4.4.1. existing setting - yuba county, california development/planning... · other species that may...

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Yuba County Yuba Highlands Specific Plan January 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.4-1

This section evaluates the biological resource impacts associated with the development of the proposed Yuba Highlands Specific Plan project, as well as the project’s contribution to cumulative biological resource impacts. The biological analysis was determined based on data taken from existing biological resources documentation, field surveys of the project site, and review of existing literature, maps, and aerial photography pertaining to the biological resources of the site. This biological resources section is based on an analysis prepared by Foothill Associates.

4.4.1. EXISTING SETTING

REGIONAL SETTING

The Yuba Highlands project site encompasses approximately 2,894 acres of open rangeland in eastern Yuba County. Non-native annual grassland and mixed oak woodlands are the predominant vegetation communities throughout the Yuba Highlands vicinity. Several subdominant communities present in the region include chaparral, riparian scrub and woodland, marsh and open water habitats, and seasonal wetlands (including vernal pools). Land use within the region includes open rangeland, rural residential, Beale Air Force Base (Beale), and the Spenceville Wildlife Management Unit operated by the California Department of Fish and Game.

Offsite improvements proposed as part of the project include transportation safety improvements, utility corridors, and water and wastewater infrastructure. These proposed improvements are located to the south-southeast partially in the Spenceville Wildlife Management area, to the west-northwest between the project site and Hammonton-Smartville Road, and along State Route 20 east of Marysville (see Figure 3-7, Offsite Improvements).

Waldo Road provides access to the site from the south but is unimproved at this time. The applicant proposes improvements to this access by widening Camp Far West Road and Waldo Road.

The proposed well field and area of potential reclaimed water disposal/re-use are located along Hammonton-Smartville Road northwest of the Specific Plan area. This area is generally used for agriculture and aggregate mining. The utility corridor connecting this area to the project site would be along Hammonton-Smartville Road and a proposed new off-site road that would connect the site from Hammonton-Smartville Road.

LOCAL SETTING

The dominant habitat on the site is non-native annual grassland, with small stands of oak woodland in the eastern portion of the project site. The vast majority of the site is open, non-native grassland. Several drainages and associated wetland swale and seep habitats are interspersed throughout the site.

BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES

Discussed below are the plant communities occurring on the Specific Plan project site. Common wildlife and plant species observed, or expected to occur, in these areas are addressed in the following discussion. Special-status species and sensitive habitats expected or known to occur in these areas are also addressed below. Figure 4.4-1 illustrates the vegetation communities located in the Specific Plan area. Habitat types include predominantly non-native


Yuba Highlands Specific Plan Yuba County Draft Environmental Impact Report January 2005

4.4-2

annual grassland, with oak woodland and some scattered native oaks, some vernal pools, and various ephemeral and intermittent streams, and associated riverine wetlands.

Specific Plan Area

Non-native grassland

Non-native grassland that is used for cattle grazing occurs throughout the region. In the Specific Plan area, it is dominated by non-native grasses and forbs, primarily consisting of wild oats (Avena sp.), foxtail (Hordeum murinum), annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), and annual bluegrass (Poa annua). Additional weedy herbaceous species include yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), filaree (Erodium sp.), Fitch’s tarweed (Hemizonia fitchii) and soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus). Non-native grassland wildlife consists of small birds and mammals and the predators that feed on these species. Predator species include coyote (Canis latrans), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), and other raptors. Other species that may occur here include white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), and savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis).

Oak Woodland

Stands of mixed oak woodland occur in the northern and eastern portions of the Specific Plan area and numerous scattered individual oaks also occur throughout the area. Mixed oak woodlands are dominated by blue oaks and valley oaks and have a non-native herbaceous understory typical of non-native grassland habitat. Mixed oak woodlands provide cover, foraging, and roosting opportunities for a wide range of avian species. Species that may occur in this habitat type include northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), house finch, mourning dove, and scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens).

Vernal Pools

Vernal pools are shallow depressions underlain by hardpan or other impermeable layer, which allows seasonal inundation. These wetland features support typical vernal pool plant species found in the Sacramento Valley. Plant species in these habitats include coyote thistle (Eryngium vaseyi), popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys stipitatus), and downingias (Downingia spp.). By definition, vernal pools are underlain by a water-restricting layer. Therefore, these shallow depressions support plant and invertebrate communities that thrive in inundated conditions. Although the pools within the Specific Plan area were not formally surveyed for invertebrates, the species that potentially occur in vernal pools include common species such as clam shrimp, seed shrimp and several aquatic insects such as predaceous diving beetles, crawling water beetles, back swimmers and, as well as listed species that include vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi).



4.4-3

FIGURE 4.4-1 - VEGETATION COMMUNITIES/8.5X11/COLOR



4.4-4



4.4-5

Riverine Seasonal Wetland

Seasonal wetlands occur throughout the Specific Plan area and are typically associated with shallow drainages or swales. They typically support wetland vegetation including grasses such as Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), curly dock (Rumex crispus), annual bluegrass, and rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis). Wildlife species found in riverine seasonal wetlands include many of the species that occur in the non-native grassland habitat and are of relatively low value due to the historical grazing uses of the site.

Intermittent and Ephemeral Drainages

The intermittent and ephemeral drainages in the Specific Plan area are mostly devoid of vegetation, but in some small areas support a fringe of perennial vegetation dominated by cattail (Typha latifolia), tule (Scirpus acutus), willow (Salix spp.), and common rush (Juncus effusus). The drainages have a defined bed and bank and are mostly devoid of vegetation, with the exception of these scattered emergent and shrub species.

Freshwater Seep

Vegetation in the freshwater seeps is predominantly smaller emergents such as common monkeyflower (Mimulus guttatus), fiddle dock (Rumex pulcher), and spikerush (Eleocharis sp.). Other emergents and small aquatic plants may occur. Most species of wildlife found on the site are attracted to any source of surface water they can find. This would include various birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians utilizing the freshwater seeps, particularly during the dry season.

Offsite Improvements

Primary habitat types along the Waldo Road corridor are annual grassland and oak woodland habitats; riparian woodland stands are associated with creek and small drainage crossings. The proposed wellfield is largely disturbed, ruderal (weedy) grassland and barren areas; however, the potential water line corridor that would connect this area to the Specific Plan site cross through annual grassland, oak woodland, riparian, and seasonal and vernal pool wetland complexes. Wildlife within these areas is typical of the habitat descriptions above.

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

The following discussion describes the plant and animal species that have been afforded special recognition by federal, state, or local resource agencies or organizations. Listed and special-status species are of relatively limited distribution and may require specialized habitat conditions. Listed and special-status species are defined as:

• Listed or proposed for listing under the state or federal Endangered Species Acts;

• Protected under other regulations (e.g., Migratory Bird Treaty Act);

• California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Species of Special Concern;

• Listed as species of concern by California Native Plant Society (CNPS) or US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); or,



4.4-6

• Receive consideration during environmental review under CEQA.

Special-status species were considered for this analysis based on field survey results, as well as a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and CNPS literature (Table 4.4-1). Only species that are known to occur, or that may potentially occur, in the Specific Plan area based on the analysis in Table 4.4-1 are discussed in further detail in the document. Figures 4.4-2a, 4.4-2b, and 4.4-2c show results of the CNDDB search.

TABLE 4.4-1 LISTED AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, PROPOSED WELL FIELD AND

RECLAIMED WATER DISPOSAL SITE, OR OFFSITE ROAD AND UTILITY CORRIDORS

Species Federal (USFWS)

State (CDFG) CNPS Habitat Potential for Occurrence

INVERTEBRATES

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp Lepidurus packardi

E -- -- Large vernal pools

Low: unlikely on site due to the small size and limited extent of pools. Potential habitat occurs in vernal pools and some seasonal wetlands in the vicinity of the offsite utilities and roads.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi

T -- --

Vernal pools; some seasonal wetlands

Medium: potential habitat occurs in vernal pools in the Specific Plan area and the offsite utilities and roads.

California linderiella Linderiella occidentalis

SC -- --

Vernal pools; some seasonal wetlands

Medium: potential habitat occurs in vernal pools in the Specific Plan area and the offsite utilities and roads.

Conservancy fairy shrimp Branchinecta conservatio

E -- -- Vernal pools and playas

Low: potential habitat occurs in the reclaimed water disposal site is known to occur 1 mile from here. Not likely to occur in the Specific Plan area.

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus

T -- -- Elderberry shrubs

Medium: one shrub was observed on site, and other shrubs could occur in the Specific Plan area and the offsite areas.

FISH

Chinook salmon (spring-run) Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

T T --

Sacramento River and its tributaries below Keswick Dam

Unlikely onsite: due to the ephemeral nature of watercourses in the Specific Plan area. Likely occurs in the Yuba River.

Chinook salmon (winter-run) Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

E E --

Sacramento River and its tributaries below Keswick Dam


Chinook salmon (fall/late fall run)

P CSC -- Sacramento River and its

Unlikely onsite: due to the ephemeral nature of



4.4-7



Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

tributaries below Keswick Dam

watercourses in the Specific Plan area. Likely occurs in the Yuba River.

Central Valley steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss

T -- --

Sacramento River and its perennial tributaries


AMPHIBIANS/REPTILES

California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii

T CSC ---

Dense, shrubby riparian vegetation associated with deep and still or slow-moving perennial water

Unlikely: no known occurrences of this species from the region; this species is presumed extirpated from the Central Valley and adjacent foothills, with the exception of isolated populations in El Dorado County.

Western spadefoot toad Scaphiopus hammondii

SC CSC ---

Grasslands with seasonal breeding pools

Low: although vernal pools occur in the Specific Plan area, the disturbed nature of the land and size of the pools likely precludes the occurrence of this species. Could occur in appropriate habitat in offsite areas.

California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense

C CSC ---

Valley-foothill grasslands with suitable breeding pools

Low: the disturbed nature of the vernal pools in the Specific Plan area and offsite areas likely precludes presence of this species.

Northwestern pond turtle Clemmys marmorata marmorata

SC CSC ---

Quiet perennial streams and ponds

Low: although not observed, potential habitat occurs in streams crossed by proposed Waldo Road improvement. Not likely to occur onsite.

BIRDS

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

T E --

Large open water bodies with suitable wintering sites (large trees)

Low: may occur associated with Camp Far West reservoir in winter.

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorynchos

--- CSC

(nesting colony)

--

Nesting on ground or bulrushes of lake island

Low: does occur near Camp Far West reservoir in winter. Unlikely on site.

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia MBTA CSC ---

Grasslands with friable soils for burrowing

High: observed on site and potential habitat occurs throughout the Specific Plan area. Could occur in appropriate habitats on site and within the road and utility corridors.



4.4-8



Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni MBTA T --

Large trees, riparian woodlands and open grasslands or agricultural fields for foraging

Low: not likely to forage onsite due to the lack of CNDDB records within ten miles and the lack of riparian trees and dry conditions onsite. Potential foraging habitat occurs throughout the lower elevation offsite improvement areas, however, these areas are limited.

California Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus

SC T -- Wetlands, swamps, and marshes

Low; although found near the Specific Plan area and road and utility corridor, there is no potential habitat onsite.

Long-eared owl Asio otus -- CSC

(nesting) -- Riparian forest, willow thickets, live oaks

Medium: found near the Specific Plan area and road and utility corridor.

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia brewsteri

--- CSC (nesting) ---

Willows, poplars, riparian trees and shrubs

Low: although found near the road and utility corridor, not likely to occur on the site due to the lack of suitable habitat. Could occur in suitable offsite areas.

Herons and Egrets (including white-faced ibis and black-crowned night heron)

MBTA FSC * (rookery) --- Marshlands and ponds

Medium: could forage in onsite ponds; although not observed. No nest sites (rookeries) found in the Specific Plan area. Could occur in the road and utility corridors.

Raptors (hawks, owls, falcons) MBTA CSC (some) --

Large trees, riparian woodlands and open grasslands for foraging

High: potential habitat occurs throughout the Specific Plan area. Harrier hawks, red tailed hawks, and prairie falcons were observed on site. Likely occurs in appropriate habitats in the road and utility corridor.

PLANTS

Dwarf downingia Downingia pusilla -- -- 2 Vernal pools

Low: the disturbed nature of the vernal pools in the Specific Plan area likely precludes the occurrence of this species.

Brandegee’s Clarkia Clarkia biloba ssp. brandegeae

-- -- 1B

Chaparral, cismontane woodland, often roadcuts, 1000’ to 2700’ elevation

Low: could occur in vicinity of Waldo Road.

Legenere Legenere limosa -- -- 1B Vernal pools

Low: the disturbed nature of the vernal pools in the Specific Plan area likely precludes the occurrence of this species.

E = Endangered T = Threatened P = Proposed SC = Species of concern C = Candidate to become a proposed species CSC = Species of Concern in California MTBA = Migratory Bird Treaty Act * = CDFG “Special Animal” 1B = CNPS list plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 2 = CNPS list plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere. *CNPS is a private non-profit organization that works closely with CDFG throughout the state. CNPS-developed information serves as an important source of data for consideration by CDFG and USFWS in recommendations for listing



4.4-9

state or federal threatened and endangered plant species. Source: Foothill Associates, 2003



4.4-10

FIGURE 4.4-2A –CNDDB – SPECIFIC PLAN SITE/8.5X11/COLOR



4.4-11



4.4-12

FIGURE 4.4-2B –CNDDB – WALDO ROAD IMPROVEMENTS/8.5X11/COLOR



4.4-13



4.4-14

FIGURE 4.4-2C –CNDDB – WELLFIELD AND WATER DISPOSAL SITE/8.5X11/COLOR



4.4-15



4.4-16

Special-Status Wildlife

Invertebrates

California linderiella (a special concern species) and vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (both listed species) are associated with vernal pools and require inundation to complete their life cycle. The vernal pools occurring throughout the Specific Plan area are small and highly disturbed and likely preclude the presence of vernal pool tadpole shrimp, however, vernal pool fairy shrimp and California linderiella could occur here. Potential habitat for all of these species occurs in offsite areas. Conservancy fairy shrimp occurs within one mile of the proposed reclaimed water disposal site.

The valley elderberry longhorn beetle is a federally listed threatened species that occurs in association with elderberry shrubs in mature riparian areas, where it completes its life cycle. Although one elderberry shrub was observed in the Specific Plan area, it is isolated from any riparian habitats and showed no evidence of beetle activity. These shrubs could occur in the offsite improvement areas.

Fish

Hutchinson Creek and other project site streams are located within the historic range of steelhead trout and salmon. Hutchinson Creek is a tributary to the Feather and Bear River system, which provides habitat for both species of anadromous fish. In addition, there are no known blockages to fish passage below the on-site portion of Hutchinson Creek. Nonetheless, on-site habitat for these species is highly degraded, and no spawning habitat is available. In addition, given the ephemeral nature of Hutchinson Creek and other associated drainages, the fish habitat value of on-site stream reaches is very low. These species could potentially occur in the stream system during high flow times of year.

Amphibians

Of the special-status amphibian species evaluated for this assessment, none of these species is expected to occur in the Specific Plan area. However, if suitable vernal pools occur in the offsite areas, tiger salamander and spadefoot toad could occur in these habitats.

Reptiles

The northwestern pond turtle is the only reptile species that may occur in appropriate habitats in the offsite road corridor, but this is considered of low probability.

Birds

Of the seven individual species and two groups evaluated for this assessment, only two species (long-eared owl and burrowing owl) and members of the two groups (herons and egrets and raptors) have more than a low likelihood of occurring in the Specific Plan area. Swainson’s hawks were evaluated for their presence onsite and this species was determined to have a low potential based on the lack of CNDBB records and the lack of nesting opportunities. Because foraging habitats are present in the Specific Plan area, these species could potentially nest there. Egrets and herons may forage in the Specific Plan area, but are not expected to nest due to the lack of rookeries (nest sites). Raptors, including harrier hawks, red-tailed hawks, and prairie falcons were observed foraging on the site, and burrowing owls were also observed.



4.4-17

Special-Status Plants

Of the three special-status plants evaluated for this assessment, two occur in vernal pool habitats, which are present in the Specific Plan area. However, due to the disturbed nature of the pools and their limited size, as well as the rarity of these species, the potential for occurrence is low. However, these species may occur in offsite pools within the utility corridor. The third species, Brandegee’s Clarkia, has the potential to occur near Waldo Road.

SENSITIVE HABITATS

Sensitive habitats include those that are of special concern to resource agencies or those that are protected under CEQA, Section 1600 of the CDFG Code, or Section 404 of the CWA. Additionally, habitats may be protected under specific local policies. Sensitive habitats in the Specific Plan area includeoak woodlands, some riparian vegetation and waters of the U.S. (wetlands, including vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, etc.). Sensitive habitats within the project site are shown on Figure 4.4-3. Sensitive habitats that are likely to occur in the proposed utility corridor and along the off-site road corridor improvement areas are riparian woodland, oak woodlands, seasonal wetland and vernal pool complexes, and other wetlands such as creek and small drainage crossings. Sensitive habitats that occur along the proposed Waldo Road improvements are oak woodlands, wetlands, vernal pools, and riparian vegetation.

Oak Woodlands and Oak Trees

Blue oak woodlands support a high diversity of upland wildlife habitat and are considered sensitive natural communities. Although oak trees and oak woodland habitats are not afforded special protection under state or federal law, loss of oak woodland is a concern of the CDFG and CNPS because of their continued decline throughout California. In addition, the Yuba County General Plan and River Highlands Community Plan stipulates preservation of native oaks and oak woodlands.

Waters of the U.S.

Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. include wetlands as well as other Waters of the U.S. such as creeks, ponds, and intermittent drainages. Wetlands are defined as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (Corps, 1987). The majority of jurisdictional wetlands in the United States meet three wetland delineation criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. can also be defined by exhibiting a defined bed and bank and ordinary high water mark (OHWM). As discussed in the Regulatory Framework section below, jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. are subject to Section 404 of Clean Water Act and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).



4.4-18

FIGURE 4.4-3 – SENSITIVE HABITATS/8.5X11/COLOR



4.4-19



4.4-20

Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. include jurisdictional wetlands (vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, etc.) and “other” Waters of the U.S. (ephemeral and intermittent drainages). As shown through preliminary wetland delineation data, several jurisdictional wetland types occur in the Specific Plan area. Specifically, vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, ephemeral, and intermittent drainages occur here.

On January 9, 2001 the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision that has reduced the Corps of Engineer’s ability to regulate isolated wetlands/waters under the Clean Water Act. Based on review of that decision and other relevant documents, although the majority of wetlands on the project site meet the jurisdictional criteria in effect prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, they appear to be precluded from regulation by the Corps. Note that the Corps has not yet issued formal policy guidance based on the Supreme Court’s decision. Until such guidance is issued, the jurisdictional status of these areas remains unclear. Moreover, the wetlands that can potentially support listed species likely require Endangered Species evaluation.

Wildlife Movement Corridors

Wildlife movement corridors are traditional routes used by wildlife to travel within their home range. Movement corridors typically provide wildlife with undisturbed cover and foraging habitat and are generally composed of several trails in contiguous spans of forested, riparian, riverine, and woodland habitats. The width of movement corridors varies depending on the topography. Movement corridors are an essential element of home ranges of a wide variety of wildlife including black bear (Ursus americanus), grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), mountain lion (Felis concolor), and other migratory wildlife. As a result, wildlife movement corridors are considered a sensitive habitat by Yuba County and the CDFG.

The Spenceville Wildlife and Recreation Management Area (owned by CDFG) is adjacent to the eastern portion of the site. Spenceville consists of over 11,000 acres of land including oak woodlands, riparian communities associated with creeks, streams and ponds, grasslands, and various types of wetlands. Habitats including the riparian communities associated with the areas waterways, and oak woodlands provide important wildlife movement corridors for many types of mammals and birds species. The riparian and oak woodland habitats are unique and ecologically important habitats that are generally known to support a large diversity of wildlife.

Although Spenceville is adjacent to the site, wildlife movement and foraging opportunities are expected to be limited onsite due to the dry conditions and lack of riparian vegetation associated with onsite drainages. Riparian habitats that occur in offsite improvement areas are not expected to be adversely affected due to the nature of the crossings over drainages. Wildlife expected to use habitats on the project site for movement within their home range includes coyote, raccoon, various small mammals and migratory birds.

No critical or key wintering, fawning, or otherwise important deer use areas were identified on the site. Spenceville (to the east) is the area in closest proximity to the site that likely supports sustainable populations of deer.

4.4.2. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

The following describes federal, state, and local environmental laws and policies that are relevant to the CEQA review process. The CEQA significance criteria are also included in this section.



4.4-21

FEDERAL

Federal Endangered Species Act

The United States Congress passed the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) in 1973 to protect those species that are endangered or threatened with extinction. The FESA is intended to operate in conjunction with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to help protect the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend.

The FESA prohibits the “take” of endangered or threatened wildlife species. “Take” is defined to include harassing, harming (including significantly modifying or degrading habitat), pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting wildlife species or any attempt to engage in such conduct (16 USC 1532, 50 CFR 17.3). Actions that result in take can result in civil or criminal penalties.

The FESA and EPA Section 404 guidelines prohibit the issuance of wetland permits for projects that would jeopardize the existence of threatened or endangered wildlife or plant species. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) when threatened or endangered species may be affected by a proposed project to determine whether issuance of a Section 404 permit would jeopardize the species. In the context of the study site, the federal ESA would be triggered if development resulted in take of a threatened or endangered species (e.g., California red-legged frog, Coho salmon) or if issuance of a Section 404 permit or other federal agency action could adversely affect or jeopardize a threatened or endangered species.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Raptors (birds of prey), migratory birds, and other avian species are protected by a number of state and federal laws. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the killing, possessing, or trading of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Interior. Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.”

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). “Discharges of fill material” is defined as the addition of fill material into waters of the U.S., including, but not limited to the following: placement of fill that is necessary for the construction of any structure, or impoundment requiring rock, sand, dirt, or other material for its construction; site-development fills for recreational, industrial, commercial, residential, and other uses; causeways or road fills; fill for intake and outfall pipes and subaqueous utility lines [33 C.F.R. §328.2(f)]. In addition, Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States to obtain a certification that the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards.

Waters of the U.S. include a range of wet environments such as lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, and wet meadows. Wetlands are defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a



4.4-22

frequency and duration sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” [33 C.F.R. §328.3(b)].

Furthermore, Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. can be defined by exhibiting a defined bed and bank and ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The OHWM is defined by the Corps as “that line on shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” [33 C.F.R. §328.3(e)].

STATE

California Endangered Species Act

The State of California enacted the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 1984. The CESA is similar to the FESA but pertains to state-listed endangered and threatened species. It requires state agencies to consult with the CDFG when preparing CEQA documents to ensure that the state lead agency actions do not jeopardize the existence of listed species. It directs agencies to consult with CDFG on projects or actions that could affect listed species, directs CDFG to determine whether jeopardy would occur, and allows CDFG to identify “reasonable and prudent alternatives” to the project consistent with conserving the species. Agencies can approve a project that affects a listed species if they determine that there are “overriding considerations”; however, the agencies are prohibited from approving projects that would result in the extinction of a listed species. The state ESA prohibits the taking of state-listed endangered or threatened plant and wildlife species. CDFG exercises authority over mitigation projects involving state-listed species, including those resulting from CEQA mitigation requirements. CDFG may authorize taking if an approved habitat management plan or management agreement that avoids or compensates for possible jeopardy is implemented. CDFG requires preparation of mitigation plans in accordance with published guidelines.

CDFG Species of Special Concern

In addition to formal listing under FESA and CESA, plant and wildlife species receive additional consideration during the CEQA process. Species that may be considered for review are included on a list of “Species of Special Concern,” developed by the CDFG. It tracks species in California whose numbers, reproductive success, or habitat may be threatened.

California Native Plant Society

The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) maintains a list of plant species native to California that have low numbers, limited distribution, or are otherwise threatened with extinction. This information is published in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Potential impacts to populations of CNPS-listed plants receive consideration under CEQA review. The following identifies the definitions of the CNPS listings:

List 1A: Plants Believed Extinct.

List 1B: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere.

List 2: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere.



4.4-23

List 3: Plants About Which We Need More Information - A Review List.

List 4: Plants of Limited Distribution - A Watch List.

YUBA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN

The primary guide to future land development in the unincorporated areas of Yuba County is the Yuba County General Plan. State law requires that all local governments prepare a General Plan for future development in their jurisdictions. The County's current General Plan was adopted in 1996, with revisions to the Land Use, Circulation, and Open Space and Conservation Elements. The General Plan further delineates certain areas of the County land uses into Community Plans and Specific Plans. Community Plans are described in detail below. The Specific Plan classification is used to further identify land use for areas at a more detailed level than either the General Plan or Community Plan. However, Specific Plans must be consistent with both the General Plan’s and Community Plan’s goals, objectives and policies and the plan’s land use designations. The River Highlands Community Plan states that it is consistent with the County General Plan and therefore the Specific Plan, if it is determined to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Community Plan, should by inference, be consistent to the General Plan, however no formal consistency analysis between the Community Plan and General Plan is included in the Community Plan. Thus, in order to establish consistency with the proposed project and the County General Plan, a consistency analysis is included in this EIR. The goals, objectives, and policies of the County General Plan pertaining to biological resources are discussed below.

TABLE 4.4-2 PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH THE YUBA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN

Goals and Policies

Consistency with

General Plan

Analysis

Goal 5-OSCG: Protect lands of unique value to plants, fisheries, waterfowl and other forms of animal life.

Objective 17-OSCO: No net loss of wetland and riparian habitat.

Policy 70-OSCP: New development projects shall be required to fully mitigate loss of wetlands through any combination of avoidance, minimization, or compensation, including use of a mitigation banking program. Mitigation shall be coordinated with the State Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Yes, with mitigation

The Specific Plan contains design objectives intended to preserve the natural appearance of the land and preserve as many sensitive resources as feasible. Specific Plan policies call for clustering of development in areas of flatter terrain and the design of open space into residential areas. The project includes open space buffer zones between development areas and the Spenceville Wildlife Management and Recreation Area. Wetlands determined to be jurisdictional are to be mitigated in cooperation with regulatory agencies. However, included in the requested entitlements for the proposed Specific Plan is approval of an amendment to the Community Plan, Drainage Standard 2. Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S./Wetlands that would permit grading of creeks and wetlands that are not determined to be jurisdictional thus permitting them to be



4.4-24

Goals and Policies

Consistency with

General Plan

Analysis

mass pad graded with no mitigation, which would not be consistent with the no net loss objective.

Policy 71-OSCP: New development projects shall be directed away from naturally occurring wetland and riparian areas to the extent such policy is consistent with the concept of compact and contiguous development.

Yes

Specific Plan policies call for clustering of development in areas of flatter terrain and the design of open space into residential areas.

Policy 73-OSCP: Setbacks ranging from 50 to 150 feet shall be required from the edge of all wetland and riparian areas that are to remain after development. The depth of the setback shall be determined based upon site-specific conditions and consultations with the State Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In the case of vernal pool wetlands, sufficient area shall be preserved to maintain the hydrologic integrity of each vernal pool to be preserved.

Yes

This policy has been incorporated into the River Highlands Community Plan, which included policies and drainage standards pertaining to setbacks from wetlands and blueline creeks and inclusion of these wetlands and creeks in open space. Included in the requested entitlements for the proposed Specific Plan is approval of an amendment to the Community Plan, Drainage Standard 2. Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S./Wetlands to permit grading of creeks and wetlands that are not determined to be jurisdictional and to reduce setbacks for jurisdictional wetlands to a minimum of 50 feet. The amendment is consistent with the minimum setback for wetland and riparian areas that are determined, in consultation with state and federal agencies, to be preserved after development.

Objective 18-OSCO: Maintenance of adequate setbacks for development along “blueline” streamcourses as identified on United States Geological Survey topographic maps for Yuba County.

Policy 74-OSCP: As part of the County’s review of development projects, a setback of 50 to 150 feet from the bank of all streamcourses shall be required as a condition of project approval. The depth of the setback shall be determined based upon site specific conditions and consultations with the State Department of Fish and Game. Where streamcourses are contained within levees as in the case of the Bear, Feather and Yuba rivers, setbacks shall be measured from the outside toe of the levee.


This policy has been incorporated into the River Highlands Community Plan, which included policies and drainage standards pertaining to setbacks from wetlands and blueline creeks and preservation of these wetlands and creeks in open space. Included in the requested entitlements for the proposed Specific Plan is approval of an amendment to the Community Plan, Drainage Standard 2. Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S./Wetlands to permit grading of creeks and wetlands that are not determined to be jurisdictional and to reduce setbacks for jurisdictional wetlands to a minimum of 50 feet. Creeks and wetland areas small enough to be deemed non-jurisdictional could be mass pad graded. The maximum setback from jurisdictional wetlands/blueline creeks would be reduced to a minimum of 50 feet. Adoption of MM 4.4.10a would require preparation of an inventory and map of all



4.4-25

Goals and Policies

Consistency with

General Plan

Analysis

creeks and wetlands within the Specific Plan area. MM 4.1.4c would preserve all creeks and wetlands by incorporating them in the design of the park and drainage systems for the Specific Plan. MM 4.4.10a further requires any wetlands that would be removed or disturbed in connection with road or utility crossings to be replaced or rehabilitated on a “no net loss” basis.

Policy 75-OSCP: Roadways and trails shall be routed to minimized impacts to streamcourses and any associated wetlands.


See consistency analysis for Policy 73-OSCP above.

Objective 19-OSCO: Retention and protection from incompatible uses of existing designated wildlife areas.

Policy 76-OSCP: The following designated wildlife areas shall be recognized by the County and protected from incompatible development projects:

Spenceville Wildlife and Recreation Area

Marysville Wildlife Area

Feather River Wildlife Area

Daugherty Hill Wildlife Area

Starbend Fishing Access


The Specific Plan map includes open space buffer zones between development areas and the SWMRA in areas where the project site boundaries are adjacent to the SWMRA. The CDFG has requested a minimum setback distance of 450 feet. The Specific Plan does not provide a specific minimum width of the proposed open space buffers. Conformance with Land Use mitigation measures MM 4.1.1 will establish an entitlement process for County review of all development. Implementation of MM 4.1.4b will establish a policy to require the provision of 25% open space in conformance with the Community Plan, MM 4.1.5c and 4.1.5d will provide access control at boundaries contiguous with SWMRA and will require that open space / setback areas adjacent to the SWMRA are a minimum of 450 feet in size and receive approval of the CDFG.

Policy 77-OSCP: Areas adjacent to wildlife areas shall be maintained in low intensity uses including agriculture, open space, and rural residential.

Yes See consistency analysis for Policy 76-OSCP above.

Policy 78-OSCP: All proposals for development projects in proximity to wildlife areas shall be referred to the State Department of Fish and Game.

Yes

See consistency analysis for Policy 76-OSCP above. Any new project within close proximity to SWMRA will be referred to DFG as a part of the entitlement process.

Objective 21-OSCO: Identification and protection of remaining areas containing habitat suitable for threatened, endangered or special status species.

Policy 86-OSCP: The County shall encourage the preservation of areas of natural vegetation that may also contain threatened, endangered or special status species, including oak woodlands, riparian


With implementation of MM 4.4.4 through MM 4.4.11, the Yuba Highlands Specific Plan will retain native vegetation. In areas where impacts occur, mitigation ensuring no net loss of these resources will be implemented



4.4-26

Goals and Policies

Consistency with

General Plan

Analysis

areas, marshland, and vernal pools.

Policy 89-OSCP: When habitat for threatened, endangered or special status species is believed to be present, the County shall require biological studies conducted by qualified persons within the appropriate season prior to action on development actions.

Yes A biological survey would be conducted as a part of the environmental review process.

Policy 90-OSCP: Where biological studies or other environmental documents propose mitigation measures, such measures shall be incorporated into development project design whenever feasible.


With implementation of MM 4.4.4 through MM 4.4.11, the Yuba Highlands Specific Plan would be implemented in order to protect any threatened, endangered or candidate species. In areas where impacts occur, mitigation ensuring no net loss of these resources will be implemented

Policy 91-OSCP: Where a “take” of threatened, endangered or candidate species is likely, the County shall comply with the requirements of the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts.



Policy 92-OSCP: The County shall consider the preparation of habitat conservation plans and habitat management plans in accordance with Section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act and State Fish and Game Code Section 2081 when a “take” may occur. Any plan prepared should benefit a variety of species rather than focusing on a single species.



Policy 94-OSCP: The anadromous fishery occurring within the streams of Yuba County shall be afforded the same protection from the adverse effects of development as terrestrial species.

Yes, with mitigation.

Mitigation measure MM 4.4.6 would be implemented in order to protect the anadromous fish habitat.

Objective 22-OSCO: Protection of migratory deer corridors in mountains and foothills when considering proposal for development projects.

Policy 95-OSCP: Critical habitat and foraging areas, migratory routes and wildlife travel corridors identified by the State Department of Fish and Game shall be protected to the extent practical in an effort to sustain local and migratory deer herd populations.

Yes

No critical or key deer resource areas were identified in the Specific Plan Area. The Spenceville Wildlife Management and Recreation Area is adjacent to the east and provides a sustainable resource for management.

Policy 96-OSCP: Development projects in identified winter deer range areas shall be regulated to facilitate the survival of deer herds.




4.4-27

Goals and Policies

Consistency with

General Plan

Analysis

Policy 97-OSCP: Community Boundaries shall be used in foothill and mountain areas as a means to protect deer winter range by containing development projects within specified areas.


Policy 98-OSCP: Within designated winter and critical range of the Mooretown and Downieville deer herds, clustered development projects may occur pursuant to policies 16-LUP through 21-LUP. Future land divisions that do not provide permanent open space shall meet the minimum lot size standards for winter deer range (20 acres in winter range and 40 acre minimum in critical winter range) as specified by the California Department of Fish and Game; the County may allow for a minimum parcel size of 5 acres within these areas provided findings are made to support the project based upon the following criteria:

Topography (slope)

Soils

Road access, including onsite and offsite compliance with State of California Fire Safety Regulations

Proof of water availability

Surrounding land uses and parcel sizes

Other relevant constraints.


Policy 101-OSCP: In areas identified as critical winter deer range, perimeter fencing for new development, including clustered development, shall be of a type recommended by the State Department of Fish and Game to allow the free passage of deer. Fencing for ongoing agricultural operations, including that which contains permanent open space in clustered projects, shall meet the standards necessary to contain livestock or protect agriculture, provided that findings can be made based upon recommendations of the County Agricultural Commissioner, in consultation with appropriate agencies, that fencing restrictions would adversely impact an economically viable agricultural activity.


Objective 24-OSCO: Connection of wildlife preserves and parklands to wildlife/open


The project includes open space buffer zones between development areas and the Spenceville Wildlife Management and



4.4-28

Goals and Policies

Consistency with

General Plan

Analysis

space corridors, to the extent possible.

Policy 105-OSCP: The County shall consider the inclusion of wildlife corridors in the River Highlands Community Plan that would connect the various units of the Spenceville Wildlife Management and Recreation Area and the Yuba River.

Recreation Area and clustering of development to retain open space. However, included in the requested entitlements for the proposed Specific Plan is approval of an amendment to the Community Plan, Drainage Standard 2. Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S./Wetlands. The Community Plan policy language prohibiting alteration of streambeds with the intent of maintaining wildlife corridors through all developments in the form of major streambeds and providing connection to other open space corridors such as the SWRMA would be removed and substituted with permissive language that says that stream channels “shall generally” be retained as part of a drainage plan and “may” be employed for open space or bike paths. No mention of maintaining wildlife corridors by retaining steams or providing connectivity to the two units of SWRMA is made in the Specific Plan. Adoption of MM 4.4.10a would require preparation of an inventory and map of all creeks and wetlands within the Specific Plan area. MM 4.1.4c would preserve all creeks and wetlands by incorporating them in the design of the park and drainage systems for the Specific Plan. MM 4.4.10a further requires any wetlands that would be removed or disturbed in connection with road or utility crossings to be replaced or rehabilitated on a “no net loss” basis. These creek corridors would serve to connect the units of SWRMA.

Policy 107-OSCP: Wildlife corridors shall be retained in new development projects wherever practical and an effort shall be made to connect such corridors to provide continuous passageways for wildlife.



Goal 7-OSCG: Conserve Valley oaks, and encourage the protection and regeneration of oak woodlands in foothill areas.

Objective 27-OSCO: Creation of an inventory of remaining Valley oaks and development of guidelines for the retention and regeneration.

Policy 116-OSCP: Project proponents shall identify and map the location of all Valley oaks on property proposed for a development project. Identification need not include individual trees where groves of


With implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.4.9a and MM 4.4.9b, the proposed project would either retain native oaks or where impacts occur, mitigation ensuring no net loss of these resources will be implemented.



4.4-29

Goals and Policies

Consistency with

General Plan

Analysis

Valley oaks are present, and need not include trees less than 6 inches in diameter at breast height.

Objective 28-OSCO: Identification of foothill oaks on development project plans and avoidance during design and construction.

Policy 118-OSCP: All proposed parcel maps, subdivision maps and conditional use permits in areas containing oaks woodlands shall show the location of existing oaks by canopy area.



Policy 119-OSCP: Whenever project objectives can be otherwise achieved, it shall be the policy of the County to avoid oak tree removal.



Policy 120-OSCP: To avoid oak tree removal, the County shall entertain innovative and non-conventional site planning and structural designs.



RIVER HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY PLAN

The Community Plan amends the existing Yuba County General Plan as it pertains to the River Highlands Community Plan area. In other words, the Community Plan refines the policies of the County’s General Plan as they apply to a smaller area within the General Plan area, but remains internally consistent with the General Plan of which it is a part. The Community Plan, like the General Plan, addresses or references each of the General Plan’s mandatory seven elements. The Community Plan: 1) provides overall policy direction for the decision-making process for development in the planning area, 2) contains specific development policies, and 3) identifies measures that implement the policies. The proposed project’s consistency with the River Highlands Community Plan, which is intended to guide the growth and development of the project area at least through the year 2013, is analyzed below.

The River Highlands Community Plan contains goals and policies relevant to biological resources. The project’s consistency with the Plan is summarized in Table 4.4-3.

TABLE 4.4-3 PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH THE RIVER HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY PLAN

Goals and Policies

Consistency with

Community Plan

Analysis

Goal LUG-1: Allow development to occur in selected locations in a manner that maintains the rural foothill character, rural quality of life, and natural resources of the

Yes The Specific Plan contains design objectives intended to preserve the natural appearance of the land, promote a peaceful noise environment,



4.4-30

Goals and Policies

Consistency with

Community Plan

Analysis

community Plan area. accommodate the existing topography when locating roads and grading lots, and preserve as many oak trees as feasible. Specific Plan policies call for clustering of development in areas of flatter terrain, the design of open space into residential areas, and creative architectural solutions that adapt buildings to existing topography and minimize grading. Higher density development is proposed for lower valley areas away from oak groves and steep terrain. And finally, the project includes open space buffer zones between development areas and the Spenceville Wildlife Area where project boundaries are adjacent to the wildlife area.

Goal LUG-8: Maintain valuable open space and protect the integrity of the SWMRA.


The Specific Plan map includes open space buffer zones between development areas and the SWMRA in areas where the project site boundaries are adjacent to the SWMRA. The CDFG has requested a minimum setback distance of 450 feet. The Specific Plan does not provide a specific minimum width of the proposed open space buffers. The setbacks proposed in the Specific Plan are designed in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Game’s setback requirements for the SWMRA. These setbacks range in width starting at 300-feet and are shown on Figure 4.4-4, however, this figure is illustrative only. Conformance with MM 4.1.1 will establish an entitlement process for County review of all development. Implementation of MM 4.1.4b will establish a policy to require the provision of 25% open space in conformance with the Community Plan, MM 4.1.5c and 4.1.5d will provide access control at boundaries contiguous with SWMRA and will require that open space / setback areas adjacent to the SWMRA are a minimum of 450 feet in size and receive approval of the CDFG.

Policy LUP-8b: Proposed developments that abut the SWMRA shall be required to maintain adequate building setbacks as determined by Yuba County and the California Department of Fish and Game and in accordance with the goals of the SWMRA operating plan.

Yes See analysis for Goal LUG-8 above.

Policy LUP-8c: Strive to minimize the adverse impacts of development on lands

Yes, with mitigation See analysis for Goal LUG-8 above.



4.4-31

Goals and Policies

Consistency with

Community Plan

Analysis

designated for open space and the SWMRA.

Policy LUP-8d: Enhance the wildlife and recreational potential of the SWMRA to the extent feasible through innovative drainage system design and reforestation schemes.


The Specific Plan provides for open space buffers adjacent to the SWMRA, MM 4.1.5c sets a minimum width for the SWMRA buffer, slopes in excess of 25% are generally retained in open space and grading is to follow natural land form, oak trees are to be surveyed and a replacement plan required for certain neighborhoods. The next step in the Program for implementation of the Specific Plan is the preparation of a series of Master Plans including a Drainage Master Plan, Parks Master Plan, and a Phasing and Financing Plan. Conformance with MM 4.1.1 will establish an entitlement process for County review of all development applications including Master Plans for public facilities, and MM 4.1.4c establishes a policy requiring minimum setbacks from creeks to be reflected in the Parks Master Plan and Drainage Master Plan. With implementation of MM 4.4.6, MM 4.4.9a and MM 4.4.9b will provide open space areas for the oak woodlands and MM 4.4.10a would require preparation of an inventory and map of all creeks and wetlands within the Specific Plan area. MM 4.1.4c would preserve all creeks and wetlands by incorporating them in the design of the park and drainage systems for the Specific Plan.

Policy OSP-1a: Lands which possess one or a combination of the following characteristics shall be designated as open space: 1) slopes with gradients in excess of 25%, 2) oak woodland exhibiting oaks at a rate of 100 trees per acre or greater, 3) 100-year floodplains/Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S./wetlands/blueline creeks as identified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 4) unique land forms/ridgelines, and/or 6) unique cultural or archaeological resources.

No, Community

Plan Amendment

Required

Included in the requested entitlements for the proposed Specific Plan is approval of an amendment to the Community Plan, Development Standard A.3.1.5 Twenty-Five Percent Slope Areas, to permit uses other than open space for an approved Specific Plan; and amendment of Drainage Standard 2. Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S./Wetlands to permit grading of non-jurisdictional wetlands and reduce setbacks for jurisdictional wetlands to a minimum of 50 feet. Amendment of these Development and Drainage Standards would relax the standards such that uses other than open space would be permitted in 1) slopes with gradients in excess of 25% and 3) 100-year floodplains/Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S./wetlands/blueline creeks as identified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Therefore, the requested entitlements for the proposed Specific Plan also include a Community Plan Amendment to permit, in accordance



4.4-32

Goals and Policies

Consistency with

Community Plan

Analysis

with an approved Specific Plan, uses other than open space in areas containing slopes with gradients in excess of 25% and wetlands/blueline creeks as identified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Policy OSP-1c: Require that centerline setbacks of 125 feet on solid blueline creeks and 50 feet on dashed blueline creeks, as determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, be dedicated as non-development easements. Protect these areas as one of the primary forms of wildlife habitat in the Plan area.

No, Community

Plan Amendment

Required

Included in the requested entitlements for the proposed Specific Plan is approval of an amendment to the Community Plan, Development Standard A.3.1.5 Twenty-Five Percent Slope Areas, to permit uses other than open space for an approved Specific Plan; and amendment of Drainage Standard 2. Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S./Wetlands to permit grading of non-jurisdictional wetlands and reduce setbacks for jurisdictional wetlands to a minimum of 50 feet. Amendment of these Development and Drainage Standards would relax the standards such that uses other than open space would be permitted in 1) slopes with gradients in excess of 25% and 3) 100-year floodplains/Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S./wetlands/blueline creeks as identified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Therefore, the requested entitlements for the proposed Specific Plan also include a Community Plan Amendment to permit, in accordance with an approved Specific Plan, uses other than open space in areas containing slopes with gradients in excess of 25% and wetlands/blueline creeks as identified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Goal OSG-3: Ensure that the wildlife habitat and recreation values of the Spenceville Wildlife Preserve are maintained and, where possible, enhanced through open space acquisitions, dedications or purchases, storm water conveyance, and reforestation.


Policy OSP-3b: Require that project applicants explore drainage solutions and reforestation schemes which enhance the Spenceville Wildlife Preserve. Coordinate such efforts with the River Highlands Community Services District and the California Department of Fish and Game.


Policy OSP-4b: Provide for protection and enhancement of native fishery resources in the Yuba River.

Yes

Development of the Specific Plan will not directly impact the Yuba River, however, provision of water to the Plan area has the potential to impact the Yuba River. Development of the well field is the next step in the program for implementation of the Specific Plan and will undergo



4.4-33

Goals and Policies

Consistency with

Community Plan

Analysis

environmental review at the time the facility is proposed, which will determine potential impacts to native Yuba River fishery resources.

Goal OSP-5: Conserve and protect native vegetation in the Plan area.


With implementation of MM 4.4.4 through MM 4.4.12, the Yuba Highlands Specific Plan will retain native vegetation. In areas where impacts occur, mitigation ensuring no net loss of these resources will be implemented

Policy OSP-5a: Require that oak tree and vegetation surveys be conducted prior to project approvals.

With implementation of MM 4.4.9, the proposed project will either retain native oaks or where impacts occur, mitigation ensuring no net loss of these resources will be implemented.

Policy OSP-5b: Incorporate existing vegetation into development projects where feasible and practical.


Policy OSP-5c: If oak trees are removed, require that oak trees be replaced per a Revegetation Plan and per the Development Standards established by this Plan.


With implementation of MM 4.4.9, the proposed project will either retain native oaks or where impacts occur, mitigation ensuring no net loss of these resources will be implemented.

YUBA HIGHLANDS SPECIFIC PLAN

The specific plan classification is used, according to the Yuba County General Plan, “in order to provide comprehensive planning for new growth areas at a more detailed level typically found in the General Plan.” The Yuba Highlands Specific Plan is required by state law to be consistent with the County General Plan’s and the River Highlands Community Plan’s goals, objectives and policies. This consistency is analyzed above regarding biological resources. Additionally, the Yuba Highlands Specific Plan sets forth objectives and policies designed to complement the overall design concepts with the unique characteristics of the project area.

The Yuba Highlands Specific Plan objectives relating to biological resources are as follows:

1. Preserve the natural appearance of the land by placing emphasis on contiguous open space, maintenance of natural land forms, stream corridors, the quiet noise environment and scenic viewsheds and oak trees within the built environment.

2. Promote an overall peaceful noise environment that is consistent with the existing character of the foothills.

3. Preserve as many oaks trees as feasible through site design and open space.

Policies contained in the Specific Plan relating to biological resources are as follows:

TABLE 4.4-4 YUBA HIGHLANDS SPECIFIC PLAN POLICIES –BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES



4.4-34

Policy Section Policy

Management and Construction

Policy 1: Environmentally sensitive lands including wetlands, may be managed by a public agency or private entity either through dedication in fee, through open space or conservation easements, or through provisions of the CC&R’s. Where such environmentally sensitive land or buffer area is included within a private parcel, it shall be protected from development by appropriate restrictions or non-building designations made of record in the title of the property. Public access to environmentally sensitive areas shall generally be allowed but shall be directed away from wet areas or fragile resources through designated paths, signing or other means.

4.4.3. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE

A biological resource impact is normally considered significant if implementation of the project would:

1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

2) Have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

3) Conflict with existing local, state, or federal natural resource protection laws, policies, or guidelines.

4) Have a substantial adverse effect on significant ecological resources including:

a) Wetland areas including vernal pools;

b) Stream environment zones;

c) Critical deer winter ranges (winter and summer), migratory routes, and fawning habitat;

d) Large areas of non-fragmented natural habitat, including but not limited to Blue Oak Woodlands, Valley Foothill Riparian, vernal pool habitat;

e) Identifiable wildlife movement zones, including but not limited to, non-fragmented stream environment zones, avian and mammalian routes, and known concentration areas of waterfowl within the Pacific Flyway;

f) Important spawning areas for anadromous fish.

METHODOLOGY

Available information pertaining to the natural resources of the region was reviewed, including biological resource documentation from other projects east of the Specific Plan area. Literature reviewed included:

• The Yuba Highlands Specific Plan, Yuba County, California (September 2002);

• The Yuba Highlands Specific Plan, Draft Project Description (June 2002);



4.4-35

• Eco-Analysts’ Wetland Delineations and Biological Assessments of Foothill and Sky Ranches and Survey of Sensitive Species of Vascular Plants and for Wetlands

• California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) California Natural Diversity Data Base, 2002;

• California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, 1994;

• The River Highlands Community Plan, Yuba County, California (December 1993).

The Specific Plan area was surveyed by Foothill Associates biologists between October and November of 2002. Field investigations involved conducting general plant and wildlife surveys focusing on portions of the Specific Plan area with the potential to support special-status species and sensitive habitats. Color aerial photography of the Specific Plan area was used to identify and map vegetation types and sensitive habitats. Potential biological resource constraints within the proposed utility corridor were evaluated primarily in-office using interpretation of aerial photography along with a literature review. Field visits were conducted at select locations to ensure that the aerial photos were being interpreted accurately.

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

The following discussion of impacts is based on the implementation of the Yuba Highlands Specific Plan and associated offsite improvements. Because development plans are general in nature, this impact discussion reflects full build-out of the Specific Plan Area, as well as impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed offsite improvements Open space/conservation and setback areas are not shown as impacted areas. These areas are shown in Figure 4.4-4.

Common Plant Communities

Impact 4.4.1 Implementation of the proposed project will result in the removal of substantial non-native grassland in the Specific Plan area. [LS]

A total of 2,894 acres of land is present in the Yuba Highlands Specific Plan area, most of which is non-native grassland, where land has been used for grazing. Assuming full buildout, the development impacts to this vegetation type would remove most of the total acreage. Similarly, the various offsite improvements will remove non-native grassland habitat. Non-native grassland provides cover, foraging, and breeding habitat for numerous species of common resident and migratory wildlife. However, this habitat is common in the region and the project design will incorporate open space that contains this vegetation type in the development. Furthermore, the loss of this vegetation type is consistent with the General Plan and Community Plan and this impact would be considered less than significant and would require no mitigation.



4.4-36



4.4-37

Insert Figure 4.4-4 Potential Impacts



4.4-38



4.4-39

Common Wildlife

Impact 4.4.2 Implementation of the proposed project will result in the removal of substantial wildlife habitat in the Specific Plan area. [LS]

A total of 2,894 acres of land is present in the Yuba Highlands Specific Plan area, most of which is non-native annual grassland habitat. Assuming full buildout, the development impacts to this vegetation type would remove most of the total acreage. The grassland with scattered wetland and oak woodland habitats provide breeding and foraging habitat and shelter for numerous species of resident and migratory wildlife. However, because these species are regionally abundant, these species are not expected to be adversely affected by the proposed project. Furthermore, these species receive no formal regulatory protection from federal or state regulatory agencies, or from local policies. For these reasons, this impact would be considered less than significant and would require no mitigation.

Special-Status Plants

Impact 4.4.3 Implementation of the proposed project may result in the removal of habitat for special-status plant species within the Specific Plan area. [LS]

As discussed in the Setting section, the vernal pool habitat in the Specific Plan area is considered to have a low potential to support special-status plants. For this reason, this impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

Vernal Pool Invertebrates

Impact 4.4.4 Implementation of the proposed project may result in the removal of habitat for special-status vernal pool invertebrates in the Specific Plan area. [PSM]

The vernal pool habitats in the Specific Plan area located in the north central portion of the project site (see Figure 4.4-3) are considered potential habitat for Vernal pool fairy shrimp and California linderiella, although the habitat is degraded due to past cattle grazing activity. As these wetland features may support these species, their disturbance is likely regulated under the Endangered Species Act. In general, the USFWS requires a 250-foot setback from the edge of each avoided vernal pool. However, based on site-specific conditions (e.g. topographic position, hydrological effects, etc.) this setback may be reduced. Additionally, as described in detail in Section 4.1 Land Use, due to gaps in the County’s entitlement process, development of multifamily, commercial, and recreational uses could proceed by right and would not be reviewed for consistency with the Specific Plan under the current process. The removal of potential habitat for these species is considered a potentially significant impact subject to mitigation.

Mitigation Measures

MM 4.4.4a Adopt MM 4.1.1

MM 4.4.4b New Specific Plan Policy: Protection of Vernal Pool Habitat: Prior to approval of a any development permit in the north central portion of the project site where it has been determined that vernal pool habitat exists (see Figure 4.4-3 from Draft EIR), future development projects, where feasible, shall be designed to avoid vernal pools. As discussed above, the USFWS requires a 250-foot setback from the edge of each avoided vernal pool, however, this



4.4-40

setback may be reduced if pools are already degraded or no potential adverse effects to the habitat are anticipated with a decreased setback.

If vernal pools cannot be avoided and impacts will occur, a mitigation plan shall be developed which includes implementation of one of the following measures: (1) credits may be obtained at an approved mitigation bank, or (2) completion of an onsite mitigation and monitoring plan that includes onsite creation/preservation of the pools. Typically, the USFWS in coordination with the Corps requires a 3:1 combination ratio (1:1 preservation and 2:1 creation) of vernal pools that would support listed invertebrates.

Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of any development permit including Tentative Map or Planning Director’s Special Permit for development in the north central portion of the project site where it has been determined that vernal pool habitat exists (see Figure 4.4-3 from Draft EIR).

Enforcement/Monitoring: Yuba County Community Services Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Implementation of the above mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts related to the removal of habitat for special-status invertebrates to less than significant.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle

Impact 4.4.5 Implementation of the proposed project may result in the removal of habitat for valley elderberry longhorn beetle in the Specific Plan area. [PSM]

Based on the onsite field review, the isolated elderberry shrub in the central portion of the Specific Plan area is not likely to be habitat for valley elderberry longhorn beetles due to its isolated nature and lack of beetle evidence. However, elderberry shrubs could occur in other areas on the project site and in offsite areas. This plant is considered potential habitat for VELB. Although no evidence (i.e. exit holes) or adults were observed in association with the elderberry shrubs on the project site, focused surveys were not conducted. Consequently, the potential for VELB to occur on the project site cannot be ruled out. Because this species is protected under the FESA and regulated by the USFWS, removal of any elderberry shrub could be considered a potentially significant impact and subject to mitigation.

Mitigation Measure

MM 4.4.5a New Specific Plan Policy-Protection of Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Habitat: Prior to approval of any development permit in the project site, the project applicant shall conduct a focused survey of the project site and associated offsite areas that identifies and depicts the exact location and size (including number of stems over one (1) inch in diameter at ground level) of elderberry shrubs. Where feasible, any elderberry shrubs that contain stems over one (1) inch in diameter shall be avoided and placed in open space. Typically, the USFWS requires a 100-foot setback from the outer dripline edge of each plant, however this setback may be reduced depending on site design.



4.4-41

If suitable elderberry shrubs, as identified in the survey, cannot be avoided and impacts will occur, consultation with USFWS shall be required. A mitigation plan shall be developed which must include implementation of one of the following measures:

1. Obtain credits at an approved mitigation bank; or

2. Implement an onsite mitigation and monitoring plan that includes transplantation of the plant and planting of elderberry seedlings. Specific transplanting procedures shall be included in the plan and shall follow the measures outlined in the USFWS General Compensation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (July 1999). All transplanting shall occur during the plant’s dormant season (November through mid-February). Elderberry seedlings shall be planted for all plants with stems measuring one inch or greater at ground level that are transplanted or destroyed. Elderberry seedlings shall be planted in an approved mitigation location and shall follow mitigation ratios (seedlings per plant disturbed) outlined in the USFWS General Compensation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (July 1999). Ratios are based on location (riparian vs. non-riparian), stem diameter at ground level, and presence or absence of exit holes of affected elderberry plants and range from 1:1 to 8:1.

Timing/Implementation: New Policies adopted with the Specific Plan. Implemented prior to the approval of any Tentative Map or Planning Director’s Special Permit for development.

Enforcement/Monitoring: Yuba County Community Development Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Implementation of the above measures would reduce impact to VELB to a less than significant level.

Special-Status Fish

On-site and Off-site Drainages

Impact 4.4.6 Implementation of the proposed project may adversely affect special-status fish species in drainages located within the Specific Plan area, as well as in watercourses that traverse offsite improvement areas. [PSM]

Public comments to the Notice of Preparation for this project raised the question as to whether development of the proposed wellfield would have an adverse impact to anadromous fish inhabiting the Yuba River. It is unknown at this time whether the proposed wellfield would affect surface or sub-surface flows in the Yuba River. The Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA) has agreed to make available to the River Highlands Community Services District (District) up to a maximum of 5,000 acre-feet per year. The YCWA only agrees to develop and deliver water from the Yuba Goldfields Area ground water supplies; nothing in the Agreement commits the YWCA to delivery of Yuba River surface water or underflow supplies from the YWCA’s Yuba River surface water rights. It should be noted that according to CH2MHILL there is presently insufficient data available to evaluate ground water extraction effects on the Yuba River (this issue is discussed in greater detail in the Hydrology and Water Quality section, 4.3).



4.4-42

Per a 1999 Agreement between YCWA and the District, environmental review for the Yuba Goldfields Well Development project will be completed separately from the Yuba Highlands Specific Plan project, and the YCWA will serve as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Due to cost prohibitions associated with well design and further detailed aquifer yield analysis, the environmental review for the wellfield site will be initiated in the event that the Yuba County Board of Supervisors adopts the Yuba Highlands Specific Plan. Future studies of seasonal Yuba River flows and recharge from precipitation on the Goldfields, along with well analysis and the subsequent environmental review, will determine, among other things, whether there is connectivity between pumping at the proposed well field and Yuba River surface water, whether the effect on the Yuba River would have a potentially significant impact on biological resources, and measures to mitigate those impacts to a less than significant level.

With regard to impacts to anadromous fish related to development within the Specific Plan and offsite road improvements, Hutchinson Creek and other project area streams are located within the historic range of steelhead trout and salmon. Hutchinson Creek is a tributary to the Feather and Bear River system, which provides habitat for both species of anadromous fish. In addition, there are no known blockages to fish passage below the onsite portion of Hutchinson Creek. Nonetheless, on-site habitat for these species is highly degraded, and no spawning habitat is available. In addition, given the ephemeral nature of Hutchinson Creek and other associated drainages, the fish habitat value in these stream reaches is very low. Although unlikely, these species could potentially occur in the stream system during high flow times of year. Further, as these watercourses may be impacted by instream work, including pad grading, bridge and/or culvert construction, special status anadromous fish species could be indirectly impacted downstream. Instream work that affects waters of the U.S. requires a series of permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. These permits are already discussed in greater detail in Impact 4.4.10a, and will greatly reduce potential impacts to fishery resources.

The Specific Plan references existing policies, however, no additional policies are proposed regarding the protection of biological resources. Additionally, as described in detail in Section 4.1 Land Use, due to gaps in the County’s entitlement process, development of multi family, commercial, and recreational uses could proceed by right and would not be reviewed for consistency with the Specific Plan or for compliance with applicable state or federal laws related to biological resources under the current process.

Due to the uncertainty related to the use of the on-site and off-site drainages by anadromous fish, and the highly sensitive nature of these special status species, this impact is considered potentially significant and subject to mitigation.

Mitigation Measure

MM 4.4.6 New Specific Plan Policy-Creekbed Protection: Construction activities within creekbeds where special status anadromous fish species may occur shall take place during the dry season (May-October) to avoid potential impacts to fish. In addition, all construction activities will be implemented in accordance with a 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement.

Timing/Implementation: New Policy adopted with the Specific Plan. Implemented prior to the approval of grading permit, Tentative Map or Planning Director’s Special Permit.



4.4-43

Enforcement/Monitoring: Yuba County Community Development Department, California Department of Fish and Game

Implementation of the above mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to special-status fish species to less than significant.

Special-Status Amphibians/Reptiles

Impact 4.4.7 Implementation of the proposed project may result in the removal of habitat for special-status amphibians and reptiles in the Specific Plan area. [LS]

The vernal pool habitats in the Specific Plan area are considered potential habitat for listed and special-status invertebrates, however, these pools are not likely to support special-status amphibians. In addition, the creeks that traverse the project site are not likely habitat for Northwestern pond turtle. For these reasons, impacts to special-status amphibians and reptiles species within the Specific Plan area as a result of implementation of the proposed project is considered less than significant.

Raptors (including Burrowing Owl and Long-eared Owl)

Impact 4.4.8 Implementation of the proposed project may result in the removal of nests for special-status and common raptor species within the Specific Plan area. [PSM]

Burrowing owl and long-eared owl (both California Species of Special Concern) may nest in the Specific Plan area. Foothill biologists’ observed a burrowing owl onsite, however, it was in late Fall, which is outside of the nesting season. Regardless, based on this species’ biology and habitat needs, it could nest throughout the project site. As for the long-eared owl, while there were no species observances, onsite habitat is suitable. Other raptors, including harrier hawks, red-tailed hawks, and prairie falcons were observed foraging on the site by Foothill biologists.

Implementation of the proposed project may remove suitable burrows and/or stick nests utilized by these species. In addition, raptors are protected under the MBTA and Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code, and destruction of active raptor nests is considered a violation of this code and the MBTA. The Specific Plan references existing policies, however, no additional policies are proposed regarding the protection of biological resources. Additionally, as described in detail in Section 4.1 Land Use, due to gaps in the County’s entitlement process, development of multi family, commercial, and recreational uses could proceed by right and would not be reviewed for consistency with the Specific Plan under the current process. Consequently, impacts to nesting raptors would be considered potentially significant and subject to mitigation.

Mitigation Measure

MM 4.4.8 New Specific Plan Policy: Protection of Raptors: If construction is proposed during the raptor breeding season (April-September), a focused survey for burrows and stick nests shall be conducted 30 days prior to the beginning of construction activities by a qualified biologist in order to identify any active nests. If active nests are found, no construction activities shall take place within 500 feet of the nest until the young have fledged. Nests that must be removed as a result of project implementation shall be removed during the



4.4-44

non-breeding season (October to March). If no active nests are found during the focused survey, no further mitigation will be required.

Timing/Implementation: New Policy adopted with the Specific Plan. Implemented 30 days prior to any construction activity.

Enforcement/Monitoring: Yuba County Planning Department and California Department of Fish and Game.

Implementation of the above mitigation measure would reduce impacts associated with the potential loss of raptor nests to less than significant.

Oak Woodland and Oak Trees

Impact 4.4.9 Implementation of the proposed project will result in the removal of oak woodland and individual scattered oaks in the Specific Plan area. [PSM]

Several native oak trees and stands of oak woodlands composed largely of blue oaks are present in the Yuba Highlands Specific Plan area primarily in the extreme eastern and northeastern portion of the site. Assuming full build-out, individual oaks, as well as portions of stands may be removed. Oak woodlands provide cover, foraging, and breeding habitat for numerous species of common resident and migratory wildlife and the loss of these habitats is of concern to CNPS and CDFG. Furthermore, the River Highlands Community Plan identifies policies and provides development standards to protect these habitats. Development Standard A.2.2.1 from the River Highlands Community Plan requires an applicant to submit an Oak Tree/Vegetation Survey and Revegetation Plan when submitting a tentative map or parcel map application. The Plan must identify location, type, and diameter of oak trees and other environmentally significant vegetation likely to be affected by development. The Plan is to be prepared by a qualified professional and must detail avoidance efforts, revegetation plans, and provide a monitoring program to ensure success of planning program.

The Specific Plan references existing policies, however, no additional policies are proposed regarding the protection of biological resources. Additionally, as described in detail in Section 4.1 Land Use, due to gaps in the County’s entitlement process, development of multi family, commercial, and recreational uses could proceed by right and would not be reviewed for consistency with the Specific Plan under the current process.

As specific locations of building sites and roads has not yet been determined for the project site, impacts to oak tree resources is considered potentially significant and subject to mitigation.

Mitigation Measures

MM 4.4.9a New Specific Plan Policy-Oaks Retained: If project construction can avoid oak trees, these resources shall be preserved and protected. Removal of oaks larger than 24” dhb is prohibited. Oak trees shall be preserved and avoided by implementing the following measures:

• Trees that are not proposed for removal that are within 200 feet of grading activities shall be protectively fenced five feet beyond the dripline and root zone of each oak tree (as determined by a qualified arborist or landscape architect). This fence, which is meant to prevent activities that



4.4-45

result in soil compaction beneath the canopies or over the root zone, shall be maintained until all construction activities are completed. No vehicles, construction equipment, mobile offices, or materials shall be placed within this fenced area.

• Grade changes shall be minimized to the extent feasible within or adjacent to the drip line of existing trees. No soil surface removal greater than one foot in depth shall occur within the drip lines of oak trees to be preserved. No cuts shall occur within five feet of their trunks. No earthen fill greater than one foot deep shall be placed within the drip lines of preserved oak trees, or within five feet of their trunks.

• Paving shall not be placed in the drip lines of oak trees to be preserved.

• Underground utility line trenching shall not be placed within the drip lines of oak trees to be preserved. If it is absolutely necessary to install underground utilities within the drip lines of oak trees, the trench shall either be bored or drilled, but not within five feet of the trunk.

MM 4.4.9b New Specific Plan Policy-Oaks Removed: For trees that will be removed, the project applicant shall prepare an Oak Tree Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, which shall include a tree survey map of oaks to be removed or disturbed during project construction. Within impact areas, an inventory of the location, number and health of oaks shall be prepared by a certified arborist. In addition:

• An oak tree mitigation and monitoring plan shall be prepared and approved by the County for oak trees with a dbh of 4 inches or greater that are not dead, dying or a public safety hazard as determined by the certified arborist. Removed oaks shall be replaced at a survival ratio per the following schedule:

Percentage of Project Area Impacted Replacement Ratio Up to 15% 1:1 16% to 20% 2:1 21% to 30% 3:1 31% to 40% 4:1 In excess of 40 Prohibited

Replacement trees shall be limited to oak species that currently exist in the Specific Plan area and offsite improvement areas. Replacement trees shall be planted randomly to create stands similar to those currently existing on the site within the designated open space areas, and should be focused on existing oak woodlands and natural drainage courses. Deed restrictions or a conservation easement shall be required for open space areas to preserve the replacement planting areas in perpetuity.

• Annual monitoring shall be required to ensure that an eighty percent (80%) survival rate is achieved over a five-year period. During monitoring, the following information will be evaluated: average tree height, percent canopy cover, and percent survival. The Oak Tree Mitigation and



4.4-46

Monitoring Plan will include a description of irrigation methods that will be used to ensure that saplings survive the first several years of growth. During the revegetation process, tree survival will be maximized by using gopher cages, deer screens, regular maintenance, and replanting as needed. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to Yuba County on an annual basis.

Timing/Implementation: New Policies adopted with the Specific Plan. Implemented prior to approval of Tentative Map or Planning Director’s Special Permit.

Enforcement/Monitoring: Yuba County Community Development Department.

Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce impacts associated with the potential loss of oak woodlands and individual scattered oaks to less than significant.

Potential Waters of the U.S.

Impact 4.4.10 Implementation of the proposed project may result in the removal of potential jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. in the Specific Plan area, as well as proposed offsite improvement areas. [PSM]

Implementation of the Specific Plan may result in several acres of potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S. being filled. Other jurisdictional waters may be impacted by proposed offsite improvements. Due to a recent Supreme Court decision relating to isolated wetlands, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) may not have the authority to regulate the isolated wetlands/waters under the Clean Water Act. The Corps has not yet issued formal policy guidance based on the Supreme Court’s decision. Therefore, until such guidance is issued, the jurisdictional status of these areas remains unclear. In addition, a California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB is required for work that affects jurisdictional waters.

Chapter 8, Environmental Protection of the Specific Plan states that the open space setbacks of 125 feet along solid blueline creeks and 50 feet from dashed blueline creeks are incorporated within the open space design, consistent with Community Plan Policy OSP-1c that strives to protect creeks as one of the primary forms of wildlife habitat. However, the “mitigated site plan” that reflects these open space setbacks along creeks is illustrative only and it is unclear if the open spaces are of the correct width or if they coincide with creeks and wetlands. Without a complete identification and map of the creeks and wetlands within the Specific Plan and an adopted coordinated open space land use assigned to those wetlands and creeks, retention of creeks and wetlands is deferred to later entitlements and is conducted on a piece-meal basis. Further, the requested entitlements for the project include amendment of the River Highlands Community Plan, Drainage Standard 2. Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S./Wetlands to permit grading of creeks and wetlands that are not determined to be jurisdictional and to reduce setbacks for jurisdictional wetlands to a minimum of 50 feet. One individual development project that received permission to mass pad grade an intermittent stream corridor, even in a limited area, could destroy the function and viability of the creek for all subsequent downstream development.

Individual development projects within the Specific Plan area may qualify under the existing Nationwide Permit (NWP) 39, which exempts those projects where fill is placed in less than ½



4.4-47

acre of Waters of the United States. Following approval of the requested amendment from the Community Plan drainage standards, creeks and wetland areas small enough to be deemed non-jurisdictional or exempt could be mass pad graded. Under the existing NWP 39, fill of ½ or more acres of jurisdictional wetlands would require an Individual Permit from the Corps. Following approval of the requested amendment from the Community Plan drainage standards, the minimum setback from jurisdictional wetlands/blueline creeks would be reduced from 125 feet to 50 feet.

The net effect of these policy amendments is that unless a creek or wetland feature is large enough to be determined to be jurisdictional pursuant to the criteria of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the creek or wetland could be graded and eliminated. Even if determined to be jurisdictional, minimum setbacks from the creek or wetland could be reduced to 50 feet. Creeks and wetlands would not be required to be deemed open space and could be included in private parcels as long as they are outside of the building envelope, which increases the likelihood of future impacts. With approval of these proposed amendments to the Community Plan, it is unlikely that the primarily intermittent Hutchinson, Wellman, and Vineyard creek corridors within the Specific Plan area will require preservation.

As the project will require stream crossing at creeks and because additional waters of the U.S. and wetlands both onsite and offsite may be adversely affected, impacts to jurisdictional waters is considered potentially significant and subject to mitigation.

Mitigation Measures

MM 4.4.10a New Specific Plan Policy: Potential Waters of the U.S.: Prior to approval of subsequent grading permits or development permits including tentative maps and Planning Director’s Special Permits, a project-wide wetland delineation shall be conducted. The wetland delineation will integrate previous unverified delineation work to the maximum extent practicable and will consider the creeks and wetland system within the Specific Plan area as one single coordinated project.

Any wetlands that would be removed or disturbed in connection with road or utility crossings shall be replaced or rehabilitated on a “no net loss” basis in accordance with the County General Plan Objective 17-OSCO and Corps mitigation guidelines. Habitat restoration, rehabilitation, and/or replacement shall be at a location and by methods agreeable to the Corps. Because the extent of wetland fill is likely to exceed ½ acre, implementation of the conceptual development plan for the Specific Plan will likely require an Individual Permit from the Corps. Furthermore, because the Specific Plan includes areas of open space that are protected in perpetuity, wetland mitigation in the form of creation or restoration should occur in these areas where feasible.

A Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be obtained from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), pursuant to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, for each stream crossing and any other activities affecting the bed, bank, or associated riparian vegetation of a stream. A water quality certification/waiver shall be obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for activities that will result in the discharge of dredged or fill material to jurisdictional waters. If required, the project applicant shall coordinate with CDFG and RWQCB in developing



4.4-48

appropriate mitigation, and shall abide by the conditions of any executed permits.

Timing/Implementation: New Policy adopted with the Specific Plan. Implemented prior to adoption of the Parks Master Plan and Drainage Master Plan and prior to approval of grading permits or any development permit including Planning Director’s Special Permits and tentative maps for individual development applications.

Enforcement/Monitoring: Yuba County Planning Department, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Game.

MM 4.4.10b Adopt MM 4.1.4c

Implementation of the above mitigation measures would minimize impacts to jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Impact 4.4.11 Implementation of the proposed project will result in the removal of common wildlife movement areas in the Specific Plan area. [LS]

A total of 2,894 acres of land is present in the Yuba Highlands Specific Plan area, most of which is non-native grassland, where land has been used for grazing. Assuming full buildout, the development impacts to this vegetation type would remove most of the total acreage. Similarly, the various offsite improvements will remove non-native grassland habitat. Non-native grassland provides cover, foraging, and breeding habitat for numerous species of common resident and migratory wildlife. However, this habitat is abundant in the region, and although development would remove the majority of grassland acreage onsite, and associated wildlife habitat, the wildlife species are common and would be displaced to similar habitat bordering the Specific Plan area. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant and would require no mitigation.

Impact 4.4.12 Offsite Road and Utility Improvement Impacts

Implementation of offsite improvements, including road upgrades and construction of a water line from the well field to the project site, may result in impacts to sensitive biological habitats and to state and federal special status species. [PSM]

Offsite development associated with the proposed project includes a number of improvements to existing roadways, construction of new roadway, construction of a water line from the proposed well field site to the project site, and a wastewater line to surface disposal areas.

The specific nature, location and extent of roadway improvements will ultimately depend upon applicant negotiations with Yuba County that will be reflected in the Road Master Plan. In general, planned improvements include:

• Localized improvements to that section of Smartville Road north of the main project entrance, connecting to Hammonton-Smartville Road.



4.4-49

• Localized improvements to that section of Hammonton-Smartville Road west of the new connecting road.

• Localized improvements to that section of Spenceville Road, approaching the City of Wheatland, west of Beale.

• Improvements to Camp Far West and Waldo Roads connecting to Spenceville Road.

• New road connections from Hammonton-Smartville to the Specific Plan site.

By way of a conveyance corridor for the raw water main, a 20” diameter steel pipe will convey the raw water from the wellfield to the project site. It is proposed that the pipeline will be routed south on Hammonton Road, then northeasterly on the Marysville-Smartville Road. The pipe will go southeasterly taking the alignment of the proposed road that will access the project site on the north near Hutchinson Creek. The wastewater line is anticipated to generally follow a similar alignment as the water line.

Foothill biologists utilized color aerial photography of the area surrounding the Specific Plan site to identify and map vegetation types and sensitive habitats. Potential biological resource constraints within the proposed water line corridor and along the roadway segments proposed for improvements were evaluated primarily in-office using interpretation of aerial photography accompanied by a literature review. Field visits were conducted at select locations to ensure that the aerial photos were being interpreted accurately.

Primary habitat types along the Waldo Road corridor are annual grassland and oak woodland habitats; riparian woodland stands are associated with creek and small drainage crossings. The proposed water line corridor and other road improvements cross through annual grassland, oak woodland, riparian, and seasonal and vernal pool wetland complexes.

Vernal pools may occur along the proposed offsite road improvements and along the water main alignment connecting the proposed well field to the project site. California linderiella (a special concern species) and vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (both listed species) are associated with vernal pools. Potential habitat for all of these species occurs in offsite areas. In addition, if suitable vernal pools occur in the offsite areas, tiger salamander and spadefoot toad could occur in these habitats. Since vernal pools may occur in the offsite proposed water line alignment connecting the proposed well field to the project site, these species have the potential to occur there. In addition, perennial creeks crossed by the proposed Waldo Road improvements are likely Northwestern pond turtle habitat. The removal or disturbance of habitat for special status amphibians and reptiles in the proposed offsite improvement areas is considered a potentially significant impact subject to mitigation.

The elderberry shrub provides habitat for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, a federally listed threatened species. The valley elderberry longhorn beetle is a federally listed threatened species that occurs in association with elderberry shrubs in mature riparian areas, where it completes its life cycle. Elderberry shrubs may occur in the proposed offsite improvement areas. Therefore, implementation of offsite improvements may potentially remove habitat for this species which is considered a potentially significant impact subject to mitigation.

Native oak trees and stands of oak woodlands are present adjacent to portions of the proposed offsite improvement areas. Depending on the nature and location of the improvements, individual trees, as well as the portions of oak stands, may be removed. Oak woodlands provide cover, foraging, and breeding habitat for numerous species of common resident and migratory



4.4-50

wildlife and the loss of these habitats is of concern to CNPS and CDFG. Furthermore, the River Highlands Community Plan identifies policies to ensure these habitats are preserved. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant and subject to mitigation.

As details regarding the future location of road improvements and the water line are currently not known, it would be speculative at this stage in the program to assess which biological resources will be impacted by their development. Therefore, the following mitigation measure has been developed to ensure a site-specific biological survey is conducted once road upgrade and water conveyance Master Plans have been prepared.

Mitigation Measure:

MM 4.4.12 New Specific Plan Policy: Biological Resources Survey and Design: Prior to approval of Master Plans that include proposed improvements to existing roadways and construction of a water line from the proposed well field site to the project site, the project master developers shall submit to the County a focused biological resources survey prepared by a qualified biologist to determine the extent of vernal pool, jurisdictional waters, elderberry shrubs, and oak tree habitat that may be impacted. Special-status state and federal species, which may utilize these habitats, will also be identified. The project applicant, where feasible, shall design the proposed offsite improvements to avoid impacts to these sensitive habitats and special-status species. In the event that avoidance is not possible, mitigation for the potential loss of habitat and species shall be developed in consultation with the appropriate federal and state agencies

Timing/Implementation: New policy adopted with the Specific Plan. Implemented prior to approval of Master Plans for the Specific Plan or any Tentative Map or Planning Director’s Special Permit.

Enforcement/Monitoring: Yuba County Planning Department

Implementation of the above mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to special-status species and sensitive habitats resulting from development of proposed offsite improvements to a less than significant level.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Cumulative impacts discussed below are based on the implementation of the Yuba Highlands Specific Plan and the proposed offsite improvements.

Impact 4.4.13 Cumulative project development and offsite infrastructure would contribute to the ongoing loss of natural undisturbed open space in the region, increase human intrusion and activity levels in proximity to habitat areas, and would potentially remove potential habitat for federally and state listed and other special-status species. [SU]

Development of rural regions and rural centers results in the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of functional wildlife habitat and the removal of native vegetation. Additionally, road construction, site grading, infrastructure installation, and construction of residential, commercial, and public facilities uses result in the direct loss of wildlife habitat as well as special-



4.4-51

status species and sensitive habitats. As proposed, plan implementation, in conjunction with other future developments in the surrounding area would contribute to the ongoing loss of natural, undisturbed open space in the region resulting in a decline of biological resources and species diversity. Cumulative development would also result in increased traffic and human disturbance in the Specific Plan area vicinity in proximity to habitat areas and wildlife habitat. For these reasons, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

REFERENCES

Barbour, M. and Major, J. 1988. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. California Native Plant Society. Davis, CA. Special Publication Number 9.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). July, 2001. Special Animals. Natural Diversity Data Base, Sacramento, CA

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). April, 2001. Letter Response to the NOP. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). July, 2001. Special Plants. Natural Diversity Data Base, Sacramento, CA

California Natural Diversity Data Base. February, 2002. Data Base Record Search for Special-Status Species. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA

Eco-Analysts. 2000a. Biological Assessment of Foothill and Sky Ranches. Chico, CA

------ 2000b. Wetland Delineation of Foothill Ranch. Chico, CA

------ 2001c. Wetland Delineation of Sky Ranch. Chico, CA

Hickman, J., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA

Jennings, M. R. and M. H. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game. Rancho Cordova, CA.

Skinner, M. and B. Pavlik. 1994. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California: CNPS Special Publication No. 1. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Fifth Edition.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). April, 2001. Letter Response to the NOP. Sacramento, CA

Yuba County. 1993. River Highlands Community Plan. Yuba County, CA

Yuba Foothills Associates LLC. 2002. Yuba Highlands Specific Plan. Yuba County, CA

Zeiner D, W. Laudenslayer, K. Mayer, & M. White eds. 1988. California’s Wildlife VI: Amphibians and Reptiles. State of California: The Resource Agency Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

------ 1990a. California’s Wildlife VII: Birds. State of California: The Resource Agency Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.



4.4-52

------ 1990b. California’s Wildlife VIII: Mammals. State of California: The Resource Agency Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

PERSONAL COMMUNICATION

Drury, Ian. Biologist, California Department of Fish and Game. Personal Communication with J. Heal: 1/17/2003.

4.4.1. existing setting - yuba county, california development/planning... · other species that may...

Documents