.4.4.1 Grassland Corridors Historically, the grasslands in eastern Alameda County were all connected through the lowland valleys and stream systems through the Livermore Valley. The majority of this area has been converted to urban and agricultural uses, fragmenting and separating grassland habitat. The undeveloped northeastern . portion of the study area is also bisected by 1 -580. This regional freeway creates a fairly impenetrable barrier between the northern and southern parts of the study area, with only a few linkages (undercrossings) under the freeway between Livermore and the Alameda /San Joaquin County line. Maintaining contiguity of this eastern part of the study area is important to the integrity of the grassland habitat complex and the wildlife populations that depend on it. San Joaquin kit fox provides the best opportunity to discuss and perhaps study the connectivity of the grassland complex in the eastern part of the study area. The grassland complex in northeastern Alameda County contains a portion of the northernmost extent of the range for San Joaquin kit fox. Northern Contra Costa County is the northern extent of the taxon's range (USFWS 1998). The Altamont Hills in Alameda County are believed to provide an essential link to suitable kit fox habitat in the northern extreme of the species' range (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1997), allowing for genetic exchange between kit fox in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties and those further south in San Joaquin, • Stanislaus, and Merced Counties. The primary kit fox range in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties is in the Diablo Range along the eastern portion of the two counties. This area is characterized by annual grasslands with pockets of oak woodland and chaparral habitats. There appear to be three primary kit fox linkages that cross 1 -580 between the east edge of Livermore and the Alameda /San Joaquin County line. The main "corridor" is the wide grasslands flanking I -S8O between Vasco Road and Grant Line Road. This area could also be breeding and foraging habitat for the kit fox (i.e., not just used for movement). In order for this corridor to remain functional over time, some area would need to be protected on either side of 1 -580 to ensure that the linkage remains open enough to facilitate kit fox movement. For the most part kit foxes moving through the Altamont Hills between northern and southern Alameda County are impeded by 1 -580. There are two sizeable underpasses along the stretch of freeway between Livermore and the county line: near Greenville Road in Livermore, and near the San Joaquin County line at the Grant Line Road exit and North Midway Road (Jones & Stokes 2003). There are likely additional crossing opportunities under 1 -580, through culverts (both water conveyance culverts and farm implement undercrossings) and along the edges of water transport canals (service roads). The importance of these small corridors to the connectivity of kit fox populations in Alameda County is unknown, but because they are so few in number and provide the only connections along a very large and generally impassable freeway, they merit further study and may warrant protection. • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -78 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting In addition to San Joaquin kit fox, these linkages likely provide passage for • American badger; mule deer; California ground squirrel; and perhaps, in some instances, California red - legged frog; along with several other generalist wildlife species. In addition, Alameda County supports a relatively large population of nesting golden eagles (Hunt et al. 1998). Golden eagles use annual grasslands as their primary foraging habitat. They are sensitive to fragmentation of this habitat, and smaller patch sizes may lead to declines in prey populations. 2.4.4.2 Aquatic - Upland Corridlors Several special- status reptiles and amphibians rely on both aquatic and upland habitats to complete their life cycle. These species use ponds, streams, and other aquatic habitats that are interspersed within the annual grassland /oak woodland /chaparral complex in eastern Alameda County. Details about how this applies to particular focal species are discussed in the "Species Accounts" (Appendix D). Generally, aquatic habitats such as streams and ponds provide important breeding habitat, while the matrix of upland habitats between those aquatic habitats and riparian corridors that are often found along streams provide movement habitat. This movement habitat, or corridor, allows individuals from the same species but different populations to interact and ultimately breed. This allows genetic flow between and within populations and protects the species from genetic homogeneity, which overtime could result in reduced numbers of individuals. To better understand the relationship between aquatic breeding resources within the study area, the spatial relationship between ponds and streams was examined through GIS analysis. Using the pond data layer that was digitized during the land cover mapping process, a moving window analysis was used to highlight the relationship between ponds in the study area. The moving window had a radius of 1 -mile (3.14 square miles). This distance was chosen as a conservative compromise between typical movement distances of California tiger salamander and California red - legged frog. Each time the moving window was moved to a new location the density of ponds in the 3.14 mile' areas was calculated. By repeating that process multiple times throughout the study area, a picture of the density of ponds and their relative distance to other ponds begins to emerge. Figure 2 -9 shows aquatic features in the study area in relationship to one another to estimate the degree of connectedness for species such as California tiger salamander and California red - legged frog that can move between aquatic features inter- or intraseasonally. Parts of the study area, with a higher density of aquatic features, that are "connected" have a higher probability that individual red - legged frogs or tiger salamanders could interact with other members of the local populations. The exception to that rule occurs along the 1- 580 corridor where the distance between aquatic resources is enough to provide reasonable connectivity to species, but the barrier that 1 -580 creates • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -79 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting • precludes that connectivity in most cases. Arroyo Las Positas provides a movement corridor under 1 -580 in several places (Jones & Stokes 2003). Figure 2 -9 also shows where there are longer distances between aquatic features. Some of these "gaps" in connectivity are the result of steeper topography, and thus a lack of stock ponds, but others are related to unnatural features on the landscape such as highways or reservoirs. Some of the areas where gaps in aquatic features emerge include: • area between Livermore and Dublin across Cayetano Creek —low pond density in this area seems to leave populations between Cottonwood Creek and Cayetano Creek isolated from those in the eastern part of the study area; • east of Livermore and south of 1 -580 —this area has a low pond density relative to the rest of the study area; • north of Dublin, between Alamo Creek and Cottonwood Creek —this is a connection which would allow species to move from Alameda County northwest into Contra Coast County; • East Bay Hills north of Alameda Creek —there is relatively low pond density in the part of the study area. Sinbad Creek provides an aquatic connection through this part of the study area. • In Chapter 3, conservation opportunities are discussed with respect to how to create or restore habitats in these gaps that will increase regional connectivity for species dependent on aquatic features for at least part of their life cycle. J 2.4.4.3 Stream - Riparian Corridors The importance of streams and associated riparian areas for the connectivity of the study area is discussed in both the stream and riparian woodland land cover sections, above. At a landscape level, stream and riparian habitats connect the study area and serve and the primary source of nutrient movement through natural systems. At the species level, the primary functions of stream and riparian habitats are for movement and cover. Within the study area, these habitats provide movement and foraging habitat for several focal species, including Alameda whipsnake, San Joaquin kit fox, and California tiger salamander. These habitats also provide breeding habitat for California red - legged frog, foothill yellow - legged frog, and Central California coast steelhead. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2 -80 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 a O N m a r u C M M M C N cn (' - r N Cl J •y- J- C Ln E E N O N U G O O rl.�+ N '✓'. .-. Z V V .. O 'C Z C C Z C O Z Lq ¢ N L G L (3 M U _C n C. U N J 'p O O t G v `. C G :u C� i, C C YO Ci v O �+ G • c O v Ln C .�2 C' ✓] J N O C� ..' U n \ W .- p ❑ GJ O N . � � t- u O^ O U c] L7 G � v J M J R C C� A L \ C J ❑. O .O O O C U u' O p u v C O O Q _ O :J _ C^ � U L^ C M�� -� C C U .� G 61 U C O C — C N _ L G .., U 0. 'iS L❑ m e �' c '-- .- � j v� u � L o d C N Y Vi x C X U N 'n \ bC C L U Z F d v cn G 0 bq v i U u _ m � O _ O C L N � — cn o° a 0 0 c '00 F N L CC ti N r L✓ � r 61 v L O G u C O m m > U m. � O CO m v = y 0 N G � C N 9 C m m � Q O O O O m • d L a � T O G V Y ❑ � t7 C 9 m N O v � o G O � _ v � i N r. (C N •U G U r, — m v U ❑ �. C � u 0� v V u O� C� o is s c • u N r 0 C m Cp d O � O G O v v 'U U --• v h ,� m u N JC ♦• O V � m o � � 9 K d .0 m � N U C m ¢ Q N O a a G J a d � w- L a°o Ca O G_ m +� N � N 9 O Ti � J m bC C L U Z F d v cn G 0 bq v i U u _ m � O _ O C L N � — cn o° a 0 0 c '00 F N L CC ti N r L✓ � r 61 v L O G u C O m m > U m. � O CO m v = y y � C N 9 C Q O O O O a 0 m Gd W a C !1 a C1 c V C 0 V C A G C U C Lid V CL C G Ql U � � U a � a S u � a L Y V 0 G .1 C C a G u V C a e ^ r E m m G Q 6 M C C N v n O O N 'G i a O C Q N Cl hl a L C LO+ U b G a L7 V O Ln 0 N L7 0 N C N v. N C N 0 N G 0 i r C O T c J CJ L F_ n 0C O r C r G ti C c V U U O C � � r U ^ � U � v E u v y � G J N V C r y o � u � o U o v c 'C n L fA L . ' T A u u❑ v m '� � C.... N _� C N • v Z � L C O G v V ^ V c ti m L �- Z� C E C ri c V U U O C � � r U ^ � U � v E u v y � G J N V C r y o � u � o U o v c 'C n L fA L . ' T A u u❑ v m '� � C.... N V c N _� C N • v Z � L V N V ti m L �- ri w C U p v U — -v U - o G > s o r1 N U L^ l7 O — O Yk .v o vd v ti r v C ❑ 5G — O c =o v J y .+ v U V ^ to V • U C U j JJ V U U n u v V � V N r Ll] G 0. C C h m v u = o r a Z v c 0 0 L aZD a - L C v O :J L 0 0 II II II v v' W v v iTi 0 iT, � N V c 0 � ��\ \ \ \� \ fjj \ \ \\ \ \(\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ Table 2 -2. Summary of Open Space in the Conservation Strategy as of October 2010 Open Space Classification Acres in the Study Area Percentage of Open Space in Study Area Percentage of Total Study Area Type 1 4,238 6.2 1.6 Type 2 24,106 36.5 8.9 Type 3 31,322 46.1 11.5 Type 4 8,310 12.2 3.1 Total 67,976 100 25.0 • \J • a 0 a m a cl E O V 0. 0 z a V Z F LL V d Cz o O � V V W V a m J ,b 0. v V @ 9 v v O L LaL m O ti3V a m � R J tj �F GA > m m O 4 V4: N 9 'p v T day =mss v 2 S N C v 41 v V v � � c 0 L (� W y G1 V O � C O � v V M y L � � o �n V 6 O g mV� v v � a u y v � � N a o � a a ♦' C m 0 Z � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O � O 4 m m � C y U L � ^ N � y C C m v c`n z a 0 0 6 6 0 0 N O N VI N N m a U m v C a y A Y A 0 0 0 Ci O M Z u p, N Y O G y O d x a a 2 N^ 2 m m 2 C m y a N a m a C N tC0 y ro y A C 7 L N V v en m C O m m ao m x Z V z z° ¢ z° x° 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O a 6 a ¢ an 3 9 z y w � m m cyv ,+ o > > C > N V m m C m F O 4 x L w O > N m C X v ,O L O V n`u Z e`u cn e`n V m Z n: 0 0 0 0 0 0 O � O 4 m m � C y U L � ^ N � y C C m v c`n z a 0 0 6 6 0 0 N O N VI N N m a U m v C a y A Y A 0 0 0 Ci O M Z u p, N Y O G y O d x a a 2 N^ 2 d � 2 N m y a m a m a C N tC0 y ro y A C 7 L N V Vl Lm v N bD y O m m ao m m E Z V ,d 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O a 6 a ¢ an 3 9 z 0 0 0 0 0 0 O � O 4 m m � C y U L � ^ N � y C C m v c`n z a 0 0 6 6 0 0 N O N VI N N m a U m v C a y A Y A 0 0 0 Ci O M Z u p, N Y O G y O d x U A 2 N^ 2 d � 2 N m y L v A A C N m G m t4a d L L N G1 L N L O s o s V Z V U A L N N^ 2 d � 2 U N m N L v A A C N 4 m C � .a C 2 t4a L O c N O U d L N v L d � 2 U N U L v A A a m u a k c0.0 � .a C 2 t4a L O c G L L � L N v L d � 2 U N U L tip X_ tNE u � U O L L O N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O M M M d � v m L L L L y L Q L .O L L 'Q z°u 9 c m a O 3 1 0 v � v A v w C v a� L. 'o ty u O .C.O 3 a O m O m O 3 N a C m 0 0 3 0 a G m b O 3 A O a m b O 3 ro 7 x 0 0 0 N O n a m O 3 m O 3 G m a O 3 0 a+ N 0 p W > u L m C m m A t7 L O m y 4 y d L 2 y� a �y C o � ^ O 3 a+ � A a m a O 3 Y 0 0 V 0 0 0 O n d L W a ry C 02 O �a v � a A 0 A % � � L N 3 3 3 � m ixy 'zN a3 c I Z o a L G� G C� b00 C m m u o s A S � 3 O L L N y N v L � W O m V P. tq V v L v c c Z a V F a L G = O U v O R G C A V y'V L L y c c m Y N O w v o z° z° O M O O c O O O .ti O c o M � N G O d L L m ¢ c o a a a v b `% L L � ✓ fE IE fE E 6 E H^v x v a> L ° ti 3 v z° z z° 'd > v C m> X m L O O ++ 0 O NSV E4: v°. 3 z° z° C O O G d N C v d � A a p O V V W N v O Om D1 O V O> m co NN c L u �+• � G A 7 a y c c x h t e A d e 9 'y7 G u A 3 � m m 3 m � � 3 E y m r m � C G v m H y y a a v O O [i Z Z A A % � � L c v 3 3 3 � O ixy 'zN a3 c I Z o a+ L G� G C� b00 OOD m m u o s A S � 3 O L L N y N v L � W m o L v c c a p. L = O A O O O M O O O O O O .ti O O M � N G O d L L m m v b as ^ H^v h t e A d e 9 'y7 G u A 3 � m m 3 m � � 3 E y m r m � C G v m H y y a a v O O [i Z Z O O O O O 00 L i 3 '9 � c � v A � s c C y O � L m c O O O O O N lA rl eF m 0 N Vl O 9 v h v D � ^c c a° b C 0 a N d u m 0 N N 0 v C a° d Lei a C O Z a Y m o a° O L m c v 3 v N O C evn a+ L G� G C� b00 OOD O s A t s A m O O O O O 00 L i 3 '9 � c � v A � s c C y O � L m c O O O O O N lA rl eF m 0 N Vl O 9 v h v D � ^c c a° b C 0 a N d u m 0 N N 0 v C a° d Lei a C O Z a Y m o a° a M d d L b �+ b ❑ E C C 9 ❑ . V ❑ 9 ❑ ..L, 0. F F bD C 0 V G O G O o z >, 3 3 O V y v v v v v v p T V @ @ u u U U i ❑ C 4 4 tN0 O tC0 O O C C C C Q Q' O O O O u u C C , ,O i ❑ C W U V Z Z Q Q Q Q 6 6 Z Z V V O O 'd v vv v v v v C C A � 1+ a a L � OQ U U U U U U L IL C O 7 7 v v t t+ t ty O O 7 7 O O 7 7 v v v v 7 7 o o v v o o 3 V d d a a � � I In z z V V v v v v ❑ ❑❑ F F z z❑ z z ?' Ia G G ❑ ❑ A A v � � o o � v v a a E y y C . .a t E C C P0. 30 X d y vv�� � za E i C ; E te E X . .OG F F t t� d yu, z E i t t A o o v v m > > > > O O V V C N t m A Z a a E z z z z Z Z v w o t". V Z v mo w o o o y � 0 N m Z Z 4 4 O N O E a 0 N d d d U U d d d d U U U U Y Y d d U U v v O O d d v v Na C C C C C C C G G • a 0 a m m a v v c Y C • v M N d F Table 2 -4. Land Cover Types and their Extent in the Study Area Page 1 of 2 Percent of • Study Area Vegetation Type 4 of Polygons Acres' K Grasslands California annual grassland 452 116,828 43 Non - serpentine native bunchgrass grassland (not mapped) NA NA NA Serpentine bunchgrass grassland 9 241 0.09 Alkali meadow and scalds 41 977 0.4 Rock outcrop 22 99 0.04 Valley sink scrub 133 410 0.15 Chaparral and Coastal Scrub Northern mixed chaparral /chamise chaparral 92 2,684 1 Mixed serpentine chaparral 54 3,788 1 Northern coastal scrub /Diablan sage scrub 245 2,700 1 Oak Woodland Blue oak woodland 553 26,321 10 Valley oak woodland NA NA NA Coast live oak woodland and forest 72 1,221 0.5 Mixed evergreen forest/ oak woodland 394 32,497 12 • Conifer Woodland Foothill pine —oak woodland 142 22,695 8 Coulter pine woodland 6 74 0.03 Sargent cypress woodland 1 6S3 0.2 Riparian Forest and Scrub Sycamore alluvial woodland 22 597 0.2 Mixed riparian forest and woodland 150 2,323 1 Mixed willow riparian scrub 39 664 0.2 Wetlands Perennial freshwater marsh 12 62 0.02 Seasonal wetland' 80 5473 0.2 Alkali wetland 427 717 0.3 Vernal Pool See seasonal wetland Open Water (Aquatic)s Pond 686 413 0.2 Quarry pond 53 1,246 0.5 Streams 43 2444 0.2 Reservoir 13 1,886 1 • Table 2 -4. Continued Page 2 of 2 • Percent of Study Area Vegetation Type # of Polygons Acres' ( %) Canal /aqueduct 9 198 0.1 Cultivated Agriculture Developed agriculture 29 526 0.2 Cropland 47 7,923 3 Orchard 12 203 0.1 Vineyard 31 2,684 1 Ruderal 49 4,798 2 Developed Urban - suburban 109 28,973 11 Rural — residential (< 1 unit per 2.5 acres) 123 3,198 1 Golf courses /urban parks 98 2,759 1 Landfill /solid waste 3 S36 0.2 Ornamental woodland 3 40 0.01 Total S,109 271,485 100 ' Discrepancies between the total acreage of the study area (271,485) and the total of all land cover types • shown in this table are the result of rounding land cover acreages to the nearest whole number. z The number of polygons identified for each wetland or open water land cover type is equal to the total number of water bodies (e.g, 686 polygons for the pond land cover type indicates there are 686 mapped ponds in the study area). Numbers for wetlands indicate single wetlands or wetland complexes (e.g., seasonal wetlands). ' Seasonal wetlands include vernal pool complexes. While there are data available on many of the vernal pools that exist in the study area, the dataset is incomplete. In order to ensure that all seasonal wetlands are investigated to determine if they have vernal pool characteristics this land cover category has been kept general. 4 The number represented in streams miles. • = o m d d e O C V d C m J— O L C O� C O N LL. 0 W i~ O` y 'O N� a N n `om um d d E �� d 0 (O — T ry c A C J_ .°_' N E d v E O 41 O U1 m LL O N Q e'a�$'Emy �me mU ETi niCi '� L07 p c c C 3 E 1p C N� -o d N v= E c9e wno$'n?��' Q m v a,— 9 w= c m> c " c N> m o o`er €= C Y G xC O O m V 2 N J C d ¢ 7 V J v d Q 5 v V LL d €s gto O € o $' W IV oo 8ai8'Pan °$ 0, AUEO Egqqq W UUU`o m3wd S" iSS A4unoo uinbeor ueg ro y k 'o a U c a J C e O E o C I C c�a , O c U I I ✓i I 0 WoyoM°d i _a TI C O, UI� m U m - to c, I C c�a , O c U I I ✓i I 0 WoyoM°d i _a TI C O, UI� m U m - to 0 • • F INTERNATIONAL Open Space (Public Lands & Private Easements') Criteria Type 1: Permanently protected public or private lands subject to conservation easement or deed restriction, where the primary purpose and management goal of the land is for ecological protection For example,Type 1 Open Space includes conservation easements at Brushy Peak Preserve and Byron Airport. Type 2: Public lands where the primary purpose of the land is for ecological protection but the land is not subject to irrevocable protection such as a conservation easement or deed restriction. Examples include Brushy Peak Preserve not under conservation easement and Morgan Territory Regional Preserve. Type 3: Public lands that may contain some land uses other than ecological protection. These lands would include parklands classified as parks, open space or special protection units where something other than ecological protection is designated as the primary use (e.g., recreation, watershed protection). Type 3 could also include private lands under agricultural easement to preserve livestock grazing or dry land farming. Also included would be the undeveloped portions of drinking watersheds under ownership or management by a public agency. Examples include Los Vaqueros Watershed and Carnegie State Recreational Vehicle Area. Type 4: This would consist of developed portions of public lands that retain some ecological value. It would also include public golf courses, some landscaped areas, and developed neighborhood parks. Type 4 would also include private lands under agricultural easements to preserve vineyards, orchards, or other cultivated agriculture. Examples include the South Bay Aqueduct and small lands around Clifton Court Forebay. Note: 'Private Easements include private lands that are protect through permanent easement or deed restriction for conservation or agricultural purposes. Figure 2 -2 Criteria for Open Space Types Is the land subject to irrevocable protection YES Type 1 Open Space YES against a change in primary land use through local, state or federal NO Type 2 Open Space Is the authority? management management goal related to ecological protection? Is the land managed as YES Type 3 Open Space ' open space and does it NO provide some ecological value? —194 Type 4 Open Space Open Space (Public Lands & Private Easements') Criteria Type 1: Permanently protected public or private lands subject to conservation easement or deed restriction, where the primary purpose and management goal of the land is for ecological protection For example,Type 1 Open Space includes conservation easements at Brushy Peak Preserve and Byron Airport. Type 2: Public lands where the primary purpose of the land is for ecological protection but the land is not subject to irrevocable protection such as a conservation easement or deed restriction. Examples include Brushy Peak Preserve not under conservation easement and Morgan Territory Regional Preserve. Type 3: Public lands that may contain some land uses other than ecological protection. These lands would include parklands classified as parks, open space or special protection units where something other than ecological protection is designated as the primary use (e.g., recreation, watershed protection). Type 3 could also include private lands under agricultural easement to preserve livestock grazing or dry land farming. Also included would be the undeveloped portions of drinking watersheds under ownership or management by a public agency. Examples include Los Vaqueros Watershed and Carnegie State Recreational Vehicle Area. Type 4: This would consist of developed portions of public lands that retain some ecological value. It would also include public golf courses, some landscaped areas, and developed neighborhood parks. Type 4 would also include private lands under agricultural easements to preserve vineyards, orchards, or other cultivated agriculture. Examples include the South Bay Aqueduct and small lands around Clifton Court Forebay. Note: 'Private Easements include private lands that are protect through permanent easement or deed restriction for conservation or agricultural purposes. Figure 2 -2 Criteria for Open Space Types N C C N C C C y Q I N d V C a c 0 LL a aJ M N E 0 Lj d a a? p a` W k-d IC ;un i or ueg L7 I ff & °v 1 C C � N N O Y o cm e 0 2 1 v.2 � HTm c_ a 0 0 0 J ° W CY y f0 N '- m a 0 O r`1 V w axi m rn = E 3 f r inm UUiAU W U 0 1Q O m k-d IC ;un i or ueg L7 I ff & °v 1 C C � N N O Y � cm e 0 2 1 v.2 0 N \ an a 0 0 0 J ° W CY - O r`1 V w �- �. A f r inm UUiAU W 0 1Q U C C � N N O Y N Q T d d na�cFEr 6 o_ t� p 0 N .00 a�i mUU' N s �.. 0 0 0 J ° W CY - . � N .m m E�o°a0 0Q ° N �oUm O inm UUiAU W F' r�� T• �Ff 6�- A N a T L N 3 O �VC1 j W n �a {L V a d F j J H C m 3 C�yfiO A r in o00 r �Nwo Y I I 41 O C j N 0 W �1 I i A,unoo uinbeor ueg I m n I 0 R1� ° O� J/IO I'L_T a O JI E s 1 J S, G•` m O I\ t ' b / O A 1 ♦♦\ gg � C9 v - r m i -, let I i r i � N >. N C O y 7 N � O = V O OI LL -0 N GI E a Q y N � m W T v � E 0 m@ z_ AD Z. E C O .01 E O J E p s v m m C E .O E O O fa m J E -O E Q N E O m T T O N N J V JO N O T J m 3 T T T O D U O> 0 0 0 O O Vl S N CC T V U l7 V J CC K K K v1 of of in in 3 C lit 11 1 11 11 Rlunoo uinbsor uss n P ` 0 u a m O .4 U m m E I t N Qy� l. r � c 0 go U U m m m 1 U m C m G) v � m@ z_ AD Z. O l. r � c 0 go U U m m m 1 U m C m G) N c 0 7 3 O O o LL i N °J o a q H .0.. a 0 W C f h� -__ - -- -_ — A;unoo ulnbeor ueS d 0 114..111 y t lb a o c U "Cl e'0 V 0 7 ¢ N t ; c O V E a V 0 a ,Q, w� . c<I O J. Uw C - C O ' a V J L A N N fl N m V 2 in cc ¢ 0 f h� -__ - -- -_ — A;unoo ulnbeor ueS d 0 114..111 y t lb a o c U "Cl e'0 V 0 7 ¢ N t ; c O V E a V a ,Q, w� . c<I O Uw O f h� -__ - -- -_ — A;unoo ulnbeor ueS d 0 114..111 y t lb a o c U "Cl e'0 V 0 7 ¢ N t ; c N N � 41 L � N 7 � � w O LL 3 N a v O T T � N C > > m m N � V Y t m N Ew c� Se Qa Um r 7 N W N V 0 d T W C O U ai �- Noo nOo ul b ueg L) •:; _ �� 3 d K 1 d ox a Hof C� C d • , ` Ol O, ' d L d 02 V\ d C I y N }•, �•. Y J d k ,y O 2 d N d i.tP •7 Ty oy' �a a Sou a . 0 \ ,O � Y � CC O m > DYU y �O o U, 1 C y O Yyy. `O C a V o d VU�C � T 1 � C N V • yy m r YI 0 a� � 1 i d d y C�U a 0, �� LS :�t' • d V s O d F V Y I m d @ §y g c ILL:. w I�g11�1�� 111 s i$ S 3 a 3 8 3 -- ♦♦at 3a all 1 s Af W, z f, , d Ilk ' ° Y Y N 'y� i i 3 C O tm O LL C � a° .0 0 O K� 7 w�a E e nm $�nE y36ww � V =wS map W o m .6 lk �a55�o w dvaoA „ @� w E E4 m n zz mSE ESti, of N Ul v m � E A 3 o c of 3 N° v�2 n • j m K� 7 N O �Ral Hollow CJJeeN 6junoo ulnbeor ueg •i ••� 04D • �• • � as s • • s a •' eo'Ad' • • ° ° S • • • • •4 •� • • • • 0 0o tl a W • • a •• ° Pao • a O O O 0 • '. t@ • • o O® o• i 0 0•, .s • o • • • g l Jo -j& � N 0 0 es '� oa • �O .� +per ar` O • O • x v •j5 c 000. __• • 0 • 0 o ry • O O O �1. •_ -Q 0p0 ��po" 00 • �r M�WJOAM IS FEW 0 O O C` -- ° O ° • • =fie • �7 ° o a i 0 O M-- w�a E e nm $�nE y36ww €Eu =wS map W o m .6 lk �a55�o mog dvaoA „ @� w E E4 m n zz mSE ESti, of N O �Ral Hollow CJJeeN 6junoo ulnbeor ueg •i ••� 04D • �• • � as s • • s a •' eo'Ad' • • ° ° S • • • • •4 •� • • • • 0 0o tl a W • • a •• ° Pao • a O O O 0 • '. t@ • • o O® o• i 0 0•, .s • o • • • g l Jo -j& � N 0 0 es '� oa • �O .� +per ar` O • O • x v •j5 c 000. __• • 0 • 0 o ry • O O O �1. •_ -Q 0p0 ��po" 00 • �r M�WJOAM IS FEW 0 O O C` -- ° O ° • • =fie • �7 ° o a i 0 O M-- Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy Table of Contents 3.1 Overview ................................................................. ............................... 3 -1 3.2 Project -Level Use of the Strategy .............................. ............................3 -3 3.2.1 Standardized Mitigation ...................................... ............................3 -4 3.2.2 Impact /Mitigation Scoring of Focal Species Habitat .......................3 -5 3.3 Independent Conservation Actions ........................... ............................3 -6 3.4 Methods and Sources ................................................ ............................3 -6 3.4.1 Conservation Gap Analysis .................................. ............................3 -7 3.4.2 Geographic Units of Conservation ...................... ............................3 -8 3.5 Conservation Goals and Objectives ........................... ............................3 -9 3.5.1 Landscape -Level Goals and Objectives .............. ...........................3 -10 3.5.2 Natural Community —Level Goals and Objectives ..........................3 -12 3.5.3 Focal Species Goals and Objectives .................... ...........................3 -40 3.1 Overview This Conservation Strategy has two purposes. First, it is designed to convey the project -level permitting and environmental compliance requirements of ESA, CESA, CEQA, NEPA, and other applicable laws (see discussion in Chapter 1) for all projects within the study area with impacts on biological resources. Second, it is intended to create a vision for how biological resources in the study area should be conserved through the project permitting process and through non - regulatory conservation actions. To support the project permitting process, the Conservation Strategy identifies a set of mitigation standards. These standards include avoidance and minimization measures and a compensation program to offset impacts expected from projects in the study area. They also include a set of specific management prescriptions to benefit natural communities and focal species. To address the needs of conservation actions that occur independently of project mitigation (e.g., by nonprofit organizations, land trusts, local agencies, or voluntary actions by private landowners), the Conservation Strategy sets long -range conservation East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -1 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • goals for preservation of all natural communities in the study area. The Conservation Strategy is designed to contribute to species recovery to help to delist the listed focal species and prevent the listing of non - listed focal species through the protection, restoration, and enhancement of natural communities . and species habitat. By focusing on conservation at the natural community level as well as at the focal species level, the Conservation Strategy will also ensure that common habitats and common species continue to be common in the study area. The Conservation Strategy is based on the best scientific data available at the time of its preparation and takes into account the limitations of the baseline data available for the study area (see Chapter 2). The strategy was developed to be flexible, with the assumption that it would be consistently updated as lessons are learned through implementation. The Conservation Strategy is based on the conservation goals and objectives described below. To achieve these goals and objectives, a series of conservation actions have been developed that often meet multiple objectives or goals. The chapter is focused on conservation actions that will accomplish the conservation goals and objectives through the following general concepts. • Coordinate the protection of remaining natural communities where they occur to allow them and the species that depend on them to persist in the • study area (Table 3 -1). ® Avoid and minimize project -level impacts on species and their habitats through avoidance and minimization measures that are consistently applied throughout the study area (Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3). • Preserve major local and regional connections between key habitat areas and among existing protected areas. • Restore natural communities that have been degraded or lost over time where possible. E The Conservation Strategy was designed using a multi -scale approach in accordance with principles of conservation biology. At the largest scale, conservation goals and objectives were developed to encompass ecological processes, environmental gradients, biological diversity, and regional wildlife linkages. Conservation actions were developed to implement these goals and objectives. These conservation actions occur at the landscape scale or landscape level — generally at the scale of miles or tens of miles. At the middle scale, conservation actions were developed to address natural communities primarily through the enhancement, restoration, and management of vegetation types (i.e., land cover types). This medium scale is called the natural community level. The final scale addresses the specific needs of focal species for protection and enhancement of individuals, populations, and groups of populations. Species -level conservation actions were developed to supplement East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -2 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy and focus actions developed at the broader scales and to ensure that all the • needs of particular species are addressed. The conservation actions are described below at the landscape, natural community, and species levels. All conservation actions are designed to have enough detail and specificity to allow implementation. Because of the regional scale of this Conservation Strategy, actions are also designed to be flexible. For example, natural community —level actions provide broad management guidelines and principles such that future land managers can implement specific techniques on the ground that are best suited to site conditions. Implementation of many actions will require the preparation of site - specific implementation documents (e.g., reserve management plans, restoration plans), particularly if a site is intended to serve as mitigation for impacts from a project. These documents will be prepared during planning at the project level after land is acquired and specific restoration and management needs are determined. Management plans are intended to guide activities on conservation or mitigation parcels. In some cases, management documents will rely on existing agreements or regional initiatives provided by existing land management organizations (e.g., EBRPD, Tri- Valley Conservancy). Management plans for individual parcels or groups of parcels intended to provide mitigation for individual projects will be completed prior to project implementation and within 1 year of the first acquisition of the land, unless otherwise specified by • federal and state resource agencies. 3.2 Project -Level Use of the Strategy At the project level, information contained in this Conservation Strategy is meant to provide context and guidance to project applicants, local jurisdictions with permit authority, and resource agencies in determining the potential impacts of a project and the level and type of mitigation necessary to offset those impacts. The conservation gap analysis, described in detail in Section 3.4.1, provides information on where natural communities occur in the study area, how many acres are currently protected, and how many should be protected for the natural community to persist. This information is presented in a spatially explicit (i.e., conservation zones, Section 3.4.2) manner to inform project -level decisions at a manageable, regional scale. The conservation goals and objectives provide a long -term vision of how conservation of resources should be implemented in the study area. Focal species habitat assessment scoresheets provide project applicants, local jurisdictions, and resource agencies with a consistent method to evaluate potential impacts and sources of mitigation. The quality of the habitat on a project site should be assessed, excluding the influence of current land management practices or other anthropogenic sources of disturbance (discussed in greater detail in Section 3.2.2). Once the quality of habitat is • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -3 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • determined fort he focal species, standardized mitigation ratios can be applied, and in some cases adjusted, to determine the level of mitigation necessary for the project. Once in place, all these components of the Conservation Strategy will streamline and increase the predictability of the permit process for both the project applicant and the local and resource agencies. Because the Conservation Strategy focuses on project -level conservation of natural communities and species, there may be areas within the Conservation Strategy project area that, due to the regional significance and presence of rare and unique natural communities and species, will require additional considerations that are beyond the scope of this Conservation Strategy. This Conservation Strategy should be used during the entire project -level analysis, starting at project inception and ending at regulatory permits. In short, when project applicants and resource agencies are reviewing project impacts and making decisions about mitigation, they should apply the mitigation standards of the Conservation Strategy and determine if the mitigation supports its conservation goals and objectives. Further, they should determine whether the mitigation contributes to closing one or more conservation gaps for the focal species or natural communities in question within a given conservation zone, and ultimately within the study area. Additionally, the mitigation • standards and analysis should not apply to projects that do not incorporate the conservation goals, objectives, and priorities of the strategy. Those projects will require additional analysis and most likely increased mitigation. 3.2.1 Standardized Mitigation Mitigation requirements are typically outlined at the species level when it is determined that focal species utilize affected land cover types for all or part of their life cycle. In cases where no focal or other native species are present but natural communities would be affected by a project; mitigation should be outlined for each land cover type in the CEQA document. As a general guideline, mitigation should include a provision for the protection of the same land cover type at a 3:1 ratio. The mitigation ratio may vary depending on the quality of habitat being lost. This ratio could vary further depending on the total acreage and quality of the natural community in that particular Conservation Zone. In other words, if the project will affect a rare natural community in the Conservation Zone, the ratio could be higher. If the community is fairly common, the ratio could be lower. Changes in the ratio would need to be justified through the CEQA process and in coordination with the Resource Agencies. As mentioned above, most mitigation is assigned at the species level for impacts on species' habitat. Under this Conservation Strategy, standardized mitigation • ratios have been determined for each focal species. Standardized mitigation East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -4 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy ratios were developed for each federally listed wildlife species; more general • ratios were developed for plant species and non - listed wildlife species. The variations in how mitigation ratios are applied under this strategy depend on the amount of information available for the species in the study area and the degree to which that information can be systematically applied. The standardized mitigation ratios are shown in Tables 3 -4 through 3 -12. Figures 3 -6 through 3 -14 show spatially explicit information about how the ratios are applied. It is imperative that when determining the mitigation ratio for a focal species both the species' standardized mitigation ratio table and figure are consulted. Like mitigation ratios for natural communities, these species ratios provide guidance for project applicants and agency personnel. If the project area is more sensitive or if proposed mitigation sites have a higher habitat value, then ratios should be adjusted accordingly. In order to meet CDFG's standard of full mitigation for state listed species under CESA, project applicants will have to demonstrate habitat enhancement, not just permanent protection, on properties used for mitigation. Mitigation is assigned through the permitting process and either written into a permit as a permit condition or included in a CEQA document as a mitigation measure. The standardized mitigation ratios presented in the Conservation Strategy are only valid if a project application is in compliance with all other parts of the Conservation Strategy (i.e., avoidance and minimization measures). 3.2.2 Impact /Mitigation Scoring of Focal Species Habitat • In addition to mitigating the loss of focal species habitat on the basis of acreage, it is the intent of the Conservation Strategy to ensure that species' habitat quality is preserved. The Conservation Strategy includes some general guidelines on how to quantify the quality of species habitat both on project sites where impacts might occur and on proposed mitigation sites, where those impacts are supposed to be offset. A scoresheet has been developed for each focal species using the key life history characteristics that make habitat suitable for that species (Appendix Q. The intent of the scoresheets is to allow for a project site to be assessed by a qualified biologist /botanist, determining if it is habitat for a focal species, and then to use the same criteria to assess any proposed mitigation sites. It is important that project sites and mitigation locations are assessed on the basis of their basic habitat values, disregarding current land uses and management activities. For example, if a parcel supports upland habitat for California tiger salamander because it is within the typical dispersal distance from a known breeding site, it would be scored as such even if it was currently disked by the landowner. In other words, the maximum potential habitat quality of a site will be used when judging habitat quality. By using this approach, project applicants, local jurisdictions, and resource agencies can make consistent determinations about habitat quality for species and can more easily achieve consensus on whether a mitigation site • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -5 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy isappropriately compensates for the impacts that will occur on the project site. Using the outcomes of the scoring effort, project applicants and resource agencies can determine if the standardized mitigation ratios presented for focal species in Tables 3 -4 through 3 -12 are appropriate or if adjustments need to be made. 3.3 Independent Conservation Actions While much of this Conservation Strategy is focused on how mitigation should be implemented for development or infrastructure projects, an additional benefit of a long -range Conservation Strategy is to bring focus and purpose to independent conservation actions inside the study area. By outlining conservation goals and objectives for the study area and completing a conservation gap analysis, this Conservation Strategy creates a framework for future conservation efforts in the study area. For example, as new land acquisitions occur, the level of protection of various natural communities can be tracked against the current gaps in protection. This Conservation Strategy provides a "roadmap" for land acquisition organizations and informs future land acquisition decisions. This strategy also allows private landowners to better understand the conservation value of their lands in a regional context. The strategy could be used to justify financial assistance to landowners for voluntary • conservation projects on land with high conservation values 3.4 Methods and Sources The primary data sources for the Conservation Strategy were scientific literature, recovery plans, species accounts from adjacent conservation plans, and occurrences documented in the California Natural Diversity Database. That information is summarized in the ecological accounts of focal species (Appendix' D), the species distribution models (Appendix D), and the inventory of existing conditions summarized in Chapter 2. Other sources consulted to develop the Conservation Strategy are cited throughout the chapters. Additional general sources are listed below. ® Various accounts of focal species biology and natural community function in the scientific literature (cited as referenced). ® Species recovery plans, if available: ❑ California Red - Legged Frog (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002a). ❑ Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998a). ❑ Draft Recovery Plan for Chaparral and Scrub Communities Species East • of San Francisco Bay, California (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002b). East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -6 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy ❑ Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon (U.S. Fish • and Wildlife Service 2005). ® Species and natural community experts, including USFWS and CDFG agency personnel. ® Approved or in- process conservation plans for adjacent or nearby areas with similar natural communities and focal species: ❑ San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Alameda Watershed HCP (in process). • Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area NCCP /HCP (in process). • Pacific Gas & Electric Company Bay Area Operations and Maintenance HCP (in process). ❑ East Contra Costa County HCP /NCCP (approved). ❑ Santa Clara Valley HCP /NCCP (in process). ❑ San Joaquin County HCP (approved). ❑ East Bay Regional Park District HCP (in process) 3.4.1 Conservation Gap Analysis A key step in the development of a regional Conservation Strategy is to determine the existing level of protection for natural communities and focal species. Species or natural communities with low levels of existing protection may require greater emphasis in the strategy to ensure that their conservation in the study area is assured. In contrast, species or natural communities that are well protected may need little or no additional focus from the strategy. For these species, the conservation goals and objectives may instead focus on habitat restoration or improved habitat management in existing protected areas. The analysis conducted to determine the levels of existing protection of species and natural communities is called a conservation gap analysis. The methods used were based on similar approaches applied at the national, state, and local levels (Scott et al. 1993, 2001; Wild 2002). Conservation biology theory holds that by protecting a wide variety of ecosystems and natural communities or land cover types at a broad scale, the majority of the biological diversity contained within these natural communities will also be protected (Noss 1987; Hunter 2005). This approach is complemented by then focusing on finer scale resources such as species occurrences, species habitat, or unique physical features to conserve biological diversity not protected by the broader scale approaches. That additional focus is incorporated through species -level conservation goals and objectives. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -7 October 2010 OF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • 3.4.1.1 Conservation Gaps in the Study Area To determine the gaps in protection in the study area, the following GIS data layers were overlaid with the open space Types 1, 2, and 3 layer (Figure 2 -3). ® Land cover (see Chapter 2 and Figure 2 -8). m Species habitat distribution models (see Chapter 2 for a general description of these models and Appendix D for the model parameters for each species). The results of the conservation gap analyses are presented in Table 3 -1 for land cover types. Data are presented by open space Types 1 and 2 (see Chapter 2 for a definition of open space types). Together, these results lay the groundwork for land preservation goals in the study area. Understanding the quantity and location of resources in the study area will inform regulatory decisions and mitigation concepts at the project level under the guidance of the Conservation Strategy. Many natural land cover types have greater than 25% of their extent in open space Types 1 or 2 (Table 3 -1). Types 1 and 2 have sufficient protections and management strategies in place for this strategy to consider them "protected." These protected areas can be leveraged when protecting new areas to gain a • larger conservation benefit for natural communities and species. Natural land cover types that have a high percentage protected relative to the total acres of the land cover that occur in the study area ( >40 %) are coulter pine woodland (81 %), serpentine bunchgrass grassland (65 %), sycamore alluvial woodland (50 %), and rock outcrop (46 %). While these natural communities are considered protected under this strategy, they are considered rare and will be conserved to the maximum extent possible. Natural land cover types with the lowest proportion in open space overall and where the conservation gaps are greatest are northern mixed chaparral — chamise chaparral (0 %), Sargent cypress woodland (0 %), perennial freshwater marsh (0 %), and mixed willow riparian forest and woodland (<0.1 %). Cropland land cover types are also poorly represented in open space in the study area overall. 3.4.2 Geographic Units of Conservation The study area was subdivided into 18 discrete units called conservation zones (CZs) (Figure 3 -1) to identify locations for conservation actions in areas with the same relative ecological function as those areas where impacts occur. The primary purpose of these CZs is to describe the specific areas in which conservation actions such as land acquisition will occur, without identifying individual parcels. This focuses the conservation actions in a spatially explicit manner while maintaining the flexibility to conduct these actions on different • parcels and using different mechanisms (e.g., acquisition vs. incentives) to meet East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -8 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy the conservation objectives. The arrangement of the zones also provides a • mechanism to apply conservation actions at several spatial scales using consistent units (e.g., within a watershed, within a combination of zones, or within a single zone). The conservation zones were developed using subwatershed boundaries from the California Department of Water Resources (Figure 2 -7). Other adjustments were made to the zone boundaries to facilitate the Conservation Strategy; for example, the large Livermore subwatershed that crosses I -580 was split into two subwatersheds for planning purposes', and subwatersheds that were partially outside the study area were combined with others that were completely inside. To ensure that habitat protection occurs in locations that will maximize the benefits to natural communities and focal species, protection recommendations are defined by conservation zone. A discussion of the conservation value and conservation acreage goals for each CZ is outlined in Chapter 4. Recommendations by CZ were calculated by applying the percentage of a land cover type that needs to be protected throughout the study area to the fraction of each land cover type in each zone. This approach will allow for a more relevant assessment of the importance of resources in each zone during project review and determine where the conservation focus should be for each part of the study area. Land cover types are grouped by natural community and shown in Figures 3 -2 • through 3 -5. The conservation priorities in each CZ were determined by (1) the rarity of the resource in the zone and in the study area, (2) the current and future threats on the persistence of the resource in the zone and in the study area, and (3) the acreage of the land cover type under protection in each zone relative to its distribution in the study area. 3.5 Conservation Goals and Objectives Most of the conservation goals and objectives are designed at least to maintain current populations of focal and other native species in the study area. In some cases, populations of focal species are expected to increase as a result of land preservation, management, habitat enhancement, habitat restoration, and habitat creation. Each conservation goal is supported by several conservation objectives, presented below. All conservation goals and objectives will be achieved through the implementation of conservation actions at the project level. ' In addition, major roadways such as 1 -580 create barriers for many of the focal species (e.g., California red - legged • frog) making it more realistic to split such subwatersheds into separate conservation zones. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -9 October 2010 14771DIeI44I0 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • 3.5.1 Landscape -Level Goals and Objectives 3.5.1.1 Landscape Goals and Objectives Goal 1 Protect and enhance natural and semi - natural landscapes that are large enough to accommodate natural processes beneficial to populations of native species. Objective 1.1. Protect a range of environmental gradients (such as slope, elevation, aspect) across a diversity of natural communities within the conservation zones. Objective 1.2. Protect riverine systems and hydrologic function within the study area through protection and management of terrestrial land covers, streams, ponds, and wetlands across all watersheds of the study area. Objective 1.3. Allow natural disturbance regimes required for natural community regeneration and structural diversity and native species germination and recruitment to occur on protected lands within the study area or implement management actions that mimic those natural disturbances. is Objective 1.4. Eradicate or reduce the cover, biomass, and distribution of targeted nonnative invasive plants and reduce the number and distribution of nonnative invasive animals using IPM principles to enhance natural communities and native species habitat on protected lands within the study area. Goal 2 Objective 1.5. Reduce edge effects of development on natural and semi - natural landscapes. Maintain and enhance the effective movement and genetic exchange of native organisms within and between natural communities inside and outside the study area. Objective 2.1. Maintain connectivity for wildlife populations inside the study area through protection and enhancement of functional linkages across 1 -580 and 1 -680 to allow for movement of focal and other native species. o Conservation Action LAN -1. Identify important linkages and pinch - points for wildlife connectivity along major roadways and prioritize them for protection and /or enhancement. ® Conservation Action LAN -2. Protect and enhance important linkages and pinch - points to encourage wildlife passage through the use of strategically • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -10 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 Goal 3 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy placed fencing and vegetation, especially along riparian corridors and at • roadway underpasses. Conservation Action LAN -3. Where biologically appropriate, resize or redesign culverts to better accommodate wildlife passage under major roadway barriers. 91 Conservation Action LAN -4. Fund and implement a monitoring program both to identify important linkages along major barriers and to determine the effectiveness of enhancement actions at protected undercrossing points Objective 2.2. Protect and enhance habitat linkages between the study area and lands outside of the study area to enhance regional connectivity. M Conservation Action LAN -5. Coordinate acquisitions related to mitigation or other conservation in eastern Alameda County with conservation programs in adjacent counties. Objective 2.3. Retain, and if possible, increase the functionality of movement corridors across Vasco Road, the South Bay Aqueduct, SR 84, 1 -580, and 1 -680 for a range of species to move safely within and through the study area. Conservation Action LAN -6. Identify known crossings and potential crossings for San Joaquin kit fox, American badger, and other highly mobile mammalian species. Conservation Action LAN -7. Identify existing crossings with suitable habitat for focal species on both sides of the roadway (e.g., crossings with California tiger salamander breeding habitat on both sides of the underpass). Maintain a coordinated "Protected Lands" database that tracks the total acreage of each natural community as well as documented occurrences of focal species on current and newly acquired parcels in the study area. Objective 3.1. Develop, maintain, and administer a protected lands database. 3.5.1.2 Regional Connectivity and Habitat Linkages Landscape -level goals are intended to maintain and enhance the effective movement and genetic exchange of native organisms within and between natural communities inside and outside the study area (Goal 2). In order to maintain connectivity for wildlife populations within the study area, project - driven mitigation and independent conservation actions would need to protect and enhance functional linkages across major highways (e.g., 1 -580 and 1 -680) to allow for movement of species (Objective 2.1). Initially, the Implementation Committee could identify important linkages and "pinch- points" (migration areas with restricted or disturbed corridors) to prioritize for protection or • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -11 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • enhancement (LAN -1). The functionality of movement corridors across Vasco Road, SR 84, 1 -580, and 1 -680 have already been identified as important movement corridors within the study area that should be enhanced (Objective 2.3). Wildlife passage through important corridors could be encouraged by using strategically placed fencing and vegetation, especially along riparian corridors and at roadway underpasses (LAN -2), and by resizing or redesigning culverts (LAN -3). A monitoring program could help identify linkages and determine the effectiveness of enhancement actions (LAN -4). This could be a grant- funded initiative that is conducted across the study area. Known and potential crossings should be identified for San Joaquin kit fox, American badger, and other highly mobile mammalian species (LAN -6). Crossings on either side of roadways should also be identified for focal species, such as California tiger salamander, which may have breeding habitat on both sides of an underpass (LAN -7). To enhance regional connectivity, the coordinated mitigation and independent conservation actions would also need to protect and enhance habitat linkages between the study area and lands outside the study area (Objective 2.2). Land acquisitions related to mitigation or other conservation in eastern Alameda County could be coordinated with conservation programs in neighboring counties (LAN -5). A "Protected Lands" database should be developed to track the total acreage of each natural community and to document occurrences of • focal species on current parcels in the study area as well as on newly acquired parcels (Goal 3). The Implementation Committee would identify the entity that would develop, maintain, and administer this database (LAN -8). 3.5.2 Natural Community —Level Goals and Objectives Conservation goals developed at the community level aim to protect and enhance the functionality and ecological value of each natural community. Goals and objectives were developed for four terrestrial communities in the study area: grassland, chaparral and scrub, oak woodland, and conifer woodland. For aquatic communities, the conservation goals mainly strive to improve the overall quality of aquatic and riparian communities as well as the hydrologic and geomorphic processes that support them to maintain functional aquatic communities. Conservation goals and objectives were developed for three aquatic communities: riparian forest and scrub, wetland and pond, and streams. By focusing protection goals and management objectives at the natural community level, the strategy would benefit focal species and native biodiversity would not decrease. Goals and objectives for each natural community are described below. To determine the best use of a conservation site, Conservation Strategy users will have to determine the most immediate conservation need on that site and manage it accordingly. Where conflicts arise between common communities, • such as oak woodland and annual grassland, this management decision could East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -12 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy favor either type; for instance, restoration of oak woodland would necessarily • supplant annual grassland. However, for rare natural communities, where protection opportunities are more limited, achieving the goals and objectives for those communities would likely supersede goals and objectives for common natural communities. To ensure the effective management of natural communities and the management rights of parcels that support them, parcels need to be acquired, either through fee title purchase or by placement of conservation easements. In most cases, protection of additional land will result from mitigation requirements related to project -level impacts. In some cases, land acquisition could be achieved through conservation efforts by local conservation groups or local agencies, or through expansion of the ownership of East Bay Regional Park District or other land managing organizations. In cases where the parcel is not sought for mitigation credit, management could be guaranteed through other written assurances (e.g., management plans with long -term endowments, deed restrictions) with private landowners. 3.5.2.1 Grassland Conservation Goals and Objectives Goal 4 Protect and enhance functional grassland communities (alkali meadow and scald, California annual grassland, non - serpentine native bunchgrass grassland, serpentine bunchgrass grassland, rock outcrop, valley sink scrub) that benefit focal species and promote native biodiversity. Objective 4.1. Field verify the Conservation Strategy land cover map of native grasslands and create a refined map that better accounts for mapped stands. M Conservation Action GRA -1. During project -level analysis of parcels with proposed impacts, applicants will provide information on grassland stand size and species composition to the authorizing land use jurisdiction as part of the permit process for inclusion into the Conservation Strategy database. a Conservation Action GRA -2. During assessment of lands for mitigation, the entity fulfilling mitigation requirements will provide information on grassland stand size and species composition to the authorizing land use jurisdiction for inclusion into the Conservation Strategy database. All stands of grassland composed of >10% native species will be spatially mapped to the extent possible. u Objective 4.2. Avoid or minimize direct impacts on grassland communities during project construction and indirect impacts that result from postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3. • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -13 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy Objective 4.3. To ensure that the full range of grassland community associations persist in the study area at a level that will sustain the natural processes and native species diversity typically found in this natural community, guarantee the management (through permanent protection or written assurances) on 75% (75,542 acres) of California annual grassland, 90% (`60 acres) of serpentine bunchgrass grasslands, 90% ( "43 acres) of rock outcrops, 90% (773 acres) of alkali meadow and scald, and 90% (114 acres) of valley sink scrub for ecosystem function expected within the study area. ■ Conservation Action GRA -3. Mitigate the loss of grassland natural communities. For impacts on grassland communities that do not provide habitat for focal species, impacts will be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 through the appropriate CEQA process. Mitigation for the loss of annual grasslands that provide focal species habitat will be consistent with focal species standardized mitigation tables. • Conservation Action GRA -4. Acquire and manage, through fee title purchase or conservation easement, parcels with grassland communities that benefit focal species or otherwise meet the conservation goals and objectives of this strategy. • Conservation Action GRA -5. Establish an incentive program for private landowners for the management of grassland communities on private lands that will support native vegetation by promoting regeneration and • recruitment of native species while supporting the natural processes that are typically found in grassland communities. Objective 4.4. Enhance appropriate grasslands in the study area (i.e., grasslands that retain native seed stock) by promoting regeneration and recruitment of native species and, when necessary, mimicking natural processes that typically characterize these natural communities in eastern Alameda County. e Conservation Action GRA -6. Continue or introduce livestock grazing in a variety of grazing regimes by enhancing the ability of rancher stewardship and managed livestock grazing to occur consistent with Objectives 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4. m Conservation Action GRA -7. Conduct prescribed burns. Use targeted studies to inform location and frequency. ® Conservation Action GRA -8. Conduct mowing in small - scale, select areas to reduce plant height and biomass cover where use of livestock is impractical. ® Conservation Action GRA -9. Identify areas in the study area where shrub- or tree - dominated plant communities are encroaching on native grasslands due to lack of natural disturbance regimes (e.g., fire) and, if appropriate, work to reduce the encroachment in order to restore the function of native grasslands. Conservation Action GRA -10. When rodent management is needed to protect • the integrity of structures such as levees or stock pond dams or to prevent East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -14 October 2010 I[ I I •I-1410k3 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy nuisance populations on adjacent private lands, encourage land managers to • use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) principles. Cease using rodenticides in protected areas; if they are necessary, use rodenticides consistent with IPM principles. Objective 4.5. Work with private landowners to develop an incentive program that would enable conservation to occur on private lands that would meet the conservation goals and objectives of this strategy. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Direct impacts on grasslands resulting from project construction and indirect impacts resulting from postproject activities should be avoided or minimized (Objective 4.2). Avoidance measures outlined in Table 3 -2 and 3 -3 should be implemented to avoid these direct and indirect impacts. Any impacts that cannot be avoided will be mitigated. Most mitigation in grassland communities will be determined at the focal species level. Impacts on grassland communities that do not provide habitat for focal species will be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 through the appropriate CEQA process. When focal species or their habitat are present, measures would be outlined in the Section 7 consultation (federal projects), consistent with USFWS's programmatic biological opinion or an individual section 7 biological opinion. If state - listed species are present, then a • permit under CESA is required if there will be take. Provisions in that permit would call for the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of grassland communities. Management Management could enhance grassland communities in several ways. Effective grassland management should support native vegetation by promoting regeneration and recruitment of native species and fostering the natural processes of grassland communities (GRA -S). When necessary, this could include mimicking natural processes that typically occur in these communities in eastern Alameda County (Objective 4.4). Most grasslands in the study area occur on private lands, many of which are actively grazed rangelands. In order to manage this natural community at a regional scale, an incentive program for private landowners should be established to guide and support private stewardship of these lands (GRA -5). Other management tools that could be continued or established include livestock grazing, using a variety of grazing regimes (GRA -6), mowing techniques to reduce plant height and biomass cover where use of livestock is impractical (GRA -8), and prescribed burns in targeted areas (GRA -7). This would require a grazing management plan and should be standardized on the basis of scientific evidence and onsite conditions. Incentives could include enhanced water stations for cattle to evenly distribute animals, compensation for loss of grazing time when seasonal grazing is • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -15 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy rrequired, and funding for infrastructure (cross fences) to better manage animal movement and distribution. Species experts, vegetation ecologists, and rangeland managers would need to provide advice on the location and frequency of these management techniques because site - specific conditions typically determine the best regime. Many other grassland- specific conservation actions are discussed below for individual focal species. Protection In addition to enhancing grasslands, it is important that a full range of grassland associations persist in the study area to sustain natural processes and native species diversity. The best way to ensure the continued persistence of grassland communities in the study area is to increase the extent of protected grassland communities. To accomplish this, parcels with grassland land cover types that would benefit focal species or otherwise meet the conservation goals and objectives for this strategy should be acquired through fee title purchase or conservation easement (GRA -4). Permanent protection or written assurances with private landowners should be placed on at least 75% (approximately 75,542 acres) of California annual grassland, 90% (approximately 60 acres) of serpentine bunchgrass grasslands, 90% (approximately 43 acres) of rock outcrops, 90% (approximately 773 acres) of alkali meadow and scald, and 90% • (114 acres) of valley sink scrub within the study area (Objective 4.3). Specific Conservation Opportunities J In all Conservation Zones, protection of annual grassland should be prioritized to favor areas surrounding ponds that support breeding California red - legged frog, California tiger salamander, or tricolored blackbird, particularly those areas within 1 mile of known breeding sites for these species; or areas that provide denning, foraging, and dispersal habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. a CZ -4. This CZ contains 742 acres of alkali meadow and scald. Protection and management of at least 388 acres of this land cover is a high priority, particularly in areas of designated critical habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp (Table 4 -4 and Table 4 -19a). CZ -6. This CZ contains 71 acres of rock outcrop (72% of the study area's total unprotected acreage). Protection of at least 24 acres of this land cover is a high priority; particularly in areas of designated critical habitat for longhorn fairy shrimp (see Chapter 4 and Table 4 -4 for more details). East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -16 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy 3.5.2.2 Chaparral and Coastal Scrub 0 Conservation Goals and Objectives Goal 5 Protect and enhance functional chaparral and coastal scrub communities (northern mixed chaparral /chamise chaparral, mixed serpentine chaparral, northern coastal scrub /Diablan sage scrub) that benefit focal species and promote native biodiversity. Objective 5.1. Avoid or minimize direct impacts on chaparral and scrub communities during project construction and indirect impacts that result from postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3. Objective 5.2. To ensure that the full range of chaparral and coastal scrub community associations persist in the study area at a level that will sustain the natural processes and native species diversity typically found in this natural community, guarantee the management (through permanent protection) on 75% ('"2,013 acres) of northern mixed chaparral /chamise chaparral stands, 75% (`1,251 acres) of northern coastal scrub /Diablan sage scrub stands, 90% ("3,361 acres) of mixed serpentine chaparral stands for ecosystem function expected • within the study area. ® Conservation Action CCS -1. Mitigate the loss of chaparral and coastal scrub natural communities by protecting existing stands through fee title purchase or conservation easement. Impacts on chaparral and coastal scrub communities that do not provide habitat for focal species will be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 through the appropriate CEQA process. The loss of chaparral and coastal scrub that provide focal species habitat will be mitigated consistent with focal species standardized mitigation tables. in Conservation Action CCS -2. Acquire parcels, with stands of chaparral and coastal scrub, through fee title purchase or conservation easement ® Conservation Action CCS -3. Establish an incentive program for private landowners to guarantee the management of chaparral and coastal scrub land cover types on private lands which will promote regeneration and recruitment of native species and support the natural processes which are typically found in this natural community. Objective 5.3. Enhance all stands of chaparral and coastal scrub in the study area that are being managed for ecosystem function by promoting regeneration and recruitment of native species and, when necessary, mimicking natural processes (e.g., fire) that are typically found in these natural communities in eastern Alameda County but are currently being suppressed. • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -17 October2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • ■ Conservation Action CCS -4. Conduct prescribed burns in chaparral and coastal scrub communities to maintain canopy gaps and promote regeneration. This would require active participation and permitting from Cal Fire and the Air Quality Control District. Use targeted studies to choose locations and frequency [Targeted studies would require grontfundiog]. o Conservation Action CCS -S. Mechanically thin chaparral and coastal.scrub to promote structural diversity. Use targeted studies to inform location and frequency and compare results between mechanically thinned only stands, burned only stands, and mechanically thinned and burned stands to. Over the long -term utilize management practice that demonstrates best results. © Conservation Action CCS -6. Identify areas in the study area where tree - dominated plant communities (e.g. foothill pine -oak woodland) are encroaching on chaparral and scrub communities due to the suppression of natural disturbance (e.g., fire). In areas where this encroachment is affecting rare plant communities, work to reduce the encroachment through mechanical means if natural disturbance is being suppressed. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation The location of these land cover types and opportunities for conservation are • discussed in Chapter 4 for each Conservation Zone and below under Specific Conservation Opportunities in this section. Since this land cover type is slow growing and difficult to restore, chaparral and coast scrub communities would benefit most from avoidance at the project level. This approach would be most successful if measures were incorporated into project design to address effects that could occur both during and after construction. In addition, the amount of chaparral and coastal scrub that is protected and managed for ecosystem function should be increased. To ensure that conservation goals are met for the entire study area and not just on protected lands, an incentive program could be established for private landowners to facilitate and guide the management of chaparral and coastal scrub communities on their lands (CCS -3). See Chapter 5, Section 5.7, Conservation Actions Unrelated to Mitigation — Voluntary Conservation Actions, for suggested incentive programs. Chaparral and coastal scrub communities should be avoided during project construction and during postproject activities, if possible (Objective 5.1). If impacts do occur, the project proponent would mitigate any loss of chaparral and coastal scrub natural communities (CCS -1). If no state or federally listed species occur on the project site then the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements would need to be outlined in the CEQA document. Most mitigation in chaparral and scrub communities will be determined at the focal species level. Impacts on chaparral and scrub communities that do not • provide habitat for focal species will be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1. When focal East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -18 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy species or their habitat are present, measures would be outlined in the Section 7 consultation, consistent with USFWS's programmatic biological opinion or an individual section 7 biological opinion. If state - listed species are present, a permit under CESA should be obtained if there will be take. Provisions in that permit would call for the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts on chaparral and scrub communities. Management All chaparral and coastal scrub stands in the study area that are currently being managed for ecosystem function should be enhanced where needed and where possible (Objective 5.3). Current management practices are restricted to grazing pressure. While grazing helps new chaparral and coastal scrub communities form establishing it does little to promote structural diversity and habitat enhancement for the ecosystem. Most enhancements could be accomplished through promoting regeneration or recruitment of chaparral and scrub stands and, when necessary, by mimicking natural processes (e.g., fire) typically found in these natural communities but that are currently being suppressed. To meet these conservation goals, local agencies or project proponents could coordinate or conduct prescribed burns in chaparral and coastal scrub communities to maintain canopy gaps and promote regeneration, using targeted studies to inform locations and frequency (CCS -4). Any implementation of prescribed • burning would be carried out through coordination with Cal Fire and other local jurisdictions, and would adhere to regional air quality constraints. Where fire is not feasible, chaparral and coastal scrub communities could also be mechanically thinned to promote structural diversity (CCS -5). In areas where tree - dominated plant communities (e.g., foothill pine -oak woodland) are encroaching on chaparral and scrub land cover due to suppression of natural disturbance (e.g., fire), the land managers should work to reduce the encroachment if it is determined that this encroachment is affecting rare plant communities, degrading habitat quality for wildlife, or otherwise compromising the functions of the natural community. If natural disturbance is being suppressed and it is not feasible to reintroduce that disturbance onto the landscape, mechanical means may be necessary to reduce the encroachment (CCS -6). Protection In addition to enhancing chaparral and scrub habitats that are currently protected, it is also important that a full range of chaparral and scrub habitat associations persist in the study area to sustain natural processes and native species diversity. The best way to ensure the continued persistence of chaparral and scrub communities in the study area is to increase the amount that is protected. To accomplish this, parcels with chaparral and scrub • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -19 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • communities that would benefit focal species or otherwise meet the conservation goals and objectives of this strategy should be acquired through fee title purchase or conservation easement (CCS -2). Permanent protection with private landowners should be placed on at least 75% ("2,013 acres) of northern mixed chaparral /chamise chaparral stands, 75% ('1,251 acres) of northern coastal scrub /Diablan sage scrub stands, 90% (`3,361 acres) of mixed serpentine chaparral stands within the study area. Specific Conservation Opportunities • In all Conservation Zones, protection and management of chaparral and scrub stands should be prioritized in favor of stands that support known occurrences of, suitable habitat for, or critical habitat for Alameda whipsnake. • In many Conservation Zones there are stands of chaparral /scrub that are only partially protected. Protecting the full extent of those stands should be the priority in all cases. • CZ -17. There is currently only 1 acre of mixed serpentine chaparral habitat in this CZ. Verification of that stand and its protection should be a priority. ®, CZ -18. This CZ supports the largest stand of mixed serpentine chaparral • habitat in the study area. Protection and management of at least 559 acres of northern mixed chaparral /chamise chaparral and 2,588 acres of mixed serpentine chaparral should be a priority. Though there is little threat to loss of these stands, the most diverse stand(s) could be located in this CZ. 3.5.2.3 Oak Woodland Conservation Goals and Objectives Goal 6 Protect and enhance functional oak woodland communities (blue oak woodland, valley oak woodland, coast live oak forest and woodland, mixed evergreen forest /oak woodland) to benefit focal species and promote the level of native biodiversity expected to occur within this natural community in the study area. Objective 6.1. Field verify the Conservation Strategy land cover map of oak woodland stands and create a refined map that reflects oak species composition. ■ Conservation Action OAK -1. During project -level analysis of parcels with proposed impacts, applicants will provide information on oak woodland • stand size and species composition to the authorizing land use jurisdiction East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -20 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy as part of the permit process for inclusion in the Conservation Strategy • database. ® Conservation Action OAK -2. During assessment of lands for mitigation the entity fulfilling mitigation requirements will provide information on oak woodland stand size and species composition to the authorizing land use jurisdiction for inclusion in the Conservation Strategy database. Objective 6.2. Avoid or minimize direct impacts on oak woodland communities during project construction and indirect impacts that result from postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3. Objective 6.3. To ensure that the full range of oak woodland associations persist in the study area at levels that will sustain the natural processes and native species diversity typically found in this natural community, guarantee the management (through permanent protection or written assurances) on 75% (15,614 acres) of blue oak woodland stands, 75% (-694 acres) of coast live oak forest and woodland stands, 75% (16,633 acres) of mixed evergreen forest /oak woodland stands, 90% (total acreage unknown) of valley oak woodland, and 90% (total acreage unknown) of black oak woodland stands for ecosystem function expected within the study area. m Conservation Action OAK -3. Mitigate loss of oak woodland habitats. Impacts on oak woodland communities that do not provide habitat for focal species • will be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 through the appropriate CEQA process. The loss of oak woodlands that provide focal species habitat will be mitigated consistent with focal species standardized mitigation tables. ® Conservation Action OAK -4. Acquire parcels with stands of oak woodland that meet the conservation goals and objectives of this strategy through fee title purchase or conservation easement. m Conservation Action OAK -S. Establish an incentive program for private landowners to guarantee the management of oak woodland communities on private lands that will promote regeneration and recruitment of native species and support the natural processes typically found in this natural community. Objective 6.4. Enhance all stands of oak woodland in the study area that are being managed for ecosystem function by promoting regeneration and recruitment of oak trees and, when necessary, by mimicking natural processes typically found in oak woodlands in eastern Alameda County. m Conservation Action OAK -6. Increase natural community function in oak woodland communities, including the likelihood that they will support focal species, by reducing percent cover and total biomass of nonnative invasive plants listed by Cal -IPC in protected oak woodland stands in the study area. e Conservation Action OAK -7. Identify areas of oak woodlands where recruitment has been suppressed or is not occurring. Assess why • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -21 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy recruitment of oaks is not occurring and where supplemental plantings could be used to increase the recruitment of oak species. m Conservation Action OAK -8. Reduce the feral pig population in protected areas to reduce impacts on oak woodland communities through targeted hunting programs or incentivized hunting on private lands in coordination with CDFG. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Initially, the oak woodland communities in the study area should be field verified by comparing field analysis to the Conservation Strategy land cover map of oak woodland stands. Any updates to the existing data should result in the creation of a refined map that reflects oak species composition (Objective 6.1). This would occur during project -level analysis of parcels with proposed Impacts or during assessment of lands proposed for mitigation. The entity fulfilling mitigation requirements (or the landowner attempting to gain mitigation credit) should provide additional information on the size and species composition of oak woodland stands on the subject parcel for inclusion into the Conservation Strategy database (OAK -1, OAK -2). This information would be provided to the authorizing land use jurisdiction(s) as part of the permit process. • Since restoring oak woodland habitats is difficult, avoiding impacts on existing stands is the best form of mitigation in all cases. Direct and indirect impacts on oak woodland communities should be avoided or minimized during project construction and postproject activities to ensure the continued protection of oak woodland communities in the study area through the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures outlined in Table 3 -2 and 3-3. Additional site - specific measures should be considered for all projects with potential impacts on oak woodlands. Impacts on oak woodland communities that cannot be avoided would be mitigated by project applicants. In some cases, the level of mitigation would be related to impacts on focal species; all mitigation would defer to focal species habitat requirements if focal species habitat were documented on the site. If no state- or federally listed species occur on the project site, then the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements would need to be outlined in the CEQA document. Most mitigation in oak woodland communities will be determined at the focal species level. Impacts on oak woodland communities that do not provide habitat for focal species will be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1. When federally listed species or their habitat are present, measures would be outlined in a Section 7 consultation (federal projects), consistent with USFWS's programmatic biological opinion or an individual section 7 biological opinion. If state - listed species are present, a permit under CESA should be obtained if there will be take. Provisions in that permit would call for the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts on oak woodland • communities. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -22 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy Management Oak woodland stands could be enhanced by promoting oak recruitment (mimicking natural processes if necessary), reducing percent cover and biomass of nonnative plants, and promoting natural community function (OAK -6). If recruitment is not occurring or is suppressed, the cause should be determined. If appropriate, supplemental plantings should be used to increase the recruitment of oak species in oak woodland stands (OAK -7). These plantings would need to be protected against herbivory. If there is a larger -scale issue suppressing regeneration then plantings will likely not be a successful approach to correcting the problem. An incentive program for private landowners could be established to guarantee the management of oak woodland communities on private lands. Finally, the feral pig population in protected areas should be reduced to lessen impacts on oak woodland communities. Targeted hunting programs or incentivized hunting on private lands are possible methods that could be used to effectively manage the feral pig population in these areas (OAK -8). Protection • In addition to enhancing oak woodland communities, it is important that a full range of oak woodland associations persist in the study area to sustain natural • processes and native species diversity (Objective 6.3). The best way to ensure the continued persistence of oak woodland communities in the study area is to increase the amount of protected oak woodland communities. To accomplish this, parcels with stands of oak woodland would need to be acquired through fee title purchase or conservation easement (OAK -4). Some of this would occur as the result of mitigation for impacts on oak woodland stands or through purchase for open space or other conservation purpose. Similar management assurances could occur through guaranteed management plans. For example, private landowners could enter into contracts with the Implementation Committee with a commitment to manage their oak woodlands according to an approved management plan. Through permanent protection, the Implementation Committee could strive for the guarantee of effectively managing ecosystem function on 75% (approximately 15,614 acres) of blue oak woodland stands, 75% (approximately 694 acres) of coast live oak forest and woodland stands, 75% (approximately 16,633 acres) of mixed evergreen forest /oak woodland stands, 90% (total acreage unknown) of valley oak woodland stands, and 90% (total acreage unknown) of black oak woodland stands (Objective 6.3). • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -23 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • Specific Conservation Opportunities ■ The protection goals for oak woodland communities in each conservation zone are shown in Chapter 4. Below is a list of specific opportunities for this natural community. ■ CZ -2, CZ -3, CZ -5, and CZ -6. There is minimal oak woodland acreage in these Conservation Zones. Avoiding impacts on all stands of oak woodland is preferred. ■ The greatest opportunities to protect large extents of oak woodland are in CZ -8, CZ -13, CZ -16, and CZ -18. However, with the exception of CZ -8, most of these areas are under little threat. Smaller stands of oak woodland in CZ -9, CZ -11, CZ -12, CZ -13, CZ -14, and CZ -15 are a higher conservation priority because they are more likely threatened by land use changes and because they represent the edges, or ecotones, of this community in the study area. 3.5.2.4 Conifer Woodland Conservation Goals and Objectives Goal 7 • Protect and enhance functional conifer woodland communities (foothill pine - oak woodland, Sargent cypress woodland) that benefit focal species and promote native biodiversity. • Objective 7.1. Avoid or minimize direct impacts on conifer woodland communities during project construction and indirect impacts that result from postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3. Objective 7.2. To ensure the full range of conifer woodland associations persist in the study area at levels that will sustain the natural processes and native species diversity typically found in this natural community, guarantee the management (through permanent protection or written assurances) of 75% (`15,077 acres) of foothill pine -oak woodland stands and 90% ('588 acres) of Sargent cypress woodland stands for ecosystem function expected within the study area. ■ Conservation Action CON -1. Mitigate loss of conifer woodland habitats. Impacts on conifer woodland communities that do not provide habitat for focal species will be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1. The loss of conifer woodlands that provide focal species habitat will be mitigated consistent with focal species standardized mitigation tables. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -24 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy in Conservation Action CON -2. Acquire parcels with stands of conifer woodland • that meet the conservation goals and objectives of this strategy through fee title purchase or conservation easement. Conservation Action CON -3. Establish an incentive program for private landowners to guarantee the management of conifer woodland land cover types on their properties that will promote regeneration and recruitment of native species and support the natural processes typically found in this natural community. Objective 7.3. Enhance stands of conifer woodland in the study area that are being managed for ecosystem function to maintain a mosaic of stands in numerous successional stages that ensure sustainability and maximize native species diversity a by allowing for succession and regeneration of native species and, when necessary, by mimicking natural processes typically found in conifer woodlands in eastern Alameda County. • Conservation Action CON -4. To increase natural community function in conifer woodland communities, including the likelihood that they will support focal species, reduce the percent cover and total biomass of nonnative invasive plants in protected conifer woodland stands in the study area. • Conservation Action CON -5. Diagnose loss of recruitment and if appropriate use supplemental plantings to increase the recruitment of conifer species in • stands of conifer woodland where recruitment has been suppressed or is not occurring. • Conservation Action CON -6. Experimentally introduce management practices (e.g., selective thinning, prescribed burning) to help identify significant factors in conifer woodland functionality [this would likely be a grant- funded initiative and not mitigation related]. • Conservation Action CON -7. In coordination with Cal Fire and Alameda County, establish "let- burn" zones in portions of Alameda County where fires would be allowed to burn to encourage the role that fire plays in management of this natural community. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation Direct and indirect impacts on conifer woodland communities should be avoided or minimized during project construction and postproject activities (Objective 7.1). Avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3 should be implemented to decrease the likelihood that impacts will occur. Impacts on conifer woodland communities that cannot be avoided would be mitigated by project applicants. In some cases the level of mitigation would be related to focal species impacts; all mitigation would defer to focal species habitat requirements if focal species habitat were documented on the site. u East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -25 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • If no state- or federally listed species occur within the project site, the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements would need to be outlined in the CEQA document. Most mitigation in conifer woodland communities will be determined at the focal species level. When federally listed species or their habitat are present, measures would be outlined in a Section 7 consultation (federal projects), consistent with USFWS's programmatic biological opinion or an individual section 7 biological opinion. In either case, if state - listed species are present, a permit under CESA should be obtained if there will be take. Provisions in that permit would call for the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts on conifer woodland communities. Management Conifer woodlands and conifer woodland associations should be enhanced in the study area through management that promotes ecosystem function, natural processes, and native species diversity typically found in this community (Objective 7.2, Objective 7.3). Stands could be enhanced by promoting ecologically appropriate structure, function, and species composition, facilitating succession and regeneration of native species. If necessary, stands could be improved by mimicking natural processes that are typically found in conifer woodlands in eastern Alameda County (Objective 7.3). Several • management procedures could be used to increase natural community function in conifer woodland communities. Supplemental plantings could increase the recruitment of conifer species in areas where recruitment is suppressed or is not occurring (CON -5), and introducing experimental management practices, such as selective thinning, prescribed burning, or "let- burn" zones, could help identify significant factors in conifer woodland functionality (CON -6, CON -7). The Implementation Committee would coordinate with Cal Fire and Alameda County to establish "let- burn" zones in portions of Alameda County where fires would be allowed to burn if minimal structural damage would be incurred, damage could be offset through compensation, and no homes or life would be endangered (CON -7). The "let- burn" zones would encourage the role that fire plays in management of this natural community (CON -7). In turn, these management practices would support focal species while reducing the percent cover and biomass of nonnative invasive plants in protected conifer woodland stands in the study area (CON -4). Protection In order to increase the number of protected conifer woodland communities in the study area, the Implementation Committee should acquire parcels with stands of conifer woodland that meet the conservation goals and objectives of this strategy through fee title purchase or conservation easement (CON -2). The Implementation Committee could also promote the establishment of an • incentive program for private landowners that guarantees the management of East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -26 October 2010 ICE 00906.06 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy conifer woodland communities on their properties. The management program • would promote regeneration and recruitment of native species and support the natural processes typically found in this natural community (CON -3). Through permanent protection or written assurances, the Implementation Committee should guarantee the management of 75% f approximately 15,077 acres) of foothill pine -oak woodland stands and 90% (approximately 588 acres) of Sargent cypress woodland stands for ecosystem function (Objective 7.2). Specific Conservation Opportunities CZ -13. This CZ contains the largest expanse of Sargent cypress woodland in the study area, estimated at 636 acres. Protection of at least 573 acres of this community should be a priority. a CZ -12. This CZ contains 90% (13 acres) of the study area's unprotected Coulter pine woodland. Avoidance and protection of all of this land cover type is recommended. m The greatest opportunities to protect large extents of conifer woodland are in CZ -8, CZ -12, CZ -14, CZ -15, CZ -16, and CZ -17. However, with the exception of CZ -8 and CZ -12, most of these areas are under little threat. Smaller stands of conifer woodland in CZ -9, CZ -10, and CZ -11 are a higher conservation priority because they are more likely threatened by land use changes in the study area. • 3.5.2.5 Riparian Forest and Scrub Conservation Goals and Objectives Goal 8 Improve the overall quality of riparian communities and the hydrologic and geomorphic processes that support them to increase the amount of riparian habitat for focal species and promote native biodiversity. Objective 8.1. Field verify the Conservation Strategy land cover map of riparian forest and scrub stands and create a refined map that reflects species composition, key riparian community attributes, and conservation opportunities at the stream reach level. ® Conservation Action RIP -1. During project -level analysis of parcels with riparian vegetation, applicants will provide information on riparian forest and scrub stand size and species composition to the local authorizing land use jurisdiction as part of the permit process for inclusion in the Conservation Strategy database. Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -27 ICF 00906.08 C� Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy ■ Conservation Action RIP -2. During assessment of lands for mitigation the entity fulfilling mitigation requirements or the landowner seeking mitigation credit will provide information on riparian forest and scrub stand size and species composition to the authorizing land use jurisdiction for inclusion in the Conservation Strategy database. Objective 8.2. Avoid or minimize direct impacts on riparian forest and scrub communities during project construction and indirect impacts that result from postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Table 3 -2 and 3 -3. Objective 8.3. To ensure that the full range of riparian forest and scrub associations persist in the study area at levels that will sustain the natural processes and native species diversity typically found in this natural community, guarantee the management (through permanent protection) of 90% (`238 acres) of sycamore alluvial woodland stands, 75% ('1,529 acres) of mixed riparian forest and woodland stands, and 75% ("'498 acres) of mixed willow riparian scrub stands that benefit focal species and promote native biodiversity. ■ Conservation Action RIP -3. Mitigate the loss of riparian forest and scrub communities. For impacts on riparian communities that do not provide habitat for focal species, mitigation will be determined based on the functions and values of the watercourse on that particular project site as • well as the project's impacts on channel form and geomorphic stability within and downstream of the project footprint. Mitigation for the loss of riparian forest and scrub that provides focal species habitat will be mitigated consistent with focal species standardized mitigation tables. ® Conservation Action RIP -4. Acquire parcels with stands of riparian forest and scrub communities that meet the conservation goals and objectives of this strategy through fee title purchase or conservation easement. • is Conservation Action RIP -5. Establish an incentive program (e.g., a riparian corridor easement program) for private landowners to guarantee the management and restoration of riparian forest and scrub communities on their lands to promote regeneration and recruitment of native species and support the natural processes typically found in this natural community and that ultimately contribute to the conservation objectives for this community. Objective 8.4. Increase riparian forest and scrub communities in the study area through restoration projects that will promote natural function, including the regeneration and recruitment of native species;and, when necessary and approved, that mimic natural processes typically found in riparian communities in the study area. ® Conservation Action RIP -6. Create an incentive program (e.g., ecosystem services marketplace) that would encourage private and public landowners East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -28 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy to implement appropriate riparian forest and scrub restoration projects on their property. Objective 8.5. Enhance riparian forest and scrub stands that are protected and are being managed for ecosystem function by promoting natural function, including the regeneration and recruitment of native species, and when necessary, by mimicking natural processes (e.g., vegetation succession) typically found in riparian communities in the study area. Conservation Action RIP -7. Where geomorphically feasible without causing damage to channel stability and habitat values, increase natural community function in riparian forest and scrub communities, including the likelihood that they will support focal species, by reducing the total percent cover and total biomass of nonnative riparian plants in protected riparian areas in the study area. Conservation Action RIP -8. Where appropriate to the naturally occurring riparian vegetation community that would be present without anthropogenic stressors, and under the natural flow regime of the creek, plant and /or seed native understory and overstory riparian vegetation within an appropriate buffer (30 -100 feet) of the edge of the low -flow channel to create structural diversity, provide overhead cover, and moderate water temperature. is Conservation Action RIP -9. Where appropriate to the naturally occurring • riparian vegetation community that would be present without anthropogenic stressors, and under the natural flow regime of the creek, plant and /or seed native riparian vegetation in gaps in existing riparian corridors to promote continuity and enhance connectivity. ® Conservation Action RIP -10. Mimic natural disturbance in riparian habitats in the absence of scouring flood flows using techniques such as altering the channel, when alterations are geomorphically appropriate to prevent or correct channel degradation, or removing vegetation to ensure a variety of successional stages of riparian forest and scrub communities, when vegetation managernent is coordinated with and permitted by the resource agencies. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Direct and indirect impacts on riparian forest and scrub communities should be avoided during construction and during postproject activities, respectively (Objective 8.2). Project applicants should implement avoidance measures outlined in Table 3 -2 and 3 -3 to help avoid any impacts on these communities (Objective 8.2). Development in these areas could reduce stream function and sometimes create perennial watercourses downstream where seasonal water courses previously occurred. This type of development can also limit opportunities for future stream restoration activities. If impacts do occur, the • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -29 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • project applicant will mitigate the loss of riparian forest and scrub communities. Typically, the mitigation in these communities will be determined based on standards set for focal species (Tables 3 -4 through 3 -12). In situations where no focal species or their habitat are present, mitigation will be determined on the basis of the functions and values of the watercourse on the project site. In these cases, mitigation ratios will be determined by CDFG through the Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. Management Restoration projects could be developed to encourage natural function and increase riparian forest and scrub communities in the study area. Restoration projects should promote the establishment and recruitment of native species and, if necessary, mimic natural processes to accomplish native species regeneration (Objective 8.4). Several types of restoration projects could be implemented in these communities. Native riparian plantings would create structural diversity, provide overhead cover, and moderate water temperature. Additionally, an incentive program could be created that could include streamlined permitting, funding, and a corridor easement program to encourage private and public landowners to conduct riparian forest and scrub restoration projects on their property (RIP -6). • Effective management that promotes natural ecosystem function of protected riparian forest and scrub stands could also enhance these communities (Objective 8.5). Cover and biomass of nonnative riparian plants in protected riparian areas in the study area should be decreased. Reduction of nonnative species would increase natural community function and support focal species in these communities (RIP -7). Native riparian vegetation could also be planted or seeded in gaps in existing riparian corridors to promote continuity and enhance connectivity where appropriate (RIP -9). In the absence of scouring flood flows, techniques such as altering stream geometry or removing vegetation could be used to manage physical process and vegetation, but would require appropriate studies before implementation. These types of active management could ensure that a, variety of successional stages of riparian forest and scrub communities would be present in the study area (RIP -10). The design and success criteria of each restoration project would be determined in consideration of site - specific conditions in coordination with the Resource Agencies. Protection The number of protected communities of riparian forest and scrub stands could be increased through acquiring parcels through fee title purchase or conservation easement. Project applicants could acquire parcels through fee • title purchase or conservation easements to mitigate project impacts (RIP -3). To East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -30 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy accomplish conservation goals for this natural community several things will • have to occur in addition to the mitigation of project impacts. The Implementation Committee could establish an incentive program for private landowners (RIP -5) to guarantee the management of riparian forest and scrub communities on private lands. Management plans for private lands would be developed to promote regeneration and recruitment of native species, support natural processes, and ultimately contribute to the conservation objectives for this natural community (RIP -5). The full range of riparian forest and scrub associations should persist in the study area at levels that will sustain the natural processes and native species diversity typically found in this natural community (Objective 8.3). To this end, the Implementation Committee should guarantee the management (through permanent protection or written assurances) of functional riparian forest and scrub communities in 90% ( -238 acres) of sycamore alluvial woodland stands, 75% (1,529 acres) of mixed riparian forest and woodland stands, and 75% (`498 acres) of mixed willow riparian scrub stands (Objective 8.3). Effective management would improve sycamore alluvial woodland, mixed riparian forest and woodland, and mixed willow riparian scrub communities, benefitting focal species and promoting native biodiversity. Specific Conservation Opportunities • ® The extent of riparian forest and scrub communities is limited within the study area, and their conservation should be a priority for all conservation zones. • Identify and rank restoration opportunities for each conservation zone. • CZ -2, CZ -12, CZ -14, and CZ -15. Protect the remaining acreage of sycamore alluvial woodland. • Protect all remaining mixed riparian forest /woodland and mixed willow riparian scrub habitat in the study area. • CZ -8, CZ -11, CZ -14, CZ -15. Priority should be given to riparian forest and scrub in areas of dispersal habitat and designated critical habitat for Alameda whipsnake and California red - legged frog. ® When restoration or management decision are made for focal fish or amphibian species, consideration of the long -term viability of those management actions should be considered relative to upstream water releases from dams. m CZ -10, CZ -13, CZ -17. Priority should be given to riparian forest and scrub communities in areas of potential foothill yellow - legged frog and California red - legged frog habitat and areas where the CNDDB lists occurrences. m CZ -13, CZ -15, CZ -17. Priority should be given to riparian forest and scrub communities in areas of future spawning and rearing habitat for central • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -31 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • coast steelhead, provided downstream barriers to movement are removed or passage opportunities are enhanced. 3.5.2.6 Wetlands. and Ponds Conservation Goals and Objectives Goal 9 Improve the overall quality of wetlands (perennial freshwater marsh, seasonal wetland, alkali wetland); ponds; and their upland watersheds to maintain functional aquatic communities that benefit focal species and promote native biodiversity. Objective 9.1. Field verify the Conservation Strategy land cover map of seasonal and perennial wetlands and create a refined map that reflects habitat quality and restoration opportunities. • Conservation Action WP -1. During project -level analysis of parcels with wetlands or ponds, project applicants will provide information on the size of the aquatic feature and a characterization of habitat quality to the local authorizing land use jurisdiction as part of the permit process, regardless of • whether that feature will be affected by the project, for inclusion in the Conservation Strategy database. • Conservation Action WP -2. During assessment of lands for mitigation the project applicant fulfilling mitigation requirements or the landowner seeking mitigation credit will provide information on wetland or pond size and a characterization of habitat quality to the authorizing land use jurisdiction for inclusion in the Conservation Strategy database. Objective 9.2. Avoid or minimize direct impacts on wetland or pond communities during project construction and indirect impacts that result from postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Table 3 -2 and 3 -3. Objective 9.3. To ensure the full range of wetland and pond communities persist in the study area at levels that will sustain the natural processes and native species diversity supported by these natural communities, guarantee the management (through permanent protection, term protection or other types of written assurances) of 90% (-477 acres) of seasonal wetland, 90% ('56 acres) of perennial freshwater marsh, 90% (-549 acres) of alkali wetland, and 75% (-256 acres) of ponds. a Conservation Action WP -3. Mitigate the loss of wetland and pond communities. Impacts on wetland and pond communities that do not • provide habitat for focal species will be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 through East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -32 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy the appropriate CEQA process. The loss of wetlands and ponds that provide focal species habitat will be mitigated consistent with focal species standardized mitigation tables. ® Conservation Action WP -4. Acquire parcels with wetland and pond communities or wetland restoration potential that meet the conservation goals and objectives of this strategy through fee title purchase or conservation easement. ■ Conservation Action WP -5. Support new incentive programs for private landowners to guarantee the management of wetland and pond communities on their lands. This could be completed through the implementation of management plans that will promote regeneration and recruitment of native species and that support the natural processes typically found in these natural communities and ultimately contribute to the conservation objectives. Conservation Action WP -6. Facilitate a program to streamline permitting and registration of ponds in the study area to enable management activities that are necessary to maintaining ponds. Key maintenance activities could include periodic dredging; seasonal draining; and repair of dams, inlets, and spillways. Objective 9.4. Increase wetland and pond communities in the study area where possible through wetland restoration or pond creation projects. • a Conservation Action WP -7. Restore wetlands in areas with proper hydrology, soils, and topography to support naturally occurring features without long- term human intervention. ® Conservation Action WP -8. Plant and /or seed native wetland vegetation to create structural diversity, provide overhead cover, and moderate water temperature. a Conservation Action WP -9. Create new ponds in areas where there are gaps in connectivity between breeding sites for aquatic amphibians without adversely affecting downstream drainage patterns. Objective 9.5. Enhance wetlands and ponds that are protected and that are managed for ecosystem function by promoting natural function. Pond enhancements should be designed so that enhanced ponds dry in August or September during dry years to reduce bullfrog, fish, and hybrid California tiger salamanders. a Conservation Action WP -10. Control livestock grazing pressure in wetlands by maximizing animal distribution over the landscape through creation of alternative water sources and various types of fencing and seasonal grazing. s Conservation Action WP -11. To increase natural community function in wetland and pond communities, including the likelihood that they will support focal species, reduce the total percent cover and total biomass of East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -33 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • nonnative or invasive plants listed by California Invasive Plant Council in protected wetlands and ponds in the study area. ® Conservation Action WP -12. Implement a systematic bullfrog and nonnative predatory fish removal project in all ponds and wetlands on protected lands inside the study area. ■ Conservation Action WP -13. Ensure that all wetland and pond mitigation lands include provisions in their management and monitoring programs to fund bullfrog and nonnative predatory fish removal and control. m Conservation Action WP -14. Create an incentive program that would encourage private landowners to maintain their properties free of bullfrogs and nonnative predatory fish. m Conservation Action WP -15. Remove California tiger salamander hybrid paedomorphs when found by a qualified biologist. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation The full range of wetland and pond communities should persist in the study area at levels that will sustain the natural processes and native species diversity supported by them (Objective 9.3). In order to ensure the persistence of these • communities, impacts should be avoided or minimized during construction (direct) and postconstruction activities (indirect). Project applicants should implement avoidance measures outlined in Table 3 -2 and 3 -3 to reduce the likelihood that impacts may occur (Objective 9.2). If impacts do occur, the project applicants will mitigate the loss of wetland and pond communities (WP- 3). In almost every case, the mitigation in these communities will be determined in accordance with standards set for focal species aquatic habitat. Mitigation for the loss of ponds should be developed in a manner that best represents the lost habitat and should not be based solely on net acres. For example, if two ponds of 0.5 acre each are destroyed at a construction site, then two or more ponds should be developed or protected at an offsite location, rather than a single large (1 -acre) pond. If no focal species or their habitat are present, mitigation will be determined based on the functions and values of the specific wetland or pond on the project site. In such cases, mitigation ratios will be determined by the Corps, the RWQCB, or CDFG, depending upon jurisdiction. Management Wetland restoration or pond creation projects would increase wetland and pond communities in the study area (Objective 9.4). Projects could include restoring wetlands with proper hydrology, soils, and topography to support • naturally occurring features without long -term human intervention (WP -7). East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -34 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy Native wetland vegetation could be planted or seeded to create structural diversity, provide overhead cover, and moderate water temperature (WP -8). New ponds could be created without affecting downstream drainage patterns in areas where there are gaps in connectivity between breeding sites for aquatic amphibians (WP -9). Any new pond construction that is intended as mitigation would need to be registered with the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Rights. An incentive program, including streamlined permitting, could be created that would encourage private and public landowners to implement wetland restoration projects on their property (WP- 10). Protected wetlands and ponds could be effectively managed by promoting ecosystem function (Objective 9.4). Livestock grazing pressure should be controlled in wetlands where necessary to benefit focal species. If such control entails reducing grazing pressure around wetlands or ponds, alternative water sources should be provided in a manner that ensures habitat function of surrounding ponds and wetlands (WP -10). The percent cover and biomass of nonnative plants in protected wetlands and ponds in the study area should be reduced to help increase natural community function and support focal species in wetland communities (WP -11). In addition, a systematic bullfrog removal project in all ponds and wetlands on protected lands in the study area should be implemented (WP -12). This could include the partial filling of ponds (using a dozer) to capture bullfrogs in the pond after draining, and thereby reducing • capacity (at least temporarily) or creating a more seasonal pond to benefit native amphibians. This approach would reduce the likelihood of bullfrogs dispersing to other nearby aquatic habitats. This could be partially funded using mitigation funds generated by projects that have impacts on pond or wetland habitats. Similar provisions in management and monitoring programs on mitigation lands should be included to fund bullfrog removal and control (WP- 13, WP -14). Finally, an incentive program, including streamlined permitting, could be created to encourage private landowners to maintain a bullfrog -free property (WP -15). Protection The amount of protected land in the study area with these communities could be increased. Parcels with wetland and pond communities or wetland restoration potential could be acquired through fee title purchase or conservation easement (WP -4). In addition, the Implementation Committee could establish an incentive program for private landowners to guarantee the management of wetland and pond communities on their lands. Management plans that promote regeneration and recruitment of native species and support natural processes could be implemented throughout private lands in the study area. Guaranteed management of these natural communities on private lands would ultimately contribute to the conservation objectives (WP -5). is East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -35 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • Through permanent protection or written assurances, the Implementation Committee should have as a goal the management of 90% (approximately 477 acres) of seasonal wetland, 90% (approximately 56 acres) of perennial freshwater marsh, 90% (approximately 549 acres) of alkali wetland, and 75% (approximately 256 acres) of ponds (Objective 9.3). [Note: Due to the scale of air photo interpretation that was used to create the land cover map for this Conservation Strategy, many small wetlands and ponds may not be represented in land cover calculations. Field verifying this aquatic dotaset at the parcel level would allow the Implementation Committee to greatly refine the long -term protection goals for this natural community.] Specific Conservation Opportunities ® Prioritize the protection of ponds or wetlands that either support breeding California red - legged frog, California tiger salamander, or tricolored blackbird or have the potential to be enhanced to support species in all Us. Ponds within 1.3 miles of other known red - legged frog or tiger salamander breeding sites are the highest priority to retain key linkages for these species. ® CZ -S, CZ -6, CZ -9, CZ -10. These areas support alkali wetland, a relatively rare • community in the study area, which supports a high diversity of habitat - dependent species. Protection of this community should be a priority. a CZ -4. This conservation zone contains a high percentage of the study area's seasonal wetlands. Protection of at least 44 acres of seasonal wetland should be a priority in this conservation zone. 3.5.2.7 Streams Conservation Goals and Objectives Goal 10 Improve the overall quality of streams and the hydrologic and geomorphic processes that support them to maintain functional aquatic communities, benefitting focal species and promoting native biodiversity. Objective 10.1. Field verify the Conservation Strategy land cover map of streams and create a refined map that reflects hydroperiod, riparian species composition, and restoration or enhancement opportunities at the stream reach level. m Conservation Action STM -1. During project -level analysis of parcels with streams, applicants will provide information on the size of the aquatic • feature and a characterization of habitat quality to the local authorizing land East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -36 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy use jurisdiction as part of the permit process, regardless of whether that feature will be affected by the project, for inclusion in the Conservation Strategy database. The assessment will include an assessment of channel form (e.g., bank -full depth and width, channel slope, channel sinuosity); watershed size; watershed land uses (focusing on subwatersheds that may impact channel stability at the project site, including the hydroperiod at the project site, and the watershed immediately downstream of the project site); sediment balance (for larger projects with impacts to the stream corridor); stream condition (e.g., stability of banks, presence of bank armoring, presence of structures within the stream channel, extent and health of vegetation in the stream channel); and surrounding land uses. Objective 10.2. Avoid or minimize direct impacts on streams during project construction and indirect impacts that result from postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Table 3 -2 and 3 -3. m Conservation Action STM -2. To avoid additional impacts from development, the Steering Committee should encourage jurisdictions with planning authority to restrict changes in land use designation within the 100 -year floodplain that would enable urban development within the floodplain and reduce stream function, limit natural migration of the stream over time, or limit opportunities for future stream restoration activities. In addition, development in the FEMA 100 -year floodplain increases the risk of flooding downstream communities. Municipalities should also continue to enforce creek set -backs as defined by their respective ordinances. The set -back distance should be established by the natural channel's sinuosity plus an agreed distance to allow for channel migration. Objective 10.3. To ensure that the full range of stream habitats persist in the study area at an extent that will sustain the natural processes and native species diversity typically found in this natural community, guarantee the management (through permanent protection or written assurances) of 90% ('191 miles) of stream habitat to benefit focal species and promote native biodiversity . ® Conservation Action STM -3. Acquire parcels with stream restoration potential that meet the conservation goals and objectives of this strategy through fee title purchase or conservation easement. ® Conservation Action STM -4. Establish new incentive programs for public and private landowners to guarantee the management of streams on their lands. This could be achieved through implementation of management plans that will promote regeneration and recruitment of native species and support the natural processes typically found in these natural communities. Objective 10.4. Increase natural stream habitat in the study area where possible through restoration projects. a Conservation Action STM -5. Restore streams in areas with proper hydrology, soils, and topography to support naturally occurring features that reduce • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -37 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • the need for long -term human intervention to maintain stream channel stability. m Conservation Action STM -6. Reconfigure or enhance stream channels to mimic natural stream channel systems by supporting the balanced transport of sediment and water (e.g. reconnecting the floodplain to the stream channel, establishing a low flow channel to efficiently transport sediment, and, where geomorphically appropriate, increasing channel complexity while increasing floodwater retention and detention capabilities. See Appendix 6 (Proposed new appendix with hydrology /habitat goals) for additional information on maintaining stable creek systems. a Conservation Action STM -7. Plant and /or seed native understory and overstory riparian vegetation within an appropriate buffer along the edge of the low -flow channel to create structural diversity, provide overhead cover, and moderate water temperature, creating a plant density that is appropriate to the naturally occurring vegetation community and stream type. Appropriate buffers should be based on the natural channel's sinuosity plus an appropriate distance to allow for channel migration and to support viable, site - appropriate riparian plant communities. ® Conservation Action STM -8. Identify highly erosive stream bank conditions and evaluate underlying causes of instability (e.g., roads, culverts, increased amounts of impervious surfaces in the watershed, decreased sediment • load). Attempts should be made to restore an appropriate level of stability using biotechnical bank stabilization techniques. Conservation Action STM -9. Where stream bank instability threatens the integrity of structures or infrastructure, restore an appropriate level of bank stability using biotechnical bank stabilization techniques to the maximum extent practicable. The use of hardscape to stabilize creek banks is not preferred in this Conservation Action, because hardscape does not provide habitat value to the channel and hardscape is not capable of adapting to minor changes in channel configuration. Conservation Action STM -10. In areas where it has been determined that livestock grazing has decreased stream habitat quality, seasonally control livestock grazing pressure on near - stream and in- stream resources using exclusion fencing and addition of off - channel water sources. Sufficient access points and width of fenced areas should be maintained to allow for spot grazing when necessary. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation Direct and indirect impacts on streams should be avoided during construction and postproject activities, respectively (Objective 10.2). Project applicants should implement avoidance measures outlined in Table 3 -2 and 3 -3 to help. avoid any impacts on these communities (Objective 10.2). To avoid additional isimpacts of development, the Implementation Committee could also restrict East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -38 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy changes in the land use designation that would allow urban development within the FEMA 100 -year floodplain (STM -2). Development in these areas could reduce stream function or limit opportunities for future stream restoration activities. If impacts do occur, the project applicant will mitigate the loss of stream habitat. Typically, the mitigation in these communities will be based on standards set for focal species. In situations where no focal species or their habitat are present, mitigation will be determined on the basis of the functions and values of the watercourse on the individual project site. In such cases, mitigation ratios will be determined by the Corps (if impacts are below the ordinary high water mark), the RWQCB, CDFG, or all three. Management Stream restoration would increase aquatic habitat in the study area (Objective 10.4). Projects could include restoring streams by fixing hardscaped and incised channels and removing riprap and barriers to fish and other aquatic species. These activities could result in proper hydrology, soils, and topography to support naturally occurring features that reduce the need for long -term human intervention (STM -5). Stream channels that have not experienced significant incision could be reconfigured to mimic natural channel systems by transporting both water and sediment in a proper balance, while supporting natural habitats (STM -6). For example, reconnecting streams to floodplains could increase • channel complexity and return the system to a more natural state, while retaining flood retention capabilities. See Appendix G (New Appendix proposed by Water Board for hydrology goals) for additional guidance on maintaining stable and healthy creek systems. Native understory and overstory riparian vegetation could be planted and /or seeded (STM -7). Highly erosive stream banks could be identified and restored, ideally using biotechnical approaches (STM -8 and STM -9). livestock grazing pressure near or in streams or stream resources could be lessened by using exclusion fencing or seasonal grazing. Off - channel water sources could be used to reduce grazing pressure on aquatic resources if needed (STM -10). If this method of grazing management is used, sufficient access points and width of fenced areas should be maintained to allow for spot grazing when necessary. Protection The amount of protected stream habitat in the study area could be increased. Parcels with stream restoration potential could be acquired through fee title purchase or conservation easement (STM -3). In addition, the Implementation Committee could establish an incentive program for private landowners to guarantee the management of stream habitat on their lands. Management plans that promote regeneration and recruitment of native species and support natural processes could be implemented throughout private lands in the study East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -39 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • area. Guaranteed management of streams on private lands would ultimately contribute to the conservation objectives (STM -4). Specific Conservation Opportunities ® Prioritize the protection of streams that support focal species or have the potential to be enhanced to support focal species in all Us. • Identify and rank stream restoration opportunities for each conservation zone. • CZ -10, CZ -13, CZ -17. Priority should be given to streams in areas of potential foothill yellow - legged frog habitat and CNDDB occurrences. • CZ -13, CZ -15, CZ -17. Priority should be given to streams in areas of future spawning and rearing habitat for central coast steelhead, provided' downstream barriers to movement are removed or enhanced. 3.5.3 Focal Species Goals and Objectives Conservation goals developed at the focal species level aim to protect and enhance the habitats of focal species that are protected under federal and state • laws. The focal species evaluated for goals and objectives are listed below. s Vernal pool and longhorn fairy shrimp ® Callippe silverspot butterfly ■ California red - legged frog ® California tiger salamander ® Foothill yellow - legged frog ® Alameda whipsnake ® Golden eagle 13 Tricolored blackbird • Western burrowing owl • American badger • San Joaquin kit fox • Central California coast steelhead For focal plant species, the conservation goals mainly strive to protect existing populations and maintain habitat. The focal plant species are listed below. ■ San Joaquin spearscale • ® Big tarplant East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -40 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • Congdon's tarplant • Palmate - bracted bird's -beak • Livermore Valley tarplant • Recurved larkspur Focal species would benefit and native biodiversity would increase as a result of conservation actions supporting these conservation goals. Goals and objectives for each focal species are described below. 3.5.3.1 Standardized Mitigation Ratios The core of the Conservation Strategy for the focal species is the application of standardized mitigation ratios for each species (Tables 3 -4 through 3 -12). These ratios would be utilized by local jurisdictions and the Resource Agencies to determine the level of mitigation necessary to offset project impacts. The ratios were developed in collaboration with the Resource Agencies and based on consideration of sites with habitat quality and species occurrence typical of the study area. Mitigation ratios are applied to the project site based on actual site conditions and habitat quality. Project applicants evaluate habitat quality based on a • scoring system that qualitatively assigns habitat units for each focal species that occurs or may occur on the project site. A scoring system was created for all focal species except steelhead based on each species' life history (see Appendix E for the scoresheets). Each applicable scoresheet will be completed to reflect project site conditions that are directly related to the habitat quality for each focal species. As discussed above, the assessment of habitat potential on a site will disregard the current land use and management activities that might be compromising the maximum potential habitat quality of the site. Sites with higher quality habitat will score higher for that particular focal species. The habitat unit scores for project impacts reflect the habitat quality on the site where impacts will occur. While final determinations are subject to site - specific conditions, it is recommended that mitigation generally not be allowed at sites supporting lower quality habitat than the site being affected. However, exceptions can be made where potential mitigation sites with lower quality habitat have the potential to be enhanced or restored to a level of equal or higher habitat value. If such a decision is made, it is further recommended that the enhancements or restoration actions be completed prior to initiation of project impacts to ensure that the mitigation adequately offsets the impacts. • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -41 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • 3.5.3.2 Calculating Mitigation Ratios The mitigation need for each species is determined by multiplying the total acres of focal species habitat that are affected by the mitigation ratios, according to the location of the mitigation site and the mix of mitigation provided. Mitigation ratios are determined by using the mitigation reference map for the appropriate species and applying the mitigation ratio from the mitigation ratio table depending on the location of project impact and the location of proposed mitigation. Less mitigation may also be required if mitigation habitat is of higher quality than affected habitat. For a given species the species score sheets provided in Appendix E allow a project applicant and the USFWS and CDFG to calculate a habitat score for the area that will be impacted by the proposed project. Similarly the species score sheets in Appendix E would be used to calculate a habitat score for that species on the proposed mitigation site. For the species in question the mitigation site must score equally or higher than the impact site in order for it to be considered for mitigation purposes. If the score of the mitigation site is higher than the score of the impact site the total mitigation required ( as calculated using the Standardized Mitigation Table for that species and Mitigation Reference Map) would be reduced using a Mitigation Correction Factor. The Mitigation Correction Factor for the species in question is the • species habitat score for the mitigation site divided by the species habitat score for the impact site. The Mitigation Correction Factor is then multiplied times the total mitigation acreage required when the Standardized Mitigation Ratios for that species are applied. This approach provides incentives for applicants to mitigate close to the impact sites. • For some species, habitat restoration can be used in lieu of some habitat , preservation. If habitat restoration can be provided, less habitat preservation may be required. In all cases, more species habitat will be preserved or restored at a mitigation site than will be lost at the impact site. 3.5.3.3 Vernal Pool and Longhorn Fairy Shrimp Species Goals and Objectives Goal 11 Protect and maintain habitat for longhorn fairy shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp. Objective 11.1. Avoid all direct impacts on sandstone rock outcrop vernal pools. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -42 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy Objective 11.2. Avoid and minimize'direct impacts on longhorn fairy shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp (mortality of individuals and loss of occupied habitat) during project construction and indirect impacts that result from postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Table 3 -2 and 3 -3. Objective 11.3. Protect 90% of all existing longhorn fairy shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp populations and suitable habitat that has the potential to be occupied in the future. Conservation Action FS -1. Mitigate the loss of suitable longhorn fairy shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat, including upland habitat within 250 - feet of known vernal pools, by protecting occupied habitat, or restoring suitable habitat, in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3 -4, Mitigation Guidelines for Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp in Eastern Alameda County and Table 3 -5, Mitigation Guidelines far Longhorn Fairy Shrimp in Eastern Alameda County. The scoring sheets are shown in Appendix E. ® Conservation Action FS -2. Acquire parcels in the Altamont Hills Core Areas (Livermore) identified in the Vernal Pool Recovery Plan that support documented longhorn fairy shrimp or vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat and meet the conservation goals and objectives through fee title purchase or conservation easement. ® Conservation Action FS -3. Offer financial or regulatory incentives to public and private landowners to guarantee the management and potential expansion of vernal pool habitats and vernal pool crustaceans on private lands. Objective 11.4. Enhance existing habitat and restore additional habitat for longhorn fairy shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp that has the potential to be occupied in the future. m Conservation Action FS -4. Identify sites that have either supported vernal pool crustaceans in the past or have the potential, based on habitat conditions, to support these species in the future; determine the underlying reasons that the habitat is not functional and complete a management plan to address those issues. ® Conservation Action FS -S. Following restoration of a site and a determination that the site has all the features necessary to support vernal pool crustaceans set a time frame for when species occupancy could be expected (e.g., 3 years). m Conservation Action FS -6. If suitable habitat is not occupied by vernal pool crustaceans within the time frame proposed in the management plan, initiate a study in coordination with USFWS to determine the feasibility of translocating individuals from nearby stable populations into the newly restored suitable habitat to increase the population in the study area. i East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -43 October 2010 1[Ni1AF ➢RI�I." Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • Mitigation Guidance Direct and indirect (temporary and permanent) impacts on sandstone rock outcrop vernal pools should be avoided during construction and postproject activities (Objective 11.1 and 11.2). Avoidance of both direct and indirect (temporary and permanent) impacts on vernal pool habitats is the most important form of conservation that can occur for this species. Project applicants should implement avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3 (Objective 11.2). Additional measures could be prescribed if site - specific conditions warrant. When avoidance and minimization are not possible and loss of habitat occurs, the project proponent will mitigate the loss of suitable vernal pool fairy shrimp and longhorn fairy shrimp habitat in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3 -4 or Table 3 -5 depending on the species present (FS -1). Mitigation will occur at the level specified in the tables, but a determination of the quality of habitat that is being affected would be made using the appropriate scoresheet (Appendix E). Mitigation could entail a combination of on- and offsite protection and enhancement of occupied habitats depending on project impacts. The most effective conservation tool for these species is the protection of • existing vernal pool and longhorn fairy shrimp populations and protection of y additional suitable habitat near known populations. Development in vernal pools areas would destroy populations and habitat. Protection and management of habitat should be achieved through fee title purchase or conservation easement in the portion of the study area that is located in the Altamont Hills Core Area (Livermore) (FS -2). • Some protection will occur through mitigation for project -level impacts. The project applicant could acquire parcels, through fee title purchase or conservation easements, where populations have been documented. Such acquisition would necessitate a survey to document longhorn fairy shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp occurrences. Restoration projects in conjunction with preservation could be developed as mitigation to restore additional habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp and longhorn fairy shrimp to ensure sustainability of future populations. Potential restoration sites would include sites previously inhabited and sites with appropriate habitat conditions (FS -4). To ensure that these sites are being occupied by fairy shrimp, monitoring would occur after restoration at the expense of the project applicant as part of the long -term management plan (FS -5). If suitable habitat is not occupied within a pre- determined time period (e.g., 3 years), the project applicant should coordinate with USFWS and CDFG to determine the feasibility of translocating individuals from nearby stable populations into the newly restored suitable habitat to increase the distribution of the species in the study area (FS -6). If translocation is not feasible or if vernal pool crustaceans cannot be established on the site, a East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -44 October 2010 ICF 00906.06 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy new mitigation alternative developed in the management plan will need to be • implemented. Aside from protection of new lands and management of public lands, financial or regulatory incentives should be extended to landowners to facilitate management of vernal pool habitats and vernal pool crustaceans on private lands that are not being used as project mitigation (FS -3). Management plans could be written for private parcels that contain vernal pool habitats. These plans would include provisions for managing nonnative invasive vegetation. When grazing is used as a management tool, the management plans would outline a monitoring program to determine how vernal pool vegetation responds to the grazing regime, and how to adjust the grazing regime if necessary. Also, accounting for the water economy on the parcel and both upstream and downstream of the parcel is very important. Conservation Priorities a Nearly all existing vernal pool habitat is restricted to C7-4 through CZ -7. Designing projects to avoid impacts on vernal pool habitat and protecting a high percentage of remaining habitats is one of the greatest conservation priorities for these Zones. in Most vernal pool data are not shown on the Conservation Strategy land • cover map because the habitat occurs at a finer scale than the mapping allowed. Identifying these areas and including them in the Conservation Strategy land cover dataset would be an invaluable step toward ensuring their preservation. a Critical habitat for longhorn fairy shrimp occurs in CZ -5 (133 acres) and CZ -6 (354 acres). None of the critical habitat in CZ -5 is currently protected, and only 219 acres of critical habitat in CZ -6 is protected. Protecting the rest of the critical habitat in both Us is a high priority. a Critical habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp occurs in CZ -4 (1,378 acres) and CZ -5 (77 acres). In CZ -4, 486 acres are currently protected and in CZ -5, 17 acres are currently protected. This leaves 892 acres and 60 acres of vernal pool fairy shrimp critical habitat unprotected in these Us, respectively. Protecting the rest of the critical habitat in both Us is a high priority. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -45 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 • 3.5.3.4 Callippe Silverspot Butterfly Species Goals and Objectives Goal 12 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy Protect any remaining populations of callippe silverspot butterfly in the study area and increase the understanding of the distribution and ecology of the species. Objective 12.1. Avoid and minimize direct impacts on callippe silverspot butterfly (mortality of individuals and loss of habitat) during project construction and indirect impacts that result from postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Table 3 -2 and 3 -3. Objective 12.2. Protect existing callippe silverspot butterfly populations and additional suitable habitat that has the potential to be occupied in the future. e Conservation Action CSB -1. Mitigate the loss of suitable callippe silverspot butterfly habitat in CZ -8, CZ -11, CZ -12, CZ -14, CZ -15, and CZ -16 by protecting habitat in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3 -6 and the mitigation scoring parameters shown in Appendix E. • s Conservation Action CSB -2. Acquire, through fee title purchase or conservation easement, parcels with documented callippe silverspot butterfly populations or suitable habitat in CZ -8, CZ -11, CZ -12, CZ -14, CZ -15, and CZ -16 that also meet the conservation goals and objectives of this strategy. a Conservation Action CSB -3. Offer financial or regulatory incentives to public . and private landowners to guarantee the management of grasslands, especially native grasslands, to support callippe silverspot butterfly. Objective 12.3. Determine the distribution of the callippe silverspot butterfly and intergrades in the study area and identify core areas that could contribute to the species' recovery. a Conservation Action CSB -4. Fund systematic, multi -year surveys for callippe silverspot butterfly occupancy on suitable habitat on public and private lands in CZ -8, CZ -11, CZ -12, CZ -14, CZ -15, and CZ -16 Mitigation Guidance The primary goal for this species is to protect any remaining populations of callippe silverspot butterfly in the study area and increase knowledge of its distribution and ecology (Goal 12). To better account for the distribution of this species and its habitat, an important conservation action under this strategy is to coordinate multi -year surveys to identify occupancy of callippe silverspot East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -46 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy butterfly and intergrades on public and private lands (CSB -4). A better • understanding of the distribution of this species in the study area will allow for more effective avoidance, minimization, and mitigation for this species. Project applicants must determine if host plants occur within their project area. This can be determined by a qualified biologist. If the plants are not present, no mitigation would be necessary for this species. If the plants are present, the project applicant has two options: (1) assume presence and mitigate in accordance with Table 3 -6 (the selection of a mitigation site would be informed by the mitigation scoresheet shown in Appendix E), or (2) have a qualified biologist conduct a species survey, using methodology approved by the USFWS, to determine if the species habitat and /or species is present. If it is, the project applicant would proceed with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. Direct and indirect impacts on grasslands that support johnny jump -ups should be avoided during construction and postproject activities within the species' range (CZ -8, CZ -11, CZ -12, CZ -14, CZ -15, and CZ -16) (Objectives 12.1 and 12.2). Project applicants should implement avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3 to avoid any impacts on occupied habitat (Objective 12.1). Protection of existing callippe silverspot butterfly populations and suitable habitat will be necessary to contribute to the recovery of this species. The loss of suitable callippe silverspot butterfly habitat in CZ -8, CZ -11, CZ -12, CZ -14, CZ -15, and CZ- 16 should be mitigated as outlined in Table 3 -6, (CSB -1). • Lands should be acquired through fee title purchase or conservation easement within the Us shown above and managed for this species (CSB -2). Preservation of habitat in the Us would allow for the management of callippe silverspot butterfly habitat and potentially allow for colonization. Some of this land protection will occur as mitigation for projects that affect callippe silverspot butterfly habitat. Other suitable habitat might be protected as conservation initiatives by local land management entities. To facilitate management of callippe silverspot butterfly habitat on private lands, financial or regulatory incentives could be offered to landowners to manage their grasslands in a way that is beneficial to the host plant (CSB -3). Conservation Priorities Continue survey efforts in CZ -8, CZ -11, CZ -12, CZ -14, CZ -15, and CZ -16 to document observations of callippe silverspot butterflies and map suitable habitat. m Track both positive and negative survey data in a spatial database that can be accessed during the project approval process. Since protocol surveys have not been established, all surveys will need to be verified and approved by USFWS. [Note: negative survey data would only be useful if the survey • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -47 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy were conducted during the same growing year due to temporal variability in habitat occupancy.] 3.5.3.5 California Red - Legged Frog Species Goals and Objectives Goal 13 Increase the California red - legged frog population in the study area to a level that allows for long -term viability without human intervention and is consistent with the USFWS Recovery Plan. The USFWS Recovery Plan for California red - legged frog is available for review at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/020528.pdf. Objective 13.1. Avoid and minimize direct impacts on California red - legged frog (mortality of individuals and loss of occupied aquatic habitat) during construction activities associated with projects implemented under the Conservation Strategy through implementation of avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3. • Objective 13.2. Protect existing California red - legged frog populations and allow for expansion of meta populations. • Conservation Action CRLF -1. Mitigate the loss of suitable California red - legged frog habitat by protecting occupied habitat, by restoring degraded aquatic and upland habitat to increase breeding success and survivorship and, where appropriate, by creating suitable aquatic habitat, in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3 -7 and the mitigation scoring parameters shown in Appendix E. m Conservation Action CRLF -2. Acquire parcels that support documented California red - legged frog aquatic and /or upland habitat inside the East San Francisco Bay core recovery area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002) and that meet the conservation goals and objectives of this strategy through fee title purchase or conservation easement Conservation Action CRLF -3. Acquire, through fee title purchase or conservation easement, parcels with California red - legged frog upland habitat within 2 miles of a documented California red - legged frog breeding location (within the previous 3 years). m Conservation Action CRLF -4. Establish an incentive program for public and private landowners to facilitate restoration of key breeding ponds on private lands and guide management of these resources for California red - legged frog. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -48 October 2010 Cl` 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy Objective 13.3. Enhance suitable California red - legged frog habitat on public • and private lands in the study area through implementation of management plans. ® Conservation Action CRLF -5. Include the removal of exotic species such as bullfrogs, mosquitofish, nonnative predatory fish, and nonnative turtles by periodically draining ponds as a measure in all management plans that are prepared for mitigation or conservation lands in the study area. ® Conservation Action CRLF -6. Implement grazing management plans to increase the suitability for California red - legged frog of both aquatic habitat and the upland habitat surrounding it. ® Conservation Action CRLF -7. Create an incentive program that will encourage private landowners to manage ground squirrels on their property using IPM principles and work toward a balance between species needs and the requirements of a working landscape. m Conservation Action CRLF -8. Create an incentive program, including streamlined permitting, to encourage public and private landowners to maintain their properties free of bullfrogs and nonnative predatory fish. e Conservation Action CRLF -9. Offer financial or regulatory incentives to private landowners to enhance wetland and stream habitat to suit California red - legged frog, and to ensure that activities in upland habitat (e.g., dryland farming and ranching activities) support California red - legged frog • movement and refuge needs. s Conservation Action CRLF -10. Provide off - stream water sources for livestock to control grazing pressure in and around streams. o Conservation Action CRLF -11. Increase the amount of California red - legged frog breeding habitat in existing creeks through the creation of more plunge pools and slow water habitats through geomorphically appropriate creek restoration projects. Mitigation Guidance The primary goal for California red - legged frog in the study area is to increase the population and enhance suitable habitat on public and private lands (Goal 13 and Objective 13.3). First and foremost, project applicants must protect suitable habitat that currently exists. Avoiding direct and indirect impacts on California red - legged frogs and loss of occupied aquatic habitat during construction and postproject activities can be accomplished at the project level (Objective 13.1 and 13.2). The assessment of impacts on California red - legged frogs should include the direct mortality of individuals by construction vehicles when the project is in or near occupied breeding habitat. Tables 3 -2 -and 3 -3 offer initial guidance on avoiding impacts at the project level, though site - specific measures should be considered (Objective 13.1). • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -49 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • Project applicants must first determine if California red - legged frog or its habitat occurs within their project area. This can be determined by a qualified biologist. Project applicants are encouraged to use the mitigation scoresheets (Appendix E) to determine the quality of habitat for California red - legged frog. If the USFWS determines that no habitat is present, then mitigation would not be necessary for the project. If habitat is present, the project applicant has two options: (1) assume presence and mitigate in accordance with Table 3 -7, or (2) have a USFWS- approved biologist conduct protocol -level surveys to determine if California red - legged frogs are present. If they are present, the project applicant would proceed with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. If there are no California red - legged frogs present then no mitigation would be necessary. However, if there is suitable habitat on the project site and there is occupied habitat in adjacent areas (within the typical dispersal distance of California red - legged frogs) then the project applicant would need to obtain federal and state incidental take permits, implement avoidance and minimization measures (Table 3 -3), and mitigate accordingly. Protection of existing populations of California red - legged frogs would be the most affective form of mitigation. Project applicants should mitigate the loss of suitable California red - legged frog habitat by protecting and enhancing occupied habitat in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3 -7 (CRLF - 1). A mitigation site must have documented species presence and contain both • an aquatic (breeding) and upland component. If impacts would only affect upland habitat (i.e., suitable upland habitat within the typical dispersal distance of a known breeding location), the mitigation site must still either contain occupied breeding habitat or be within the typical dispersal distance of protected occupied breeding habitat. Consideration should be given to the potential for the mitigation site to become isolated in the future and the potential for the upland mitigation site to become isolated from the breeding habitat. Mitigation sites on contiguous protected lands are more likely to remain viable over the long term. In order to contribute to the recovery goals for California red - legged frog, additional conservation including land acquisition (beyond that required for project impact mitigation) will have to occur in the study area. The Implementation Committee could establish an incentive program for public and private landowners (CRLF -4, CRLF -9). The incentive program would guarantee the management of California red - legged frog habitat and populations on those lands through the implementation of key restoration actions and management plans. Guidance could be written for private landowners to inform the management of stock ponds to benefit native amphibians. This guidance would be included in grazing management plans. This guidance could include provisions to enhance suitable California red - legged frog habitat on public and private lands, and would include removal and management to prevent recurrence of nonnative species such as bullfrogs (CRLF -8), mosquitofish, and, nonnative turtles (CRLF -5); implement grazing management plans to decrease • impacts on California red - legged frog habitat (CRLF -6 and CRLF -10); and create East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -50 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 Chapter 3, Conservation Strategy incentive programs to enhance wetland and stream habitat (CRLF -9) and create is additional breeding habitat (CRLF -11). Removal of nonnative fish and amphibians from pond habitats could include the partial filling of ponds (using a dozer) to capture bullfrogs in the pond after draining, and thereby reducing capacity (at least temporarily) or creating more of a seasonal pond to benefit native amphibians . This will reduce the likelihood that bullfrogs can disperse to other nearby aquatic habitats. If management initiatives require manipulating habitat that is already occupied by California red - legged frog or any other state - or federally listed species, permits would be needed to complete the work. Conservation Priorities a Protecting aquatic and adjacent upland habitat with documented populations of California red - legged frog is imperative. m Conservation initiatives for this species should focus on enhancement of breeding habitat that is currently protected. Mitigation actions (e.g., enhancement of existing habitat, restoration of habitat) should be implemented on lands that are already protected. Financial incentive programs should be created to facilitate the removal of bullfrogs and nonnative fish from ponds on public and private lands. This funding could be collected from project applicants as part of their mitigation package and used to enhance ponds with documented California red - legged • frog and bullfrog populations. 3.5.3.6 California Tiger Salamander Species Goals and Objectives Goal 14 Increase the California tiger salamander population in the study area to a level that allows for long -term viability of the population without human intervention. Objective 14.1. Avoid and minimize direct impacts on California tiger salamander (mortality of individuals and loss of occupied aquatic or upland habitat) during project construction and indirect impacts that result from postproject activities by implementing avoidance and minimization measures outlined in Table 3 -2 and 3 -3. Objective 14.2. Protect existing California tiger salamander populations and allow for expansion of meta populations. e Conservation Action CTS -1. Mitigate the loss of suitable California tiger salamander habitat by protecting occupied aquatic or upland habitat, • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -51 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • restoring breeding and.upland habitat, and /or creating new suitable aquatic habitat, in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3 -8 and the mitigation scoring parameters shown in Appendix E. ■ Conservation Action CTS -2. Acquire parcels with documented California tiger salamander habitat inside the study area that meet the conservation goals and objectives of this strategy through fee title purchase or conservation easement. a Conservation Action CTS -3. Acquire parcels supporting California tiger salamander upland habitat within 1.3 miles of a documented California tiger salamander breeding location (within the previous 3 years) through fee title purchase or conservation easement. Habitat should be contiguous (no obstructions such as roads or gradient) and accessible from occupied breeding habitat. a Conservation Action CTS -4. Establish an incentive program for private landowners to guarantee management for California tiger salamanders on private lands, including incentivizing pond /wetland enhancement and allowing burrowing mammals to persist in uplands habitats. Objective 14.3. Enhance suitable California tiger salamander habitat on public and private lands in the study area through implementation of management plans. •• Conservation Action CTS -5. Remove exotic species such as bullfrogs, nonnative crayfish, mosquitofish, nonnative predatory fish, and non- native turtles by including periodic draining of ponds or enhancing ponds to become seasonal as a measure in all management plans prepared for mitigation or conservation lands in the study area. • Conservation Action CTS -6. Implement grazing management plans to increase the suitability of upland habitat surrounding aquatic California tiger salamander habitat. • Conservation Action CTS -7. Manage ground squirrels using IPM principles and work toward a balance between species needs and the requirements of a working landscape. • Conservation Action CTS -8. Maintain public and private properties free of bullfrogs and nonnative predatory fish. • Conservation Action CTS -9. Offer financial or regulatory incentives *(e.g., pond registration) to private landowners to enhance pond and wetland habitat to suit California tiger salamander, and to ensure that activities in upland habitat (e.g., dryland farming, ranching activities) support California tiger salamander movement and refuge needs. • Conservation Action CTS -10. In areas where grazing pressure has reduced the quality of pond habitat for tiger salamanders due to reduced water quality in breeding habitat, provide alternate water sources that do not • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -52 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy impact the hydrology or habitat function of the water source to manage grazing pressure and increase habitat quality. m Conservation Action CTS -11. Remove California tiger salamander hybrid paedomorphs from ponds when found by a qualified biologist. Mitigation Guidance The primary goal for this species is to increase the population of California tiger salamander in the study area and maintain the population without human intervention (Goal 14). Project applicants must determine if California tiger salamander or its habitat occurs within the project area. This can be determined by a qualified biologist, USFWS, and CDFG. Project applicants are encouraged to use the mitigation scoresheets (Appendix E) to determine the quality of habitat for California tiger salamander in their project area. If USFWS and CDFG determine habitat is not present, mitigation would not be necessary. If habitat is present, the project applicant has two options: (1) assume presence and mitigate in accordance with Table 3 -8, or (2) have a USFWS and CDFG- approved biologist conduct species surveys using the 2003 Interim Guidance (until an update guidance is provided)to determine if California tiger salamanders are present. If tiger salamanders are present, the project applicant would proceed with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. If no California tiger salamanders are present, then no mitigation is necessary; however, if there is • suitable habitat on the project site and there is occupied habitat in adjacent areas (within the typical dispersal distance of California tiger salamander) then the project applicant would need to implement avoidance and minimization measures (Table 3 -2 and 3 -3) and mitigate accordingly. Direct and indirect impacts on California tiger salamander and loss of occupied aquatic and upland habitat should be avoided during construction and postproject activities (Objective 14.1). Project applicants should implement avoidance measures outlined in Table 3 -2 and 3 -3 (Objective 14.1). The most effective form of mitigation is the protection and enhancement of existing populations of California tiger salamander. The project applicant would mitigate the loss of suitable California tiger salamander habitat by protecting occupied aquatic and upland habitat or by restoring occupied aquatic habitat in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3 -8. The selection of mitigation sites will be informed by the mitigation scoresheets in Appendix E (CTS -1). To complete mitigation requirements, the project applicant could acquire parcels, through fee title purchase or conservation easements, to increase the amount of California tiger salamander habitat that is protected in the study area (CTS -2 and CTS -3). Consideration should be given to the potential for the mitigation site to become isolated in the future. Mitigation sites on contiguous protected lands are more likely to remain viable over the long term. Not all conservation for this species can be accomplished through mitigation efforts; land acquisition will also be necessary to conserve habitat for California East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -53 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • tiger salamander. The Implementation Committee could also establish an incentive program for public and private landowners (CTS -4) that preserves aquatic and upland habitat for California tiger salamander. The incentive program would guarantee the management of California tiger salamander habitat and populations on private lands. Restoration and management plans for public and private lands would be developed to enhance suitable California tiger salamander habitat (Objective 14.3). Management plans would include removal of nonnative species such as bullfrogs, mosquitofish, crayfish, and nonnative turtles (CTS -5); implementation of grazing management plans to manage impacts on California tiger salamander habitat (CTS -6 and CTS -10); and creation of incentive programs to enhance upland (CTS -7), pond, wetland, and stream habitats (CTS -9). Removal of nonnative fish and amphibians from pond habitats could include the partial filling of ponds (using a dozer) to capture bullfrogs in the pond after draining, and thereby reducing capacity (at least temporarily) or creating more of a seasonal pond to benefit native amphibians and reduce habitat suitability for hybrid tiger salamanders. This will reduce the likelihood that bullfrogs can disperse to other nearby aquatic habitats. In all cases, the response of the California tiger salamander population would need to be monitored to determine best management practices for the species in various habitat types. • Conservation Priorities e A total of 1,177 acres of designated critical habitat for California tiger salamander critical habitat are in CZ -3, none of which are currently protected. Protection of critical habitat is a high priority for this species. a California tiger salamander modeled habitat (aquatic and upland) occurs in every conservation zone in the study area. The most acreage is in CZ -2, CZ -4, and CZ -6. Most of this habitat is on private land with no existing protections. The exception is zone CZ -4, where more than half the modeled habitat is currently protected. Expanding protected lands in this zone would greatly benefit this species. m The focus in the study area should remain on protecting and managing breeding habitat and adjacent uplands. m Continued monitoring of hybridization with barred tiger salamander should be a priority. The prevalence of hybrid tiger salamanders has become more apparent in recent years, and research has shown that these hybrids may outcompete native California tiger salamanders over time. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -54 October 2010 I[NC[Q�I�UP.I�S3 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy 3.5.3.7 Foothill Yellow- Legged Frog • Species Goals and Objectives Goal 15 Increase the foothill yellow - legged frog population in each watershed where it currently occurs to a level that allows for long -term viability in the watershed without human intervention. Objective 15.1. Avoid and minimize direct impacts on foothill yellow - legged frog (mortality of individuals and loss of habitat) during project construction and indirect impacts that result from postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Table 3 -2 and 3 -3. Objective 15.2. Protect existing foothill yellow - legged frog populations and allow for expansion of metapopulations by protecting lands in the surrounding watershed, especially riverine habitat upstream and downstream of documented occurrences. • Conservation Action FYF -1. Mitigate the loss of suitable foothill yellow - legged frog habitat by protecting occupied habitat in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3 -9 and the mitigation scoring parameters in Appendix E. • Conservation Action FYF -2. Acquire parcels in the study area with documented foothill yellow - legged frog breeding habitat through fee title purchase or conservation easement • Conservation Action FYF -3. Time releases from reservoirs to occur before or after the peak foothill yellow - legged frog egg - laying period to avoid dislodging egg masses downstream. Objective 15.3. Enhance suitable foothill yellow - legged frog habitat on public and private lands in the study area through implementation of management plans. • Conservation Action FYF -4. Reduce the number of exotic species such as bullfrogs, nonnative crayfish, nonnative predatory fish, and nonnative turtles to a level that would increase the overall survivorship of foothill yellow - legged frogs in stream habitat south of 1 -580. • Conservation Action FYF -5. Consistent with Conservation Action STM -9, provide off - stream water sources to control grazing pressure in streams and associated riparian habitats. • Conservation Action FYF -6. To increase the distribution of foothill yellow - legged frog in the study area, initiate a study in coordination with CDFG to determine the feasibility of translocating individuals from nearby stable populations into unoccupied suitable habitat in the study area. • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -55 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • Mitigation Guidance The primary goal for this species is to increase the population of foothill yellow - legged frogs within the study area and maintain the population without human intervention (Goal 15). The most effective way to accomplish this is to protect extant populations of the species. Of the six CNDDB occurrences in the study area, four were in Alameda Creek, one was in the headwaters of Corral Hollow Creek, and one was at Arroyo Mocho (California Natural Diversity Database 2009). Foothill yellow - legged frogs are also found in Sunol Regional Wilderness and Ohlone Regional Wilderness (Bobzien and DiDonato 2007). Protecting all documented populations of this species should be a priority in the study area. Most extant populations occur in remote areas where typical project impacts (e.g., development) will not occur. In- stream maintenance activities and water conveyance (for water supply) through natural stream channels have the highest potential to affect this species. While changes in the timing of releases from reservoirs are dependent on many factors, the habitat needs of this species and the timing of releases relative to the egg - laying period should be considered. Direct and indirect impacts on foothill yellow - legged frogs and loss of individuals must be avoided at the project level (Objective 15.1). This is the primary conservation action for this species. • When in- stream projects are planned in watersheds where this species has been documented, species surveys to determine presence should be conducted prior to initiation of any activities. Gaining a better understanding of the population levels and total distribution of this species in the study area will allow for better protection of habitat and avoidance of direct and indirect impacts. When projects are conducted where habitat for this species occurs avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3 should be implemented (Objective 15.1). When avoidance is not possible, project applicants will have to mitigate the loss of habitat. Such mitigation is typically quantified in linear feet of stream affected. Existing populations of foothill yellow - legged frogs and riverine habitat upstream and downstream of those occurrences could be protected as mitigation (Objective 15.2). All mitigation will be implemented in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3 -9. The selection of a mitigation site should be informed by assessing the impact site and mitigation site using the scoresheet in Appendix E (FYF -1). Management plans for public and private lands could be developed to enhance suitable foothill yellow - legged frog habitat and contribute to the overall understanding of this species in the study area (Objective 15.3). Management plans would include removal of nonnative species such as bullfrogs, mosquitofish, crayfish, and nonnative turtles (FYF -4) and grazing management plans to decrease impacts on yellow - legged frog habitat (FYF -5). If it is • determined over time that the foothill yellow - legged frog populations are not East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -56 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy expanding and face possible extirpation, the Implementation Committee should coordinate with CDFG to study the feasibility of translocating individuals from stable populations to suitable unoccupied habitat (FYF -6). Specific Conservation Opportunities a Protect stream and upland habitats in areas where foothill yellow - legged frog are known to currently persist (Alameda Creek, the headwaters of Corral Hollow Creek, and Arroyo Mocho). a Fund research of the species to better determine habitat use and limiting factors for each extant population in the study area. 3.5.3.8 Alameda Whipsnake Species Goals and Objectives Goal 16 Increase the Alameda whipsnake population in the designated recovery units in the study area to a level that allows for long -term viability without human intervention. Objective 16.1. Avoid and minimize direct impacts on Alameda whipsnake (mortality of individuals and loss of habitat) during project construction and indirect impacts that result from postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Table 3 -2 and 3 -3. Objective 16.2. Protect existing Alameda whipsnake populations and allow for expansion of meta populations. a Conservation Action AWS -1. Mitigate the loss of suitable Alameda whipsnake habitat by protecting occupied habitat in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3 -9. a Conservation Action AWS -2. Acquire parcels with documented Alameda whipsnake populations that meet the conservation goals and objectives of this strategy through fee title purchase or conservation easement. Conservation Action AWS -3. Conduct targeted presence /absence surveys on the approval of CDFG and USFWS on private and public lands on both sides of 1 -580, 1 -680, and SR 84 to identify linkages between Recovery Unit 3 (identified in the USFWS Draft Recovery Plan for Chaparral and Scrub Species Fast of San Francisco Bay, California [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002]) and units to the north and south. • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -57 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • a Conservation Action A WS -4. Acquire, through fee title purchase or conservation easement, parcels that provide linkages between Recovery Units 3, 2, 5 and 7. Objective 16.3. Enhance suitable Alameda whipsnake habitat on public and private lands that are within Alameda Whipsnake recovery units (identified in the USFWS Draft Recovery Plan for Chaparral and Scrub Species East of San Francisco Bay, California [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002]). • Conservation Action AWS -5. Conduct research in known Alameda whipsnake population centers that investigates population response to various grazing regimes. • Conservation Action AWS -6. Implement grazing management plans on all protected lands in Alameda whipsnake Recovery Units that are based on the most up -to -date research findings on grazing levels and whipsnake population response. • Conservation Action AWS -7. Using information gathered through targeted studies on fire intensity, location, and frequency conduct prescribed burns consistent with Conservation Action CCS -4 in documented population centers in Recovery Units 3 and 5 to prevent the overgrowth of shrubs and woodland to a closed canopy condition. • • Conservation Action AWS -8. Mechanically thin chaparral and coastal scrub consistent with Conservation Action CCS -4 to prevent the overgrowth of shrubs and woodland to a closed canopy condition. See Section 3.5.2.2m above for guidance on studies that will inform this process. Mitigation Guidance The primary goal for this species is to protect a large proportion of remaining habitat and increase the overall number of individuals within the study area to maintain the population without human intervention (Goal 16)— moving toward recovery of this species in the study area. The amount of protected habitat could be increased through the acquisition parcels for mitigation purposes or through expansion of conservation lands managed in the public interest. Alameda whipsnake populations would benefit from avoiding impacts on individuals and habitat during and after construction. Use of the mitigation scoresheet in Appendix E will inform project proponents of the quality of habitat in project areas and the quality of mitigation land needed to offset impacts on those sites. Known populations of Alameda whipsnake and areas of suitable habitat should be considered during the project design process if the project is occurring inside a conservation zone known to support the species (CZ -8 through CZ -18). If impacts cannot be avoided they will be fully mitigated. The project proponent will mitigate the loss of suitable whipsnake habitat in • accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3 -9 (AWS -1). East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -58 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy Mitigation will occur at the level specified in Table 3 -9, but a determination of t the quality of habitat that is affected and thus requires mitigation would be determined using the scoresheet in Appendix E. The project proponent could acquire parcels, through fee title purchase and /or conservation easements, where known populations occur (AWS -2). This would require a survey approved by CDFG and USFWS of the property to document species presence. Similarly, protection of parcels that include parts of important linkages as described in the Draft Recovery Plan for Chaparral and Scrub Community Species East of San Francisco Bay, California, may qualify as mitigation locations for this species (AWS -3 and AWS -4). Recovery goals for this species cannot be achieved through mitigation alone. Land acquisition and protection will be needed to conserve Alameda whipsnake habitat. Management plans for public and private lands within Alameda whipsnake Recovery Units could be developed to enhance existing habitat to contribute to an increase in the total population (Objective 16.3). Management plans could include research components to determine current habitat used by Alameda whipsnake, particularly in grazed areas (AWS -5). Grazing plans could then be tailored toward practices deemed most beneficial to the species in protected lands that fall inside Alameda whipsnake Recovery Units (AWS -6). Management plans should include provisions that prevent the overgrowth of chaparral and scrub habitats to a closed canopy condition —a condition that reduces overall habitat quality for Alameda whipsnake. Thinning of chaparral and scrub communities to benefit the species would be overseen by species and vegetation experts. Thinning would likely be accomplished by conducting prescribed burns where feasible (AWS -7) or by mechanically thinning chaparral and coastal scrub to mimic those natural processes that are no longer occurring (e.g., fire) (AWS -8). If any of these activities are conducted in suitable Alameda whipsnake habitat, consultation and an incidental take permit would have to be obtained from USFWS and CDFG if effects or take of Alameda Whipsnake is possible. Specific Conservation Opportunities ■ Protect all areas where Alameda whipsnake has been documented and suitable habitat persists. ® Conduct Alameda whipsnake surveys on private and public lands on both sides of 1 -580, 1 -680, and SR 84 to identify linkages between Recovery Unit 3 and units to the north and south. Linkages are important for breeding and genetic diversity among whipsnake populations. ® Protect suitable habitat, which includes a matrix of chaparral and scrub communities, rock outcrops, annual grasslands, and riparian corridors inside Recovery Units for Alameda whipsnake. If possible, priority for protection should be given to areas that are also designated critical habitat. This will help reach the USFWS draft recovery goals for this species. • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -59 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy ■ CZ -8, CZ -10, CZ -12, CZ -13, CZ -15, CZ -16, and CZ -17 present the greatest opportunities for increased habitat protection. Additional opportunities exist in nearly all the Us south of 1 -580. 3.5.3.9 Golden Eagle Species Goals and Objectives Goal 17 Maintain the nesting golden eagle population in the study area at a level that allows for long -term viability without human intervention. Objective 17.1. Avoid direct impacts on golden eagle (mortality of individuals and loss of nests) during project construction or postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Table 3 -2 and 3 -3. Objective 17.2. Avoid and minimize direct impacts on golden eagle (loss of foraging habitat) during project construction and indirect impacts that result from postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Table 3 -2 and 3 -3. • Objective 17.3. Protect and monitor all golden eagle nest sites and surrounding foraging habitat in the study area. • Conservation Action GOEA -1. Acquire, through fee title purchase or conservation easement, parcels with documented golden eagle nest sites in the study area. • Conservation Action GOEA -2. Mitigate the loss of golden eagle foraging habitat by protecting and managing habitat in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3 -10. • Conservation Action GOEA -3. Implement an annual monitoring program for all golden eagle nests on protected lands documenting the presence /absence of nesting pairs and nest productivity in number of young fledged; submit data to the CNDDB and Conservation Strategy database based on earlier work done by W. Grainger Hunt. C� Objective 17.4. Enhance suitable golden eagle habitat on public and private lands in the study area through implementation of species- specific measures in management plans. N Conservation Action GOEA -4. Consistent with Conservation Action GRA -10, cease using rodenticides in protected areas and, when possible, outside protected areas. When rodent management is needed to protect the integrity of structures such as levees or stock pond dams or to prevent East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -60 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy nuisance populations on adjacent private lands, encourage land managers t to use IPM principles. Mitigation Guidance Golden eagles use nearly all terrestrial habitats of the western states except densely forested areas. The primary goal for this species is to increase the population of golden eagles in the study area and maintain the population without human intervention (Goal 17). Most mitigation for this species is centered on avoiding impacts at the nest site. Loss of foraging habitat is important, but determining the foraging range of specific pairs of golden eagles and relating that range to project impacts is problematic. If a golden eagle nest site occurs on or near (within 0.5 mile) of a project site, project applicants will need to determine if the nest is active. Direct impacts on golden eagles, their nests, and foraging habitat must be avoided during construction and postproject activities (Objective 17.1 and 17.2). Removal of golden eagle nests would require the project applicant to contact CDFG and USFWS's Migratory Bird Program. To ensure that project activities do not disrupt nesting behavior, project applicants should implement avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3 (Objective 17.1 and 17.2). Project applicants would be expected to mitigate the loss of golden eagle foraging habitat by protecting foraging habitat in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3 -10 (GOEA -2). • The quality of foraging habitat on the project site and the selection of an adequate mitigation site would be informed by the mitigation scoresheet in Appendix E. The project applicant could fulfill mitigation obligations by acquiring parcels through fee title purchase or conservation easements (GOEA -2). Mitigation should focus on protecting land adjacent to other protected lands to protect large landscapes that can in turn support nesting and foraging eagles. Mitigation should be focused outside the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area and would be most effective in CZ -12, CZ -13, CZ -15, CZ -16, CZ -17, and CZ -18). Management plans for public and private lands within golden eagle foraging habitat could be developed to enhance suitable habitat and contribute to the persistence of this species in the study area (Objective 17.3). The Implementation Committee could create an incentive program to encourage private landowners to retain ground squirrels on their properties and work toward a balance between species needs and the requirements of a working landscape. This program would preclude using rodenticides in protected areas and, when possible, outside protected areas. When rodent management is needed to protect the integrity of structures such as levees or stock pond dams or to prevent nuisance populations on adjacent private lands, encourage land managers to use IPM principles. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -61 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • Conservation Priorities ■ Implement annual surveys that document presence /absence of nesting pairs and nest productivity in number of young fledged and submit findings to the CNDDB and Conservation Strategy database. ■ Fund outreach programs for public and private landowners about IPM programs. m Coordinate conservation efforts with the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area NCCP /HCP. 3.5.3.10 Tricolored Blackbird Species Goals and Objectives Goal 18 Increase the number of tricolored blackbird nest colonies in the study area. Objective 18.1. Avoid direct impacts on tricolored blackbirds (mortality of individuals and loss of nests) during project construction or postproject • activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3. Objective 18.2. Avoid and minimize direct loss of tricolored blackbird foraging habitat during project construction and indirect impacts that result from postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3- 2 and 3 -3. Objective 18.3. Protect and monitor all tricolored blackbird nest colonies and surrounding foraging habitat in the study area. m Conservation Action TR8L -1. Acquire, through fee title purchase or conservation easement, parcels with documented nest colonies in the study area. m Conservation Action TRBL -2. Mitigate the loss of tricolored blackbird foraging habitat within 2 miles of known nest colonies by protecting habitat in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3 -10. ■ Conservation Action TRBL -3. Implement an annual monitoring program in coordination with local conservation groups, andCalifornia Audubon to implement an annual monitoring program on all tricolored blackbird nest colonies on protected lands using monitoring protocols established by California Audubon; submit results to the Tricolored Blackbird Portal (U.C. Davis), CNDDB, and the Conservation Strategy database. m Conservation Action TRBL -4. To supplement surveys of known nest colony • locations, implement a systematic survey effort on a 3 -year rotation, East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -62 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy coordinated with California Audubon, to survey potential nest colony • locations on public and private lands in the study area. Objective 18.4. Enhance suitable tricolored blackbird habitat on public and private lands in the study area through implementation of species- specific measures in management plans. ■ Conservation Action TRBL -5. Purchase agricultural easements on land surrounding tricolored blackbird nest colonies or potential nest sites to ensure that the parcel will remain in types of irrigated pasture or dryland agriculture that provide foraging habitat for nesting tricolored blackbirds. ® Conservation Action TRBL -6. Provide alternate water sources to control grazing pressure in streams, wetlands, and ponds and during key times of the year (e.g., breeding season). ® Conservation Action TRBL -7. Offer financial or regulatory incentivesto private landowners to enhance pond and marsh habitat to suit breeding tricolored blackbirds and to ensure that dryland farming and ranching activities support breeding tricolored blackbirds. Protection Tricolored blackbirds have three basic requirements for selecting their breeding • colony sites: open, accessible water; a protected nesting substrate, including either flooded, thorny, or spiny vegetation; or a suitable foraging space providing adequate insect prey within a few miles of the nesting colony (Hamilton et al. 1995; Beedy and Hamilton 1997, 1999). The primary goal for this species is to increase the number of tricolored blackbird nest colonies in the study area (Goal 18). Accomplishing this goal is uncertain due to the.ephemeral behavior of this species and its selection of nest sites. Avoiding direct or indirect impacts on nest colonies, if they occur in the study area, is imperative (Objective 18.1 and 18.2). Due to the low number of nest colonies present each year and the low number of individual birds at each colony, conservation of this species cannot occur in the study area if impacts occur on recently occupied nest habitat. An annual accounting of where nest colonies occur is the best way to ensure avoidance of impacts. To determine if a project area has habitat for tricolored blackbirds, project applicants should use the mitigation scoresheet (Appendix E). If habitat is present, the project applicant should implement avoidance measures as outlined in Table 3 -2 and Table 3 -3 (Objective 18.1 and 18.2). Most impacts will affect foraging habitat. Studies have shown that tricolored blackbirds typically forage within 2 miles of nest colonies. Mitigation would be required for projects that remove foraging habitat (suitable land cover within 2 miles of a recently active nest site). Mitigation could be accomplished through acquisition of habitat through fee title purchase or conservation easement (TRBL -1). The selection of a mitigation East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -63 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • site that will adequately offset project impacts should be informed by the mitigation scoresheet for this species (Appendix Q. Additionally, project applicants could work with the Implementation Committee to fund an entity to perform annual surveys to document tricolored blackbird nest colonies on protected lands using monitoring protocols established by California Audubon. Results should be submitted to the Tricolored Blackbird Portal (U.C. Davis), CNDDB, and the Conservation Strategy database (TRBL -3). Additional nest colony surveys of known locations, coordinated with California Audubon on a 3 -year rotation, would inform the Implementation Committee of additional colonies in the study area (TRBL -4). In addition to protecting new lands, many improvements can be made on public and private lands that would benefit this species. Specific measures for tricolored blackbird in management plans would include purchasing agricultural easements on land surrounding tricolored blackbird nest colonies or potential nest sites as foraging habitat (TRBL -5). Another beneficial measure would be to provide alternate water sources to control grazing pressure in streams, wetlands, and ponds during key times of the year (e.g., breeding season) (TRBL - 6). Private landowners could be offered financial or regulatory incentives to enhance pond and marsh habitat to suit breeding tricolored blackbirds (including planting vegetation that could support nest colonies), and to ensure • that dryland farming and ranching activities support foraging tricolored blackbirds (TRBL -7). • Conservation Priorities m Protect all consistently occupied nest colonies and surrounding foraging habitat in the study area. is Fund surveys of all historically documented tricolored blackbird colonies to gain an understanding of the annual presence of this species in the study area. [Note: A 2008 census documented only one active colony in Alameda County, at Ames and Doolan roads near Livermore (April 27, 2008, 27 nesting pairs) (Kelsey 2008). In 2009, a colony was observed off Andrade Road in the Sunol Area in quarry ponds near Alameda Creek (T. Rahmig and H. Peeters pers. obs.). In early 2010 a colony was observed north of Bethany Reservoir in C -Z7 (DiDonato pers. obs.). Other historic colony sites have been documented at Altamont Creek, Broadmoor Pond, Dagnino Road, Dyer Road, Laughlin Road, North Flynn Road, and Vallecitos Lane (Kelsey 2008).] East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -64 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy 3.5.3.11 Burrowing Owl • Species Goals and Objectives Goal 19 Increase the burrowing owl nesting population (number of nesting pairs) and number of nesting locations in the study area. Objective 19.1. Avoid direct impacts on burrowing owls (mortality of individuals and loss of nests) during project construction or postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Table 3 -2 and 3 -3. Objective 19.2. Avoid and minimize direct loss of burrowing owl habitat (loss of breeding and non - breeding habitat) during project construction and indirect impacts that result from postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Table 3 -2 and 3 -3. Objective 19.3. Protect and monitor all burrowing owl nest sites, including surrounding foraging habitat, in the study area. • Conservation Action BUOW -1. Acquire, through fee title purchase or conservation easement, parcels with documented burrowing owl nests in the study area. • Conservation Action BUOW -2. Acquire, through fee title purchase or conservation easement, parcels inside the study area with a history of burrowing owl occupation and /or nesting activity during the previous three breeding seasons. ® Conservation Action BUOW -3. Mitigate the loss of burrowing owl nesting habitat (suitable habitat within 0.5 mile of documented nest occurrence during previous 3 years), by protecting habitat in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3 -10. a Conservation Action BUOW -4. Implement an annual monitoring program in coordination with local conservation groups, Institute for Bird Populations, and California Audubon of all burrowing owl nest colonies on protected lands using monitoring protocols established by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium; submit results to the CNDDB and the Conservation Strategy database. e Conservation Action BUOW -5. To supplement surveys of.known nest colonies, implement a systematic survey effort consistent with methodologies used by the Institute for Bird Populations to survey potential nest colony locations on public and private lands in the study area. \J East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -65 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • Objective 19.4. Enhance suitable burrowing owl habitat on public and private lands in the study area through implementation of species- specific measures in management plans. • Conservation Action BUOW -6. Purchase easements on land surrounding burrowing owl nest colonies or potential nest sites to ensure that the parcel will remain in types of grazing land, irrigated pasture, or dryland agriculture that provide foraging habitat for nesting burrowing owls. • Conservation Action BUOW -7. Create an incentive program that will encourage private landowners to manage ground squirrels on their property using IPM principles and work toward a balance between species needs and the requirements of a working landscape. ® Conservation Action BUOW -8. Consistent with GRA -10, cease using rodenticides in protected areas and, when possible, outside protected areas. When rodent management is needed to protect the integrity of structures such as levees and stock pond dams or to prevent nuisance populations on adjacent private lands, encourage land managers to use IPM principles. Mitigation Guidance • Throughout their range, burrowing owls require habitats with three basic attributes: open, well- drained terrain; short, sparse vegetation; and underground burrows or burrow facsimiles (Klute et al. 2003). There are 52 known occurrences of burrowing owls in the study area (California Natural Diversity Database 2009). Of those, 36 are occurrence records from the breeding season (February 1— August 30). All occurrences are in the northern portion of the study area in open fields, annual grassland, alkali sinks, and near business developments (California Natural Diversity Database 2009). The primary goal for this species is to increase the number of nesting pairs of burrowing owls and the number of nest locations in the study area (Goal 19). Two factors that affect burrowing owls are direct effects on nesting habitat and loss of foraging habitat around nest sites. Project applicants should use the mitigation scoresheet (Appendix E) to determine if the project site supports habitat for burrowing owl. In general, if the project site is supports grassland or ruderal vegetation and has ground squirrel burrows it has the potential to support burrowing owls. If habitat is present, the project applicant should have a qualified burrowing owl biologist conduct protocol -level surveys (California Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993). If the species is present, direct impacts on burrowing owls, their nests, and foraging habitat should be avoided during construction and postproject activities (Objectives 19.1 and 19.2). The project applicant should implement avoidance measures as outlined in Table 3 -2 and 3- 3 (Objective 19.1 and 19.2). Existing burrowing owl nest sites and foraging habitat should be protected and monitored (Objective 19.3). • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -66 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy If avoidance of burrowing owl habitat is not possible, the project applicant should mitigate the loss of habitat by protecting habitat in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3 -10 (BUOW -3). The project applicant could acquire parcels, through fee title purchase or conservation easement, where known nesting sites occur or where nesting sites, have occurred in the previous three nesting seasons (BUOW -1 and BUOW -2). Additionally, the project applicant could work with the Implementation Committee to fund the implementation of an annual monitoring program in coordination with local conservation groups on all burrowing owl nest colonies on protected lands using monitoring protocols established by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (1993). The results of these surveys would be submitted to the CNDDB and the Conservation Strategy database (BUOW -4 and BUOW -5). This would allow for informed avoidance of impacts in the future. To adequately conserve this species, management of burrowing owl habitat on public and private land also needs to occur (Objective 19.4). Specific measures for burrowing owls in management plans would include purchasing agricultural easements on land surrounding burrowing owl nest colonies or potential nest sites (BUOW -6). The Implementation Committee could create an incentive program to encourage private landowners to manage ground squirrels on their property using IPM principles and work toward a balance between species needs and the requirements of a working landscape. This would preclude using rodenticides in protected areas and, when possible, outside protected areas. • When rodent management is needed to protect the integrity of structures such as levees and stock pond dams or to prevent nuisance populations on adjacent private lands, encourage land managers to use IPM principles. Conservation Priorities • Protect all known nest locations with priority given to those that are at risk of being lost to development. • Fund an annual monitoring program to track occupied burrowing owl nest sites and to estimate the number of nesting pairs. • Coordinate conservation actions with the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area NCCP /HCP. • Fund outreach programs for public and private landowners about IPM programs. • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -67 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 • 3.5.3.12 American Badger Species Goals and Objectives Goal 20 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy Maintain the American badger population while protecting and enhancing important regional linkages for the species in the study area. Objective 20.1. Avoid and minimize direct impacts on American badger (mortality of individuals and loss of den sites) during project construction and in impacts that result from postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3. Objective 20.2. Maintain the American badger population in the study area at a level that allows for long -term viability of the population. • Conservation Action AMB -1. Mitigate the loss of suitable American badger habitat by protecting habitat in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3 -10. • Conservation Action AMB -2. Acquire parcels in the study area with documented American badger populations through fee title purchase or • conservation easement. ® Conservation Action AMB -3. Conduct targeted presence /absence surveys on private and public lands on both sides of 1 -580 and 1 -680 to identify linkages across these barriers. • Conservation Action AMB -4. Acquire parcels that protect linkages across 1- 580 and 1 -680 through fee title purchase, conservation easement, or agricultural easement. Objective20.3. Enhance suitable American badger habitat on public and private lands in the study area through implementation of species- specific measures In management plans. • Conservation Action AMB -5. Create an incentive program that will encourage private landowners to manage ground squirrels on their property using IPM principles and work toward a balance between species needs and the requirements of a working landscape. • Conservation Action AMB -6. Allow the expansion of California ground squirrel colonies on all protected lands except when needed to protect the integrity of structures such as levees or stock pond dams or to prevent nuisance populations on adjacent private lands • Conservation Action AMB -7. Consistent with GRA -10 and BUOW -8, cease using rodenticides in protected areas and, when possible, outside protected • areas. When rodent management is needed to protect the integrity of East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -68 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy structures such as levees or stock pond dams or to prevent nuisance • populations on adjacent private lands, encourage land managers to use IPM principles. Mitigation Guidance The primary goal for this species is to maintain the population level and protect and enhance linkages in the study area (Goal 20). Mitigation is not generally required for this species. Under this Conservation Strategy, the species was used as an umbrella species to better understand habitat linkages, particularly in grassland habitats in the eastern part of the study area. To determine if mitigation would be required for this species, project applicants should assess their project area using the mitigation scoresheet (Appendix E). Mitigation would only be required if an American badger den were documented on the project site. If a den is documented on a project site, direct and indirect impacts on the den should be avoided during construction and postproject activities (Objective 20.1). Project applicants would implement avoidance measures outlined in Table 3 -2 and 3 -3 to help avoid any impacts on potential den sites (Objective 20.1 and AMB -1). Removal of the den would only occur following coordination with CDFG. If the den site cannot be avoided, the project applicant will be required to mitigate the habitat loss. Habitat mitigation would be consistent with mitigation ratios in Table 3 -10. The selection of an adequate mitigation site would be informed by the mitigation scoresheet (Appendix E). Existing habitat in the study area could be protected by acquiring parcels that support it. The project applicant could acquire parcels, through fee title purchase or conservation easements, where known badger dens occur or where habitat linkages have been identified across 1 -580 and 1 -680 (AMB -2 and AMR-4). Alternatively, the project applicant could work with the Implementation Committee to fund presence /absence surveys in the study area to identify existing linkages on both sides of 1 -580 and 1 -680 and between other protected areas (AMB -3). Most conservation for this species will not result from mitigation. The most effective conservation will occur on public or private lands. Management plans on public and private lands in American badger habitat could be developed to enhance suitable habitat and ultimately prevent decline of the population (Objective 20.3). Specific measures for American badger in management plans would create incentive plans for private landowners that include allowing expansion of ground squirrel populations and managing populations of California ground squirrels using IPM practices rather than rodenticides, which are harmful to badgers (AMB -5, AMB -6 and AMB -7). Ground squirrels provide prey for American badgers and are important for their survival. • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -69 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • Conservation Priorities e Fund surveys in public lands to document occupied badger burrows. N Fund surveys that will document American badger movement through the study area to help identify important habitat linkages and potential passages across key barriers (e.g., freeways, aqueducts). m Fund outreach programs for public and private landowners about IPM programs. 3.5.3.13 San Joaquin Kit Fox Species Goals and Objectives Goal 21 Increase the San Joaquin kit fox population while protecting and enhancing suitable habitat and important regional linkages for the species in the study area. Objective 21.1. Avoid and minimize direct impacts on San Joaquin kit fox • (mortality of individuals and loss of den sites) during project construction and indirect impacts that result from postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3. Objective 21.2. Increase the San Joaquin kit fox breeding population in the study area. ® Conservation Action SJKF -1. Mitigate the loss of suitable San Joaquin kit fox habitat by protecting habitat in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3 -11. Conservation Action SJKF -2. Acquire parcels with documented San Joaquin kit fox den sites in the study area that meet the conservation goals and objectives of this strategy through fee title purchase and/ or conservation easement and using funding that comes from non - mitigation sources (e.g., grant funding, local fundraising efforts). Objective 21.3. Increase connectivity of suitable habitat across major infrastructure barriers in the study area. ■ Conservation Action SJKF -3. Conduct targeted presence /absence surveys, including scat scent surveys with dogs, on private and public lands on both sides of 1 -580 and along the California Aqueduct to identify linkages between and across these barriers. E Conservation Action SJKF -4. Acquire parcels and manage vegetation in aras • that protect linkages across infrastructure barriers and that meet the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -70 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy conservation goals and objectives of this strategy through fee title purchase • or conservation easement. ® Conservation Action SJKF -5. Create new passages (undercrossings or overcrossings) across 1 -580 between Livermore and the Alameda /San Joaquin County Line and overcrossings at key locations along the California Aqueduct that are large enough to accommodate movement of terrestrial mammals, including San Joaquin kit fox. Objective 21.3. Enhance suitable San Joaquin kit fox habitat on public and private lands in the study area through implementation of species- specific measures in management plans. s Conservation Action SJKF -5. Create an incentive program that will encourage private landowners to manage ground squirrels on their property using IPM principles and work toward a balance between species needs and the requirements of a working landscape. ® Conservation Action SFJK -5. Allow the expansion of California ground squirrel colonies on all protected lands except when needed to protect the integrity of structures such as levees or stock pond dams or to prevent nuisance populations on adjacent private lands. Conservation Action SFJK -7. Consistent with GRA -10, cease using rodenticides in protected areas and, when possible, outside protected • areas. When rodent management is needed to protect the integrity of structures such as levees or stock pond dams or to prevent nuisance populations on adjacent private lands, encourage land managers to use IPM principles. Mitigation Guidance The primary goal for this species is to maintain the population and protect and enhance linkages in the study area (Goal 21). To determine if a project area supports San Joaquin kit fox habitat, project applicants should assess the area using the mitigation scoresheet (Appendix E). If foraging or dispersal habitat or a potential den site is located, the project applicant would have two options: (1) assume presence, avoid impacts on the den site through coordination with CDFG and USFWS, and mitigate the loss of any habitat that cannot be avoided; or (2) conduct approved protocol -level surveys for kit fox. Those surveys would have to be conducted by a USFWS- and CDFG- approved biologist. [Note: it is difficult to prove absence of San Joaquin kit fox on a parcel in this part of its range because population densities are so low]. If a potential den site is identified on the project site, direct and indirect impacts should be avoided during construction and postproject activities (Objective 21.1). The project applicant can accomplish this by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3 (Objective 21.1 and SJKF -1). If suitable • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -71 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • habitat is present, then the project site should be scored using the mitigation scoresheet (Appendix Q. Mitigation for the loss of habitat would be consistent with the mitigation ratios for this species in Table 3 -11. The selection of an adequate mitigation site would be informed by using the mitigation scoresheet in Appendix E. In addition to standard project -level mitigation, additional study of kit fox in the study area would allow for more effective conservation. Project applicants in need of mitigation could work with the Implementation Committee to identify key linkages for kit fox in the study area (Objective 21.3). Surveys could be conducted in the study area to identify existing linkages on both sides of 1 -580, 1- 680, and the California Aqueduct (SJFK -3). Parcels in the linkage areas could be acquired through fee title purchase and /or conservation easement. Those acquisitions could be brokered with mitigation funds if the timing is appropriate, but they would more likely be acquired with kit fox recovery funds or funding from other conservation groups in Alameda County. If it is determined that linkages are compromised or if evidence suggests that new crossings would be beneficial to the species, additional overcrossings or undercrossings could be constructed to allow passage over I -580 and the California Aqueduct. These crossings would allow for safe passage between habitats. In addition to new land acquisition, management of lands that are already • protected would also benefit this species. Management plans for public and private lands in San Joaquin kit fox habitat could be developed to enhance suitable habitat and contribute to the recovery of this species (Objective 21.3). Specific measures for kit fox in management plans would create incentive plans for private landowners that include allowing expansion of ground squirrel populations and managing populations of California ground squirrels using IPM practices rather than rodenticides, which are harmful to San Joaquin kit fox, and to reduce their control of coyotes on their lands. Coyote control can easily lead to non - targeted take of San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF -S, SJKF -6 and SJKF -7). Ground squirrels provide prey and burrowing sites for San Joaquin kit foxes and are . important for their continued survival. • Conservation Priorities • Preserve suitable habitat within the range of San Joaquin kit fox. • Identify key linkages (corridors) for San Joaquin kit fox in the study area. • Protect land on both sides of infrastructure barriers (i.e., roadways, canals) where passage currently occurs. Enhance those passages to facilitate kit fox movement. • Fund outreach programs for public and private landowners about IPM programs. County Conservation Strategy 3 -72 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy 3.5.3.14 Central California Coast Steelhead 0 Species Goals and Objectives Goal 22 Increase the central California coast (CCC) steelhead distinct population segment by enhancing and providing access to habitat in the study area. Objective 22.1. Avoid and minimize direct impacts on potential CCC steelhead habitat during project construction and indirect impacts that result from postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures in Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3. Objective 22.2. Increase the CCC steelhead population in the study area. Objective 22.3. Support existing efforts to remove /modify fish barriers in the Alameda Creek watershed to enable access to a wide variety of streams and habitats in the study area. Objective 22.4. Ensure that all new road crossings and crossing upgrades in areas of potential CCC steelhead habitat are designed to facilitate passage of adult and juvenile steelhead. Objective 22.5. Work with local flood control agencies to develop and implement fish - friendly flood control practices (e.g., Zone 7's Stream Maintenance Program), Objective 22.6. Increase complexity of stream resources (e.g., woody debris) within the Conservation Strategy study area. • Conservation Action CCCS -1. Provide education for local jurisdictions with stream maintenance initiatives and landowners regarding removal of large woody material from streams. • Conservation Action CCCS -2. Use biotechnical techniques and applications for bank stabilization. • Conservation Action CCCS -3. Purchase floodplain properties that will allow stream channels to meander. a Conservation Action CCCS -4. Consistent with Conservation Actions RIP -1 to RIP -10 and STM -1 to STM -9, protect, restore, and enhance riparian vegetation in the study area. Objective 22.3. Increase access to CCC steelhead spawning and rearing habitat in the study area. • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -73 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • ■ Conservation Action CCCS -6. Where possible, remove or modify existing barriers in the Alameda Creek watershed to allow passage to spawning and rearing habitat in the upper watershed. ■ Conservation Action CCCS -7. Increase instream flows by releasing water from existing reservoirs in the Alameda Creek watershed to allow adult steelhead passage to spawning and rearing habitat in the upper watershed. ■ Conservation Action CCCS -8. Increase stream flows to provide better juvenile rearing conditions by decreasing water temperatures, providing ample food, providing more habitat, and facilitating downstream juvenile migration. Mitigation Guidance Currently, CCC steelhead is not present in the study area. Should the species return to the study area through the removal of barriers or by other means, mitigation guidance will be created for the species and included in this Conservation Strategy. In the interim, project applicants should rely on the mitigation guidance offered above for riparian forest and scrub habitat while considering the conservation goals and objectives outlined for this species. • 3.5.3.15 Focal Plant Species J Species Goals and Objectives Goal 23 Protect existing populations and maintain habitat for focal plant species (San Joaquin spearscale, big tarplant, Congdon's tarplant, palmate - bracted bird's - beak, Livermore Valley tarplant, and recurved larkspur). Objective 23.1. Avoid and minimize direct impacts on focal plant populations during project construction and indirect impacts that result from postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3. Objective 23.2. Protect existing focal plant populations. e Conservation Action PLA -1. Mitigate the loss of focal plant populations and suitable habitat for those species by protecting occupied habitat or by creating or restoring suitable habitat in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3 -12. ■ Conservation Action PLA -2. Acquire parcels with known occurrences of focal plant populations and suitable habitat in areas near known populations through fee title purchase or conservation easement. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -74 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy Conservation Action PLA -3. Establish an incentive program for private • landowners to allow for botanical surveys on their property and to guarantee the management of habitats with focal plant populations to suppress nonnative invasive vegetation and promote regeneration and recruitment of native species while supporting the natural processes typically found in the communities that support the focal plant species. Conservation Action PLA -4. Identify source populations for potential banking of seeds for use in future reintroduction of focal plant species into suitable habitat. Objective 23.3. Enhance suitable habitat for focal plant species on public and private lands in the study area through implementation of management plans that include beneficial management actions, seed banking, and reintroduction to suitable habitat. a Conservation Action PLA -5. Continue or introduce livestock grazing in a variety of grazing regimes with the appropriate timing and intensity for native plant species in grassland and scrub habitats. ■ Conservation Action PLA -6. Conduct prescribed burns. Use targeted studies to inform location and frequency. • Conservation Action PLA -7. Conduct mowing in selected areas to reduce plant height and biomass cover where use of livestock is impractical. • • Conservation Action PLA -8. Identify locations in the study area where shrub - or tree - dominated plant communities are encroaching on grassland communities (including alkali meadow and scald, California annual grassland, and non - serpentine bunchgrass grassland) and, if appropriate, work to reduce the encroachment through mechanical removal. Mitigation Standards The focal plant species in the study area are San Joaquin spearscale, big tarplant, Congdon's tarplant, palmate - bracted bird's -beak, Livermore Valley tarplant, and recurved larkspur (Goal 23). The primary goal for focal plant species is to protect existing populations and maintain their habitats. Though protecting extant populations should be a priority, there is also conservation value in conducting additional surveys for new occurrences in suitable habitat. The conservation zones, where those surveys would be most beneficial are discussed below in Specific Conservation Priorities. a San Joaquin spearscale typically occurs in alkali grassland and alkali meadow or on the margins of alkali scrub. a Big tarplant occurs in annual grassland on clay to clay -loam soils, usually on slopes and often in burned areas, below 1,500 feet (California Natural Diversity Database 2009). • East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -75 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • ■ Congdon's tarplant occurs in annual grassland on lower slopes, flats, and swales below 800 feet. This species can be associated with alkaline or saline soils. A new population was discovered on private lands in CZ -6 in 2010 (Didonato pers.obs.). ■ Palmate - bracted bird's -beak is associated with alkaline sites in grassland and chenopod scrub at elevations of 10 -500 feet. Seeds are dispersed by water, making the local hydrology very important to the extent of a population. ■ Livermore Valley tarplant occurs in seeps and meadows, often associated with alkali meadows at elevations of 500 -600 feet. e Recurved larkspur occurs on sandy or clay alkaline soils, generally in annual grasslands or in association with saltbush scrub or valley sink scrub habitats, format elevations of 100 -2,000 feet (California Natural Diversity Database 2009). Direct and indirect impacts on focal plant species should be avoided during construction and postproject activities (Objective 23.1). Project applicants should implement avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3 -2 and 3 -3 to avoid any impacts and should mitigate any loss of habitat (Objective 23.1 and PLA -1). Mitigation will be required for impacts that cannot be avoided. An assessment of how the project and construction activities will affect the focal plant • population must be completed. The methodology for this will vary by species and site - specific conditions. Impact assessment methodologies will need to be approved by USFWS (federally listed species) and CDF& In all cases, an adequate floristic survey of the site must have been completed within the preceding 3 years (under normal rainfall conditions), and spatially explicit data on the extent of the focal plant population must be available. To mitigate impacts on a plant population, a parcel where the focal plant species occurs could be acquired through fee title purchase or conservation easement (PLA -2). An assessment of the plant population on both the impact site and the proposed mitigation site must be conducted by a qualified botanist. The mitigation population must be the same or better in terms of population size and vigor than the population affected at the project site. • Enhancement plans for public and private lands that provide suitable habitat for focal plant species could be developed to enhance suitable habitat and contribute to meeting the conservation objectives (Objective 23.3). Specific measures for focal plant species in management plans would promote livestock grazing in grassland and scrub habitat (PLA -5), conducting prescribed burns (PLA -6), conducting mowing (PLA -7), and identifying locations in the study area where shrub- or tree - dominated plant communities are encroaching on grasslands communities (alkali meadow and scald, California annual grassland, and non - serpentine bunchgrass grassland) (PLA -8). East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -76 October 2010 ICE 00906.08 Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy Specific Conservation Opportunities Big Tarplant ■ CZ -5, CZ -6. Survey for new occurrences in suitable habitat. m CZ -9. Protect extant populations (one CNDDB record) and survey for new occurrences. M CZ -10. This CZ contains five of six documented CNDDB occurrences in the study area. Protection of those occurrences and surveys for additional occurrences in suitable habitat are the conservation priority. Congdon's Tarplant 13 CZ -2. Protect existing populations (three CNDDB records) and survey for new occurrences. ® CZ -3. Protect existing populations (three CNDDB records) and survey for new occurrences. This CZ contains nearly half of all modeled suitable habitat for this species in the study area. ® CZ-4. Protect existing populations (one CNDDB record) and survey for new occurrences. ra . CZ -6. Protect newly discovered population on private lands and survey for new occurrences. • ® CZ -5, CZ -11, and CZ -16. Conduct surveys for new occurrences in suitable habitat. Livermore Valley Tarplant ® CZ -7. Protect existing populations and survey for new occurrences. Palmate - Bracted Bird's Beak ® CZ -4. Protect only known extant population of this species and conduct annual surveys to better document contraction and expansion of the population. Recurved Larkspur ® CZ -7. Protect the only known occurrences of this species in the study area and survey for new occurrences. San Joaquin Spearscale ■ CZ -2. Protect existing populations (two CNDDB records) and survey for new occurrences. m CZ -3. Protect existing populations (five CNDDB records) and survey for new occurrences. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -77 October 2010 ICIF 00906.08 rIL • Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy • • CZA Protect existing populations (two CNDDB records) and survey for new occurrences. • CZ -5. Protect existing populations (two CNDDB records) and survey for new occurrences. • CZ -6. Protect existing populations (one CNDDB record) and survey for new occurrences. • CZ -7. Protect existing populations (one CNDDB record) and survey for new occurrences. • CZ -10. Survey for new occurrences in suitable habitat. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 3 -78 October 2010 ICF 00906.08 E �p C a” �� aie� Mnm mmfn oon N�N �n� memo a $ m o t3 Y$� a a �Yz QQO p hMN OtOY yp� QOM pp OOP '�M hYO�N NtONNO m WOHM� aN 1�< mr nNm O!O OI OIN Wt� �NYI I�IO �nN b N MN ON� N0+_�IpM P� u0.-. O G IMr Q O WMNNQ Y A 6 � d N O f C :CS VO � Z Q ' aam Imo` aao .. e 9 O O N O O O O N N N N h h N O N N O O O O N N N O O O O O O O O O O T O O 1'mN 6C 1 O N N' N O s NON 0 O �y i n M M m O V T< O N M n � M O 1` b Q O M lWV m b 17 Q b C Q p C W O P N 0 d Z � N PN O O10N G' ONO OOtG MO�Np)^r NOnNQmmryW00m V' S L T Of 6 0 Pm �NM QNW riOO �Q fmOWOA �O� N�p117 �N+IN=On'°1< w � c S� O a mm �nm oa mo ��c �yo IoW ooN P0000 ��PnMO�n, m°000�u c F 6 0 N S C T 8• 0 3 "- m $id`a yy �n�c a�nm. ngr3 Mrve min r`O Si arm��gnmN n. n Ne oQ �' r Q Y J q a � O C m W i �� J S „m 9tLq -a q N ya co$o+Wma 5aun�9a4a4`Y m � � tea° aNmY q aO"'a E E t-� =a 3�yYw °c aca�Y ummg a`c io^co$ � " mCUC` y N10- J OaU220'N�U�Z ZO OmUi' JRpUr E �p C a” Table 3 -2. General Avoidance and Minimization Measures to Reduce Effects on Focal Species • AMM Code Avoidance and Minimization Measure GEN -01 Employees and contractors performing construction activities will receive environmental sensitivity training. Training will include review of environmental laws and Avoidance and Minimization Measures (AMMs) that must be followed by all personnel to reduce or avoid effects on covered species during construction activities. GEN -02 Environmental tailboard trainings will take place on an as- needed basis in the field. The environmental tailboard trainings will include a brief review of the biology of the covered species and guidelines that must be followed by all personnel to reduce or avoid negative effects to these species during constriction activities. Directors, Managers, Superintendents, and the crew foremen and forewomen will be responsible for ensuring that crewmembers comply with the guidelines. GEN -03 Contracts with contractors, construction management firms, and subcontractors will obligate all contractors.to comply with these requirements, AMMs. GEN -04 The following will not be allowed at or near work sites for covered activities: trash dumping, firearms, open fires (such as barbecues) not required by the activity, hunting, and pets (except for safety in remote locations). GE..N -05 Vehicles and equipment will be parked on pavement, existing roads, and previously disturbed areas to the extent practicable. GEN -06 Off -road vehicle travel will be minimized. GEN -07 Vehicles will not, exceed a speed limit of 1S mph on unpaved roads within natural land -cover types, or during off -road travel. GEN -08 Vehicles or equipment will not be refueled within 100 feet of a wetland, stream, or other waterway unless a bermed and lined refueling area is constructed. GEN -09 Vehicles shall be washed only at approved areas. No washing of vehicles shall occur at job sites. GEN -10 To discourage the introduction and establishment of invasive plant species, seed - mixtures /straw used within natural vegetation will be either rice straw or weed -free straw. GEN -11 Pipes, culverts and similar materials greater than four inches in diameter, will be stored so as to prevent covered wildlife species from using these as temporary refuges, and these materials will be inspected each morning for the presence of animals prior to being moved. GEN -12 Erosion control measures will be implemented to reduce sedimentation in wetland habitat occupied by covered animal and plant species when activities are the source of potential erosion problems. Plastic mono - filament netting (erosion control matting) or similar material containing netting shall not be used at the project. Acceptable substitutes include coconut coir matting or tackified hydroseeding compounds. GEN -13 Stockpiling of material will occur such that direct effects to covered species are avoided. Stockpiling of material in riparian areas will occur outside of the top of bank, and preferably outside of the outer riparian dripline and will not exceed 30 days. GEN -14 Grading will be restricted to the minimum area necessary. GEN -15 Prior to ground disturbing activities in sensitive habitats, project construction boundaries and access areas will be flagged and temporarily fenced during construction to reduce the potential for vehicles and equipment to stray into adjacent habitats. GEN -16 Significant earth moving- activities will not be conducted in riparian areas within 24 hours of predicted storms or after major storms (defined as 1 -inch of rain or more). GEN -17 Trenches will be backfilled as soon as possible. Open trenches will be searched each day prior to . construction to ensure no covered species are trapped. Earthen escape ramps will be installed at intervals prescribed by a qualified biologist. r _ � u _ N O O L .L i to U L.. O F .B O U wtw! N .� i ° vi 0➢ E O ry U (0 _ C� i a+ _ to N Q ,i °> i O J O Q Q C O O T N '_� C C r O" E U "O _ C N U L O L a c = U \ ^O L ti ♦. (d m T Cq °.c [n C N [n > 0 U Q U U [z Q U U G°. u N cl • < M d J' ti N S S U a a N z z ¢ ¢ U � � � C C N • U E- E3 F O ' 0 O O O '� . .: i i C C-0 4 v ^� V V u '[ C ` `= _ _ b bT➢ v v �. O O C C: v O w w u O O U, _ 0 o y y a o v > a :� = = n n. a 3 > > N L Lv. - - t ti� v n = > _ F L _ L N F L r ,o 0 N N a v v 3 c 0 V M M N (0 r CJ h r c O O c V ti Q F ti y G 0 H v V 61 a ° ,- o C Y ._ .n O S •_ "° w. = ry a U- 'y O C V u .� C v O p :� b0 �' � O L G O c y ,-- �� .� C. R N ✓! -_ ^ V �uj' 'n O R L � C TS O '.- � V� u �� U u m_ o 2 CG t. 2 _ P� s c == � W��. �� ���� ^ c � a • r N '3 �n C r r, in c 0 0 3 v cG a r _ r r G y O C� 3 ro m ° d E c !� o e � H ti • � O m �"-c o s 0 c o v c v E o o a y ti ai � G G G O C O O N O ° ;n N y —�.� y y [/1 N �+ UO w a •-. in � U 'G .� O ° •`-� ° E c a ti o s m u o o � � ;� v _ .—°p 3 � '°- � v Z's. .- � a .v' "' v uL v ,°. F ° 'D C N Uvi v G'+' iN. i (G G y+ v E EL > o ,o ti C N C '.' b0 tC 3 N A k N r vGi vui C ^ v U3 :. >,� a c N ;� s u G bn ._ Lo _ y s y❑ c o cn > o v s 'o Z vin o v v v v L y 'c u ro N v G y v .°a � v c 3 a cc c> ,� > v .a ;� �� � 2 N v � .,' ti� � N m '° N. v=❑ n O L •- i .. .... .- v v_ G N N� .—^ 3— w • _ : _ �G O ti .O O r �' v c� 2 <C C °. i.' cJ C ._ U —' Ti y N 0..0 cc � G !? [� U a= o `- I c a `_' ._ �� � s rus •`_' y° "- =� 3 `—" 's w� L� u a 3� h° N � a S z N ti L u 3Y � r ^ L N p b0 y L Y bo y m 'a 0 k U ' bC C Vl m F V] U N 'Y C • u � M N N M N C C a m a d C Y C 0 u M m d a N O m C Y c Z 0 > 2 N U U N C G 0 N Y N y L O� LH r :G O a+ U N a 'a •- L _., ._ CI U N CG Z O ,Q O Y C m O j U� u0 y CI m U d p _—. -• U j > m C CU L C N G Y — � p u v �C'1 r Y > V O > Cyfi ti O ti '.pi _ X vi O v= 2= v R u U .y- .�L• 'C' C3 Y :J C Y. — •O N ./. y i ./1 3 L U Q m j .. j �NJ N Y = :� t='J Ed r U 'r, > �' V n L ,J m 2 '1` t. N C O _. ^ > [L m IG i . _ Y � Y �- !.� ^ CO Ti G m C� U !C > N Y L U J_ N L •