Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Appendix E-Biological Resources
APPENDIX E Biological Resources Studies E.1 – Biological Resources Inventory E.2 – Froom Ranch Specific Plan-2019 Rare Plant Update and Wetland Impact Analysis Memorandum E.3 – Site Assessment for the California Red-Legged Frog E.4 – Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment E.5 – Wetland Delineation E.6 – Preliminary Jurisdiction Determination E.7 – Wood Environment & Infrastructure Site Reconnaissance Field Notes Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Draft EIR This Page Intentionally Left Blank. APPENDIX E.1 Biological Resources Inventory This Page Intentionally Left Blank. FROOM RANCH PROJECT SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY Prepared for: JM Development Group, Inc. P.O. Box 5310 San Luis Obispo, California 93403 Prepared by: KMA Kevin Merk Associates, LLC P.O. Box 318 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Revised November 2018 KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. ES-i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Kevin Merk Associates, LLC (KMA) conducted a biological resources inventory in 2015 to support development planning efforts on the Froom Ranch located in San Luis Obispo County, California. The purpose of the study was to inventory biological resources present and characterize the existing conditions on the property. A background literature review, floristic inventory, tree inventory and special status plant and wildlife evaluations were conducted. The inventory identified special status biological resources (i.e., special status plant communities, plants and drainage features) present onsite, and provided a list of special status wildlife that could occur within the study area to support the City of San Luis Obispo’s (City) environmental review process. The 2015 study took place over the course of the winter, spring, summer and fall to delineate and characterize plant communities onsite, conduct rare plant surveys, and identify any habitat that could potentially support special status species or otherwise be of concern to the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries (also known as National Marine Fisheries Service), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the City. A Delineation of Waters of the United States and State of California (KMA, 2015) was also prepared to identify the extent of USACE, CDFW and RWQCB jurisdiction over onsite drainage features and wetlands. The proposed project is currently in the Specific Plan phase and proposes varying development across the property along with preserved open space. The project also includes a proposal to restore the Froom Creek corridor onsite to align with its historic location, keeping its current hydrologic connection to San Luis Obispo Creek. The Froom Creek restoration element also proposes to connect the realigned creek corridor with wetland habitat near Calle Joaquin. Supplemental information requested from the City’s consultant preparing the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Specific Plan (project) was concerned with the potential presence of special status wildlife and impacts of the creek realignment and project development to onsite wetlands and supporting hydrology, including the proposed relocation of the Irish Hills Plaza basin offsite to the south. Due to modifications in the site development plan, the original study area was enlarged to cover land that could be affected by the proposed project. This included the addition of the Basin Study Area and a site proposed for secondary access on the Mountainbrook Church property, the potential Land Swap Study Area on City-owned property, and expansion of the original study area to include the separated Calle Joaquin wetland area to the southeast. Additional investigations on the expanded study area included a Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment (KMA, 2017) and a Site Assessment for the California Red-Legged Frog (Rana draytonii; CRLF) (KMA, 2017). Two memoranda were also prepared by KMA in 2018 to provide supplemental biological resources information requested by the City’s EIR consultant. It included a February 22, 2018 memorandum and associated maps documenting resources on areas proposed for a storm water basin (Basin Study Area), secondary access, and a potential land swap (Land Swap Study Area). Another memorandum was prepared on July 18, 2018 to provide further analysis of special status wildlife potentially occurring onsite. The information provided in the above referenced reports and memoranda is woven into this revised BRI, and the Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment and Site Assessment for the CRLF are included as appendices to this report to help support the environmental review process. Additional day and night surveys following current USFWS survey guidelines (2005) for the CRLF were also conducted, and no CRLF were detected onsite. To complement and reinforce the hydraulic and hydrologic reports prepared for the project, the BRI was revised to include further discussion about the potential affects the creek realignment would have on wetland resources, the history, purpose and maintenance of existing and past onsite detention KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. ES-ii basins, and the proposed offsite basin’s affects to Froom Creek and associated vegetation. Further detail is provided in Appendix G. As stated above, prior to any field work, background literature review of past biological studies conducted in the region and environmental documents from projects onsite and in the immediate area was conducted. The background review also included more recent studies prepared for the project such as the Groundwater Impacts Assessment prepared by Cleath-Harris Geologists, Inc. (September 21, 2018) and Irish Hills Plaza Stormwater Basin Maintenance Record prepared by RRM Design Group (September 10, 2018). The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) maintained by the CDFW was queried during the course of the investigations to compile a list of special status resources known to occur in the area that could potentially be present onsite. The field efforts mapped onsite habitat types, characterized drainage features, and identified all plants within the study area to a sufficient level to determine their respective rarity status. For special status wildlife, a habitat suitability analysis was used to determine the species that could potentially occur within the study area, and focused assessments for vernal pool branchiopods and the federal threatened CRLF were completed. As stated above, protocol-level surveys for CRLF were also conducted, and no CRLF were observed in the study area . The following findings were gathered in the report: Existing Conditions. The initial study area covered the approximate 109.7 acre project site, comprised of a former working cattle/horse ranch, an active red rock quarry, and various buildings and developed areas. As part of the supplemental work, the study area was expanded to include portions of the Mountainbrook Church property; one area for construction of a storm water basin and another for secondary access. Additional area below the 150-foot topographic contour line was also included on neighboring City owned property for a potential land swap. A separated wetland area on the Froom Ranch property, southeast of Calle Joaquin outside the proposed development area, was also included in the expanded study area to characterize wetland habitat in the area. The study area supports primarily grassland habitat (a combination of native bunchgrass, non-native annual and introduced perennial grasslands). Oak woodlands, coastal scrub/chaparral, and serpentine outcrops were identified within the study area. Froom Creek and three tributary drainages are also present on the Froom Ranch property, and a fourth drainage feature is present along the southern perimeter of the Basin Study Area. Froom Creek is a tributary to San Luis Obispo Creek located offsite to the southeast. A site location map, aerial overview map, soils map, habitat map , tree survey map, CNDDB botanical occurrences map, special status plant occurrences map, and CNDDB wildlife occurrences map are provided herein. A list of plant and animal species observed, special status species known to occur in the region and an evaluation of their potential to occur onsite, a photo plate, and tree inventory data are included as appendices. Supplemental reports and basin information identified above are also included as appendices. Special Status Biological Resources. The site contains Froom Creek and associated tributary drainages. The upper elevation areas in the southwest part of the site have serpentine derived soils and rock outcrops. Grasslands in the southwest part of the study area contain native species such as purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra), and were mapped as serpentine bunchgrass grassland separated from the annual grassland that forms the dominant cover onsite. Other special status resources onsite include coast live oak/California bay woodland, and wetland and riparian habitat associated with the drainage features. In addition, wetlands were delineated along Calle Joaquin and Los Osos Valley Road where surface and subsurface hydrology has been impounded by existing roads and adjacent development. Shallow groundwater also appears to support the wetland habitat in this area as detailed in the background reports reviewed for this project. KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. ES-iii The floristic inventory identified the following special status plants occurring in the serpentine bunchgrass grassland, wetlands and on scattered serpentine outcrops in the southwest part of the site: • Blochman's dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae; CRPR 1B.1); • Brewer's spineflower (Chorizanthe breweri; CRPR 1B.3); • Cambria morning glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis; CRPR 4.2); • Chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis; CRPR 2.2); • Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense; federal and state endangered and CRPR 1B.2); • club hair mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus ssp. clavatus CRPR 4.3); • Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii; CRPR 1B.1); • Eastwood’s larkspur (Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae; CRPR 1B.2); • Jones's layia (Layia jonesii; CRPR 1B.2); • mouse-gray dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina; CRPR 1B.2); • Palmer’s spineflower (Chorizanthe palmeri: CRPR 4.2); • San Luis mariposa lily (Calochortus obispoensis; CRPR 1B.2); and • San Luis Obispo owl's-clover (Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis; CRPR 1B.2). CRPR 4 (watch list) species such as Cambria morning glory and Palmer’s spineflower were not specifically mapped like the CRPR 1B species since they were common associates occurring in the grasslands on thin soils and rock outcroppings in the southwestern project area. These species occur throughout the project region, and are small components of much larger populations in the Irish Hills and the proposed project would not jeopardize their continued existence in the area or onsite. No rare animals were observed onsite during the field surveys, but based on a habitat suitability analysis, the following special status animals were identified as having a moderate or high likelihood of occurring in specific areas of the study area: • American badger (Taxidea taxus; species of special concern) • California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia; watch list); • Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi; watch list); • Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus; special animal); • Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus; species of special concern); • Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus; species of special concern); • San Diego woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia; species of special concern); • Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus; federal threatened and species of concern); • Townsend’s western big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendi townsendi; species of special concern); • Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor; candidate species and species of special concern); • Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus ; species of special concern); • Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevilli; species of special concern); • White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; CDFW Fully Protected); and • Yuma Myotis (Myotis yumanensis; special animal). KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................................................1 2.0 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................................................................1 2.1 Background Literature Review .............................................................................................................................1 2.2 Special Status Biological Resources Definition .............................................................................................5 2.3 Field Surveys ...................................................................................................................................................................6 2.4 Tree Inventory ...............................................................................................................................................................7 2.5 Floristic Inventory .......................................................................................................................................................8 2.6 Wildlife Assessment ....................................................................................................................................................9 3.0 RESULTS .....................................................................................................................................................................................9 3.1 Habitat Types ............................................................................................................................................................... 12 3.2 Tree Survey ................................................................................................................................................................... 17 3.3 Drainage Features ..................................................................................................................................................... 19 3.4 Soils ................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 3.5 Special Status Biological Resources ................................................................................................................. 22 4.0 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 35 5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................................ 36 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Site Location Map ........................................................................................................................................................2 Figure 2 – Aerial Overview Map .................................................................................................................................................3 Figure 3 - Soils Map....................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 4 – Habitat Map ................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 5 – Tree Survey Map ....................................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 6 – CNDDB Botanical Occurrences Map ............................................................................................................... 24 Figure 7 - Special Status Plant Occurrences Map .......................................................................................................... 26 Figure 8 – CNDDB Wildlife Occurrences Map .................................................................................................................. 27 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – 2015 Survey Dates and Personnel .......................................................................................................................7 Table 2 – Special Status Wildlife Potentially Occurring Onsite ............................................................................... 34 APPENDICES Appendix A – List of Plants and Animals Observed Onsite Appendix B –Special Status Biological Resources Known or Potentially Occurring on the Site Appendix C – Photo Plate Appendix D – Tree Survey Data Form Appendix E – Site Assessment for the California Red-Legged Frog (KMA, 2017) Appendix F – Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment (KMA, 2017) Appendix G – Response to EIR Consultant Supplemental Information Request Appendix H – 2002 Wetland Mitigation Plan and Year 5 Monitoring Report for Home Depot KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Kevin Merk Associates, LLC (KMA) conducted a biological resources inventory (BRI) on the Froom Ranch located just outside the current city limits of the City of San Luis Obispo, in San Luis Obispo County, California. The purpose of the investigation was to provide baseline information of the biological resources present or potentially present on the site for future development planning and review by the project team and the City of San Luis Obispo. The site is located in the eastern flank of the Irish Hills of the San Luis Range just north and west of Highway 101, and west of Los Osos Valley Road (please refer to Figures 1 and 2). The subject property is bounded by the Irish Hills Plaza to the north, Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) to the east, the City of San Luis Obispo Irish Hills Natural Reserve to the west, and Mountainbrook Church and several hotels along Calle Joaquin to the south. The Froom Ranch had a long history as a working ranch composed of a diverse array of coastal habitats including annual and perennial grasslands, coastal scrub, chaparral, oak and bay woodland, riparian and wetland creating a mosaic of plant communities across the landscape. The region is characterized as a Mediterranean climate with mild, wet winters and warm, dry summers. Due to the site’s proximity to the Pacific Ocean, daily temperatures do not fluctuate as much as the County’s interior northeast of the Santa Lucia Mountains. Average annual temperatures range from approximately 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F) to 71 degrees F, and annual precipitation in the San Luis Obispo area ranges from approximately 21 to 24 inches depending on location (Western Regional Climate Center and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2015). Most of the rain occurs between November and March with a small amount attributed to coastal fog and monsoonal flow during the summer months. The biological resources inventory was prepared at the request of the JM Development Group, Inc. to identify plant communities, plants and wildlife present or potentially present on the property that could be of special regulatory importance. In addition, a delineation of waters of the United States and State of California was conducted onsite (KMA 2015), and the report was reviewed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps). Based on field and office review of the delineation report, the USACE confirmed the wetland delineation maps identified the extent of their Clean Water Act jurisdiction on the Froom Ranch study area (letter from USACE Regulatory Project Manager, Erin M. Hanlon, to Mr. John Madonna dated September 24, 2015). This BRI report was updated in November 2018 to combine supplemental analysis and additional studies into one document. As such, the 2018 BRI includes an enlarged study area compared to the 2015 investigation. The study area now covers portions of the neighboring Mountainbrook Church property for potential construction of a storm water basin and secondary access. It also includes a roughly three acre area on City-owned land that was evaluated as a potential land swap, and a part of the applicant’s property to the southeast of Calle Joaquin that is not proposed for development. 2.0 METHODS 2.1 Background Literature Review Prior to conducting field work, KMA biologists reviewed pertinent background information from the general area. This included the review of past studies conducted by KMA and other biological consultants in the region and on the project site. Portions of the study area and surrounding lands have been subject to various biological studies, and several Environmental Impact Reports prepared for nearby development projects (i.e., Home Depot and Costco) were also reviewed. Surrounding development projects included wetland delineations and some focused biological ^_ Site Location Froom Ranch Figure 1.1 inch = 10,000 feet ^_ Site Location 0 100 20050Kilometers JM Development Group, Inc.Site Location Source: Esri 2018 Hwy-101Madonna RdL o s O s o s V a l l e y R d Froom Ranch JM Development Group, Inc. Figure 2 Aerial Overview. Sources: (c) ESRI and its data providers; City of San Luis Obispo Froom Ranch Study Area Boundary Basin Study Area Boundary Land Swap Study Area Boundary 0 120 240 36060Meters 1 inch = 1,500 feet KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 4 studies. In some instances, the focused studies included the northern and eastern parts of the BRI study area (i.e.: Home Depot/Irish Hills Plaza and Calle Joaquin Improvement projects). Hydrologic studies and wetland mitigation plans and subsequent mitigation monitoring reports were also prepared for the Home Depot/Irish Hills Plaza, and were reviewed as part of the investigation. Clean Water Act permitting for the Home Depot project, and subsequent regulatory actions taken by the USACE for permit violations during the construction of Home Depot resulted in a settlement agreement (e.g., Consent Decree dated August 12, 2002) between the former owner of the property and the USACE. The consent decree required all wetland mitigation occur offsite at the Boysen Ranch as detailed in the 2002 Wetland Restoration and Mitigation Plan relating to the Froom Ranch/Home Depot Project prepared by Olberding Environmental. Based on review of the mitigation efforts to date detailed in a Year 5 Mitigation Monitoring Report (Olberding, 2007), the USACE confirmed mitigation requirements were met, and has since resolved the consent decree with the Madonna Construction Company (letter from USACE Senior Project Manager, Crystal Huerta, to Mr. Clint Pearce of Madonna Construction Company on February 19, 2015). The following documents (or various sections of the document) were reviewed as part of the existing conditions characterization: • Madonna Eagle Hardware Environmental Impact Report (Morro Group, 1998) –the Biological Resources section, Wetland Delineation included as Appendix G and the results of Congdon’s tarplant survey were reviewed to help characterize the environmental setting of project site; • Biological Resources Analysis Letter of Findings for the Los Osos Valley Road Improvement Project (Olberding Environmental, 2001) – reviewed to help characterize the environmental setting of the project site; • Wetland Restoration and Mitigation Plans Relating to the Froom Ranch/Home Depot Project (Olberding Environmental, 2002) – the revised June 2002 version was the final document approved by the USACE and was reviewed to characterize the extent of impacts to wetlands from the Home Depot project and resulting offsite wetland mitigation requirements at the Boysen Ranch; • Year 1 Wetland Monitoring Report for the Froom Ranch/Boysen Ranch Mitigation Sites (Olberding Environmental, 2003) – this report documents the as-built condition of the Boysen Ranch offsite mitigation area; • Year 5 Wetland Monitoring Report for the Froom Ranch/Home Depot Site (Olberding Environmental, 2007) – report documents success of wetland mitigation efforts at Boysen Ranch; • Calle Joaquin Realignment Wetland Delineation (Morro Group, 2004) – reviewed to evaluate previously mapped wetlands in relation to the realignment of Calle Joaquin; • Irish Hills Plaza II Wetland Delineation Map (Morro Group, 2004) - reviewed to evaluate previously mapped wetlands on and adjacent to the site; • Froom Ranch Wetland Assessment (Morro Group, 2005) – reviewed to evaluate previously mapped wetlands onsite. Map showed no wetland area north of entrance driveway and mis-identified the precise location of the restored swale at former stockpile area impacted during construction of Home Depot; • Hydrologic Monitoring Plan for Sustaining a Separated Wetland Near Calle Joaquin (Balance Hydrologics, 2005) – reviewed to help characterize and understand the hydrology supporting the wetland area in this portion of the site; KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 5 • Irish Hills Plaza Detention Basin Report (Wallace Group, 2006) – reviewed to confirm the detention basin was constructed to handle all storm water flows from the Irish Hills Plaza and was sited to avoid impacts to potentially jurisdictional wetlands; • Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 Interchange Improvements Project Biological Assessment for Central California Coast Steelhead (2008) – reviewed to help characterize the environmental setting of the project site and assist with the special status wildlife analysis; • San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed Enhancement Plan (Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County, 2002) – reviewed watershed and special status species information as well as restoration efforts to help characterize the environmental setting of the project site and support the special status species analysis; • Irish Hills Natural Area Conservation Plan Update (City of San Luis Obispo, 2011) – reviewed to help characterize environmental setting of the project site and assist with habitat mapping and special status plant and wildlife analysis ; • Irish Hills Plaza Stormwater Basin Maintenance Record (RRM Design Group; 2018) – reviewed to understand maintenance requirements and obligations for the onsite basins; and, • Froom Ranch Development Groundwater Impacts Assessment (Cleath-Harris Geologists, Inc.; 2018) – reviewed to assess potential project-related impacts to the Calle Joaquin wetland from changes in groundwater fluctuation. The California Natural Diversity Database maintained by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (reviewed in 2015 for the initial study, then again in 2016, 2017 and 2018 for the supplemental work; CNDDB) was searched for special status biological resources documented within the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps (quads) centered on and surrounding the site. This included the Morro Bay South, San Luis Obispo, Lopez Mtn., Port San Luis, Pismo Beach and Arroyo Grande NE quads. Given the project site’s proximity to the Pacific Ocean and geographic setting within the San Luis Range in close proximity to San Luis Obispo, the focus on these six quads was deemed a sufficient search area to identify special status species occurring in the vicinity of the site for inclusion in the study. A larger search radius picks up a number of plants and animals known from higher elevations in the Santa Lucia Mountains and further south in the Callendar and Guadalupe Dunes that would not be expected to occur on this site based on the lack of suitable habitat, soils and range restrictions. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey was reviewed to determine the soil mapping units present within the study area (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2015 and 2018). The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s online Wetland and Critical Habitat Mapper (http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html; http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/) were also reviewed to evaluate wetlands, drainage features and designated critical habitat defined in the region. 2.2 Special Status Biological Resources Definition For the purpose of this report, special status species are those plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as Threatened or Endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA); those listed or proposed for listing as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); animals designated as “Species of Special Concern,” “Fully Protected,” or “Watch List” by the CDFW; and plants occurring on California KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 6 Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1, 2, 3 and 4 developed by the CDFW working in concert with the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). The specific code definitions are as follows: • Rank 1A = Plants presumed extinct in California; • Rank 1B.1 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere; seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat); • Rank 1B.2 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere; fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened); • Rank 1B.3 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere, not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known); • Rank 2 = Rare, threatened or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; • Rank 3 = Plants needing more information (most are species that are taxonomically unresolved; few species on this list meet the definitions of rarity under CEQA); and • Rank 4.2 = Plants of limited distribution (watch list), fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened, seldom meets the definition of rarity under CEQA). • Rank 4.3= Plants of limited distribution (watch list), not very endangered in California (seldom meets the definition of rarity under CEQA). While CRPR 4 (watch list) species were included in the special status species definition used for this study, watch list species typically do not meet the CEQA rarity definition in Section 15380 since they occur over much larger areas than CRPR 1 and 2 species. Sensitive or special status natural communities are those plant communities listed as rare in the CNDDB queried during project analysis. In addition, those habitat types or plant communities that have special regulatory status such as riparian and wetland habitats protected by California Fish and Game Code or the Clean Water Act are also identified as special status biological resources. 2.3 Field Surveys Kevin Merk and Robert Sloan were the primary investigators for all field work associated with the biological resources inventory in 2015. Additional field support was provided by KMA staff, Mr. Jaryd Block in 2015. Surveys were conducted on multiple days through the winter, spring, summer and fall of 2015. In addition, Mr. Merk conducted multiple site visits prior to, during and immediately following winter rain events during 2013/2014 to evaluate and characterize onsite wetlands to support the delineation of waters of the United States and state of California prepared by KMA in August 2015. A focused tree survey, a full floristic inventory, and a wildlife habitat assessment were conducted on the site. Supplemental analysis prepared by KMA in 2017 included a Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment and Site Assessment for the California Red-Legged Frog (Rana draytonii), which are included as appendices to this report. The following table provides the date and personnel for each survey conducted in 2015: KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 7 Table 1. 2015 Survey Dates and Personnel. Survey Date Survey Personnel January 28, 2015 Merk, Sloan, Block February 10, 2015 Sloan, Block March 3, 2015 Merk, Sloan March 11, 2015 Merk, Sloan, Block March 20, 2015 Merk, Sloan April 3, 2015 Merk, Sloan April 24, 2015 Merk May 22, 2015 Sloan June 1, 2015 Merk, Sloan June 19, 2015 Merk July 21, 2015 Merk, Sloan August 19, 2015 Merk September 17, 2015 Merk October 15, 2015 Merk The entire Froom Ranch property was included in the 2015 study, and the study area was enlarged to cover the additional areas referenced above in 2016, 2017, and 2018. Numerous other site visits occurred following the 2015 study. During the focused surveys in 2015, the study area was traversed on foot with special attention given to the drainage features, wetlands, native grasslands and serpentine rock outcrops. Extensive time was spent onsite, especially in the lower elevation grasslands along Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin, to delineate the extent of federal and state jurisdictional wetlands and other waters (please refer to KMA’s Delineation of Waters of the United States and State of California prepared in August 2015 for further information). Existing plant communities were initially mapped on an aerial photograph obtained from Google Earth and ESRI, both from 2015. Subsequent surveys and this revised report utilized more recent aerial imagery from 2017. Serpentine bunchgrass grassland was identified based on the dominant cover of native bunchgrasses and forb associates, and then delineated with a Trimble GPS unit. Historic aerial imagery obtained from Google Earth (dating back to 1994) was also utilized to assess plant community distribution onsite during field surveys. Photographs of notable features including special status plants were also taken to document existing conditions of the study area. 2.4 Tree Inventory KMA Senior Biologist Robert Sloan with field support from Jaryd Block and Kevin Merk conducted an inventory of trees within the Froom Ranch property on February 10 and March 3, 2015. The survey covered the entire Froom Ranch property. Trees on the steep western hillside area were not tagged due to access and dense poison oak. All other trees located within the property with a diameter at breast height (about 4.5 feet above grade; DBH) of approximately four (4) inches or greater were identified, measured, tagged, and evaluated during the inventory. Tags consisted of aluminum disks numbered 1 through 96, and were attached with aluminum nails to the east side of the main trunk. The locations of all tagged trees were recorded with a Trimble GPS unit. Willow shrubs/trees along LOVR that were four inches DBH or greater were not tagged, but were counted and generally evaluated for health or vigor. Similarly, riparian scrub and ornamental trees (both eucalyptus and Monterey cypress) present on the Basin Study Area were not included in the tree inventory. KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 8 Basic tree characteristics and physical conditions were evaluated for each tagged tree, and overall health was evaluated based on vigor, presence of damage (i.e. pathogens, insect pests, and other forms of natural and human-caused damage), and comparison to the typical archetype of the same species. Field evaluations of all trees considered the following attributes: Trunk diameter – The diameter of the trunk of each tagged tree was measured at approximately 4.5 feet above grade using a forester’s steel diameter-equivalent tape measure. Trees with multiple trunks or stems were measured at the same height and measurements for all trunks larger than four inches were collected. Damage – Identification of damage caused by pathogens or insect pests, by natural causes such as wildlife interaction, or by human activity was noted. Vigor rating – All tagged trees were evaluated based on various parameters, including amount of new growth, leaf color, bark conditions, dead wood, evidence of wilt, excessive branch or leaf necrosis, thinning of crown, presence of exudate, etc. A subjective ranking was assigned to quantify the overall physical condition of each tree based on the ratings described below: • High: A healthy and vigorously growing tree characteristic of its species and reasonably free of any visible signs of stress, disease, or pest infestation. • Moderate: A healthy and vigorous tree with minor visible signs of stress, disease, and/or pest infestation. Some dead wood, broken branches, or yellowing leaves may be present. • Low: A tree exhibiting signs of dieback, necrosis, stress, disease, or insect damage at levels above what is typically expected for the species. Symptoms could also include sparse leaf growth, predominately yellow leaves, dead or rotted wood in lower trunk, broken limbs, exposed roots, and parasite growth. • Dead: Tree had no foliage and exhibited no sign of life or vigor. 2.5 Floristic Inventory Kevin Merk and Robert Sloan conducted the 2015 botanical surveys in accordance with accepted protocols developed by the USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000), CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2000), and CNPS (California Native Plant Society, 2001), which means: 1) survey personnel traversed all suitable habitat within the entire project area on foot by walking meandering transects to ensure thorough coverage of the area; 2) surveys were spaced throughout the late winter, spring, summer and fall seasons to document the site’s flora; a 3) surveys were floristic in nature, and all plant species observed were recorded and identified to a sufficient level to determine rarity. Plant taxonomy followed nomenclature included in the Jepson Manual, second addition (Baldwin et al., 2012). Robert Hoover’s The Vascular Plants of San Luis Obispo County, California (1970) was also used to identify plants observed onsite. Species not readily identifiable in the field were brought to the office for further analysis. Calflora (www.calflora .org) and the Consortium of California Herbarium were also accessed online to obtain records of special status plant observations from the region. Special status plant occurrences observed in the field were delineated using a Trimble GPS (GeoXH 6000) unit capable of sub-meter and decimeter accuracy. Subsequent surveys were conducted during the spring months of 2016 and 2017 to ground truth observations made in 2015 regarding rare plant distribution on the site. In addition, the 2016 and 2017 surveys searched for rare plants on the Basin Study Area and adjacent areas on City-owned property. KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 9 2.6 Wildlife Assessment Direct observations of wildlife including their sign (i.e.: tracks and scat) were noted in the field and are included on the species list in Appendix A. The evaluation of special status animal species and identification of habitat that could support these species was based on our field observations coupled with an understanding of the species biology. Definitive or protocol-level surveys to determine the presence or absence of the animal species that may occur within the project area were not conducted. USFWS protocol surveys for special status wildlife species, such as the federal threatened California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii; CRLF), require extensive field time to be conducted only at certain times of the year. In addition, given that 2015 was the fourth year of an ongoing drought, no sufficient aquatic habitat was present to search for species such as the CRLF. Further, we relied on survey data from the immediate project vicinity contained in the CNDDB and conducted by other knowledgeable biologists to conclude whether or not certain special status animals were expected to occur onsite. Known occurrence records in the region coupled with our site-specific observations were used to make presence/absence determinations for special status wildlife potentially occurring onsite. More detailed analysis was prepared in 2017 and 2018 (Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment and Site Assessment for CRLF) and the reports are included as appendices and the findings incorporated into this revised report. 3.0 RESULTS The Froom Ranch covers approximately 109.7 acres spanning two Assessor’s parcels (APN 067- 241-030 and 067-241-031). The ranch was grazed by cattle and horses for many years, and is composed of a mix of habitat types, including annual (non-native) grassland, introduced perennial grassland (non-native), serpentine bunchgrass grassland (native), coastal scrub/chaparral, coast live oak/California bay woodland, wetland, and riparian. Also present are developed and disturbed (or ruderal) areas including existing buildings, roads, a permitted quarry in the northwestern part of the site, and a storm water detention facilit y for the neighboring Irish Hills Plaza to the north. Planted trees such as blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa) and pepper tree (Schinus molle) are also present. The study area was enlarged since the 2015 investigation was completed to cover a proposed storm water basin (approximately 16 acres), secondary access (approximately 0.5 acre) and a potential land swap area (approximately 3.0 acres). The supplemental analysis also included the separated Calle Joaquin wetland area (approximately 1.77 acres) even though development is not proposed in this area. The revised study areas generally abut the approximately 111-acre Froom Ranch study area identified in the 2015 report and are shown on the revised Habitat Map included herein. Also included on the revised Habitat Map is an area dominated by the non-native, moderately-invasive reed fescue (Festuca arundinacea) that was not previously separated from annual grassland in the 2015 report. The occurrence is shown as Introduced Perennial Grassland and described further below. The primary parent material underlying the site is serpentinite with varying amalgamations of serpentine derived clays that affect the distribution of vegetation on the site. Serpentine rock outcrops are scattered across the upper western part of the site and support a diverse assemblage of native plants adapted to the high metal content, including some that have special regulatory status. Many of the native plants are endemic to this area, and occur nowhere else on earth. Hoover (1970) referred to this biological hot spot, which is within an approximate ten-mile radius around San Luis Obispo, as the Obispoan pocket of endemism. Calle J o a q u i n Los Osos Valley Road£¤101 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Froom Ranch Study Area Boundary Basin Study Area Boundary Land Swap Study Area Boundary Soil Type (NRCS Soil Survey) Cropley Clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes Diablo and Cibo clays, 9 to 15 percent slopes Diablo and Cibo clays, 15 to 30 percent slopes Los Osos-Diablo complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes Los Osos-Diablo complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes Obispo-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 75 percent slopes Salinas silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Xererts-Xerolls-Urban land complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes Corducci-Typic Xerofluvents, 0 to 5 percent slopes, occasionally flooded .0 290 580 870 1,160145 Feet Soils Map Figure 3Froom Ranch JM Development Group, Inc. 1 in = 500 ft Source: Esri 2018; USDA 2018 Irish Hills Plaza Mountainbrook Church Los Osos Valley RdCA-101 Calle J o a q u i n Irish Hills Reserve Drainage 4 Drainage 1 Drainage 2 Drainage 3 Froom Creek Culvert Culvert Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Froom Ranch Study Area Froom Ranch Study Area Boundary Storm Water Retention Basin (4.20 ac) Storm Water Retention Basin Removed (1.01 ac) Sycamore Trees (0.13 ac) Developed/Disturbed (9.23 ac) Eucalyptus Trees (0.61 ac) Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub (1.95 ac) Wetland (7.25 ac) Drainage Feature (2.66 ac) Coast Live Oak/CA Bay Woodland (3.23 ac) Serpentine Rock Outcrop (1.96 ac) Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland (13.46 ac) Coastal Scrub/Chaparral (6.83 ac) Annual Grassland (54.82 ac) Introduced Perennial Grassland (4.5 ac) Basin Study Area Basin Study Area Boundary Annual Grassland (9.33 ac) Arroyo WIllow Riparian Scrub (2.20 ac) Coastal Scrub/Chaparral (2.43 ac) Eucalyptus Trees (0.82 ac) Monterey Cypress (0.03 ac) Drainage Feature (0.34 ac) Land Swap Study Area Land Swap Study Area Boundary Annual Grassland (2.51 ac) Calle Joaquin Study Area Calle Joaquin Study Area Boundary Wetland (1.02 ac) Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub (0.67 ac) Developed/Disturbed (0.08 ac).0 230 460 690 920115 Feet Habitat Map Figure 4Froom Ranch JM Development Group, Inc. 1 in = 400 ft Source: Esri 2018; USFWS 2018 KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 12 Froom Creek and three small tributary drainages (Drainages 1, 2, and 3) are present on the original Froom Ranch study area, and an additional drainage feature (identified as Drainage 4) is present on the Basin Study Area. In several areas, the drainages include pockets of wetland habitat. In addition, the steeper hillsides in the southwestern part of the site contain springs, or seeps, where fresh water “daylights” out of the ground. Coastal scrub/chaparral occurs on drier, shallow rocky soils on the steep slopes in the upper western part of the site. Coast live oak/California bay woodlands are present along drainage courses (identified as Drainages 1 and 2) and more north- facing slopes in the southwestern part of the site. As stated above, wetlands are present at seeps and springs formed at fractures in the serpentinite bedrock, along drainages, and along Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin where the roads have impounded surface and subsurface flow. Groundwater also influences the Calle Joaquin wetland area. Riparian habitat is also present onsite, but primarily restricted to the drainage ditch constructed along Los Osos Valley Road. A total of 204 plant species were identified in the study area, including 151 native species and 53 non-natives. Thirteen of the native plants are special status species as defined in this report. Of this number one plant is a federal and state endangered species, nine (9) are California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B species and one (1) is a CRPR 2 species. Three (3) are CRPR 4 species, which is a watch list. The endangered and CRPR 1B and 2 species meet the rarity threshold defined in Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CRPR 4 species typically do not meet the CEQA rarity threshold, especially when the species are widespread in the project area, and the proposed project would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Thirty seven (37) animal species were observed within the project area during field surveys. A soils map is provided as Figure 3 to illustrate soil map units present onsite, and Figure 4 illustrates the plant communities, or habitat types, present onsite. Figure 5 presents the results of the tree inventory, and Figures 6 and 7 illustrate occurrences of special status plants and wildlife as recorded in the CNDDB. A list of plants and animals observed during the surveys is included as Appendix A. Appendix B includes a list of all special status species and plant communities identified in the CNDDB, and identifies whether they were observed onsite. If they were not observed, an evaluation as to their potential to occur (i.e., low, moderate, or high) onsite is provided. Only those species identified with a moderate or high potential to occur onsite are considered as potentially occurring within the study area. Appendix C includes a series of photographs of representative areas of the site and special status plants taken during the field surveys. Appendix D includes the tree inventory data. Appendix E includes the Site Assessment for the California Red-Legged Frog (KMA, 2017), and Appendix F includes the Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment (KMA, 2017). Appendix G provides additional information as requested by the City’s EIR consultant. Appendix H contains the Home Depot Wetland Mitigation Plan, Year 5 Monitoring Report and Corps completion of mitigation letter. 3.1 Habitat Types Seven primary habitat types, or plant communities, were observed within the project site, and included native serpentine bunchgrass grassland (Valley and Foothill Grassland/Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland), non-native annual grassland, introduced perennial grassland (reed fescue), coastal scrub/chaparral, coast live oak/California bay woodland, wetland, and riparian. In addition, serpentine rock outcrops are present throughout the study area that support an interesting assemblage of native plants that thrive due to the lower competition from non-native species as a result of the higher metal content. The characterizations of these plant communities generally follow those of Holland’s (1986) vegetation classification system and the plant community descriptions in the Manual of California Vegetation, second edition (Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf, and KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 13 Evens; 2009). Other mapped features onsite included drainage features that traverse the property and horticultural or ornamental plantings. The following discusses the habitat types delineated on Figure 4 and provides a characterization of the existing conditions. 3.1.1 Annual Grassland (Lolium perenne Semi-Natural Herbaceous Stands) The primary grassland type observed onsite is dominated by annual species, and occurs on the flat portions of the property historically impacted by cattle and horse grazing. The annual grassland habitat type corresponds to the perennial rye grass fields described in the Manual of California Vegetation (2009, second edition) with the exception that it is dominated by the annual Italian rye grass. It corresponds to the Non-native Grassland described by Holland (1986). The annual grassland onsite was dominated by Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum = Festuca perennis). Other non-native grasses observed in this habitat type included wild oats (Avena barbata), false brome (Brachypodium distachyon), soft chess (Bromus hordeacous), and prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper). Pockets of yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) were also present where annual grassland is adjacent to disturbed areas. This grassland type was also present along the ranch roads as they become recolonized by vegetation. Annual grasslands provide foraging, breeding habitat and movement corridors for many wildlife species. Several mammals, such as the California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), and deer mice (Peromyscus spp.) were observed within this habitat type. Numerous invertebrate species (such as insects), many of which provide a food source for larger animals such as lizards, birds and some small mammals can also be found within grassland communities. A variety of birds rely on open expanses of grasslands for foraging habitat. Grasslands that are bordered by habitats containing trees are particularly important for raptors because the birds can use the large trees as nesting, roosting, and as observation points to locate potential prey within nearby grassland habitats. Reptiles are also frequently found in grasslands. In addition, in areas where grasslands surround creeks, wetlands and seasonal water availability is important for wildlife. 3.1.2 Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland Native grassland composed of purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra) along with a mix of native and non-native species was present primarily in the upper elevation southwest portion of the study area where serpentine soils have a greater influence on plant distribution. The native grassland onsite corresponds to the Valley Needlegrass and Serpentine Bunchgrass Grasslands described by Holland (1986) and the Nassella (or Stipa) pulchra Herbaceous Alliance (purple needlegrass grassland) described by Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf and Evens (2009). Occurrences of non-native species, such as red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), cat’s ear (Hypochaeris glabra), and hairy vetch (Vicia villosa ssp. villosa) were observed scattered in this habitat on the site, but for the most part, the area was dominated by native species such as yarrow (Achillea millefolium), Cambria morning glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis), checker bloom (Sidalcea malviflora), blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum), and western vervain (Verbena lasiostachys). Similar to the wildlife habitat discussion above, this grassland type provides suitable habitat for a number of species common to the area. 3.1.3 Introduced Perennial Grassland This grassland area is dominated by the moderately invasive reed (or tall) fescue, which is a KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 14 perennial grass used as a forage crop throughout California. It creates a dense cover on rangelands with heavy soils, such as the clay soils in the southeast part of the site. The thatch (or dead leaves) precludes native plants, and results in a monoculture of this species. Holland (1986) does not specifically describe reed fescue dominated areas and includes them into the non-native grassland category. Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf described Introduced Perennial Grassland in their first edition of the Manual of California Vegetation (1995), but it is not specifically described in the second edition. The reed fescue occurrence onsite is comparable to the Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica) swards described by Sawyer et al. (2009), since it occurs in heavier clay soils in the coastal areas of Central California. Wildlife use is expected to be similar to the other grassland types described above. 3.1.4 Coastal Scrub/Chaparral The shrubland association found on the project site was dominated by open to dense stands of California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), with other shrub constituents such as black sage (Salvia mellifera) primarily occurring on drier serpentine soils and rock outcrops in the steep upper reaches of the project site. This habitat type was described by Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf and Evens as the Artemisia californica- Salvia mellifera Shrubland Alliance (Manual of California Vegetation, 2009), and the Central Lucian Coastal Scrub by Holland (1986). In some higher elevation areas, the scrub vegetation transitioned into more chaparral habitat with species such as buck brush (Ceanothus cuneatus) forming the dominant cover. Also included in this shrub habitat were occurrences of poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), bush monkey flower (Mimulus aurantiacus), California fuchsia (Epilobium canum), and deerweed (Acmispon glaber). The understory was composed of leaf litter in many places, but in some open areas the herbaceous layer consisted of scattered occurrences of non-native grasses such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) and rattail fescue (Festuca myuros) with pockets of purple needlegrass also present. On the Basin and Secondary Access study areas, the coastal scrub/chaparral habitat map unit consisted mostly of early seral stage coastal scrub composed of coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). Coastal scrub/chaparral communities provide cover and nesting habitat for a variety of animals such as western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), western rattlesnake (Crotalis viridis), blue- gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), wrentit (Chamae fasciata), California towhee (Melazone crissalis), California mouse (Peromyscus californicus), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargentus). Larger mammals such as coyote (Canis latrans) and bobcat (Lynx rufus) would also be expected to occur onsite and use the entire property. Mountain lions (Felix concolor) have also been documented in the region and could occur onsite as a rare transient. 3.1.5 Coast Live Oak/California Bay Woodland The woodland community observed in the study area was dominated by coast live oak and California bay trees. This habitat type corresponds to the coast live oak woodland and California bay forest (Quercus agrifolia and Umbellularia californica woodland alliances) described by Sawyer et al. in the Manual of California Vegetation (2009). Holland (1986) classified this community as the coast live oak woodland and California bay forest. Shrubs and understory species observed in this part of the site consisted of toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), California coffeeberry (Rhamnus =Frangula californica), poison oak, and hummingbird sage (Salvia spathacea). In areas where California bay trees formed the dominant cover, the understory was sparse and consisted mostly of leaf litter. Similarly, very little understory vegetation was present where the oak tree canopy was dense. Oak/bay woodlands, in general, provide quality habitat for a large variety of wildlife species. Large KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 15 trees provide nesting sites and cover for birds and many mammals. Dead and decaying trees with few branches or no leaves provide “hawking sites” for raptors and perches for other bird species. They also contribute woody debris to the duff in the woodland understory, which provides foraging areas for small mammals and microclimates suitable for amphibians and reptiles in addition to fungi. Acorns are a valuable food source for many animal species, including acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), scrub jay (Aphelocoma corulescens), western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus), and black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Scrub jay, western bluebird (Sialia mexicana), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and black-tailed deer were observed within oak/bay woodlands onsite. Other representative animal species that could potentially occur in the oak dominated woodland on-site include western screech owl (Otus kennicottii), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginianus). 3.1.6 Wetland This habitat type is a combination of the Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh and Vernal Marsh vegetation communities described by Holland (1986). Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf and Evens have several classifications for wetlands that describe the perennial and seasonal wetlands onsite, including the Eleocharis macrostachya, Juncus effusus, Juncus patens, and Juncus phaeocephalus Herbaceous Alliances (spike rush, soft rush, and western marshes). In the wetland area adjacent to Calle Joaquin, a more perennial wetland was observed that supports occurrences of other wetland plants such as round-leaf leather root (Hoita orbicularis), seep spring monkey flower (Mimulus guttatus = Erythranthe guttata), silverleaf (Potentilla anserina), California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus), and rough sedge (Carex senta). Seasonal wetlands consisted of species such as rabbitfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), Italian ryegrass, and grass poly (Lythrum hyssopifolia). Wetlands occur in nutrient-rich mineral soils that are saturated through part or all of the year. Wetland communities are best developed in locations with slow-moving, stagnant or ponded shallow water, which is the case with the impounded hydrology created by the construction of Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin and ground water influence in this area. In between the large constructed basin and the mapped wetland along Calle Joaquin, an extensive occurrence of the non- native reed fescue (Festuca arundinacea) was observed, most likely due to the historic grazing regime on the site. Small ponded areas within these wetlands provide habitat for aquatic invertebrates such as water striders (family Gerridae) and boatmen (family Carixidae), and more opportunistic amphibians such as the Pacific chorus frog (Psuedacris regilla). Seasonal ponded water is used as a drinking source for larger animals (primarily horses and cattle), and also a stop over or foraging site for ducks and great blue herons (Ardea herodias). The Calle Joaquin wetland area and constructed channel from the Irish Hills Basin leading towards Los Osos Valley Road contained numerous crayfish (Pacifastacus sp.) 3.1.7 Riparian Scrub This habitat on-site is consistent with the Arroyo Willow Shrubland Alliance as described by Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf and Evens (2009), and corresponds to the Central Coast Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub community described by Holland (1986). This vegetation community was restricted to the lower reach of the study area along LOVR, as well as along Calle Joaquin in the enlarged study area. This habitat was mostly dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and contained a few young cottonwoods in the ditch behind TJ Maxx. The dry ephemeral nature of Froom Creek and historic grazing pressure limited the extent of riparian vegetation development. In one location in KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 16 the northwestern part of the site, a small occurrence of riparian scrub was observed on the creek bank, south of the existing buildings and equipment storage yard. Common plant species observed in this habitat included Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), poison oak, and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica). Central Coast Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub is a form of forested wetland that is considered a sensitive natural community by the CDFW. Riparian communities along larger drainage courses are important for many wildlife species since the abundance of moisture and associated vegetation provide structure, materials, and food sources for nesting and roosting animals. However, the onsite riparian habitat consists of a relatively young monoculture of arroyo willows growing along a constructed roadside ditch along Los Osos Valley Road, the lower reach of Froom Creek on the Basin Study Area, and impounded along Drainage 4 by Calle Joaquin. This severely limits the forage value within the understory and expected use of this habitat as cover or as a corridor for movement along the edges of open areas. The riparian habitat in the Calle Joaquin study area extension is surrounded by urban development, which reduces the habitat value to primarily birds. In addition, people have been using the riparian habitat in this area as shelter further reducing the wildlife habitat value. Given the limited extent of this habitat onsite, common wildlife such as the Pacific chorus frog, western fence lizard, raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum, and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) would be expected to use this area periodically. No large animals were observed in the onsite riparian scrub habitat during the course of field work completed on the site. In addition, the young trees are smaller in stature and limit the nesting and foraging habitat to smaller songbirds such as house wren (Troglodytes aedon), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), and goldfinches (Carduelis spp.). As stated above, the willows create small thickets, and would not be expected to provide suitable nesting or perching habitat for larger raptors such as the red-tailed hawk that are present in the area. Seasonal water and the wetness of the soil would typically increase the value of this habitat for wildlife if it wasn’t associated with roadside ditches and isolated areas. This riparian habitat likely improves water quality by protecting the roadways from erosion, and filtering sediment and some pollutants from runoff before draining to the Calle Joaquin wetland area (i.e., the LOVR ditch), and eventually offsite towards San Luis Obispo Creek. The LOVR ditch also is periodically trimmed to keep willows from encroaching onto the road and bike lane. 3.1.8 Developed/Disturbed (Ruderal) The existing ranch roads, equipment storage area, buildings and active mine were mapped as Developed/Disturbed (also known as ruderal) habitat based on the presence of bare soils, base rock, and structures. Developed/Disturbed (Ruderal) habitat is not a native plant community, nor is it described by the vegetation classification systems used in this study since it is an anthropogenic influenced land type. Along road margins, high concentrations of invasive, non-native species were present, likely due to the historic disturbance. Some plants characteristic of the onsite annual grassland habitat described above were present, in addition to dominant weedy species such as Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) and yellow star thistle. Because of the highly disturbed nature of this habitat, it is of marginal value to wildlife. Nonetheless, its proximity to the natural plant communities onsite allow several common species such as the western fence lizard and California ground squirrel to utilize disturbed or ruderal areas of the site for basking in the sun and foraging. KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 17 3.1.9 Serpentine Rock Outcrop Scattered throughout the steeper portions of site, primarily in the southwest part of the study area, are areas of serpentine rock outcroppings. The exposed serpentine rocks were mostly bare, but did support native plants in cracks or areas of talus accumulation. Plants observed included several species of mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus ssp. clavatus and C. obispoensis), cryptantha (Cryptantha clevelandii), mouse gray dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina), Blochman’s dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae), and stinging phacelia (Phacelia imbricata). 3.1.10 Ornamental Trees including Eucalyptus, Cypress and Sycamore Trees Within the study area, planted blue gum eucalyptus, Monterey cypress and pepper trees were present. In addition, three sycamore (Platanus racemosa) trees were observed in the permitted quarry in the northwestern part of the site. The extent of tree canopies was delineated on the habitat map included as Figure 4. While bird nests were not observed during surveys, the larger eucalyptus trees provide perching and nesting opportunities for a variety of birds, including raptors such as great horned owl and red-tailed hawk. 3.2 Tree Survey A total of 96 trees with DBH of four (4) inches or greater were tagged within the study area, and included five (5) species of native trees and two (2) non-native tree species. Please refer to Figure 5 – the Tree Survey Map. Trees were concentrated primarily along Drainage 1. Native trees recorded included 41 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), 31 California bay (Umbellularia californica), three (3) western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), three (3) Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), three (3) arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), and one (1) holly-leaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia). Non-native trees present included 12 blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), and two (2) Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle). Generally, the majority of trees present exhibited high or moderate vigor. Several large oak and bay trees exhibited hollow or dead main trunks, but had large, healthy secondary trunk growth. Several trees exhibited sparse canopy growth and poor leaf development. The very steep upper portion of Drainage 1 in the southwestern corner of the site contained oak and bay trees in a narrow canyon area. This area was not accessible due to steep terrain, dense vegetation and poison oak. The LOVR roadside channel contained approximately 200 arroyo willow shrubs/trees that have established along the channel over the last 10 years. These willows consisted primarily of multi- stemmed specimens (some with 10 or more trunks) located mostly within the centerline of the ditch. The willow occurrences were mapped as riparian habitat as part of the plant community or habitat type mapping effort, and the areal extent calculated. The Basin Study Area on the Mountainbrook Church property also contained trees that were not included in the tree inventory. Young arroyo willows were present along the lower portion of Froom Creek and along Drainage 4, most of which were less than four inches DBH. A cluster of blue gum eucalyptus trees were also present near Froom Creek by Calle Joaquin, and two small Monterey cypress trees were observed on the hillside below the church. Los Osos Vall e y R d Calle Jo a q u i n HWY 101 Irish Hills Plaza Mountainbrook Church Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Froom Ranch Study Area Boundary Basin Study Area Boundary Land Swap Study Area BoundaryTagged Trees (96 total) Arroyo Willow California Bay Coast Live Oak Eucalyptus Fremont Cottonwood Hollyleaf Cherry Peruvian Pepper Tree Western Sycamore Untagged Trees Untagged Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub Untagged Coast Live Oak Forest Untagged Ornamental JM Development Group, Inc..0 230 460 690 920115 Feet Tree Survey MapFroom Ranch Figure 51 in = 400 ft KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 19 3.3 Drainage Features 3.3.1 Froom Creek and Tributaries Froom Creek is an intermittent stream with a relatively small watershed that originates in the Irish Hills to the southwest of the study area. The creek channel bisects the study area in a generally north to south direction, and ultimately passes beneath Calle Joaquin and U.S. Highway 101 via two concrete box culverts (approximate location shown on Figure 4), heading to its confluence with San Luis Obispo Creek. San Luis Obispo Creek flows in a westerly direction ultimately connecting to the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach. Due to the lack of dominant wetland vegetation within or adjacent to the channel and cobble/gravel bed, Froom Creek was classified as Riverine Intermittent Streambed per Cowardin, and as non-wetland waters of the U.S. and state of California subject to USACE, RWQCB and CDFW jurisdiction. Three small ephemeral drainage features (identified as Drainages 1, 2, and 3) are present in the southwestern portion of the Froom Ranch study area that are tributaries to Froom Creek. Due to the presence of a defined bed and bank, OHWM, and hydrologic connectivity to Froom Creek, these small features were classified as Riverine Intermittent Streambed per Cowardin, and constitute jurisdictional non-wetland waters of the U.S. and state of California. While these drainages were mostly comprised of upland vegetation, areas of wetland habitat were observed and mapped in specific locations. In addition, several seeps or springs were observed originating on adjacent hillsides and were hydrologically connected to the drainage feature. In-channel areas and abutting areas dominated by wetland vegetation are classified as Palustrine Emergent Wetland per Cowardin, and constitute wetlands under USACE, RWQCB and CDFW jurisdiction. The enlarged study area expanded onto the Mountainbrook Church property to cover the storm water basin, encompasses a fourth drainage feature (identified as Drainage 4 on the Habitat Map). This feature originates on the hillside just to the south of the Drainage 1 watershed, west of the church. It flows in a general west to east direction and leaves the study area through a culvert under Calle Joaquin. It does not appear to be connected to Froom Creek. Surface flow when present is apparently directed further south into a ditch along Highway 101. Some wetland habitat was observed in the channel of the drainage feature (under the arroyo willow riparian scrub) near the box culvert under Calle Joaquin. Further upstream outside the study area, the channel of Drainage 4 was dominated with annual grasses and coyote brush. 3.3.2 LOVR Roadside Channel The LOVR Roadside Channel (or ditch) is located along the northern property boundary, and contained a dense willow canopy and wetland understory, along a narrow and shallow constructed channel area. The willow canopy has developed since the ditch was constructed, and the channel appears to have lost capacity due to vegetative growth and sediment accumulation. Current channel dimensions in this area ranged from six inches to two feet deep, and one to four feet wide. Willow canopy and wetland vegetation extended beyond the channel banks into the adjacent meadow area, apparently the result of the constructed roadways impounding seasonal surface and subsurface water. Because the majority of in-channel and abutting areas were dominated by wetland vegetation, the LOVR Roadside Channel is classified as Palustrine Emergent Wetland per Cowardin, and constitutes wetland waters under USACE, RWQCB and CDFW jurisdiction. Jurisdictional boundaries in this area were mapped into the LOVR right-of way to the road shoulder, which was outside the Froom Ranch property line. Please refer to the KMA Delineation of Waters of The U.S. and State of California for further detail. KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 20 3.3.3 Detention Basins The northern basin was an approximately one-acre temporary settling basin const ructed in upland grassland areas to receive storm water runoff during the construction of Home Depot. During construction, a swale and culverts were installed behind the current Whole Foods and TJ Maxx buildings to direct surface runoff into this basin and let it settle before spreading overland via notches cut in the earthen berm to support the historic wetland feature along LOVR. Seasonally ponded water was evident in the northern basin during aerial photograph review, and patchy occurrences of seasonal wetland vegetation were noted in the bottom of the basin (approximately 0.7 acre) during field work conducted in 2015 confirming some wetland habitat attributes were still present even though storm water from the developed areas was no longer directed into this basin. It is our understanding that once the Irish Hills Plaza basin was constructed, stormwater runoff from neighboring development was no longer directed into the temporary settling basin. The temporary basin was not identified as a potential jurisdictional feature subject to Clean Water Act regulation since it was constructed in an upland as a temporary settling basin to support construction of the neighboring project. The Corps concurred in their Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (2016 letter from the Corps to John Madonna) since artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land and used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins or rice growing are not regulated under the Clean Water Act pursuant to the Clean Water Rule of 2015. As such, the applicant removed it in 2017 and the temporary basin is no longer present. The area now consists of plants characteristic of the surrounding ruderal and annual grassland habitats. Please refer to Appendix G for additional discussion of the basins. The approximately 3.2-acre southern basin complex, known as the Irish Hills Plaza basin, is a stormwater management feature constructed in upland grassland habitat that receives runoff from the neighboring project. Storm water is directed into this basin by a 48-inch pipe. The basin complex consists of a smaller forebay or northern basin, larger main basin, and a spillway. It was sized to contain runoff from any future Phase II development within the Froom Ranch study area (Wallace Group, 2006). This basin has an extensive French drain system around the perimeter to not inhibit groundwater movement and surface flow toward the Calle Joaquin wetland area. The western perimeter French drain and forebay release water to the LOVR Roadside Channel by a storm drain outfall and swale, which then flows to the Calle Joaquin wetland. During large storm events, the basin can overtop and discharge water into the wet meadow area along Calle Joaquin via a concrete spillway. Otherwise, storm water piped into the basin from developed areas to the north leaves through evaporation and percolation into the ground. This feature was also not identified as a potential Clean Water Act jurisdictional feature based on similar rationale described above as it was constructed in an upland area and is part of the neighboring project’s storm water drainage system. During the 2015 surveys, the Irish Hills Plaza basin was dry and contained mostly grasses and weeds characteristic of the surrounding annual grassland habitat. Aerial photograph review showed the basin had been graded and cleared of vegetation as recently as 2013. The slopes were relatively unaffected, and creeping wild rye (Leymus or Elymus triticoides), likely applied in the hydroseed mix following construction, was still present in several areas. During the 2016/2017 rain season, standing water was present in the forebay and wetland vegetation was observed in an approximate 0.6 acre area. The main basin also had seasonally moist soils and patchy wetland vegetation was mixed with upland species in an estimated 1.4 acre area. KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 21 Because both basins including the swale/ditch behind Whole Foods are man-made structures constructed in uplands that are fed primarily by piping concentrated hardscape storm water runoff from neighboring development, they were determined to not be subject to Clean Water Act or California Fish and Game Code requirements. In 2015, the Corps (or USACE) reviewed the project Wetland Delineation Report, which identified these features as “spigot wetlands” and confirmed the extent of their Clean Water Act jurisdiction did not include the basins as Waters of the U.S. A spigot wetland would not persist if the faucet (in this case, the pipe delivering storm water runoff) was turned off. Please refer to the letter from Erin Hanlon, USACE Regulatory Project Manager, to Mr. John Madonna dated September 24, 2015 included in the Wetland Delineation Report (KMA, 2015) and Appendix G for further discussion. 3.4 Soils The NRCS identified eight soil map units as occurring on the Froom Ranch study area (refer to Figure 3). Enlarging the study area to cover the proposed storm water basin identified an additional soil map unit for a total of nine within the study areas shown on the Soils Map. Of these map units, Corducci-Typic Xerofluvents (previously mapped as Riverwash) and Xererts-Xerolls are listed as hydric soils by the NRCS California Hydric Soils List for San Luis Obispo County. An unnamed component of Cropley clay, 0-2 % slopes, and Salinas silty clay loam, 0-2% slopes, are also considered hydric when present in drainageways or depressions. Cibo clay consists of a 0 to 31 inch, dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) clay formed in residual material weathered from hard metasedimentary rocks, and commonly displaying fine roots. The structure is coarse and angular blocky. This moderately to steeply sloping soil is considered very poorly drained. The soil has moderate erodibility and high shrink-swell characteristics, and potential septic system constraints due to steep slopes, shallow depth to bedrock, and slow percolation. Cropley clay 0-2 % slopes. Cropley clay consists of a dark gray or black (10YR 4/1, 3/1, 2/1 moist) clay horizon about 36 inches thick, underlain by a light brown calcareous clay loam to 60 inches or more. Permeability of this soil is slow and the available water capacity is high. Cropley soils formed in alluvium developed from sedimentary rocks. An unnamed component of Cropley clay is listed as a hydric soil when present in drainageways. This inclusion is typically very dark gray throughout, with mottles present in the lower horizons. This dark gray soil was not observed on- site. Mapped inclusions within this series include Diablo clay, Los Osos loam, and Salinas silty clay loam. Diablo and Cibo clays 9-15 and 15 - 30 % slopes. Diablo clay consists of a 0 to 23 inch, black (10YR 2/1) clay formed in residual material weathered from sandstone, shale, or mudstone, commonly displaying fine roots to four inches. The structure is granular to 4 inches, and coarse, angular, and blocky to 23 inches. This moderately to steeply sloping soil is very poorly drained. The soil has moderate erodibility and high shrink-swell characteristics, and has potential septic system constraints due to steep slopes and slow percolation. Los Osos-Diablo Complex 5-9 and 15-30% slopes. Los Osos-Diablo Complex consists of about 40 percent Los Osos soil, and 35 percent Diablo soil, found on foothills and mountain ridge tops. These soils are moderately deep, well drained, and have low permeability. Typical Los Osos-Diablo Complex soil (moist) consists of a very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) loam or black (10YR 2/2) clay, 40-60 inches thick. Permeability of Los Osos-Diablo Complex soil is rapid, and the available water capacity is low. The available water capacity of Los Osos-Diablo Complex soil is low to very high, while surface runoff is rapid. KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 22 Obispo-Rock outcrop 15-75% slopes. Obispo-Rock outcrop consists of about 50 percent Obispo soil and 30 percent Rock outcrop. Obispo soils are shallow, well drained, slowly permeable soils formed in residual materials weathered from serpentine rock. Typical Obispo soil (moist) consists of a black (10YR 2/1) clay to a depth of about 18 inches, underlain by serpentine rock. The available water capacity of Obispo-Rock outcrop soil is low, while surface runoff is rapid or very rapid. Riverwash/Corducci-Typic Xerofluvents, 0-5% slopes occasionally flooded includes soils found in active stream and river channels, and consists of excessively drained, water deposited sand, loamy sand, and sandy loam with varying amounts of gravel and cobbles present. Riverwash soils located in and along stream channels are generally subject to flooding during and immediately after every storm. Riverwash soils are typically excessively drained, but can be somewhat poorly drained in low lying areas. Permeability is very rapid, surface runoff is very slow, and the erosion hazard is variable. Typical inclusions include Psamments and Fluvents, and Corralitos soils. Riverwash and Psamments and Fluvents located in drainageways are listed as hydric soils. These soils have a Hydric Criteria Code of 4: soils that are frequently flooded for long or very long duration during the growing season. Salinas silty clay loam, 0-2% slopes. This is a very deep, well drained, nearly level soil on alluvial fans and plains. It formed in alluvium weathered from sedimentary rocks. Typically, the surface layer is dark gray silty clay loam underlain by stratified layers of very fine sandy loam and silty clay loam. Permeability is moderately slow, and the available water capacity is high or very high. Surface runoff is slow, and the hazard of water erosion is slight. This soil can be considered hydric when associated with depressions. Xererts-Xerolls-Urban land complex 0-15% slopes. The Xererts-Xerolls-Urban land complex consists of nearly level to strongly sloping soils and miscellaneous areas that are covered by urban structures. Most areas of these soils are used for urban development. The soil materials have been modified by earthmoving equipment or covered by urban structures so that much of their original shape and physical characteristics have been altered. The Xererts of this complex are Cropley or Los Osos-Diablo soils. The percentage of the various soils in this complex and the degree of urbanization vary from place to place (SCS 1984). An unnamed inclusion of the Xererts-Xerolls- Urban land complex associated with depressions has a Hydric Criteria Code of 2A: soils in Aquic suborder that are somewhat poorly drained and have a frequently occurring water table less than 0.5 feet from the surface for a significant period (usually 14 consecutive days or more) during the growing season. 3.5 Special Status Biological Resources The San Luis Obispo area supports numerous special status, or rare, plant communities, and species of plants and animals. As stated in the methodology section above, the biological resources inventory used a six quadrangle search of the CNDDB in addition to the review of environmental documents prepared for projects in the area to identify special status resources that could be present onsite. Appendix B provides a table with the special status biological resources occurrence data, listing status for all special status species and habitats, the results of the surveys, and an evaluation of wildlife presence or potential to occur onsite. The following discussion provides further detail regarding the special status biological resources occurring or potentially occurring on the Froom Ranch study area. KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 23 3.5.1 Special Status Natural Communities The CNDDB search identified occurrences of nine (9) special status plant communities within the greater area and included Central Dune Scrub, Central Foredunes, Central Maritime Chaparral, Coastal Brackish Marsh, Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh, Northern Coastal Marsh, Northern Interior Cypress Forest, Serpentine Bunchgrass, and Valley and Foothill Grassland. Please refer to Figure 6 illustrating the botanical data obtained from the CNDDB. Our observations onsite identified another special status natural community in the area, consisting of the riparian habitat along the LOVR ditch, lower reach of Drainage 4 and Froom Creek. Three special status natural communities, including the Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh (Wetland), Riparian (Riparian Scrub), and the Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland were observed onsite (please refer to Figure 4, the Habitat Map) and meet the special status natural communities definition pursuant to the CDFW. In addition, special status plant occurrences were observed on serpentine rock outcrops and in areas of annual grassland. Therefore, where rare plant occurrences are present, the supporting habitat should also be considered special status natural communities. 3.4.2 Special Status Plants The CNDDB contains records of many special status plant species that are known to occur within the greater San Luis Obispo area, including past observations from the study area (please refer to Figure 6). Special status plant species typically have highly localized habitat requirements and many are known to occur on serpentine rock outcrops and soils, active and stabilized coastal dunes, or in maritime chaparral, and brackish marsh habitats. Coastal dunes, central maritime chaparral and brackish marsh habitats do not occur on the property, and therefore, species such as beach spectacle pod (Dithyrea maritima), Morro manzanita (Arctostaphylos morroensis), and salt marsh bird’s beak (Chloropyron maritimum) are not expected to occur onsite based on the lack of suitable habitat. In addition, a number of species identified in the database search occur at higher elevations in the Santa Lucia Mountains further to the north of the study area, and are not expected to occur onsite based on range restrictions. This includes species such as the San Benito fritillary (Fritillaria viridea), hooked popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys uncinatus), and Cuesta Pass checkerbloom (Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. anomala). While elevation alone is not sufficient to rule out a species from a particular study area, these species were not observed during the focused surveys of the property at a time of year when they would have been identifiable. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that they are not expected to occur onsite. Moreover, special status perennial shrubs would have been identifiable at the time the field surveys were conducted. Perennial shrubs such as Arroyo de la Cruz manzanita (Arctostaphylos cruzensis), Santa Lucia manzanita (Arctostaphylos luciana), and Santa Margarita manzanita (Arctostaphylos pilosula) were not observed during field surveys, and as a result, are not expected to occur in the study area. Morro Bay South San Luis Obispo Lopez Mtn. Pismo Beach Arroyo Grande NEPort San Luis ²1 in = 7,000 ft 0 1.5 30.75 Miles Figure 6 CNDDB Botanical Occurrences MapJM Development Group, Inc. Froom Ranch Froom Ranch Study Area Boundary Five Mile Buffer USGS 7.5' Quad CNDDB Occurrence (November 2018) Adobe sanicle Betty's dudleya Black-flowered figwort Blochman's dudleya Brewer's spineflower Cambria morning-glory Chaparral ragwort Congdon's tarplant Cuesta Ridge thistle Dune larkspur Dwarf soaproot Eastwood's larkspur Hoover's bent grass Hoover's button-celery Indian Knob mountainbalm Jones' layia La Panza mariposa-lily Mesa horkelia Miles' milk-vetch Most beautiful jewelflower Mouse-gray dudleya Ojai fritillary Palmer's monardella Pecho manzanita Pismo clarkia Saline clover San Luis mariposa-lily San Luis Obispo County lupine San Luis Obispo fountain thistle San Luis Obispo owl's-clover San Luis Obispo sedge Santa Margarita manzanita Southern curly-leaved monardella Umbrella larkspur Woodland woollythreads Central Maritime Chaparral Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Serpentine Bunchgrass Source: Esri 2018; CNDDB 2018; KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 25 Special status plants identified in the area by the CNDDB that are known to occur on serpentine based soils were identified as having potential to occur onsite and put on the target search list during the surveys (please refer to Appendix B for further detail). Surveys conducted in 2015 located the 13 special status plants listed below. Please refer to Figure 7 for species locations. • Blochman's dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae; CRPR List 1B.1); • Brewer's spineflower (Chorizanthe breweri; CRPR List 1B.3); • Cambria morning glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis; CRPR List 4.2); • Chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis; CRPR List 2.2); • Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense; federal and state endangered and CRPR List 1B.2); • club hair mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus ssp. clavatus CRPR List 4.3); • Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii; CRPR List 1B.1); • Eastwood’s larkspur (Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae; CRPR List 1B.2); • Jones's layia (Layia jonesii; CRPR List 1B.2); • mouse-gray dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina; CRPR List 1B.2); • Palmer’s spineflower (Chorizanthe palmeri: CRPR List 4.2); • San Luis mariposa lily (Calochortus obispoensis; CRPR List 1B.2); and • San Luis Obispo owl's-clover (Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis; CRPR List 1B.2). Even though drought conditions were experienced in the project region over the course of the last four years, sufficient rain fell during the 2015 growing season to allow an accurate inventory of the site’s vegetation and identification of special status plants on the study area as shown on Figure 7 – the Special Status Plant Occurrences Map. Subsequent field surveys conducted in the spring and summer of 2016 and 2017 confirmed special status plants observed onsite were in the same general locations observed in 2015. As stated above, CRPR 4 plants observed onsite are on a watch list and are common throughout the San Luis Obispo area. The three CRPR 4 species were observed in the southwestern part of the site on grassland and serpentine rock outcroppings. They are components of much larger populations in the surrounding Irish Hills, and any future development would not jeopardize the continued existence of the watch list species observed onsite. Therefore, CRPR 4 species are not expected to meet the rarity threshold defined under Section 15380 of CEQA. 3.4.3 Special Status Animals The CNDDB contained occurrence data for numerous special status animal species in the general area. Please refer to Figure 8 and Appendix B for the special status animals that were evaluated in this study, and a determination as to their potential to occur onsite. Similar to the plant evaluation above, many of these special status animals are not expected to occur on the subject site due to the lack of suitable habitat and range restrictions. Species such as California black rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus), western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrines nivosus), Morro shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta walkeriana), and Morro Bay blue butterfly (Plebejus icarioides morroensis) are coastal species that have specific habitat attributes (i.e., coastal dune scrub, dune sands, active dunes) and requirements that are not present onsite, and therefore, are not expected to occur on the property because suitable habitat is not present. De pa ea La jo De pa ea De paLa jo Ca de ob Ca de ob Ca ob Du ab mu La jo Ca de obLa jo Lajo Ca de ob Lajo Ca de ob Du bl Ca de ob La jo Du bl La jo Du ab mu Se ap Ca de ob Du bl Du bl Ch br Cadeob ! Ch br Ce pa co!!!!!! Los Osos Vall e y R d £¤101 Du ab mu Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community JM Development Group, Inc..0 200 400 600 800100 Feet Special Status Plant Occurrences Map Froom Ranch Figure 71 in = 350 ft Source: Esri 2018 Basin Study Area Boundary Land Swap Study Area Boundary Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense CDFW List 1B Species Ca de ob= Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis Ca ob= Calochortus obispoensis Ce pa co= Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Ch br= Chorizanthe breweri De pa ea= Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae Du ab mu= Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina Du bl= Dudleya blochmaniae La jo= Layia jonesii Se ap= Senecio aphanactis Froom Ranch Study Area Boundary Morro Bay South San Luis Obispo Lopez Mtn. Pismo Beach Arroyo Grande NEPort San Luis CRLF observed onWaddell Property, 2017 ²1 in = 7,000 ft 0 1.5 30.75 Miles Figure 8 CNDDB Wildlife Occurrences MapJM Development Group, Inc. Froom Ranch Froom Ranch Study Area Boundary Five Mile Buffer USGS 7.5' Quad CNDDB Occurrence (November 2018) American badger Atascadero June beetle Burrowing owl California red-legged frog Coast horned lizard Coast Range newt Ferruginous hawk Foothill yellow-legged frog Loggerhead shrike Monarch - California overwintering population Northern California legless lizard Pallid bat Prairie falcon San Luis Obispo pyrg Steelhead - south-central California coast DPS Tidewater goby Townsend's big-eared bat Vernal pool fairy shrimp Western bumble bee Western mastiff bat Western pond turtle Western yellow-billed cuckoo White-tailed kite Critical Habitat (USFWS) California red-legged frog Tidewater goby Steelhead Source: Esri 2018; CNDDB 2018; USFWS 2018 KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 28 A number of avian species are known from the general area and could potentially utilize the grasslands, coast live oak/California bay woodland, coastal scrub/chaparral, and eucalyptus stands for nesting and foraging. Given the large expanses of open grasslands and mixed shrub/woodlands on the property, many of the special status birds known from the general area could potentially occur on the property at least as transients moving through the region seasonally. Ground nesting birds, and small songbirds could potentially use the site for nesting activities. Special status species identified in the CNDDB and that could potentially occur onsite include the Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). Bat species, such as the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), and various species of Myotis have large home ranges, and could forage over and around the site, as well as roost in trees and under the eves of existing structures. The Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) is a relatively common species from the general area, and could forage onsite. It would not be expected to overwinter on the study area because the species requires specific autumnal and overwintering habitat attributes typically found closer to the coast . The small groupings of eucalyptus trees, and riparian oak and bay trees that are present in the study area are not suitable to support monarch butterfly overwintering habitat. Based on the lack of sandy soils, the legless lizard (Anniella pulchra) and coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) are not expected to occur in the coastal scrub/chaparral habitats mapped onsite. The heavy clay soils on the property preclude fossorial (burrowing) reptiles such as the legless lizard from occurring under shrubs on the slopes or flatter areas of the site. Species such as the San Diego woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia) and American badger (Taxidea taxus) could potentially occur onsite, and woodrat nests were observed in dense oak/California bay woodland areas in the southwestern part of the property. The portion of Froom Creek within the site does not appear to contain appropriate aquatic and riparian habitat to support the federally threatened California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii; CRLF). Please refer to the Site Assessment for the California Red-Legged Frog (KMA, 2017) included as an appendix of this report for further detail. The closest known occurrence is from the waste water treatment ponds on the east side of Highway 101. No records of CRLF in the immediate project area were found during the 2015 analysis. Surveys on City-owned property further west-northwest of the study area identified CRLF in areas of aquatic habitat in upper Froom Creek. The portion of Froom Creek in the study area does not contain suitable hydroperiod (i.e., flowing water or pools two feet deep or greater during the late spring or summer months) to support a breeding population of CRLF. The small tributary drainages in the higher elevations of the study area also did not contain suitable aquatic habitat to support CRLF, and observed in-channel pools in Drainage 1 were too shallow (most less than 16 inches deep) and did not persist for a long enough time to support CRLF breeding. In 2015, the constructed detention basins onsite lacked suitable aquatic habitat with a sufficient hydroperiod to support CRLF breeding, and did not contain any emergent vegetation. The basins were also cleared and vegetation was removed in 2013. However, in 2017, the forebay of the Irish Hills Plaza basin contained standing water and wetland vegetation into September, but water depths were less than 12 inches, which is typically not suitable for CRLF. The Calle Joaquin wetland onsite contained a small area of standing water and emergent wetland vegetation was also present. However, the aquatic habitat supported large numbers of crayfish, a known predator of CRLF, which also likely precludes CRLF from persisting in this area. KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 29 Three additional day surveys and five night surveys for CRLF were conducted in the Froom Ranch study area in the spring, summer and fall of 2018 following USFWS guidelines (2005) as part of the biological resources update. The surveys focused on the seasonally ponded areas in Drainage 1, Froom Creek and along Calle Joaquin identified in the 2017 Site Assessment report. Surveys also included seasonally ponded areas observed in the separated Calle Joaquin wetland (south side of the road) next to the hotel. The Irish Hills Plaza basin forebay was also searched during the surveys when surface water was present even though it was less than eight-inches deep. No CRLF were observed during the surveys. Methods and results of the surveys will be presented in a separate, stand-alone report currently in preparation. Southern steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) are known to occur further to the southeast of the project site in San Luis Obispo Creek. They have also been identified as occurring within the upper reaches of Froom Creek outside the study area (personal communication with Freddy Otte, City of San Luis Obispo Biologist). Also, other highly aquatic species such as the western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), the two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii), and the Coast Range newt (Taricha torosa torosa) are not expected to occur onsite in Froom Creek, its tributaries or the constructed basins based on the lack of prolonged seasonal in-channel pools lasting at least 10 weeks and regular flowing water. The USFWS has identified critical habitat for steelhead and CRLF in the region. The project site, however, does not occur in the critical habitat polygons developed for CRLF, but Froom Creek is identified as critical habitat for southern steelhead. It is unlikely, however, that Froom Creek supports a steelhead run since it is separated from San Luis Obispo Creek by a box culvert that is over 300 feet long running under Calle Joaquin and Highway 101. The Coast Range newt is a species of concern known to occur in the Santa Lucia Mountains and Santa Margarita region north of the project site. This species lives in terrestrial habitats and breeds in ponds and slow moving streams during winter months. Although the species is not documented from the Irish Hills of the San Luis Range, there is potential for this animal to occur further upstream in the watershed. It is unlikely to occur within the study area due to the lack of suitable habitat consisting of prolonged pools that form on a more regular basis than what has been observed on the study area. The evaluation of special status species occurrences onsite was based on a habitat suitability analysis coupled with on the ground observations. Please refer to Appendix B for further detail. As stated above, protocol-level surveys to determine the presence or absence of CRLF were conducted in 2018, and also included direct observation of onsite and offsite conditions, inspection of the drainage channels and their respective hydrologic regime, and review of biological reports and the CNDDB records documenting recorded occurrence data from the area to conclude whether or not a particular species could be expected to occur. The Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment and Site Assessment for CRLF were prepared in 2017, and provide further information related to aquatic habitats and the potential for special status wildlife occurrence onsite. The following information clarifies whether potential habitat for a species is present, if the species was observed during field work, and provides the likelihood (i.e., low, moderate or high) of actual encounter of the particular species onsite. The purpose of this analysis is to rule out those species that have a low likelihood or potential to occur onsite and help the EIR consultant focus the list of potential mitigation measures to cover only those species with a moderate or high likelihood of occurring within the project boundaries that could be affected by the proposed project. KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 30 The 2015 analysis reviewed numerous special status wildlife and identified species that have the potential to occur at least on a seasonal basis within the project boundaries based on the presence of suitable habitat. The terminology used in the 2015 BRI analysis was: 1. “Could Occur” (i.e., potential habitat was present but species was not observed) 2. “Unlikely to Occur” (i.e., site may be within the range of the species but suitable habitat was lacking or sub-optimal); or 3. “Not Expected to Occur” (i.e., no suitable habitat was present, the species is not known from the project vicinity, and/or the species range does not include the project site). The potential to occur determination was based on the presence of suitable habitat within the project boundaries, and the site is within the known range of a particular species. Twenty-two special status animals were identified in the 2015 BRI as having potential to occur onsite. The supplemental analysis conducted in 2018 further refined this list by identifying the varying levels of likelihood of occurrence (i.e., low, moderate, or high). This was completed to help the EIR consultant prescribe appropriate mitigation in the impact analysis for those species with a moderate or high likelihood of occurring onsite: • American badger (Taxidea taxus; species of special concern) is a highly mobile species known to occur in native habitats surrounding the San Luis Obispo area. Badgers and badger road kill have been observed along Los Osos Valley Road and Highway 1 west of San Luis Obispo (Merk personal observation), and recorded occurrences from the Camp San Luis Obispo area are documented in the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDNNB) maintained by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). While no sign or burrows were observed on the project site, badgers living in the Irish Hills could move onto or through the property during foraging activities. No large ground squirrel colonies were observed onsite, so prey base and denning opportunities are not optimal, but there is moderate likelihood that the species could move through all habitat types onsite and potentially den in open areas within grassland, coastal scrub/chaparral, and coast live oak/CA bay woodland habitats onsite. • Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; species of special concern) is a wide-ranging species known to occur more commonly in the interior habitats of San Luis Obispo County. This species has been observed in the San Luis Obispo area, primarily during winter movement periods. Most recently the species was documented on the Chevron Tank Farm property to the east of the project site (Padre Associates, 2008). The species has not been recorded breeding in the immediate vicinity, and past work by Comrack and Mayer (2003) concluded that burrowing owls may no longer breed in the coastal part of San Luis Obispo County. Breeding is primarily in the inland areas such as on the Carrizo Plain. Still, suitable grassland and open coastal scrub habitats are present onsite that could be used by burrowing owls during winter migration periods when individuals are in the area. No large ground squirrel colonies were observed onsite that would provide a substantial prey base or nesting opportunities for this species. It appears unlikely that this species would nest onsite, and therefore, a low likelihood exists for burrowing owl to occur onsite. • California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia; CDFW watch list). Grazed grasslands onsite could support this ground nesting species since it is known to forage and breed in open, flat habitats with short vegetation in the Central Coast region. Although not observed onsite during field surveys, this is a wide-ranging bird known to occur in the greater San Luis Obispo area. Given the presence of suitable habitat and known records of the species in San Luis Obispo County, a moderate likelihood exists for this species to occur onsite. KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 31 • Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi; watch list) is known to occur throughout coastal San Luis Obispo County, and an individual was observed in the coast live oak/CA bay woodland habitat along Drainage 1 in the southern part of the property during field work conducted in 2015. While no direct observation of a Cooper’s hawk nest site was made, this species would be expected to forage throughout the site, and potentially nest within the coast live oak/CA bay and eucalyptus woodlands present in the southern part of the property. The riparian scrub habitat along Los Osos Valley Road appears to provide marginal habitat for this species due to its thicket forming nature, which does not provide easy access for Cooper’s hawk foraging or suitable nest building sites. This species was observed onsite and there is a high likelihood of encountering the species in woodland habitats within the project site. • Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos; watch list and CDFW Fully Protected) is known to occur in the expansive open spaces surrounding San Luis Obispo and has a large home range. Golden eagle would be expected as a rare to uncommon visitor to the Froom Ranch. The grassland habitat could potentially support foraging habitat for this species, but large ground squirrel colonies or other substantial prey base was not observed onsite. While the coast live oak/CA bay woodlands could potentially support nesting habitat for the species, no large stick nests indicative of golden eagles were observed during the field work for this project, and no recorded occurrences of this species are present in close proximity to the site. The active hiking and biking trails and regular human activity around the site likely deter the golden eagle from nesting onsite and in the immediate area. Therefore, there is a low likelihood that the golden eagle would occur onsite beyond just a rare or uncommon fly over. • Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus; species of special concern) is a resident in arid regions of San Luis Obispo County, primarily north and east of the Santa Lucia Mountains. No shrikes were observed during field work, but coastal scrub/chaparral habitat is present onsite that could support this species. Therefore, a moderate likelihood exists for this species to occur onsite and nest in the coastal scrub/chaparral and forage in the grasslands, scrub and edges of coast live oak/CA bay woodland habitats. • Merlin (Falco columbarius; watch list) is known to winter in San Luis Obispo County, but is not expected to breed in the project area. Most merlin observations have been made north of the Cuesta Grade where this species would be expected to nest. Still, this highly mobile raptor could potentially fly over the site and forage in the grasslands when moving through the area. It is not expected to nest on the project site, and as such, has a low likelihood of being encountered on the site. • Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus; species of special concern) is known to occur throughout the grassland and scrub habitats surrounding San Luis Obispo. It was observed on several occasions foraging over the grasslands onsite. It is a ground nesting bird, and no nest site indicative of northern harrier was observed during the field work. Given the lack of tall grasses away from regular human activities, it appears to have a low likelihood of nesting onsite. The northern harrier could forage onsite, but has a low likelihood of nesting given regular grazing, hiking/biking trails and other regular human activities in close proximity to the grasslands onsite. • Purple martin (Progne subis; species of special concern) typically nests in sycamore trees (Platanus racemosa) along riparian corridors. The species was not observed during field work, and the few sycamore trees observed onsite are within the active mine area KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 32 mapped as developed/disturbed (refer to habitat map included as Figure 4 in the BRI). There is a low likelihood that the purple martin would forage or nest onsite given the lack of well-developed riparian trees along onsite drainages. • Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus; watch list) is a small migratory raptor that feeds on birds and small mammals. It is known to occur throughout the United States and Canada and can be observed in coastal San Luis Obispo County in a variety of woodland habitats, typically near water, during fall migration. Sharp-shinned hawks usually migrate to the northern United States and Canada for breeding, but some individuals may remain in the region year-round. The coast live oak/CA bay woodland habitat was identified as potentially suitable habitat for the species, but no large stick nests other than one occupied by a red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) in a large eucalyptus tree were observed. Sharp- shinned hawk could forage onsite during the fall and winter, and has a low likelihood of nesting onsite in the spring and summer. • Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor; candidate species and species of special concern) is a colonial species that nests in emergent vegetation in freshwater habitats. It forages over a wide area, typically in grassland and wetland habitats near the nesting colony. The tule patch in the Calle Joaquin wetland area was deemed to not be large enough to support nesting activities at the time the BRI study was completed. While the tule patch has enlarged over time, which increases its potential for use by tricolored blackbirds, it is close to the roadway and regular human activities, which discourages nesting. The onsite grasslands near the tule patch are suitable foraging habitat. This species has a moderate likelihood of nesting in the Calle Joaquin wetland area and foraging in the grassland habitat in the southeast part of the site. • White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; CDFW Fully Protected) has been observed foraging over grassland and wetland habitats in the Los Osos Valley primarily west of San Luis Obispo (Merk personal observation). It is known to nest in Monterey cypress, coast live oak and other large riparian trees. Suitable foraging habitat is present in the grasslands on the project site, but no kites were observed onsite during field work. Suitable nesting habitat is present in the coast live oak/CA bay woodland. There is a moderate likelihood that the white-tailed kite could occur onsite during foraging and nesting activities. • Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri; species of special concern) is a small songbird that occurs in riparian habitats, nesting in willows and cottonwoods. It was not observed onsite during field work conducted for the BRI or subsequent studies. Although no recording nesting observations for this species in the San Luis Obispo area were identified, suitable foraging habitat is present in the riparian scrub habitat along Los Osos Valley Road. This species could potentially forage onsite, but has a low likelihood that it would nest on the property. • Big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis; species of special concern) is known to occur in low-lying, arid areas of Southern California typically roosting on high cliffs or rocky outcroppings. The site does support some rocky serpentine outcroppings in the southern part of the property, but large high cliffs are absent. Further outside the study area on the upper ridgelines in the Irish Hills, potentially suitable roosting habitat may be present. This species could potentially forage onsite, but low likelihood that it would roost within the project boundaries. • Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus; special animal) typically roosts in dense foliage of large trees near open water. The BRI concluded suitable foraging habitat was present on the site KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 33 given the mosaic of habitat types present. It was also determined that the hoary bat could roost in the coast live oak/CA bay woodland habitat in the southern part of the property along Drainages 1 and 2. This species has a moderate likelihood of occurring onsite. • Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus; species of special concern) is a wide-ranging species that occurs in a variety of habitats. It can be expected to occur onsite foraging over grassland, coastal scrub/chaparral, and woodland habitats. It is also possible that this species roosts in cavities or hollows of old trees (eucalyptus and oak/CA bay woodland), as well as under the eaves of the old structures in the northern part of the property. This species has a moderate likelihood of occurring onsite. • San Diego woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia; species of special concern) occurs in coastal scrub, chaparral and various woodland habitats in the region. Woodrats can occur in and around rock outcroppings and on slopes with good shrub or tree cover. Suitable habitat was identified in the coast live oak/CA bay woodland habitat as well as in the coastal scrub/chaparral habitat in the southern half of the project site. Wood rat nests were observed in the woodland and scrub/chaparral zone in the upper reaches of Drainages 1 and 2. The species has a high likelihood of occurring on the property. The proposed project, however, would not develop in these areas and therefore, would not impact this species. • Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus; federal threatened and species of concern) are known to occur in San Luis Obispo Creek and several of its tributary drainages with fresh, fast flowing cool water. Froom Creek is identified by the USFWS as critical habitat for the species, and the upper reach of Froom Creek has a known population of steelhead (potentially land-locked). It is unknown if steelhead in the upper reaches of Froom Creek make their way through the project site and into San Luis Obispo Creek. It is highly likely that during the winter storm season when high flows are present in the onsite portion of the creek, that steelhead could be moving through the site to areas up or downstream with suitable habitat. The onsite reach of Froom Creek is a dry channel for most of the year with flowing water present only following large storm events. Water flows recede quickly, and prolonged pools are poorly represented in the onsite portion of creek. Therefore, no perennial aquatic habitat is present that could support steelhead within the project boundaries. A high likelihood exists that this species could move through the site when flowing water is present, but would not be expected to persist or spawn within the project boundaries. • Townsend’s western big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendi townsendi; species of special concern) is known to occur in a variety of habitats in coastal California. They regularly forage along riparian corridors and roost in caves or buildings with cave-like features. No caves are present onsite for roosting, but old buildings (eaves of structures and the barn) in the northern part of the project site could potentially provide suitable roosting habitat for this species. The onsite grasslands, scrub (both coastal and riparian) and woodland habitats would be expected to provide suitable foraging habitat for the species. It has a moderate likelihood of occurring onsite. • Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus; species of special concern) is known from open, arid habitats including coastal scrub/chaparral, grasslands and various woodlands. It typically roosts in crevices in cliff faces, buildings, tall trees and tunnels. Suitable foraging habitat occurs throughout the varied plant communities onsite, and this species could roost in large trees with overhangs and cavities as well as under the eaves of buildings in the northern part of the project site. It has a moderate likelihood of occurring KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 34 onsite. • Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevilli; species of special concern) is another species of bat that forages in open areas and roosts in tall trees. Suitable foraging habitat was identified in onsite grasslands, and potential roosting habitat was identified in larger trees such as eucalyptus, coast live oak and sycamore mapped on the property. It has a moderate likelihood of occurring onsite. • Yuma Myotis (Myotis yumanensis; special animal) is a species of bat known to occur in riparian, scrub/chaparral and various arid habitat types near permanent water sources. It roosts in trees (hollows/cavities), rock crevices, mines, caves and man-made structures (eves of buildings, barns, etc.). Potential foraging habitat was identified over the entire project site, and suitable roosting habitat was identified in large trees and in the eaves of structures in the northern part of the project site. This species has a moderate likelihood of being encountered on the project site. Based on the information provided above and in the table included as Appendix B, the special status wildlife listed in the below table have a moderate or high likelihood of occurring in the specified habitats observed onsite. Table 2. Special Status Wildlife Potentially Occurring Onsite. Species Suitable Habitat on Project Site American badger (moderate) Grassland, scrub/chaparral, oak/CA bay woodland California horned lark (moderate) Grassland (nesting) Cooper’s hawk (high) Eucalyptus, sycamore, Oak/CA bay woodland (nesting) Hoary bat (moderate) Oak/CA bay woodland (roosting) Loggerhead shrike (moderate) Scrub/chaparral (nesting) Pallid bat (moderate) Eucalyptus, sycamore, oak/CA bay woodland, buildings (roosting) San Diego Woodrat (high) Scrub/chaparral, oak/CA bay woodland Steelhead trout (high) Froom Creek (movement corridor) Townsend’s western big-eared bat (moderate) Buildings (roosting) Tri-colored blackbird (moderate) Calle Joaquin wetland (nesting) Western mastiff bat (moderate) Eucalyptus, sycamore, oak/CA bay woodland, buildings (roosting) Western red bat (moderate) Eucalyptus, sycamore, oak/CA bay woodland, buildings (roosting) White-tailed kite (moderate) Eucalyptus, sycamore, oak/CA bay woodland (nesting) Yuma myotis (moderate) Eucalyptus, sycamore, oak/CA bay woodland, buildings (roosting) As stated above, CRLF, western pond turtle, Coast Range newt, and two-striped garter snake are known from the region. Given Froom Creek’s inconsistent flow regime, and series of focused day and night surveys of onsite aquatic habitat, these species are not expected to occur within the study area based on the lack of regular seasonal aquatic habitat. Under above average rainfall years when Froom Creek is flowing for a prolonged period and seasonal in-channel pools persist for at least 10 weeks, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that these species could find their way onto the site. Furthermore, seasonally ponded water along Calle Joaquin could also potentially provide seasonal habitat for these highly aquatic species, however, the high concentrations of crayfish and proximity to urban land uses and lack of connectivity to SLO Creek reduces the quality of this habitat. KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 35 4.0 CONCLUSION The Froom Ranch is situated in a biologically rich area of San Luis Obispo County composed of a mosaic of non-native and native grasslands, coast live oak/California bay woodland and coastal scrub/chaparral habitats bisected by drainages in the northeastern flank of the Irish Hills of the San Luis Range. Froom Creek traverses the site in a mostly north to south direction and joins San Luis Obispo Creek south of the site before flowing to the Pacific Ocean in Avila Beach. Wetland habitat occurs along the unnamed tributary drainages to Froom Creek, and in flat grassland areas where surface and subsurface water (groundwater) is impounded by LOVR and Calle Joaquin. The LOVR Roadside Channel, lower reach of Froom Creek, and Drainage 4 also contained riparian habitat composed of an arroyo willow monoculture. The most significant biological resources present onsite are the drainage features (i.e.: Froom Creek and Drainages 1, 2, 3, and 4) and associated wetland and riparian habitats, and the native serpentine bunchgrass grassland and serpentine rock outcrops supporting a suite of special status plant species, many of which are endemic to the San Luis Obispo area. Non-native annual grassland was the dominant plant community on the study area, primarily occurring in the flatter portions of the site where past disturbances such as cattle/horse feeding has occurred. Introduced perennial grassland composed of a monoculture of reed fescue was also present on the heavy clay soils in southern part of the site. The upper terrace in the southwest contained native serpentine bunchgrass grassland where rock outcrops and thinner, less developed soils were present. The wetland, riparian, and native bunchgrass grassland habitats delineated on the habitat map were identified as special status natural communities. Occurrences of special status plants were identified within the study area and their locations shown on Figure 7, the Special Status Plant Occurrence Map. Nine of the special status plants are California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B species, and one is a CRPR 2 species. CRPR 2 means that the species is rare in California but more widespread elsewhere. The federal and state endangered and CRPR 1B Chorro Creek bog thistle was also identified onsite, and was confined to wetland areas in Drainages 1 and 2 in the southwestern part of the study area. CRPR 4 species, such as Cambria morning glory and Palmer’s spineflower, are on a watch list and are relatively common in the project area, and therefore, should not meet the rarity threshold defined under CEQA. No special status wildlife were observed onsite, but Froom Creek could potentially provide a movement corridor for the federal threatened southern steelhead between upstream breeding areas and San Luis Obispo Creek when flowing water is present. Focused surveys for CRLF in 2018 confirmed this species is not present onsite. The analysis identified other special status wildlife (see Table 2) that could potentially occur in specific parts of the study area. The project includes varying levels of development and two important drainage components, the restoration of Froom Creek and construction of an offsite detention basin. With development, the proposal is to restore Froom Creek to a more historic drainage pattern where it will flow east across the site toward Los Osos Valley Road before it curves to parallel the Calle Joaquin corridor on the border of the site’s primary wetland feature. The restored Froom Creek corridor will convey flows from the project and the offsite upper reaches of the existing creek to the southeast corner of the property to connect to the existing creek bed that ultimately leads to a double box culvert going under Calle Joaquin and Highway 101. The restored Froom Creek corridor onsite would include a low flow channel and a large overbank area to convey larger flows. The low flow channel will provide a meandering conveyance designed KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 36 to create pools and riffle complexes and terraces throughout the onsite reach. At the Calle Joaquin wetlands, an overbank area is proposed where the creek bank will flatten out allowing flows from storms larger than a two–year event to migrate into the existing wetland. The Calle Joaquin wetland area is expected to be enhanced to create a large contiguous wetland feature directly abutting Froom Creek. Another drainage component of the proposed development plan is to remove the existing Irish Hills Plaza basin and replace it with a water quality feature (a channel similar to the current treatment feature on the Irish Hills Plaza site) between the Home Depot development and Specific Plan area and a new off-site basin. The proposed water quality features are expected to be adequate to meet storage volume of runoff consistent with regulatory agency requirements for the developed project as well as storage volume to accommodate the Irish Hills Plaza. It would be constructed to mirror the vegetation composition and structure present in the current Irish Hills Plaza basin. For further discussion of the onsite basins and proposed basin construction for the project, please refer to Appendix G. 5.0 REFERENCES Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: vascular plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley. Calflora. 2015 through 2018. Information on wild California plants for conservation, education, and appreciation. Berkeley, CA. Accessed via: http://www.calflora.org/. California Department of Fish and Game. 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. November 24, 2009. California Department of Fish and Game. 2001. Fish and Game Code of California, Section 3503.5. Gould Publications, Altamonte Springs, FL. California Department of Fish and Game. 2003. California Natural Diversity Database, Rarefind V. 3. Queried April and November 2015. Cleath-Harris Geologists, Inc. 2018. Froom Ranch Development Groundwater Impacts Assessment. County of San Luis Obispo. 2009 updated in 2016 (draft). Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Reports. Department of Planning and Building, Environmental Division. Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, E. Stockdale. April 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-008. Olympia, WA. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Hoover, Robert F. 1970. The Vascular Plants of San Luis Obispo County, California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 37 Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California, 1 November 1994. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. 255 pp. Kevin Merk Associates, LLC. 2015. Delineation of Waters of the United States and State of California on the Froom Ranch, San Luis Obispo County, California. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006 (January). 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224. Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Listing Determinations for 10 Distinct Population Segments of West Coast Steelhead; Final Rule. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2015 through 2018. Web Soil Survey. National Cooperative Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed via: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app. RRM Design Group. 2016. Froom Ranch Specific Plan. RRM Design Group. 2018. Irish Hills Plaza Stormwater Basin Maintenance Record. Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1973. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.). United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Plants. January 2000. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015 through 2018. National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Accessed via: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. APPENDIX A List of Plants and Animals Observed KMA KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc A - 1 Appendix A – List of Plants and Animals Observed Onsite During 2015 Field Surveys. Scientific Name Common Name Plants Achillea millefolium Yarrow Achyrachaena mollis Blow wives Acmispon americanus var. americanus Spanish lotus Acmispon glaber (=Lotus scoparius) Deer weed Acmispon wrangelianus Lotus Agrostis pallens Bent grass Aira caryophyllea* Silver hair grass Allium crispum Crinkled onion Ambrosia psilostachys Ragweed Amsinckia intermedia Common fiddleneck Anagallis arvensis Scarlet pimpernel Anthriscus caucalis* Bur chervil Aquilegia eximia Vanhouette’s columbine Artemisia californica California sagebrush Artemisia douglasiana Mugwort Asphodelus fistulosus* Onionweed Astragalus curtipes South coast milkvetch Astragalus gambelianus Gambel’s dwarf locoweed Avena barbata* Slender wild oats Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush Bloomeria crocea Golden stars Brachypodium distachyon* False brome Brassica nigra* Black mustard Brodiaea terrestris Dwarf brodiaea Bromus carinatus California brome Bromus diandrus* Ripgut brome Bromus hordeacous* Soft chess Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens* Red brome Calandrinia ciliata Red maids Calochortus argillosus Clay mariposa lily Calochortus clavatus ssp. clavatus Club-‐hair mariposa lily (List 4.3) Calochortus obispoensis San Luis mariposa lily (List 1B.2) Calystegia macrostegia ssp. cyclostegia Coast morning glory Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis Cambria morning glory (List 4.2) Cardamine californica California toothwort Carduus pycnocephalus* Italian thistle Carex praegracilis Clustered field sedge Carex senta Rough sedge Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis San Luis Obispo owl’s clover (List 1B.2) Ceanothus cuneatus Buck brush Centaurea solstitialis* Yellow star thistle Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Congdon’s tarplant (List 1B.1) Chenopodium album* Goosefoot Chlorogallum pomeridianum var. pomeridianum Soap plant Chorizanthe breweri Brewer’s spineflower (List 1B.3) Chorizanthe palmeri Palmer’s spineflower (List 4.2) Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense Chorro Creek bog thistle (FE, SE, List 1B.2) Cirsium vulgare* Bull thistle KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc A - 2 Scientific Name Common Name Clarkia bottae Botta’s clarkia Claytonia perfoliata Miner’s lettuce Conium maculatum* Poison hemlock Conyza canadensis Horseweed Corethrogyne filaginifolia Corethrogyne Crassula connata Pygmy weed Cryptantha clevelandii Cryptantha Cynodon dactylon* Bermuda grass Cyperus eragrostis Tall flatsedge Deinandra fasciculata Yellow tarweed Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae Eastwood’s larkspur (List 1B.2) Dichelostemma pulchra Blue dicks Dipsacus fullonum* Fuller’s teasel Distichlis spicata Saltgrass Dodecatheon clevelandii Padre’s shooting star Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina San Luis Obispo serpentine dudleya (List 1B.2) Dudleya blochmaniae Blochman’s dudleya (List 1B.1) Eleocharis macrostachya Spike rush Elymus glaucus Western wild rye Epilobium canum California fuchsia Erigeron philadelphicus Philadelphia fleabane Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat Eriogonum parvifolium Coastal buckwheat Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden yarrow Erodium botrys* Filaree Erodium cicutarium* Red-‐stemmed filaree Eschscholzia californica California poppy Eucalyptus globulus* Blue gum eucalyptus Euphorbia peplus* Petty spurge Euphorbia spathulata Spurge Festuca arundinaceae* Tall fescue Festuca microstachys Eastwood fescue Festuca perennis* Italian rye grass Filago californica California filago Filago (=Logfia) gallica* Narrowleaf cottonrose Foeniculum vulgare* Fennel Fritillaria biflora var. biflora Chocolate lily Galium aparine Bedstraw Galium porrigens Climbing bedstraw Gastridium ventricosum* Nit grass Genista monspessulana* French broom Geranium dissectum* Cut-‐leaf geranium Gilia achilleifolia California gilia Gilia capitatum Blue field gilia Gnaphalium californica California everlasting Gnaphalium purpureum Purple everlasting Hazardia squarrosa Saw-‐tooth golden bush Helminthotheca echioides Prickly ox tongue Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia Hayfield tarweed Hesperocyparis (=Cupressus) macrocarpa Monterey cypress Hesperoyucca whipplei Chaparral yucca KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc A - 3 Scientific Name Common Name Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Hirschfeldia incana* Summer mustard Hoita orbicularis Round-‐leaf leather root Hordeum brachyantherum Meadow barley Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum* Mediterranean barley Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum* Foxtail Hypochaeris glabra* Smooth cat’s ear Juncus bufonius Toad rush Juncus effusus Spreading rush Juncus patens Common rush Juncus phaeocephalus Brown headed rush Koeleria micrantha June grass Lactuca serriola* Wild lettuce Lamarckia aurea* Goldentop Lasthenia californica Common goldfields Layia jonesii Jones’s layia (List 1B.2) Leptosiphon parvifolius Variable linanthus Leymus condensatus Giant wild rye Leymus triticoides Creeping wild rye Lomatium utriculatum Biscuit root Lotus corniculatus Birdsfoot trefoil Lupinus bicolor Miniature lupine Lupinus microcarpus Chick lupine Lupinus nanus Sky lupine Lupinus succulentus Succulent lupine Lythrum hyssopifolium* Grass poly Malva nicaaensis* Bull mallow Matricaria matricarioides* Pineapple weed Medicago polymorpha* Bur clover Melica californica California melic Melica imperfecta Melic grass Melilotus sativa* Sweet cicily Microseris douglasii Douglas’ microseris Mimulus aurantiacus Sticky monkey flower Mimulus guttatus Seep monkey flower Muhlenbergia stricta Deer grass Nicotiana glauca Tree tobacco Oenanthe sarmentosa Water parsley Opuntia ficus-‐indica Prickly pear cactus Oxalis pes-‐caprae Bermuda buttercup Pellaea mucronata Birdfoot fern Pennisetum setaceum* Fountaingrass Phacelia imbricata Stinging phacelia Plagiobothrys nothofulvus Popcorn flower Plantago erecta California plantain Plantago lanceolata* English plantain Platanus racemosa Sycamore Platystemon californicus Cream cups Polypogon monspeliensis* Rabbitfoot grass Populus fremontii Fremont cottonwood Potentilla anserina Silverweed KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc A - 4 Scientific Name Common Name Prunus ilicifolia Holly-‐leaved cherry Psilocarphus tenellus Wooly marbles Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak Ranunculus californicus California buttercup Raphanus sativa* Wild radish Rhamnus (=Frangula) californica Coffeeberry Rosa californica California rose Rubus discolor Himalayan blackberry Rubus ursinus California blackberry Rumex acetosella* Sheep sorrel Rumex crispus* Curly dock Rumex pulcher* Fiddle dock Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow Salvia columbariae Chia sage Salvia mellifera Black sage Salvia spathacea Hummingbird sage Sanicula bipinnatifida Purple sanicle Sanicula crassicaulis Common sanicle Sanicula laciniata Coast sanicle Schinus molle* Peruvian pepper Schoenoplectus acutus var. occidentalis California tule Schoenoplectus californicus California bulrush Scirpus microcarpus Panicled bulrush Scrophularia californica California bee plant Senecio aphanactis Rayless ragwort (List 2.2) Sidalcea malviflora Checker bloom Silene californica California catch-‐fly Silybum marianum* Milk thistle Sisyrinchium bellum Blue-‐eyed grass Solanum xantii Purple nightshade Sonchus asper* Prickly sow thistle Stachys pycnantha Short spike hedge nettle Stipa (=Nassella) pulchra Purple needlegrass Symphoricarpos mollis Creeping snowberry Toxicodendron diversilobum Poison oak Trifolium depauperatum var. depauperatum Dwarf sack clover Trifolium fucatum Sour clover Trifolium hirtum* Rose clover Trifolium subterraneum* Subterranean clover Trifolium willdenovii Tomcat clover Triphysaria eriantha ssp. eriantha Butter and eggs Typha latifolia Cattail Umbellularia californica California bay laurel Urtica dioica ssp. holosericea Stinging nettle Verbena lasiostachys Western vervain Veronica anagallis-‐aquatica Water speedwell Vicia sativa* Spring vetch Vicia villosa ssp. villosa* Hairy vetch Viola pedunculata Johnny jump up Woodwardia fimbriata Giant chain fern Xanthium spinosum Spiny cocklebur KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc A - 5 Scientific Name Common Name Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur Zeltnera davyi Davy’s centaury Zigadenus fremontii Star lily Animals Accipiter cooperi Cooper’s hawk Agelaius phoenicius Red-‐winged blackbird Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper sparrow Aphelocoma corulescens Scrub jay Ardea herodias Great blue heron Bubo virginianus Great horned owl Buteo jamaicensis Red-‐tailed hawk Buteo lineatus Red-‐shouldered hawk Callipepla californica California quail Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird Canis latrans Coyote Carpodacus mexicanus House finch Cathartes aura Turkey vulture Chamae fasciata wrentit Circus cyaneus Northern harrier Egretta thula Snowy egret Elgaria multicarinata Alligator lizard Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s blackbird Icterus bullockii Bullock’s oriole Melanerpes formicivorus Acorn woodpecker Melazone crissalis California towhee Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird Odocoileus hemionus Black-‐tailed deer Pituophis catenifer catenifer Pacific gopher snake Procyon lotor Raccoon Regalus calendula Ruby crowned kinglet Sayornis nigricans Black phoebe Sceloporis occidentalis Western fence lizard Setophaga townsendi Townsend’s warbler Sialia mexicana Western blue bird Spermophilus beecheyi California ground-‐squirrel Sturnella neglecta Meadowlark Sturnus vulgaris* European starling Thomomys bottae Botta’s pocket gopher Tyrannus verticalis King bird Zenaida macroura Mourning dove Zonotrichia leucophorys White crowned sparrow *Asterisk identifies non-‐native species; species in bold type are special status species. APPENDIX B Special Status Biological Resources Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring Onsite KMA KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. B - 1 Appendix B. Special-Status Biological Resources Table Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Suitable Habitat Present or Detected in Study Area? Likelihood of Encounter Onsite LICHENS/BRYOPHYTES Firm cup lichen Cladonia firma --/--/-- Lichen known from maritime habitats in Europe and North America on stabilized sand dunes on the coast. Documented in the Morro Bay/Los Osos area on sands of marine origin. No suitable habitat present onsite. Not expected to occur. Not expected Splitting yarn lichen Sulcaria isidiifera --/--/-- Known from the Los Osos area growing on branches of coast live oak and maritime chaparral plants in sandy areas. No suitable habitat present onsite. All reported collections are from the Baywood fine sands of Los Osos. Not expected to occur based on the lack of suitable habitat. Not expected PLANTS Adobe sanicle Sanicula maritima --/R/1B.1 Perennial herb; blooms February through March; ranges from 30 to 240 meters; Occurs on clay and serpentine soils in chaparral, coastal prairie, meadows, seeps, and valley and foothill grassland. Potential habitat present in on-site grasslands in proximity to serpentine rock outcrops. Not observed within the study area during floristic surveys. Not expected to occur. Not expected Arroyo de la Cruz manzanita Arctostaphylos cruzensis --/--/1B.2 Perennial shrub; blooms from December to March; occurs between 60 and 310 meters in sandy soils; found in broadleaved upland forest, coastal bluff scrub, closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal scrub and valley and foothill grassland. This perennial shrub would have been easily identifiable during surveys. Not observed during surveys. Not present onsite. Not expected Beach spectaclepod Dithyrea maritima --/T/1B.1 Rhizomatous, perennial herb; blooms March through May; found in sandy soils, usually near shore, in coastal dunes and coastal scrub habitats; ranges from 3 to 50 meters in elevation. Site is too far from the immediate coast for this species to occur. Species only known to occur on sand dunes along the coast. Not observed during surveys. Not present onsite. Not expected Betty’s dudleya Dudleya abramsii ssp. bettinae --/--/1B.2 Perennial succulent; blooms May through July and is endemic to coastal San Luis Obispo County west of Cerro Romualdo; found in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands, usually on serpentine outcrops or shallow rocky soils; ranges in elevation from 20 to 180 meters. Suitable serpentine soils present on-site, but this particular subspecies is known to occur further west of the property towards Morro Bay and Cayucos. The Dudleya observed onsite was D. abramsii ssp. murina. Betty’s dudleya was not observed onsite and is not expected to occur. Not expected Black-flowered figwort Scrophularia atrata --/--/1B.2 Perennial herb; blooms April through July; ranges from 10 to 500 meters in elevation; occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and riparian scrub habitats, typically on sandy or diatomaceous shale soils. Marginal habitat present along the edges of coast live oak woodland and riparian habitats on-site, which were searched during field work. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur. S. californica was identified on site. Not expected KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. B - 2 Appendix B. Special-Status Biological Resources Table Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Suitable Habitat Present or Detected in Study Area? Likelihood of Encounter Onsite Blochman’s dudleya Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae --/--/1B.1 Perennial herb; blooms April through June; found on rocky, often clay or serpentine soils in coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland; ranges from 5 to 450 meters in elevation. This species was observed growing on rock outcrops in select locations in the southwestern part of the study area. Refer to Special Status Plant Occurrences Map. High Blochman’s leafy daisy Erigeron blochmaniae --/--/1B.2 Rhizomatous perennial herb; blooms July through August; ranges from 3 to 45 meters in elevation and occurs in coastal dunes and coastal scrub. This species is restricted to coastal dunes typically along the immediate coastline. No suitable habitat or soils present onsite. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Brewer’s spineflower Chorizanthe breweri --/--/1B.3 Occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub habitats on serpentine derived soils and rock outcrops, mostly in rocky and gravelly areas; ranges in elevation from 45 to 800 meters; annual herb; blooms May through August. This species was observed growing on serpentine rock outcrops and gravelly soils in the southwestern part of the study area. Refer to Special Status Plant Occurrences Map. High California seablite Suaeda californica E/--/1B.1 Perennial succulent shrub that grows along the margins of coastal salt marshes in a narrow elevational range from 0 to 5 meters; known to occur in the Morro Bay area Not expected to occur onsite due to the lack of suitable habitat (i.e., no coastal salt marsh habitat present). Not expected Cambria (San Luis Obispo County) morning-glory Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis --/--/4.2 Rhizomatous, perennial herb; blooms from April to May; occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and sparse to dense grassland covering sloped or flat areas in clay-rich soils; ranges from 60- 500 meters; restricted to outer South Coast ranges in SLO and Santa Barbara Counties. Observed as a component of onsite serpentine bunchgrass grasslands. Present in varying densities throughout the western part of the study area in grassland habitat. This species is common in area and is CRPR 4, and it’s observed locations are not shown on Special Status Plant Occurrences Map. High Caper-fruited tropidocarpum Tropidocarpum capparideum --/--/1B.1 Annual herb; blooms March through April; ranges from 1 to 455 meters and is found on alkaline clay soils in valley and foothill grassland. Potentially suitable habitat present in onsite grassland habitats. Not observed during surveys when species would have been in flower and identifiable. Not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Chorro Creek bog thistle (San Luis Obispo fountain thistle) Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense E/E/1B.2 Perennial herb; blooms February to July; ranges from 35 to 365 meters in elevation; occurs in chaparral and cismontane woodland habitats, often in serpentine seeps. Species was observed in wetland habitat along the upper portion s of Drainages 1 and 2. Refer to Special Status Plant Occurrences Map. Project was designed to avoid occurrences and provide a minimum 50-foot setback. High KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. B - 3 Appendix B. Special-Status Biological Resources Table Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Suitable Habitat Present or Detected in Study Area? Likelihood of Encounter Onsite Club-haired mariposa lily Calochortus clavatus ssp. clavatus --/--/4.3 Perennial bulbiferous herb known to occur on serpentine rock outcrops, valley grassland (i.e., perennial bunchgrass), chaparral, and foothill woodland; typically blooms from May to June. Species was observed in the extreme southwestern portion of the study area growing on rocky serpentine soils in coastal scrub and native grasslands. Refer to Special Status Plant Occurrences Map. High Coast woolly threads Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata --/--/1B.2 Annual herb that grows in coastal sand dunes in open spaces of the coastal strand; known to occur in the Montana de Oro area in sandy soils. No suitable habitat present. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Coastal goosefoot Chenopodium littoreum --/--/1B.2 Annual herb that grows on sandy flats in coastal dunes along wetland and salt marsh habitat. Typically found between 30 and 100 meters, and is known from the Morro Bay estuary. No suitable habitat present onsite for this species. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Congdon’s tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii --/--/1B.2 Annual herb; blooms from June to November; occurs in moist alkaline conditions in marshes, swamps, vernal pools, and valley and foothill grassland habitats; ranges from 1 to 230 meters in elevation. Species was observed growing in the temporary stormwater basin in the northern part of the site. Refer to Special Status Plant Occurrences Map. High Coulter’s goldfields Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri --/--/1B.1 Annual herb that grows in coastal salt marshes, playas, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools usually on alkaline soils from 1- 1,400 meters. Marginal habitat present in onsite wetlands and seeps. Only Lasthenia californica, a common species, was observed growing in and around the serpentine outcrops. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Coulter’s saltbush Atriplex coulteri --/--/1B.2 Perennial herb grows in coastal bluff scrub, sandy dune habitat as well as in valley grassland and coastal sage scrub. Marginal habitat present onsite. Not observed during surveys, therefore, not expected to occur. Not expected Crisp monardella Monardella crispa --/--/1B.2 Rhizomatous, perennial herb; blooms April through August; ranges from 10 to 120 meters in elevation and occurs on sandy soils in coastal dunes and coastal scrub. Species typically occurs in coastal dunes in close proximity to the Pacific Ocean, and the site is therefore outside the species range. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Not expected KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. B - 4 Appendix B. Special-Status Biological Resources Table Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Suitable Habitat Present or Detected in Study Area? Likelihood of Encounter Onsite Cuesta Pass checkerbloom Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. anomala --/R/1B.2 Perennial herb; blooms May through June; ranges from 600 to 800 meters and is found on serpentine soils in closed-cone coniferous forest; known from only three occurrences on Cuesta Ridge in San Luis Obispo County. Project site is outside the known range for this species. Although suitable serpentine soils are present onsite, only the common checkerbloom, Sidalcea malviflora, was observed in bunchgrass grassland on the site. Cuesta Pass checkerbloom was not observed during surveys and is not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Cuesta Ridge thistle Cirsium occidentale var. lucianum --/--/1B.2 Perennial herb known to occur along the Cuesta Ridge in openings on steep rocky serpentinite slopes from 500 to 750 meters. Although suitable serpentine-based soils are present onsite, the study area is lower in elevation than areas in the Santa Lucia Mountains where this species has been observed. This species was not observed during field surveys, and is not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Dacite manzanita Arctostaphylos tomentosa ssp. daciticola --/--/1B.1 Perennial shrub known to occur in chaparral and cismontane woodland. Only one known occurrence of this species in SLO County on the porphyry buttes (Hollister Peak) east of Morro Bay No suitable habitat for this species present onsite. Perennial shrub would have been identifiable if encountered during the surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Diablo Canyon blue grass Poa diabolic --/--/1B.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb known from highly localized areas along the coast from Montana de Oro south onto Diablo Nuclear Power Plant property. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub and closed cone coniferous habitat types on shale. Marginal habitat present onsite. This species was not observed during surveys of the site at times when it would have been identifiable if encountered. Given it is a highly restricted species known to occur on the western flank of the San Luis Range, and there are no shale outcroppings onsite, this species is not expected to occur. Not expected Dune larkspur Delphinium parryi ssp. blochmaniae --/--/1B.2 Perennial herb; blooms April through May; occurs in maritime chaparral and coastal dune habitats at elevations ranging from 0 to 200 meters, typically on volcanic soils and/or rocky slopes. No suitable habitat present onsite due to lack of sandy soils. Not observed during spring surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. A closely related species was observed onsite – see below. Not expected Dwarf soaproot Chlorogalum pomeridianum var. minus --/--/1B.2 Bulbiferous, perennial herb; blooms May to August; occurs on serpentine soils in chaparral and valley and foothill grassland habitats, ranging from 305 to 1000 meters in elevation. Suitable habitat present at serpentine rock outcrops and thin soils in native bunchgrass grassland. Only the common soaproot, Chlorogalum pomeridianum var. pomeridianum was observed onsite. Dwarf Soaproot was not observed during rare plant surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Not expected KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. B - 5 Appendix B. Special-Status Biological Resources Table Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Suitable Habitat Present or Detected in Study Area? Likelihood of Encounter Onsite Eastwood’s larkspur Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae --/--/1B.2 Perennial herb known to occur on serpentine based soils (clays) and outcrops in the general San Luis Obispo area with collections made on Camp San Luis Obispo. Blooms March to May. Species was observed in the southwestern portion of the study area growing in coastal scrub and native grasslands on rocky serpentine soils. Refer to Special Status Plant Occurrences Map. High Hardham’s evening- primrose Camissoniopsis hardhamiae --/--/1B.2 Annual herb known to occur in chaparral and foothill woodland habitats; typically blooms from March to May. Only one recorded occurrence in the region from sandy openings in oak woodland in Los Osos. No suitable sandy soils present onsite. Not observed during field surveys, therefore, it is not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Hooked popcorn flower Plagiobothrys uncinatus --/--/1B.2 Annual herb known to occur in the Santa Lucia Mountains growing in chaparral typically on shale and sandstone soils. No suitable habitat present onsite. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur. Not expected Hoover’s bent grass Agrostis hooveri --/--/1B.2 Stoloniferous, perennial herb; blooms April to July; occurs between 60 and 600 meters on sandy soils in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grassland habitats. No suitable sandy soils present to support this species. Grassland and oak woodland areas were searched for this species, but it was not observed. Not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Hoover’s button-celery Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri --/--/1B.1 An herb that can occur as either an annual or a perennial; blooms in July and occurs at elevations ranging from 3 to 45 meters; found in vernal pools, seasonally wet grasslands, and often in roadside ditches. Marginal habitat present in wetlands on-site. Seasonally wet areas were searched for this species and it was not observed. Not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Indian Knob mountainbalm Eriodictyon altissimum E/E/1B.1 Evergreen shrub; blooms March through June; ranges in elevation from 80 to 270 meters and occurs in maritime chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub, usually on sandstone; often found in open disturbed areas. Marginal habitat identified in oak woodland and coastal scrub habitats on-site. No suitable sandstone based soils present. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Jones’ layia Layia jonesii --/--/1B.2 Annual herb; blooms March through May; occurs on clay soils and serpentine outcrops in chaparral and valley and foothill grassland; ranges in elevation from 5 to 400 meters. Species was observed in the southwestern portion of the study area growing in native grasslands on rocky serpentine soils. Refer to Special Status Plant Occurrences Map. High Leafy tarplant Deinandra increscens ssp. foliosa --/--/1B.2 Annual herb; blooms June through September; typically found in sandy soils in valley and foothill grassland, and ranges from 300 to 500 meters in elevation. No suitable sandy soils present on-site to support this species. Leafy tarplant is known to occur further east on the Arroyo Grande NE quad. Not observed during surveys and not expected to be present onsite. Not expected KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. B - 6 Appendix B. Special-Status Biological Resources Table Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Suitable Habitat Present or Detected in Study Area? Likelihood of Encounter Onsite Marsh sandwort Arenaria paludicola E/E/1B.1 Stoloniferous, perennial herb; blooms May to August; occurs in freshwater marshes and swamps, bogs and fens, and some coastal scrub, ranging from 3 to 170 meters in elevation; common associates include Typha, Juncus, and Scirpus. Marginal habitat was identified in Drainage 1. Species was not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Mesa horkelia Horkelia cuneata ssp. puberula --/--/1B.1 Sandy or gravelly sites in chaparral, coastal scrub and cismontane woodland; 70 to 700 meter elevation range. Marginal habitat identified in coastal scrub and oak woodland on-site, but this species typically occurs in sandy soils not on clay and serpentine. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Miles’ milk-vetch Astragalus didymocarpus var. milesianus --/--/1B.2 Annual herb; blooms March to June; found in coastal scrub habitats, typically occurring on clay soils; ranges in elevation 20 to 90 meters. Suitable habitat identified in coastal scrub and adjacent bunchgrass grassland habitats on- site. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur within the site. Not expected Morro manzanita Arctostaphylos morroensis T/--/1B.1 Evergreen shrub; blooms December through March; ranges in elevation from 5 to 205 meters; typically found on sandy-loam or Baywood sands in chaparral, woodlands, coastal dunes and coastal scrub. Project site is outside the known range for this species. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Most beautiful jewel- flower Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus --/--/1B.2 Annual herb; blooms April through June; occurs on serpentine soils in chaparral, valley and foothill grassland, and cismontane woodland, ranging from 120 to 1000 meters in elevation. Suitable serpentine soils and rock outcrops present. Not observed during surveys when this species would have been in identifiable condition. Not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Mouse-gray dudleya (aka San Luis Obispo dudleya) Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina --/--/1B.3 Perennial succulent herb; blooms May through June; occurs in chaparral and cismontane woodland, usually on serpentine rock outcrops, at elevations ranging from 90 to 300 meters. Species was observed in the western portion of the study area growing in coastal scrub and native grasslands on rocky serpentine soils, and in the northern portion of Froom Creek. Refer to Special Status Plant Occurrences Map. High Oso manzanita Arctostaphylos osoensis --/--/1B.2 Perennial shrub known to occur in chaparral and cismontane woodland on the porphyry buttes east of Morro Bay. No suitable habitat present. Shrub would have been identifiable if encountered during surveys. Not expected to occur. Not expected KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. B - 7 Appendix B. Special-Status Biological Resources Table Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Suitable Habitat Present or Detected in Study Area? Likelihood of Encounter Onsite Palmer’s monardella Monardella palmeri --/--/1B.2 Rhizomatous, perennial herb; blooms June through August; occurs on serpentine soils in chaparral and cismontane woodland habitats at elevations ranging from 200 to 800 meters. Suitable serpentine soils and habitat present onsite. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Palmer’s spineflower Chorizanthe palmeri --/--/List 4.2 Annual herb known to occur on serpentine-based soils in grassland and coastal scrub habitats in the outer coast ranges of Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara Counties. Blooms from April through August Species was observed in the western portion of the study area growing in native grasslands on thin rocky and clay derived serpentine soils. This species is common in area and is CRPR 4, and it’s observed locations are not shown on Special Status Plant Occurrences Map. High Pappose tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi --/--/1B.2 Annual herb known to occur in coastal prairie, meadows and seeps, coastal salt marsh and valley and foothill grasslands typically vernally mesic; elevation ranges from 2 – 420 meters. Only occurrence of this species in the area is known from the Boysen Ranch wetland mitigation area at Foothill Blvd. and Los Osos Valley Road in seasonal wetlands on the valley floor east of Laguna Lake. It is possible that this occurrence was confused with Congdon’s tarplant, which is known from the Boysen Ranch. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur. Not expected Pecho manzanita Arctostaphylos pechoensis --/--/1B.2 Perennial shrub; blooms November to March; occurs on siliceous shale in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, and coastal scrub habitats, ranging from 170 to 1100 meters in elevation. No suitable habitat present. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Pismo clarkia Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata E/R/1B.1 Annual herb; blooms May through July; ranges from 25 to 185 meters in elevation and occurs in sandy soils in chaparral (margins, openings), cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grassland. No suitable habitat present. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Rayless (chaparral) ragwort Senecio aphanactis --/--/2.2 Annual herb; blooms January through April; ranges from 15 to 800 meters in elevation; typically found on drying alkaline flats, serpentine soils and barren gravelly or sandy slopes in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub habitats. Three plants were observed at one location in the southwestern portion of the study area, growing on rocky serpentine soils. Refer to Special Status Plant Occurrences Map. High Saline clover Trifolium hydrophilum --/--/1B.2 Annual herb; blooms April through June; ranges from 0 to 300 meters in elevation and occurs in mesic and alkaline conditions in marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools. Marginal habitat identified in wetlands on-site, however not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Not expected KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. B - 8 Appendix B. Special-Status Biological Resources Table Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Suitable Habitat Present or Detected in Study Area? Likelihood of Encounter Onsite Salt marsh bird’s-beak Chloropyron maritimum ssp. maritimum E/E/1B.2 Annual herb known to occur along margins of salt marsh habitat and coastal dunes. Limited to the higher zones of the Morro Bay estuary. No suitable habitat present onsite. Not observed during surveys. Species not expected to occur onsite. Not expected San Benito fritillary Fritillaria viridea --/--/1B.2 Bulbiferous, perennial herb; blooms March to May; ranges from 200 to 1525 meters in elevation and occurs in chaparral on serpentine soils. Suitable serpentine soils present. Not observed during surveys. Only Fritillaria biflora observed onsite. Not expected to occur onsite. Not expected San Joaquin spearscale Atriplex joaquinana --/--/1B.2 Annual herb that grows in seasonal alkali wetlands and alkali sink scrub typically found in the San Joaquin Valley. One recorded occurrence of this species from 1899 in CNDDB was from the vicinity of Morro Bay. Unlikely that this species occurs in the project area. No alkali meadow habitat present, or other indicator species such as Distichlis spicata or Frankenia salina. Not observed during surveys, and not expected to occur onsite. Not expected San Luis mariposa-lily Calochortus obispoensis --/--/1B.2 Bulbiferous, perennial herb; blooms May to July; ranges from 75 to 730 meters on sandstone, serpentine and/or sandy soils in chaparral, coastal scrub and valley and foothill grassland; endemic to San Luis Obispo County and is known from localized occurrences in the San Luis Obispo and Arroyo Grande region. Species was observed in the southwestern portion of the study area growing in native grasslands on rocky serpentine soils. Refer to Special Status Plant Occurrences Map. High San Luis Obispo (La Panza) mariposa-lily Calochortus simulans --/--/1B.3 Bulbiferous, perennial herb; blooms April to May; occurs in sandy, often granitic, sometimes serpentine soils in chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, and valley and foothill grassland; ranges from 395 to 1100 meters in elevation. Suitable serpentine soils present in western portion of site. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Not expected San Luis Obispo County lupine Lupinus ludovicianus --/--/1B.2 Perennial herb; blooms April through July; commonly found on sandstone or sandy soils in chaparral and cismontane woodland, ranging in elevation from 50 to 525 meters. Suitable habitat identified in oak woodlands and adjacent scrub/grasslands on-site, but no suitable soil substrate given the serpentine and clay soils. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Not expected San Luis Obispo monardella Monardella frutescens --/--/1B.2 Rhizomatous, perennial herb; blooms May through September; ranges from 10 to 200 meters and occurs on sandy soils in coastal dunes and coastal scrub. Species is known to occur in sand dunes along Pacific Ocean. N o suitable habitat present. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Not expected KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. B - 9 Appendix B. Special-Status Biological Resources Table Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Suitable Habitat Present or Detected in Study Area? Likelihood of Encounter Onsite San Luis Obispo owl’s clover Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis --/--/1B.2 Annual herb; blooms in April; ranges from 10 to 400 meters in elevation and occurs in meadows, seeps, and valley and foothill grassland. Occurrences of this species were observed in the southwestern portion of the study area, growing in native grasslands on rocky serpentine and clay soils. Refer to Special Status Plant Occurrences Map. High San Luis Obispo sedge Carex obispoensis --/--/1B.2 Rhizomatous, perennial herb; blooms April to June; ranges from 10 to 790 meters; occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland (usually near seeps and springs); Usually occurs in transition zone on sand, clay or serpentine. Suitable soils and wetland/seep habitat present on-site. Suitable habitat was searched, but species was not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Santa Lucia manzanita Arctostaphylos luciana --/--/1B.2 Perennial shrub; blooms February to March; occurs on shale outcrops in chaparral and cismontane woodland habitats; ranges from 350 to 850 meters in elevation. Site lacks shale outcrops and is well outside known range for this species. Perennial shrub would have been identifiable during field surveys. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Santa Margarita manzanita Arctostaphylos pilosula --/--/1B.2 Perennial shrub; blooms December to March; occurs in Closed cone coniferous forests, cismontane woodland, and chaparral, typically on shale outcrops/soils in San Luis Obispo and Monterey counties; ranges from 170 to 1100 meters in elevation. Potentially suitable habitat identified in oak woodland on-site. Perennial shrub would have been identifiable during field surveys. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Straight-awned spineflower Chorizanthe rectispina --/--/1B.3 Annual herb; blooms May through July; occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub habitats, ranging in elevation from 200 to 1035 meters; has even been found in vineyards and other frequently disturbed areas. Found in granite sand or disintegrating shale. Marginal habitat present in coastal scrub and oak woodland habitat on-site. Unlikely to occur on serpentine-based soils. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Surf thistle Cirsium rhothophilum --/T/1B.2 Perennial herb; blooms April through June; ranges in elevation from 3 to 60 meters; occurs in coastal dune and coastal bluff scrub communities in close proximity to the ocean. No suitable habitat present. Not observed during surveys. Not expected to occur onsite. Not expected Woodland woolly threads Monolopia gracilens --/--/1B.2 Annual herb known to occur in chaparral, valley and foothill grasslands and cismontane woodlands growing on serpentine soils. Potentially suitable habitat present in grasslands near serpentine rock outcrops. This species was not observed within the project area. Not expected to occur. Not expected INVERTEBRATES Atascadero June beetle Polyphylla nubila --/SA/-- Sand dunes. No suitable habitat. Not expected to occur. Not expected KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. B - 10 Appendix B. Special-Status Biological Resources Table Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Suitable Habitat Present or Detected in Study Area? Likelihood of Encounter Onsite California linderiella Linderiella occidentalis --/SA/-- Seasonal pools in grasslands underlain by hardpan or in sandstone depressions. Marginal habitat identified in seasonally wet areas. Site does not appear to support necessary habitat attributes to support the species. Further, no vernal pool habitat present onsite or in the immediate vicinity. Unlikely to occur. Low Globose dune beetle Coelus globosus --/SA/-- Inhabits coastal sand dune habitat in foredunes and sand hummocks most common beneath dune vegetation. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur onsite Not expected Mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail) Tryonia imitator --/SA/-- Found only in permanently submerged areas in coastal lagoons. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. Not expected Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus --/SA/-- Wind-protected tree groves of eucalyptus, Monterey pine and cypress with nectar and water sources nearby. No suitable overwintering habitat present on-site. Eucalyptus trees present do not create the necessary microclimate needed for overwintering. Species expected to forage onsite, but is not expected to use the project area for overwintering. Not expected Morro Bay blue butterfly Plebejus icarioides moroensis --/SA/-- Inhabits stabilized dunes and adjacent areas of coastal San Luis Obispo and NW Santa Barbara counties. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. Not expected Morro shoulderband snail Helminthoglypta walkeriana E/--/-- Known to occur in coastal sage scrub and dune scrub habitats on Baywood fine sands on the southside of Morro Bay. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. Not expected San Luis Obispo pyrg Pyrgulopsis taylori --/SA/-- Freshwater habitats in San Luis Obispo County. Marginal habitat present in lower wetlands of project area, but unlikely since they are man-induced wetlands. Unlikely to occur. Low Sandy beach tiger beetle Cicindela hirticollis gravida --/SA/-- Inhabits area adjacent to non- brackish water along the coast of California from San Francisco Bay to Northern Mexico. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. Not expected Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi T/SA/-- Endemic to grasslands of central coast mountains; opportunistic species inhabits a variety of small clear-water pools including sandstone depressions and grassland swales that contain surface water for approximately 30 days during the winter and spring rain season. Marginal habitat identified in seasonally wet areas at Calle Joaquin wetland. Nearest observation of vernal pool fairy shrimp is on the Chevron Tank Farm near the San Luis Obispo Airport. Past studies for Calle Joaquin improvements did not locate this species. Unlikely that this species would have colonized the site in a short period of time. Unlikely to occur. Low White sand bear scarab beetle Lichnanthe albipilosa --/SA/-- Coastal sand dunes of San Luis Obispo County, in the vicinity of dune lakes. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. Not expected KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. B - 11 Appendix B. Special-Status Biological Resources Table Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Suitable Habitat Present or Detected in Study Area? Likelihood of Encounter Onsite FISH Steelhead – South/Central California ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus T/SSC/-- Fresh water, fast flowing, highly oxygenated, clear, cool stream where riffles tend to predominate pools. Suitable habitat present further upstream offsite in Froom Creek. SLO Creek is identified by USFWS as critical habitat for the species, and Froom Creek is shown as a steelhead stream. Potentially could occur onsite during high rainfall years when flowing water is present. Not expected to spawn onsite, but would use this portion of Froom Creek as a movement corridor to areas of suitable habitat further upstream in the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. High Tidewater goby Eucyclogobius newberryi E/SSC/-- Brackish water habitats along the California coast from San Diego county to Del Norte county. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. Not expected AMPHIBIANS/REPTILES California red-legged frog Rana draytonii T/SSC/-- Lowland and foothills in or near permanent or semi-permanent sources of deep water (at least 0.5 meter) bordered by emergent wetland and/or riparian vegetation. May use a variety of aquatic and upland habitats during the year for refugia and dispersal. Potential habitat was identified in several locations onsite including a ponded culvert at Calle Joaquin wetland. Onsite portion of Froom Creek does not contain aquatic habitat with any frequency to support this species, which reduces the potential for red-legged frogs to successfully breed onsite. Nearest recorded occurrence is from the wastewater treatment ponds to the east of San Luis Obispo Creek that are separated from the site by Highway 101 and Los Osos Valley Road. No direct surveys were conducted as part of this investigation due to the lack of aquatic habitat greater than 12 inches deep due to the ongoing drought. Unlikely to occur onsite due to the lack of suitable aquatic habitat and presence of predators. Low Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii --/SSC/-- Frequents a wide variety of habitat including sandy washes with scattered shrubs and open areas for sunning. Loose soils for burial. Marginal habitat present on-site given dense clay soils and rock outcroppings. Even though site does not contain loose friable sandy soils, species could potentially occur in onsite coastal scrub habitat in upper elevations, but appears unlikely. Low Coast Range newt Taricha torosa torosa --/SSC/-- Coastal drainages from Mendocino County to San Diego County. Lives in terrestrial habitat and breeds in ponds, reservoirs and slow moving streams. No suitable habitat present in this portion of Froom Creek. The onsite tributary drainages are highly ephemeral in nature and lack suitable in channel ponds and vegetative cover to support breeding. Known records of this species are in Santa Lucia Mountains to the north and Arroyo Grande Creek to the south. Not expected to occur based on the lack of suitable habitat. Not expected KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. B - 12 Appendix B. Special-Status Biological Resources Table Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Suitable Habitat Present or Detected in Study Area? Likelihood of Encounter Onsite Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii --/SSC/-- Occurs in partly shaded, shallow streams and riffles with a rocky substrate in a variety of habitats typically in the upper mountainous reaches of drainages in the outer coast ranges. Species needs at least some cobble-sized substrate for egg- laying and 15 weeks of aquatic habitat to attain metamorphosis. No suitable habitat present onsite given the highly ephemeral nature of the drainages. Two old occurrence records in CNDDB from upper San Luis Obispo Creek and upper Lopez Canyon. Unlikely that this species occurs onsite due to lower elevation of the Ranch and lack of typical habitat. Not expected Silvery legless lizard Anniella pulchra pulchra --/SSC/-- Sandy or loamy soils in valley and foothill woodlands, chaparral, coastal scrub and coastal dunes. No suitable habitat present onsite due to the heavy clay soils and rocky serpentine outcrops. Not expected to occur. Not expected Southern Pacific (western) pond turtle Emys marmorata --/SSC/-- Basking sites such as partially submerged logs, vegetation mats, or open mud banks. No suitable habitat present in onsite drainages, and marginal habitat present seasonally within the Calle Joaquin wetland. Species known to occur in San Luis Obispo Creek where perennial water is present. Unlikely to occur onsite due to barriers such as Highway 101 and LOVR. Not expected Two-striped garter snake Thamnophis hammondii --/SSC/-- Perennial and intermittent streams bordered by dense vegetation; stock ponds bordered by dense emergent riparian vegetation. Small highly ephemeral drainages and wetlands do not provide sufficient habitat for this species. Not expected to occur. Not expected Western spadefoot Spea hammondii --/SSC/-- Grassland habitats and vernal pools for breeding/egg-laying with loose friable soils for burrowing. No suitable vernal pool habitat present nor are suitable loose friable soils present to support burrowing during dry summer/fall months. Not expected to occur. Not expected BIRDS Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia --/SSC/-- (burrow sites and wintering sites) Grasslands; nests in burrows. They prefer areas with low vegetation on small hills that provide a vantage point of the surrounding areas. Suitable habitat present in grasslands, however extensive burrowing mammal activity was not observed within the project area. Could occur as a seasonal transient overwintering on and around the site, but would not be expected to breed onsite. Low California black rail Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus --/T/-- Freshwater marshes, wet meadows and shallow margins of saltwater marshes bordering larger bays. Needs water depths of about 1 inch that does not fluctuate and dense vegetation for nesting. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. Not expected California clapper rail Rallus longirostris obsoletus E/E/-- Occurs in salt-water and brackish marshes traversed by tidal sloughs with abundant growths of pickleweed. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. Not expected KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. B - 13 Appendix B. Special-Status Biological Resources Table Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Suitable Habitat Present or Detected in Study Area? Likelihood of Encounter Onsite California condor Gymnogyps californianus E/E/-- Roosts in cliffs or ledges; feeds in open areas up to 100 miles from roost. No suitable roosting or nesting habitat on-site, but could forage in grasslands as a very rare transient. Unlikely to occur. Not expected California homed lark Eremophila alpestris actia --/WL/-- Sparse coastal sage scrub and grasslands. Suitable foraging and nesting habitat in grasslands on- site. Could occur. Moderate California least tern Sterna antillarum browni E/E/-- Nests along coast from San Francisco Bay to northern Baja California. Nests on sandy beaches, alkali flats, landfills or paved areas. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. Not expected Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii --/WL/-- (nesting) Wooded areas. Nests in tall trees and often hunts around human structures. Potentially suitable nesting habitat present in oak/bay woodlands and eucalyptus/sycamore trees on-site. Could also forage across the site. Could occur. High Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis --/WL/-- (nonbreeding/ wintering) Open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low foothills and fringes of pinyon-juniper habitats. Eats mostly lagomorphs, ground squirrels and mice. Suitable foraging habitat present in grasslands on-site, however this species typically does not nest in California. Could occur as a seasonal transient during fall/winter months. Low Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos --/WL, FP/-- (nesting & nonbreeding/ wintering) Nests on cliffs and rocks and forages in open country, grasslands. Suitable foraging habitat in grasslands on-site. Unlikely to nest on the property, but rock outcroppings and cliff faces in the upper elevations outside the study area could be used for nesting. Low Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus --/SSC/-- (nesting) Nests in shrubs in coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats or in trees that overlook grasslands; preys over semi-open habitats and feeds primarily on large insects and often skewers prey on a barb or thorn to cache for later feeding. Suitable woodland, grassland, and scrub habitat present for foraging and nesting. Could occur. Moderate Merlin Falco columbarius --/WL/-- (nonbreeding/ wintering) Nests outside of California; forages in a variety of habitats. Uses clumps of trees or windbreaks for roosting. Suitable foraging habitat present on-site. Could occur. Low Northern harrier Circus cyaneus --/SSC/-- (nesting) Forages and nests in grasslands and marshes. Requires large expanses of habitat for foraging. Suitable habitat present onsite for this species as the grassland habitat is expansive and connected to large open space. Observed foraging across the site, but no signs of nesting behavior. Could occur. Low Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus --/WL/-- (nesting) Catches pray in air and in open ground in grasslands. Nests in cliffs overlooking large areas. No nesting habitat present, but rocky outcrops in hills outside study area could potentially support nesting activities. Potential foraging habitat present on-site. Unlikely to occur. Low KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. B - 14 Appendix B. Special-Status Biological Resources Table Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Suitable Habitat Present or Detected in Study Area? Likelihood of Encounter Onsite Purple martin Progne subis --/SSC/-- (nesting) Nests in cavities of large trees in oak and riparian woodlands, and low elevation coniferous forests; rare; usually found near water. Suitable nesting habitat present in oak woodland and marginal habitat present in riparian habitat along LOVR. Could occur. Low Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus --/WL/-- (nesting) Prefers riparian plant communities, but can be found in pine and oak woodlands on north-facing slopes. Potentially suitable foraging and nesting habitat in oak//bay woodland and large trees present onsite. Could occur. Low Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor (nesting colony) C/SSC/-- (nesting colony) Found near freshwater habitats where it nests in emergent freshwater or riparian vegetation. This species prefers nesting in dense thickets of cattails and tules. Due to their highly colonial nature, nesting areas must be large enough to support a colony of about 50 pairs. No suitable nesting habitat present in onsite detention basins or along the Froom Creek corridor. While a patch of tules is present along Calle Joaquin the area does not appear to be large enough to support nesting tricolored blackbirds. Not observed during surveys and unlikely to nest within the study area. Could occur as an uncommon transient and potentially nest onsite should the tule patch enlarge. Moderate Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus T/SSC/-- (nesting) Sandy beaches, salt pond levees or shores of large alkali lakes. Sandy, gravelly or friable soils required for nesting. Federal listing refers only to the Pacific coastal population. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. Not expected Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis C/E/-- (nesting) Nests and forages in dense lowland riparian vegetation during summer. Marginal habitat present in onsite riparian habitat along OVR. Last CNDDB record for the County was in 1921, and given the riparian habitat is comprised of a thin band of willows along a busy road, it is unlikely that this species would nest onsite. Low White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus --/FP/-- (nesting) Riparian woodlands near agricultural fields; forages over open grasslands and scrub. Suitable nesting habitat in oak, bay, eucalyptus and sycamore trees on-site, with good quality foraging habitat in grasslands throughout the Ranch. Not observed during surveys and no stick nests observed that could be used by this species for nesting activities. Known to occur further north of the site in the Los Osos Valley, and could occur onsite during foraging activities. Could also potentially nest onsite in the future. Moderate Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia brewsteri --/SSC/-- (nesting) Riparian plants, prefers willows, cottonwoods, aspens, sycamores and alders for resting and foraging. Marginal habitat is present in willow riparian area along the LOVR ditch, especially considering the well developed riparian corridor along San Luis Obispo Creek to the east. Could potentially occur in more dense riparian habitat but unlikely to nest onsite given disturbance along LOVR. Low MAMMALS American badger Taxidea taxus --/SSC/-- Friable soils and open, uncultivated ground for denning. Preys on burrowing rodents such as groundsquirrels. Suitable habitat is present in grassland on-site, but heavy clay soils likely preclude badgers from being regular residents onsite. No dens or large ground squirrel colonies observed within the project area. Could potentially occur as a transient across the site. Moderate KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. B - 15 Appendix B. Special-Status Biological Resources Table Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Suitable Habitat Present or Detected in Study Area? Likelihood of Encounter Onsite Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis --/SSC/-- Occurs in low lying arid areas of Southern California. Needs high cliffs or rocky outcrops for roosting sites. Feeds primarily on large moths. Could potentially occur onsite, and use the upper rocky ridgelines and rock outcrops outside the study area for roosting sites. Not expected to roost onsite, but could forage over the grasslands, oak woodlands and coastal scrub areas. Low Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus --/SA/-- Roosts in dense foliage of large trees. Requires water. Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics with access to trees for cover and open areas of habitat edge for feeding. Suitable foraging habitat on-site. Potentially suitable roosting habitat present in oak woodland especially in close proximity to confluence of Drainages 1, 2, and 3 with Froom Creek. Could occur. Moderate Morro Bay kangaroo rat Dipodomys heermanii morroensis E/E/-- Coastal sage scrub on the south side of Morro Bay. Needs sandy soil on stabilized dunes with vegetation. No suitable habitat present. Not expected to occur. Not expected Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus --/SSC/-- Occurs in deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Roosts under bridges and in some areas in old structures such as barns. Potentially suitable roosting habitat present in oak/bay woodland. Suitable foraging habitat in on-site grasslands and coastal scrub. Could occur. Moderate San Diego woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia --/SSC/-- Coastal scrub, oak woodlands with moderate to dense canopies. Abundant in and around rock outcrops and rocky cliffs and slopes with shrub and tree cover. Suitable habitat present in oak woodlands and coastal scrub throughout the southwestern part of the site. Wood rat nests observed in upper reaches of the property in coastal scrub habitat. Could potentially occur in woodlands. High Townsend’s western big- eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii --/-SSC/-- Requires caves, tunnels, mines, or similar man-made structures for roosting. This bat feeds primarily on moths, but will eat a variety of soft- bodied insects. Suitable foraging habitat present throughout the site. Potential roosting habitat located at existing buildings. Could occur. Moderate Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis californicus --/SSC/-- Open, arid habitats including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grassland, and chaparral. Roosts in crevices in cliffs faces high buildings, trees and tunnels. Suitable foraging habitat in grasslands on-site. Potentially suitable roosting habitat present in oak woodland and large eucalyptus and sycamore trees. Could occur. Moderate Western red bat Lasiurus blossevilli --/SSC/-- Roosts in trees near open areas for foraging. Potentially suitable roosting habitat present in oak/bay woodland and foraging habitat consists of onsite grasslands. Could occur. Moderate Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis --/SA/-- Riparian, arid scrublands, deserts, and forests near permanent sources of water. Roosts in trees, rock crevices, trees hollows, mines, caves and a variety of manmade structures. Potentially suitable roosting and foraging habitat on-site. Could roost in larger trees along riparian corridors, in oak woodlands and in eucalyptus trees. Could also potentially roost in rock crevices on steep serpentine slopes. High KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. B - 16 Appendix B. Special-Status Biological Resources Table Species Status* Fed/CA/CRPR Habitat Requirements Suitable Habitat Present or Detected in Study Area? Likelihood of Encounter Onsite NATURAL COMMUNITIES Central Dune Scrub Not present Not expected Central Foredunes Not present Not expected Central Maritime Chaparral Not present Not expected Coastal Brackish Marsh Not present Not expected Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Present. In select areas in Drainages 1, 2, and 3 and along LOVR and Calle Joaquin High Northern Coastal Salt Marsh Not present Not expected Northern Interior Cypress Forest Not present Not expected Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland Present. Identified on the habitat map as Native Bunchgrass habitat. High Valley Needlegrass Grassland Present. Synonymous with the above Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland habitat. High *E = Endangered; T = Threatened; R = Rare CL = Candidate for Listing Status; SSC = California Species of Special Concern; FP = Fully Protected; WL = Watch List; SA – Special Animal; ‘—‘ = no status; List 1B – Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; List 2 – Rare, threatened or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; List 4 – Limited distribution (Watch List). Source: California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2018); California Native Plant Society Online Inventory of Rare Plants, accessed April and November 2015 and again in October 2018 (online at www.cnps.org); and background literature review. APPENDIX C Photo Plate KMA KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 1 PHOTO PLATE Photo 1. Northwesterly view of annual grassland in the flat areas adjacent to the Calle Joaquin wetland. In the distance is the large detention basin and spreading occurrence of reed fescue. Photo 2. Representative view of serpentine bunchgrass grassland with Eastwood’s larkspur in flower on the slopes in the southwest part of the site. KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 2 Photo 3. Northerly view of the Calle Joaquin wetland area showing tules growing in shallow surface water. Photo 4. Overview of annual grassland and serpentine bunchgrass grassland in the southwest part of the site. Oak/bay woodland can be seen near the confluence of Drainages 1, 2 and 3. Coastal scrub/chaparral habitat is in the foreground with black sage, buck brush and California sagebrush present. KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 3 Photo 5. View of wetland habitat at seep dominated by sedges and rushes adjacent to Drainage 2. Photo 6. Wetland habitat in the upper reach of Drainage 2 with young Chorro Creek bog thistle plants present. Steep hillside in the distance is composed of coastal scrub/chaparral habitat. KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 4 Photo 7. View of oak/bay woodland with large eucalyptus present near confluence of Drainages 1 and 2. Native serpentine bunchgrass grassland with associated wildlfowers is in the foreground. Photo 8. Westerly view of the upper reach of Drainage 1 showing purple needlegrass in flower (beige color) on opposite sides of the drainage. Oak/bay woodland and coastal scrub/chaparral is visible on the hillside in the distance. KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 5 Photo 9. Southerly view of Froom Creek traversing the center of the site. Channel is composed of serpentine cobble and gravel substrate with very little in-‐channel vegetation. Photo 10. Northerly view of the Los Osos Valley Road Roadside Channel showing arroyo willows growing in the constructed channel. Wetland vegetation was also present with poison hemlock visible in the lower right. KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 6 Photo 11. Calochortus obispoensis observed growing in the upper elevations of the southwestern part of the study area in thin rocky serpentine soils. Photo 12. Castilleja densiflora ssp. obsipoensis growing in serpentine bunchgrass grassland in the southwestern part of the site. Photo to the right shows stigma extending beyond corolla lip. KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 7 Photo 13. Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii observed in the constructed Home Depot detention basin in the northeastern part of the site. Photo 14. Chorizanthe breweri growing in serpentine gravelly soils along Froom Creek. KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 8 Photo 15. Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense growing in wetland habitat along Drainage 2. Photo 16. Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae growing in serpentine bunchgrass grassland in southwest part of the site. KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 9 Photo 17. Serpentine rock outcrop with Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina. Photo 18. Young Dudleya blochmaniae plants observed in small occurrences in the southwest part of the site. KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory John Madonna Construction, Inc. 10 Photo 19. Layia jonesii growing in the southwest part of the site. Photo 20. Senecio aphanactis growing along top of serpentine rock outcrop north of Drainage 3. APPENDIX D Tree Inventory Data Form KMA Froom Ranch Tree Survey 1 Tree Survey Monitoring Form Date______2/10/15_____ Surveyor__________Sloan, Block_______ Tag # Scientific Name Common Name Vigor Rating DBH (inches) GPS Point Notes / Observations 1 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 16, 11, 12 154 large healthy tree 2 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 12, 12, 11, 10 153 one 12” is dead 3 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 13 155 young healthy tree 4 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 9 156 young healthy tree 5 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 8, 8, 11, 7, 12 157 large healthy tree 6 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 14, 10, 9, 14 158 old tree, large burl, poor condition 7 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 12 159 young healthy, edge of channel 8 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 9 160 young healthy, edge of channel 9 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 7, 9, 14, 8 161 some splitting at base, old, large burl 10 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 19, 12 162 old tree 11 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 15 163 young tree 12 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 6, 7 164 young tree 13 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 4, 7, 7, 7 165 young tree Froom Ranch Tree Survey 2 Tag # Scientific Name Common Name Vigor Rating DBH (inches) GPS Point Notes / Observations 14 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 10, 8 166 young healthy tree 15 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 11, 11 167 weak crotch on one trunk, main trunk splitting at base 16 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 21, 22, 28 168 very old large tree 17 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak L 26 169 old, low vigor, small canopy 18 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 7 170 young healthy tree 19 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 5 171 young healthy tree, numerous trunks under 4” 20 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak L 10 172 Spanish moss, thin canopy, unhealthy 21 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 13 173 healthy tree 22 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 13, 5 174 healthy tree 23 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 14, 7, 11, 9 175 healthy tree 24 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 6, 4, 5 176 Spanish moss on base, stunted, small 25 Umbellularia californica California Bay L 6, 5, 4 177 Spanish moss, 2 trunks under 4” 26 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 13 178 old tree, rotten bark on main trunk 27 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 20 179 old tree, leaning, lichens on bark 28 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 10, 13 180 healthy tree 29 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 12 181 very large burl, in lower creek bank 30 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 22, 23 182 very large burl, old tree Froom Ranch Tree Survey 3 Tag # Scientific Name Common Name Vigor Rating DBH (inches) GPS Point Notes / Observations 31 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak L 12 183 small, split at base 32 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak L 22 184 hollow, large cavity at base 33 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 18, 23, 22 185 large healthy tree 34 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 27 186 large healthy tree 35 Umbellularia californica California Bay L 9 187 small, sparse canopy 36 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 8 188 small healthy tree 37 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 9, 10, 8 189 sparse canopy 38 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 32 190 splits in bark, old, large tree 39 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 14, 16 191 large healthy tree 40 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 6 192 small tree, 2 stems under 4” dbh 41 Prunus ilicifolia Hollyleaf Cherry M 7 193 very large old specimen 42 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 28 194 large old tree 43 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 31 195 large old tree 44 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 37, 16 196 large old tree 45 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 5, 4, 6, 5 197 one dead trunk, moderate health 46 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 45 198 very large tree, leaning over channel 47 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 23 199 tall, straight, on bank Froom Ranch Tree Survey 4 Tag # Scientific Name Common Name Vigor Rating DBH (inches) GPS Point Notes / Observations 48 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 5, 5, 4 200 hollow base, split trunk 49 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 16, 22, 21 201 large, within the channel bank 50 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 23, 34 202 big, old, pruned up from ground 51 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak L 15, 27, 22 203 big, old, leaning, hollow base 52 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 8 204 young healthy tree 53 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 24, 13, 5 205 largest trunk hollow, others healthy 54 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 16, 4, 15, 21, 28 206 bark damage/cuts from campers 55 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 24 208 large, healthy tree 56 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 24, 15 209 large tree, in channel 57 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 12, 23 210 lower branches pruned up from ground 58 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 17 211 large broken branch, on bank 59 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 39, 30 212 big, old, on bank of channel 60 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 20, 10, 10, 12, 14, 6, 22 213 old, healthy, large burl 61 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 97 215 very large old tree, upland area 62 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 83 216 very large old tree, upland area 63 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 22 217 young tree, upland area Froom Ranch Tree Survey 5 Tag # Scientific Name Common Name Vigor Rating DBH (inches) GPS Point Notes / Observations 64 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 16, 16, 8,13 218 upland area 65 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 32, 36 214 old, large, thin canopy 66 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 25 219 old, thin canopy, many burl sprouts 67 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 21 220 thin canopy, hill top 68 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 26 221 thin canopy, hill top 69 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 48 222 thin canopy, hill top 70 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak L 42 223 hollow trunk, sparse canopy 71 Umbellularia californica California Bay M 8, 10, 15, 8, 21, 26 224 large burl, lichen on trunk, hollow 72 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 20 225 small, sparse canopy 73 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 21 231 lichen on trunk 74 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 5 232 hilltop, young, sparse canopy 75 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak L 7 233 hilltop, moss, few leaves 76 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak H 19 234 in channel, thick canopy 77 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak M 30 in channel, sparse canopy 78 Schinus molle Peruvian Pepper M 34 235 very old, hollow, many new sprouts 79 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 35 236 very large, upland area 80 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 12 236 upland area 81 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 32 237 upland area Froom Ranch Tree Survey 6 Tag # Scientific Name Common Name Vigor Rating DBH (inches) GPS Point Notes / Observations 82 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 51 237 upland area 83 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 22 238 upland area 84 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 36 238 upland area 85 Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum H 53 238 upland area 86 Schinus molle Peruvian Pepper M 12, 12, 8, 9 239 old, moss/lichens, young sprouts at base 87 Populus fremontii Fremont Cottonwood H 14, 10 277 young, healthy, dormant 88 Populus fremontii Fremont Cottonwood H 9, 9, 8, 6 278 young, healthy, starting to leaf out 89 Salix lasiolepis Arroyo Willow H many, 4-‐ 12 inches 279 large base, 10 to 12 trunks 90 Salix lasiolepis Arroyo Willow H many, 4-‐ 10 inches 280 at culvert, 8 trunks observed 91 Populus fremontii Fremont Cottonwood H 11 281 starting to leaf out 92 Salix lasiolepis Arroyo Willow H 11 282 at culvert 93 Umbellularia californica California Bay H 49, 32, 27, 14, 12 303 rock outcrop on hillside, very large tree 94 Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore H 18, 6 304 upland area near road base mining / storage activity 95 Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore H 16, 14 305 upland area near road base mining / storage activity 96 Platanus racemosa Western Sycamore H 16 306 upland area near road base mining / storage activity APPENDIX E Site Assessment for the California Red-Legged Frog (KMA, 2017) KMA FROOM RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (APNs 067-241-030, 067-241-031) SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA SITE ASSESSMENT for the CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG (Rana draytonii) Prepared for: Mr. John Madonna JM Development Group, Inc. P.O. Box 5310 San Luis Obispo, California 93403 Prepared by: Kevin Merk Associates, LLC P.O. Box 318 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 December 18, 2017 KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Site Location and Description ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Proposed Project Description ....................................................................................................................... 4 2.0 METHODS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Background Research ...................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Site Assessment Surveys ................................................................................................................................. 4 2.3 Qualifications of Surveyor .............................................................................................................................. 5 3.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5 3.1 Known Occurrences of California Red-legged Frogs in Region ..................................................... 5 3.2 Habitat Characterization of the Study Area ............................................................................................ 7 3.2.1 Froom Ranch ............................................................................................................................................ 7 3.2.2 Areas Within One Mile of the Property ..................................................................................... 10 3.2.3 Critical Habitat Designation ........................................................................................................... 12 4.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................ 12 5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................ 13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Site Location Map ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 – Aerial Overview Map .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3 - CNDDB CRLF Occurrence Map ....................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4 – Land Cover/Existing Conditions Map ...................................................................................................... 11 APPENDICES Appendix A – Site Assessment Data Sheets Appendix B – Photo Plate Appendix C – Habitat Map from Biological Resources Inventory Appendix D – Wetland Delineation Map with Photo Point Locations KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Kevin Merk Associates, LLC (KMA) conducted a California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii; CRLF) site assessment for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan project located just outside the current southwest city limits of the City of San Luis Obispo. The investigation covered the Froom Ranch (APNs 067-241-030, 067-241-031), and a small portion of property owned by the Mountainbrook Church, which generally includes areas at the southwest side of Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) and north of Calle Joaquin, in San Luis Obispo County, California. This assessment followed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog (USFWS 2005), and is a compilation of information received from regulatory agencies, literature reviews, and field work on the study area conducted by KMA over a two year period. A Biological Resources Inventory Report (BRI) prepared by KMA in January 2016 for the project provides background information referenced herein including a characterization of existing conditions, plant community mapping, and results of floristic and tree inventories. A special status species evaluation was also included in the BRI, and special status wildlife that could potentially occur onsite were identified based on a habitat suitability analysis. The BRI concluded that Froom Creek and the tributary drainage onsite do not appear to support suitable aquatic habitat with a sufficient hydroperiod for CRLF breeding, but that this species could potentially move onto the site from known occurrences in the region during periods of above average rainfall when seasonal aquatic habitat persists into the summer and fall months. As part of the ongoing regulatory agency consultation process, the USFWS in an August 14, 2017 letter from Ms. Julie Vanderwier to Ms. Shawna Scott with the City of San Luis Obispo’s Community Development Department, requested that a Site Assessment for CRLF be completed for the property. The purpose of the Site Assessment is to determine whether suitable aquatic habitat capable of supporting the federal threatened CRLF is present onsite, and if protocol-level surveys are warranted to accurately determine presence or absence to support the proposed project’s environmental review process. The following report details the methods and results of the site assessment, and is intended to build on the information contained in the BRI for the USFWS to make a determination if additional surveys are warranted. 1.1 Site Location and Description The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels located at 12165 and 12393 Froom Ranch Way, totaling approximately 111 acres (APN 067-241-030 and 067-241-031) currently within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County adjacent to City of San Luis Obispo city limits (please refer to Figures 1 and 2). It also includes a southern “spur” where a flood control basin would be constructed on neighboring property owned by the Mountainbrook Church. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between Highway 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. It is currently a working cattle/horse ranch that supports a variety of habitat types including: grasslands (both native bunchgrass and non-native annual), oak woodland (with California bay trees), coastal scrub/chaparral, serpentine outcrops, and seasonal and perennial wetlands that are primarily associated with drainage features. Ruderal or disturbed areas are also present and consist of existing developed areas as well as constructed stormwater basins that are part of the Irish Hills Plaza development. Froom Creek, which flows to San Luis Obispo Creek via a culvert under Calle Joaquin and Highway 101, and three unnamed tributary drainages are also present onsite. Site Location ^_ ²1 in = 10,000 ft 0 1 20.5 Miles Figure 1 Site Location Site Location ^_ 1 in = 1,000,000 ft JM Development Group, Inc. Froom Ranch Source: ESRI 2017 £¤101 L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d Prefumo Creek San Luis Obispo Creek Froom Creek Laguna Lake ²1 in = 2,000 ft 0 1,300 2,600650Feet Figure 2 Aerial Overview JM Development Group, Inc. Froom Ranch Approximate Study Area Boundary National Wetland Inventory (USFWS) Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 4 The region is characterized by a Mediterranean climate, with cool, moist winters and warm, dry summers moderated by the close proximity to the Pacific Ocean. Average annual precipitation in the region of the site is approximately 22 inches, most of which falls between November and April. On-site elevations range from approximately 110 feet above mean sea level (MSL) at the lowest point near the intersection of Calle Joaquin and LOVR, to approximately 410 feet MSL on the upper western hillslopes adjacent to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Soils are primarily Cropley clay in the lower elevations of the site, with large areas of serpentine outcrops and serpentine influenced soils present in the higher elevations of the property to the west. 1.2 Proposed Project Description The proposed Froom Ranch development is envisioned as a residential project with some commercial development in the northeast corner of the site closest to the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. Permanent open space is proposed to occupy about 51% of the Froom Ranch site. The project is divided into two main components: The Madonna Froom Ranch and The Life Plan Community (also known as the Villaggio). The Madonna Froom Ranch would be situated in the northern portion of the Specific Plan Area, just south of the Irish Hills Plaza. It will contain a mix of commercial and residential land uses, and include a hotel and trailhead park. The park will provide a staging area and connection to open space trails within the City’s Irish Hills Natural Reserve. The Villaggio project would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing and include access to assisted living, memory care, and skilled nursing. A recreational facility, restaurants, and movie theater are also planned in this community. For a detailed project description, please refer to the Froom Ranch Specific Plan prepared by RRM Design Group. 2.0 METHODS 2.1 Background Information The study area for this CRLF Site Assessment included the approximately 111-acre Froom Ranch property, and an additional plus or minus 15 acres on the adjacent Mountain Brook Church where a future storm water detention basin would be constructed. Aquatic habitat features within a one- mile radius of the property were also included and generally evaluated in the assessment. As part of the BRI, KMA biologists reviewed site-specific aerial photographs and maps from studies in the region (Google Earth and ESRI, the U.S. Geological Survey San Luis Obispo and Pismo 7.5-minute quadrangles, and the City of San Luis Obispo Irish Hills Natural Area Conservation Plan Update from 2011). The California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB; 2017) was queried for CRLF records within five miles of the site, with increased focus within a one- mile (1.6-kilometer) radius of the site. Museum records (Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, and University of California at Berkley) were also searched online, and other available biological reports from studies conducted in the region such as the LOVR and Highway 101 Interchange project were reviewed. Please refer to the literature cited in the BRI for further detail. In addition, City of San Luis Obispo Natural Resources Manager, Robert Hill, and Biologist, Freddy Otte, were consulted regarding ongoing herpetological field work on the Waddell property located in the headwaters of Froom Creek to the south of the study area. 2.2 Site Assessment Surveys KMA conducted extensive field work on the Froom Ranch over a two year period that spanned from 2015 to 2017. All drainage features onsite were walked on numerous occassions and areas of KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 5 instream seasonally ponded of flowing water were assessed and mapped to aid in determining the site’s potential to support CRLF and other special status aquatic species. Aquatic habitats encountered on the property were characterized (water body type, estimated persistence of water, vegetation, water depth, bank full depth, stream gradient, substrate, and description of banks) as indicated in the protocol site assessment datasheet. Potentially suitable areas were examined for presence of American bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus) and other aquatic predators such as crayfish (likely the genus Pacifastacus). For the BRI, vegetation communities were mapped following the Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf and Evens (2009) habitat classification system in association with Holland’s 1986 classification system. As part of the CRLF site assessment, habitats/vegetation communities within the one-mile radius around the study area were characterized using aerial photographs, topographic maps, and visual surveys conducted from public roads and public open space areas. Aquatic habitats, land uses, and any potential barriers to CRLF movement were noted. 2.3 Qualifications of Surveyor Kevin Merk conducted the site assessment with support from other KMA biologists, and was the primary author of this report. He has hundreds of hours conducting site assessments and protocol level surveys over the last 25 years, and is able to identify all life stages of CRLF. Mr. Merk has also been authorized by the USFWS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (via specific biological opinions) to capture and handle CRLF for various construction/development projects in the Central Coast region of California. 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Known Occurrences of California Red-legged Frogs in the Region The study area is within the historic range of the CRLF (Jennings and Hayes 1994, Stebbins 2003), but is located outside USFWS designated CRLF critical habitat. Critical Habitat Unit SLO-3 is located to the north of the site (USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper, 2017). Please refer to Figure 3, the CRLF Occurrence Map for CNDDB records in the project area as well as the location of critical habitat. The results of the CNDDB query and consultation with the City of San Luis Obispo revealed one CRLF occurrence within one (1) mile (1.6-kilometer) of the property. This record is dated 2006, and documents one CRLF observed within the City of San Luis Obispo’s wastewater treatment pond located on the east side of the Highway 101 corridor (Occurrence No. 895). The next closest record is from 2017 biological surveys on the City of San Luis Obispo’s recently aquired Waddel property. The observation location is approximately 2.3 miles to the west of the study area boundaries within the upper Froom Creek watershed. Other documented occurrences in the project region are on the southern flank of the Santa Lucia Mountains from 1939 in Brizzolari Creek, approximately 3.8 miles to the north of the property (Occurrence No. 1341), and from 1998 at the Avila Beach Golf Resort, approximately 4.6 miles to the south (Occurrence No. 303). Please refer to Figure 3 for the locations of these and other occurrences within one and five mile radii of the site. CRLF Occurrence #895, 2006 Lopez MountainSan Luis ObispoMorro Bay South North East Arroyo GrandePismo BeachPort San Luis Occurrence #258 Occurrence #453, 2008 Occurrence #1065, 1998 Occurrence #156, 1995 Occurrence #245, 1996 Occurrence #157, 1995 Occurrence #303, 1998 Occurrence #1341, 1939 Approximate location where2 adult and 4 juvenile CRLFwere observed in upper FroomCreek on Waddell property.(City of San Luis Obispo, 2017) ²1 in = 8,000 ft 0 1.5 30.75 Miles Figure 3 Regional Location/CRLF Occurrence JM Development Group, Inc. Froom Ranch Approximate Study Area Boundary CNDDB California Red-Legged Frog Occurrence California Red-Legged Frog Critical Habitat (Unit SLO-3) Study Area One Mile Buffer Additional Five Mile Buffer Source: ESRI 2017, CNDDB 2017 KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 7 3.2 Habitat Characterization of the Study Area 3.2.1 Froom Ranch The Froom Ranch consists primarily of grassland habitat with serpentine-based soils and rock outcrops present in the higher elevation areas. The property is situated on the northeastern flank of the Irish Hills, with developed urban areas on the north, east and south boundaries. To the west is undeveloped open space in the City’s Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Seasonal drainage features present include Froom Creek and three small tributary drainages, and the LOVR roadside ditch. The site contains the Irish Hills Plaza Storm Water Basin that handles surface runoff from neighboring development to the north. The basin is located in upland areas between the Froom Creek channel and Los Osos Valley Road, and a small ditch directs drainage water when present into the LOVR roadside ditch, which terminates into the Calle Joaquin wetland further south. As detailed in the BRI, the dominant habitat types observed within the study area included annual (non-native) grassland, serpentine bunchgrass grassland on the higher elevation hillsides, coastal scrub/chaparral on steeper rocky slopes, coast live oak woodland on north facing slopes and along drainages, arroyo willow riparian scrub along the LOVR ditch, and developed/disturbed areas primarily in the northern part of the property. Areas of non-native tree plantings, including blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) and pepper trees (Schinus molle) are also present. Site assessment data sheets were prepared for the Froom Ranch property to characterize potentially suitable habitat areas (please refer to Appendix A). Photographs of the potential habitat areas described herein are provided in the Photo Plate included as Appendix B. The Habitat Map from the BRI is included as Appendix C, and the Wetland Delineation Overview Map (KMA, 2015) is included as Appendix D to help identify location of drainage features, as well as photo point locations. The following provides a summary and brief characterization of the areas that were the focus of the assessment. Froom Creek, an episodic drainage feature, traverses the site generally from north to south, and ultimately passes beneath Calle Joaquin and Highway 101 through a concrete box culvert (over 300 linear feet) before joining San Luis Obispo Creek to the south. The section of Froom Creek within the site is sparsely vegetated, and was composed of a dry cobble bed with bare soil banks and patchy occurrences of grassland species. It was completely dry during the 2015 and 2016 surveys. Flowing water was present in January 2017 following a series of large storm events, and then flow subsided and dried by March into April 2017. No willows or other riparian vegetation is present within this portion of the channel, but a small area (less than 12 inches deep) of instream ponding was observed near the Froom Ranch property southern line near the Drainage 1 confluence. Due to the lack of persistent water (i.e., it did not have any water with a depth of 24 inches for longer than 10 weeks) and any vegetative cover, it does not appear to provide suitable habitat for CRLF. Three ephemeral tributary drainage features are present in the southern portion of the study area that are hydrologically connected to Froom Creek. Small areas of ponded water with adjacent wetland vegetation were observed in the lower reach of the southernmost tributary drainage (Drainage 1 near the confluence with Drainage 2). At this location, a narrow in-channel, seasonal ponded area was observed that appears to be supported by springs or seeps originating on adjacent hillsides. The ponded area consisted of two connected pools less than 16 inches in depth, and covered a total area of approximately 150 square feet (6 feet wide by approximately 25 feet long). The canopy cover was high and consisted of large coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and California bay (Umbellularia californica) trees, with no low overhanging willows or emergent vegetation KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 8 present. Ponded areas were dominated by bare mud/silt and rock, with vegetated areas perched in the flatter area beyond the Drainage 1 top of bank along the lower reach of Drainage 2. Wetland vegetation observed in this flat area included spike-rush (Eleocharis macrostachya), tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), seep monkeyflower (Mimulus guttatus), water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa), rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon). Some common duckweed (Lemna minor) was present in the Drainage 1 channel below ponded areas. The ponded areas at bank full conditions could be as much as six (6) feet deep, but this condition would be unlikely due to the small watershed feeding the tributary, and steep nature of this feature leading towards Froom Creek. Due to the presence of shallow ponding, and limited water duration through early summer months, the ponded areas identified along Drainage 1 are considered to provide low to marginal quality habitat for CRLF. The shallow depth of the instream ponding and lack of emergent vegetation would not be expected to provide suitable refuge habitat for CRLF, and any individuals that potentially found this site, would likely be subject to predation since racoon (Procyon lotor) tracks were regularly observed in this area. If the site was close to a more permanent water body that provided potential breeding habitat, the surrounding oak woodland and bay tree habitats could provide refugia for estivation during the summer but that is highly unlikely given the limited aquatic resources on the site. While not completely isolated from San Luis Obispo Creek where CRLF were observed previously, individuals would have to traverse the over 300 foot long concrete culvert and move up the dry cobble Froom Creek channel to find seasonal water at this location. If a breeding population was near by, Drainage 1 could possibly be used by frogs during dispersal, but no suitable habitat for this species is present to the west, making it unlikely that CRLF would move back and forth into or through this area. Further, ponded water in Drainage 1 would not be expected to provide suitable breeding habitat due to lack of sufficient hydroperiod (water during most years does not persist for over 10 weeks). Calle Joaquin Wetland. Calle Joaquin and Los Osos Valley Road impound surface water alongside the roadways’ eastern and southern sides on a seasonal basis. While culverts were installed to drain high flows under Calle Joaquin into a riparian drainage area across the street and then toward San Luis Obispo Creek to the south, soils remain saturated for a long enough duration to support perennial wetland habitat. The ponded area observed along Calle Joaquin in the winters of 2015 and 2016 were less than 12 inches deep, but contained a predominance of wetland vegetation and several dense clumps of bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus). By the summers of 2015 and 2016 the areas contained marginal surface water ranging in depth from one to four inches in small pockets. During the winter rain season of 2017, ponded water observed in this area for a much longer time period (water was present through September 1, 2017) and averaged approximately 12 to 24 inches in depth. The deepest location observed in the spring 2017 supported upwards of 28 inches of standing water. As stated above, culverts in this area direct water under Calle Joaquin into a triangular riparian drainage area on the south side of Calle Joaquin, that is separated from San Luis Obispo Creek by a hotel, parking lot and Highway 101. It appears that the maximum depth of ponded water in the Calle Joaquin wetland would be approximately three feet before overtopping the curb and spilling onto the street. Adjacent upland areas to the Calle Joaquin wetland area consist of seasonal wetland habitat being overtaken by reed fescue (Festuca arundinacea) planted as forage. Due to the presence of sufficient water depth and emergent vegetation (primarily bulrush), this area would be considered potentially suitable habitat for CRLF. While it is less than 1,000 feet away from the observed CRLF occurrence in the City’s wastewater pond on the eastside of San Luis Obispo Creek, the Calle Joaquin wetland is separated from potentially suitable habitat within the San Luis Obispo Creek KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 9 corridor by urban development including Highway 101, an onramp, hotel, parking lot and Calle Joaquin. It is unlikely that CRLF could disperse overland across Highway 101, Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin onto the site. The triangular drainage area with riparian habitat on the south side of Calle Joaquin could also potentially be used by CRLF based on the presence of dense riparian and wetland vegetation and seasonal ponded water, eventhough it is primarily road runoff with unknown pollutants. Several biological and hydrologic studies have been completed in this general location for other projects, including the Calle Joaquin Road realignment, and the LOVR/Highway 101 interchange project. Focused protocol level surveys for listed branchiopods were also conducted for the Calle Joaquin Road realignment, and these surveys, even though focused on sampling for invertebrates, did not observe CRLF in the wetland area prior to the construction of Calle Joaquin. During this site assessment, Pacific tree frogs and one crayfish were observed in the Calle Joaquin wetland area. The dominance of perennial wetland vegetation, observed surface ponding into September, as well as review of historical aerial photographs obtained from Google Earth, suggests that the Calle Joaquin wetland site functions as a semi-perennial to perennial wetland, and therefore, contains potentially suitable habitat to support CRLF. The proposed project would not affect this area, and the Froom Creek realignment would be situated to maintain the hydrology to support wetland habitat in this part of the property. Irish Hills Plaza Stormwater Detention Basins. Construction of the Irish Hills Plaza included two large stormwater detention basins, immediately adjacent to each other and separated by an earthen berm. The basins were constructed between mid-2006 and mid-2007. The drainage basins release overflow water to the LOVR Roadside Ditch via a storm drain outfall into a constructed swale. During large storm events, the basin is designed to discharge water into the wetland/meadow area along Calle Joaquin via a concrete spillway on the south side of the main basin. Otherwise, water leaves the basin through evaporation and ground percolation. A large french drain system was also constructed around the perimeter of the basin to help maintain wetland vegetation along Calle Joaquin (personal communication with John Madonna). Google Earth historical aerial imagery indicates that these basins have been actively managed, with grading of the basins performed between April and August 2013, disturbing soil and removing vegetation. Under the proposed Froom Ranch development plan, these drainage basins would be removed, and runoff would be redirected into new constructed features including a larger basin proposed on the neighboring Mountainbrook Church property adjacent to Froom Creek. During the August and September 2017 site assessment field visits, the north basin featured shallow ponding (average 4-8 inches in depth) throughout much of the basin floor. Vegetation was dominated by obligate wetland plants such as cattail, spikerush and small fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus) along with brown-headed rush and rabbitsfoot grass. The south basin was densely vegetated, but did not have ponded water or the predominance of obligate wetland plants, though signs of recent seasonal ponding were evident in the form of algal mats, cracked soil and surface salt deposits. Dominant vegetation included facultative wetland species such as creeping rye (Elymus triticoides), brown-headed rush, and reed fescue with patches of cattails present in several areas where saturation appears to persist In the more barren patches exhibiting salt crust and/or algal mats from recent drying, prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper; a facultative wetland species) frequently occurred. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 10 Historic aerial photos reviewed on Google Earth show that the north and south basins both dry out seasonally in most years. The high rainfall in 2017 may be responsible for the continued ponding seen in the north basin into early September 2017, as well as ponding that appears to have lasted into the early summer in the south basin, based on presence of algal mats and salt deposits. The wetland plant species currently dominating both basins suggest semi-perennial wetland hydrology, but aerial photos taken as recently as September 2016 show the vegetation in both basins as almost entirely brown, with no visible surface ponding. The seasonal drying pattern coupled with the physical separation from known occurrences (i.e., the basin was constructed in an upland grassland area away from Froom Creek and the Calle Joaquin wetland) makes it unlikely that CRLF would find the stormwater basins even if they could disperse across Highway 101 and urban areas from San Luis Obispo Creek. Furthermore, with the shallow ponded water present in the basins, it would be unlikely to support breeding habitat for the species since they would be easily preyed upon by larger animals, and a regular hydroperiod of at least 10 weeks does not appear to be present. The fact that the basins were constructed as recently as 2006-07, and then graded for maintenance in 2013, and are not naturally connected to areas of potential habitat in San Luis Obispo Creek, also make it unlikely that CRLF would be able to locate and utilize the basins for seasonal foraging or breeding habitat. Clearly the features do not have the necessary aquatic habitat required to maintain a sustained breeding population of CRLF since they are constructed features with periodic soil disturbance from grading to remove vegetation and accumulated debris and sediment. If the basins were constructed immediately adjacent to suitable habitat (such as the case for the City’s wastewater pond where the CRLF was observed in 2006), were not regularly maintained, and did not have significant movement barriers such as Highway 101 and LOVR in place, it is possible that CRLF could use it on a seasonal basis. 3.2.2 Areas Within One Mile of the Property The area surrounding the subject property consists primarily of developed urban lands to the north and south, and the Irish Hills Natural Reserve to the north and west. Please refer to Figure 4 for existing conditions and land cover types within the one mile study area. Commercial development along LOVR and Highway 101 to the east and south create a formidable barrier for CRLF should they be present in San Luis Obispo Creek or other nearby water bodies and drainage features such as Laguna Lake and Prefumo Creek. While one individual was observed at the City’s wastewater treatment facility on the east side of Highway 101, other focused surveys in the area, and in San Luis Obispo Creek, have been unable to locate CRLF in San Luis Obispo Creek (personal communication with Sage Institute, 2017). If a healthy breeding population was present in San Luis Obispo Creek, it is possible that CRLF could disperse from breeding sites and move through the Froom Creek concrete box culvert under Calle Joaquin and Highway 101 and onto the property. However, it is a very long culvert (measured at over 300 linear feet) which likely would preclude small amphibian movement onto the site. It is also important to note that even if a CRLF were to use the culvert for movement, Froom Creek is a dry episodic drainage feature with no prolonged pools in the vicinity of the culvert. The first seasonal pool is not encountered until further onto the property near the confluence of Drainage 1 and Froom Creek. Even that seasonal in channel pond is short lived, does not have any vegetative cover, and any frog that found the feature would likely be preyed upon by racoon or other birds observed foraging in the area. As stated above, the Highway 101 corridor, LOVR, Calle Joaquin and associated commercial development present a significant barrier to CRLF dispersal from the north, south and east. As Froom Creek Laguna Lake Prefumo Creek East Fork San Luis Obispo Creek San Luis Obispo Creek Dry Creek CRLF Occurrence #895 (2006) Prefumo Creek Seasonally Ponded Areasalong Drainage 1 andFroom Creek Seasonally PondedAreas along Calle Joaquin S. Higuera St.L o s O s o s V a l l e y R d .Highway 101Highway 101Approximate Study Area Boundary Study Area 1 Mile Buffer Wastewater Treatment Pond Retention Basin (Seasonally Ponded) Creek/Drainage Feature Agriculture Grassland Coastal Scrub/Chaparral Oak Woodland Open Water Urban JM Development Group, Inc..0 870 1,740 2,610 3,480435 Feet Habitat and Land Cover Map Source(s): (c) ESRI 2017: CDFW, CNDDB, September 2017; County of San Luis Obispo Froom Ranch Figure 4 Buckley Rd. Tank Farm Rd. B r o a d S t . 1 in = 1,500 ft KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 12 stated above, given past studies in the region, it appears that CRLF occur in low numbers in the San Luis Obispo Creek corridor due to the lack of suitable breeding habitat. Recent study on the City-owned Waddell Property, identified what appears to be a breeding CRLF population in the upper reaches of Froom Creek to the northwest of the project site (personal communication with Robert Hill, 2017). At this location perennial or prolonged, slow moving water sources are available. This is roughly 2.3 miles from the edge of the northern proerty line, and the portion of Froom Creek between the site and observed CRLF occurrences is a highly ephemeral drainage channel with much of the channel and surrounding uplands covered in chaparral habitat that would not be easily traversed by dispersing individuals. Still it is possible that a CRLF could be washed downstream during the high flow events, such as those observed during January 2017. But as discussed herein, the portion of Froom Creek on the study area does not contain the necessary habitat attributes such as long lived, deep pools (24 inches or greater) of slow moving water with thickets of riparian shrubs, trees and emergent wetland vegetation to support foraging or CRLF breeding activities. While seasonal foraging could be supported onsite or in relatively close proximity to the site, it appears that suitable habitat in the immediate project area is limited, and if CRLF are in fact present in San Luis Obispo Creek, they occur at low numbers. 3.2.3 Critical Habitat Designation The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for CRLF in the region (Unit SLO-3). This unit is outside the study area, and no critical habitat attributes were observed within the study area. 4.0 CONCLUSION Typically, adult CRLF require dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation closely associated with deep (greater than 24 inches) still or slow-moving water for breeding habitat. Well-vegetated terrestrial areas within a riparian corridor can provide important sheltering habitat during winter months when high flows are present. The 2015 and 2016 surveys were conducted during below average rainfall years, following severe drought conditions during the previous two years. The drought conditions experienced in the region likely had a significant impact on local amphibian populations and further restricted breeding and dispersal activities. The winter and spring of 2017 was an above average precipitation year, and flowing water was present in Froom Creek in January. In addition, areas of ponded water in onsite features identified on attached data sheets persisted longer than previously observed, but still, vegetation conditions did not change significantly. Based on the results of the site assessment, the most suitable habitat identified on the project site is located in the Calle Joaquin wetland. While we cannot completely rule out CRLF presence from this area, based on the high number of survey hours onsite to date coupled with the major dispersal barriers (i.e., Highway 101, LOVR and surrounding commercial development), CRLF are unlikely to move from San Luis Obispo Creek onto the site. Further, the Froom Creek culvert is very long, and would be a major undertaking for a CRLF to disperse over 300 linear feet through this culvert to access the site. Once onsite, the dispersing individual would need to locate suitable aquatic habitat to persist, and the site assessment confirmed there are no prolonged pools with appropriate depth and vegetative structure in the immediate area of the culvert or within Froom Creek and Drainage 1 on the project site that could support this species. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 13 The portion of Froom Creek on the property does not provide suitable aquatic habitat for the CRLF due to lack of regularly ponded water with a sufficient hydroperiod to support breeding or even foraging activities. Seasonal flows with regularity to support dispersal from nearby breeding areas (such as the upper Froom Creek observation on the Waddell Property), and suitable riparian and wetland vegetation along the channel also appear to be absent. The section of Froom Creek south of the Froom Ranch property on Mountainbrook Church property extending to Calle Joaquin also lacks sufficient hydroperiods, pool structure, and instream vegetation. The southern tributary channel identified as Drainage 1 contained marginally suitable habitat since it has some prolonged surface water present in a channel with a relatively high canopy of coast live oak and California bay. However, the water depth was not suitable since it was regularly observed at less than 18 inches, and dense shrubby vegetation cover such as overhanging willows and emergent wetland plants needed for refuge and cover from predators was also not present. The in stream ponding observed and shown in the attached photo plate, shows an open channel that would be easily accessed by predators such as racoon and other birds present in the area. The Irish Hills Storm Water Basin is a constructed feature in an upland area with an ephemeral ponding regime. In drought years such as 2015 and 2016, no ponding was observed. In 2017, prolonged surface water was present in the north basin into September, and a dense carpet of wetland vegetation was present. The periodic grading and removal of vegetation and sediment from this constructed feature, as well as the water source being from polluted parking lot runoff, also reduces the potential for CRLF presence. The heavily traveled Highway 101 and LOVR corridors create a significant barrier to dispersal from the north and east, including from the 2006 occurrence at the City’s wastewater facility. While CRLF have now been confirmed in the upper Froom Creek watershed, the site is roughly 2.3 miles from this occurrence and the creek corridor and surrounding chaparral vegetation would be challenging for dispersal of CRLF onto the property, especially when considering no suitable pool habitat is present within the study area boundaries. In addition, the areas of marginal CRLF habitat comprised of the lower reach of Drainage 1 did not have a suitable hydroperiod to support CRLF. While the Calle Joaquin wetland contained potentially suitable habitat for CRLF based on the presence of prolonged surface water and dense emergent vegetation. Based on the results of this assessment, it appears unlikely that CRLF could utilize any portion of the site based on its isolation from San Luis Obispo Creek and separation from known occurrences in the region by urban development and unsuitable habitat, and the landscape around the project site is not conducive to CRLF movement. The Calle Joaquin wetland contained potentially suitable habitat, and represents the only location onsite with a higher potential to support the species. Of importance, this area would be avoided by the future project, and maintained as permanent open space. The realignment of Froom Creek has been designed to increase areas of instream ponding on the site and maintain the wetland hydrology of the Calle Joaquin wetland. As such, future development of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan is unlikely to affect CRLF, especially with the incorporation of avoidance measures such as pre-construction clearance surveys and other best management practices implemented during construction of the new Froom Creek channel. 5.0 REFERENCES Bulger, J.B., N.J. Scott, and R.B. Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial activity and conservation of adult California red-legged frogs, Rana aurora draytonii, in coastal forests and grasslands. Biological conservation 110 (2003): 85-95. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 14 Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, Editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual, Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. University of California Press. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2017. Natural Diversity Data Base of recorded occurrences of special-status species. Accessed September 2017. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter V., F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report No. FWS/OBS/-79/31. Washington, D.C. Ferren, W.R., Jr., P.L. Fiedler, and R.A. Leidy. 1996a. Wetlands of California, Part I: History of Wetland Habitat Classification. Madroño 1996 43(1):105-124. Ferren, W.R., Jr., P.L. Fiedler, R.A. Leidy, et al. 1996b. Wetlands of California, Part II: Classification and Description of Wetlands of the Central and Southern California Coast and Coastal Watersheds. Madroño 1996 43(1):125-182. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Nongame-Heritage Program. Hoover, R. 1970. Vascular Plants of San Luis Obispo County, California. Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California, 1 November 1994. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. 255 pp. Kevin Merk Associates, LLC. 2015. Froom Ranch, San Luis Obispo, California: Delineation of Waters of the United States and State of California. _______ 2016. Froom Ranch Project, San Luis Obispo County: Biological Resources Inventory. Marine Research Specialists. 2013. Chevron Tank Farm Remediation and Development Project Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Prepared for the City and County of San Luis Obispo. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2017. Web Soil Survey. National Cooperative Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed via: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app. Rathbun, G.B., and J. Schneider. 2001. Translocation of California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora draytonii). Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:1300-1303. Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Third edition, revised edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 15 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Recovery plan for the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Portland, Oregon. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Revised critical habitat for the California red-legged frog; Final Rule. 17 March 2010. Federal Register 75(51):12815-12864. Spatial data accessed through the Critical Habitat Portal via http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/. APPENDIX A CRLF Site Assessment Data Sheets KMA APPENDIX B Photo Plate KMA KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Appendix B - Photo Plate Photo 1. Southerly view of Froom Creek on the project site, looking downstream. Photo from spring 2016. Note dry, cobble channel with no pool or riffle structure visible since no recent flow. Photo 2. Southerly view of Froom Creek during winter of 2017 showing high flows following series of storm events in early January. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 3. Northeasterly overview of the middle reach of Froom Creek onsite. Channel does not support woody riparian or wetland habitats. Constructed retention basin is visible in the distance. Photo 4. Northerly view of downstream reach of Froom Creek on project site. Photo taken on January 26, 2017. High flows had receded and suspended sediment had dropped out producing clear, cool water averaging 2-6 inches deep. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 5. Another northerly view of downstream reach of Froom Creek at the confluence of Drainage 1, which is visible at the bottom of the photo. Photo 6. Westerly view of Drainage 1 as it connects with Froom Creek near the property boundary. Banks are steeply incised at this location and water depth ranged from 2-6 inches deep with 12 inches present at thalweg location. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 7. Southerly view of downstream reach of Froom Creek on the project site from March 2017 and no ponded water was present following high flows in January. Photo 8. Westerly view of the southern end of Froom Creek at the confluence with Drainage 1 from showing location of instream seasonal ponding that occurs periodically at the base of steep bank in center of photo. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 9. Close up view of seasonally ponded water present in Froom Creek just downstream from the confluence of Drainage 1. Photo taken on September 1, 2017 showing approximately water 2-4 inches deep. Photo 10. Southeasterly view of high flows within Froom Creek entering concrete box culvert under Calle Joaquin. Note approximately two feet of free board within the culvert. Photo taken in early January 2017 following series of large rain events. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 11. Froom Creek reach on the Mountainbrook Church property in the spring 2017 showing dry channel conditions. Photo 12. Drainage 1 confluence with Froom Creek, looking west or upstream toward oak woodland with California bay. One small willow is visible in the channel downstream of oaks. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 13. View of small in stream pool in Drainage 1 below a California bay tree. Size was approximately 25 feet long by 5 feet wide with a water depth between 4 and 16 inches. Photo 14. Downstream view of in stream pool in Drainage 1 at confluence of Drainage 2 as shown on Wetland Delineation Map. Water depth ranged from approximately 4-16 inches. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 15. Northerly view of wetland vegetation at the confluence of Drainage 2 with Drainage 1. Soil was saturated with cattle hoof prints supporting one to two inches of ponded water. Photo 16. Southerly view of wetland vegetation present in the lower reach of Drainage 2 near the confluence with Drainage 1. Seasonal in stream ponding present under the oak and bay trees visible in the distance. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 17. View of Calle Joaquin wetland at the southeastern corner of the site. LOVR ditch and stormwater basin drain to this area before culverts direct water offsite toward San Luis Obispo Creek. Emergent vegetation was present and water depth ranged from approximately 4-18 inches. Photo 18. Northerly view (looking towards LOVR) of the ponded water and emergent vegetation along Calle Joaquin. Area searched for amphibians during surveys and only Hyla regilla observed. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 19. Close up view of ponded water along Calle Joaquin, looking southeast at culvert that drains this area under Calle Joaquin to a riparian area between Calle Joaquin, Hotel, LOVR and Highway 101. Photo 20. View of seasonally ponded water at second culvert under Calle Joaquin. Culvert is approximately 36-inches and drains water from the site under Calle Joaquin to the southwest corner of riparian area next to hotel. Water depth was approximately 6 inches on September 1, 2017. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 21. Westerly overview of the forebay (north basin) in the Irish Hills Plaza Storm Water Basin. Cattails and tules are present in areas of prolonged saturation along with herbaceous wetland species. Photo 22. Easterly view of forebay. Basins contained wetland vegetation in bottom lands with upland grasses on earthen berms. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 23. Easterly view of main basin with spillway visible in the distance. Main basin was considerably drier and had less dense cattail and tule occurrences. Photo 24. Easterly view of ditch leading from Storm Water Basin towards LOVR Ditch and the Calle Joaquin Wetland. Crayfish, a known predator of CRLF, was observed at this location. APPENDIX C Habitat Map from Biological Resources Inventory (KMA 2016) KMA Irish Hills Plaza Mountainbrook Church Los Osos Valley RdHWY 101 Calle J o a q u i n Irish Hills Natural Reserve Froom Creek Drainage 1 Drainage 2 Drainage 3 Study Area Boundary Storm Water Basin (5.21 ac) Sycamore Trees (0.13 ac) Developed/Disturbed (8.88 ac) Eucalyptus Trees (0.61 ac) Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub (1.87 ac) Wetland (7.25 ac) Drainage Feature (2.66 ac) Coast Live Oak/CA Bay Woodland (3.23 ac) Serpentine Rock Outcrop (1.96 ac) Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland (13.46 ac) Coastal Scrub/Chaparral (6.52 ac) Annual Grassland (59.22 ac) 0 230 460 690 920115Feet Habitat Map Figure 4Froom Ranch Source(s): ESRI and its data providers; San Luis Obispo County Parcel Information John Madonna Construction, Inc. 1 in = 400 ft APPENDIX D Wetland Delineation Overview Map (KMA 2015) KMA APPENDIX F Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment (KMA, 2017) KMA FROOM RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (APNs 067-241-030, 067-241-031) SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA VERNAL POOL HABITAT ASSESSMENT Prepared for: Mr. John Madonna JM Development Group, Inc. P.O. Box 5310 San Luis Obispo, California 93403 Prepared by: Kevin Merk Associates, LLC P.O. Box 318 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 November 28, 2017 KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 VERNAL POOL HABITAT AND VERNAL POOL FAIRY SHRIMP .................................................................. 4 3.0 METHODS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Background Research .......................................................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Vernal Pool Habitat Field Assessment ......................................................................................................... 8 3.3 Qualifications of Surveyors ............................................................................................................................... 9 4.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9 4.1 Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 9 4.1.1 Calle Joaquin Wetland ....................................................................................................................... 10 4.1.2 Stormwater Detention Basins ....................................................................................................... 14 4.1.3 Critical Habitat Designation ........................................................................................................... 15 5.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................ 15 6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................ 15 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Site Location Map ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 – Aerial Overview Map .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3 - CNDDB Map ............................................................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 4 – Wetland Delineation Overview Map ......................................................................................................... 11 Figure 5 – Soils Map ............................................................................................................................................................... 12 APPENDICES Appendix A – Historic Aerial Photograph Review Appendix B – Photo Plate KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Kevin Merk Associates, LLC (KMA) conducted a vernal pool habitat assessment for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan project located just outside the current southwest city limits of the City of San Luis Obispo. A Biological Resources Inventory Report (BRI) prepared by KMA in January 2016 for the project provided background information referenced herein including a characterization of existing conditions, and results of floristic and tree inventories. A special status species evaluation was also included, and special status wildlife that could potentially occur onsite were identified based on a habitat suitability analysis. The analysis concluded that since no vernal pool or suitable seasonal wetland habitat was present, and past focused surveys for listed branchiopods in the Calle Joaquin wetland area produced negative findings, species such as the federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi; VPFS) were unlikely to occur onsite. Populations of VPFS have been identified to the east of the Froom Ranch property, primarily on the former Chevron Tank Farm property, which is within two miles of the study area. A 2013 recorded occurrence was also identified off Vachell Lane within one mile of the property. All occurrences are located to the east of Highway 101 in isolated wetlands and gentle swale complexes. As part of the ongoing regulatory agency consultation process, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in an August 14, 2017 letter from Ms. Julie Vanderwier to Ms. Shawna Scott with the City of San Luis Obispo’s Community Development Department, requested that a vernal pool habitat assessment be completed for the property. The purpose of the vernal pool habitat assessment is to determine whether suitable seasonal pool habitat capable of supporting federal listed vernal pool branchiopods such as VPFS are present onsite that could potentially be impacted by future project development. This report details the methods and results of the vernal pool habitat assessment conducted on the proposed Froom Ranch Specific Plan project site. 1.1 Project Description The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels located at 12165 and 12393 Froom Ranch Way, totaling approximately 111 acres (APN 067-241-030 and 067-241-031) currently within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County adjacent to City of San Luis Obispo city limits (please refer to Figures 1 and 2). It also includes a southern “spur” where a flood control basin would be constructed on neighboring property owned by the Mountainbrook Church. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between Highway 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. It is currently a working cattle/horse ranch that supports a variety of habitat types including: grasslands (both native bunchgrass and non-native annual), oak woodland (with California bay trees), coastal scrub/chaparral, serpentine outcrops, and seasonal and perennial wetlands that are primarily associated with drainage features. Ruderal or disturbed areas are also present and consist of existing developed areas as well as constructed stormwater basins that are part of the Irish Hills Plaza development. Froom Creek, which flows to San Luis Obispo Creek via culverts under Calle Joaquin and Highway 101, and three unnamed tributary drainages are also present onsite. The proposed Froom Ranch development is envisioned as a residential project with some commercial development in the northeast corner of the site closest to the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. Permanent open space is proposed to occupy about 51% of the Froom Ranch site. The project is divided into two main components: The Madonna Froom Ranch and The Life Plan Community (also known as the Villaggio). The Madonna Froom Ranch would be situated in the northern portion of the Specific Plan Area, just south of the Irish Hills Plaza. It will contain a mix of commercial and Site Location ^_ ²1 in = 10,000 ft 0 1 20.5 Miles Figure 1 Site Location Site Location ^_ 1 in = 1,000,000 ft JM Development Group, Inc. Froom Ranch Source: ESRI 2017 £¤101 L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d Prefumo Creek San Luis Obispo Creek Froom Creek Laguna Lake ²1 in = 2,000 ft 0 1,300 2,600650Feet Figure 2 Aerial Overview JM Development Group, Inc. Froom Ranch Approximate Study Area Boundary National Wetland Inventory (USFWS) Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 4 residential land uses, and include a hotel and trailhead park. The park will provide a staging area and connection to open space trails within the City’s Irish Hills Natural Reserve. The Villaggio project would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing and include access to assisted living, memory care, and skilled nursing. A recreational facility, restaurants, and movie theater are also planned in this community. For a detailed project description, please refer to the Froom Ranch Specific Plan prepared by RRM Design Group. 2.0 VERNAL POOL HABITAT AND VERNAL POOL FAIRY SHRIMP Vernal pools are shallow topographic depressions underlain by an impervious soil layer, such as a claypan or hardpan that fill with water during winter rains and dry in spring, creating seasonal aquatic habitat. Vernal pools typically have high levels of native biodiversity, and some pools provide habitat for protected plant, crustacean, and amphibian species (Platenkamp 1998). Vernal pools and seasonal wetlands frequently tend to be small features, often 0.125 acre or smaller, and generally cannot be easily identified on aerial imagery unless the image is high resolution and the pools are filled with water at the time the aerial photograph is taken. Naturally formed vernal pools may occur singly or in complexes, with a series of depressions in close proximity, often connected by swales. Depending on the size of the pool and other environmental factors, a vernal pool may be inundated for a week or upwards of several months before completely drying. This seasonal ponding allows a suite of native flora and fauna that are highly specialized to persist in an area with a wide range of hydrologic conditions. While Holland (1986; Holland and Iain 1988) was historically the primary source for vernal pool taxonomy in the state of California, more recent studies have refined vernal pool classification based on the hydrogeomorphology and dominant vegetation (Ferren et al. 1996; Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf and Evens, 2009). Among the fauna that may utilize vernal pools are a group of small crustaceans in the class Branchiopoda, which includes the invertebrates commonly known as fairy shrimp and tadpole shrimp. Within the state of California, over 25 species of fairy shrimp and tadpole shrimp have been recorded, including five fairy shrimp and one tadpole shrimp that are federally protected as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). San Luis Obispo County is known to host several species of fairy shrimp, with most occurrences in the drier inland areas east of Paso Robles and onto the Carrizo Plain. Within and adjacent to the City of San Luis Obispo, two species of fairy shrimp have been recorded: Linderiella occidentalis (California linderiella), and Branchinecta lynchi (“vernal pool fairy shrimp” or VPFS). California linderiella is a state Species of Concern, and VPFS is federally listed as threatened (USFWS 1994). Populations of VPFS have been recorded at two sites within two miles of the Froom Ranch property, and include the former Chevron Tank Farm property and an adjacent parcel off Buckley Road and Vachell Lane (please refer to Figure 3, the CNDDB Occurrence Map). Although VPFS were once thought to occur only in the Central Valley of California, populations have now been identified as far north as the Agate Desert of southern Oregon and as far south as the Santa Rosa Plateau near Riverside in southern California. The VPFS has the widest geographic range of the federally-listed vernal pool crustaceans, but it is seldom abundant where found, especially where it co-occurs with other species of fairy shrimp (USFWS 2003; Ericksen and Belk 1999). VPFS Occurrence 11/08/2013 San Luis Obispo Lopez Mountain North East Arroyo Grande Port San Luis Pismo Beach Text Morro Bay South Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed ²1 in = 6,000 ft 0 1 20.5 Miles Figure 3 Regional Location/VPFS Occurrence JM Development Group, Inc. Froom Ranch Approximate Study Area Boundary CNDDB Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Occurrence Study Area One Mile Buffer Additional Five Mile Buffer Source: ESRI 2017, CNDDB 2017 KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 6 As with other California freshwater fairy shrimp species, VPFS have unique biological adaptations enabling them to survive long drought seasons, as described in the excerpt below from Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation (USFWS 2007): “The vernal pool fairy shrimp has an ephemeral life cycle and exists only in vernal pools or vernal pool-like habitats; the species does not occur in riverine, marine, or other permanent bodies of water…. Like most other fairy shrimps, the vernal pool fairy shrimp lacks any substantial anti-predator defenses and does not persist in waters with fish (King et al. 1996; Eriksen and Belk, 1999). When the temporary pools dry, offspring persist in suspended development as desiccation-resistant embryos (commonly called cysts) in the pool substrate until the return of winter rains and appropriate temperatures allow some of the cysts to hatch (Eriksen and Belk, 1999). Vernal pool habitats form in depressions above an impervious substrate layer, or claypan/duripan, usually in alluvial fans and terraces (Vollmar, 2002).” “…The thermal and chemical properties of vernal pool waters are two of the primary factors affecting the distributions of specific fairy shrimp species (including the vernal pool fairy shrimp), or their appearance from year to year. Different species may appear in pools from one year to the next, depending on whether the pools fill at a different time of the year. Based on hatching and life history requirements, species may also appear in succession during one season as conditions change within the pool (Simovich and Fugate 1992; Eriksen and Belk 1999)… Active vernal pool fairy shrimp die off when water temperatures get too warm (Helm 1998). In years with low amounts of precipitation or atypical timing of precipitation, (or in substandard habitat) vernal pool species may die off before reproducing (Eriksen and Belk 1999). Adult VPFS are usually less than one (1) inch in length, and are very fragile. Their cysts are tiny, from 0.15 to 0.4 mm in diameter, and are very resilient, especially when dry (Eriksen and Belk 1999). Animals moving through vernal pools, drinking and feeding from them, may aid in dispersing VPFS to new locations: “Long-distance dispersal of anostracan cysts is thought to be enabled by waterfowl and other migratory birds that ingest cysts, and by animals that provide for movement of mud and cysts in feathers, fur, and hooves…” (USFWS 2007) VPFS populations can exist in many types of topographic depressions that pond water seasonally, including ponds that are not naturally-formed vernal pools, if the conditions provide the hydrologic regime, thermal and chemical properties the species requires. A study which sampled over 4,000 California seasonal wetlands identified endemic fairy shrimp and tadpole shrimp in wetlands ranging in type from natural freshwater and alkaline vernal pools to rock outcrop pools to percolation test pits, pools formed in dirt and gravel-based railroad rights of way by vehicular traffic, roadside ditches, stock ponds and more (Helm 1996). In northern San Luis Obispo County, at Camp Roberts National Guard Training Installation, VPFS monitoring programs recorded recurring populations of VPFS in old mortar holes and tank ruts on claypan soils (U.S. DOD and CA ARNG 1998). Simovich’s 1998 paper on “Crustacean Biodiversity and Endemism in California’s Ephemeral Wetlands” summarized characteristics specific to ephemeral water bodies that are missing in more perennial water bodies. The key characteristics identified that restrict or limit anostracans, such as VPFS, to ephemeral water bodies include: lack of fish; predation pressure from other species being KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 7 delayed until after VPFS reproduction is largely complete; and the cyst storage bank in the ephemeral pool, with VPFS cysts hatching at different times and different years, improving the species’ chances of survival (Simovich 1998). Conversely, the following characteristics are indications that the location generally will not provide suitable habitat for listed large branchiopods: “Habitats that swiftly flow water (e.g., creeks, streams, and ephemeral drainages) or habitats that are semi-to-permanently inundated and support perennial populations of predators (e.g. bullfrogs, fish, and crayfish).” (USFWS 2015) 3.0 METHODS 3.1 Background Research Prior to conducting field work, KMA’s Principal Biologist, Kevin Merk, and Senior Biologist Julie Thomas reviewed pertinent background information from the general area. This included previous biological studies in the region and on the subject site, as well as the recently completed Biological Resources Inventory (KMA 2016). Numerous field hours were spent on the study area during the winter and spring months of 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 to characterize the nature and extent of drainage and wetland features subject to Clean Water Act and California Fish and Game Code requirements, which provided direct observation of onsite hydrology. Several Environmental Impact Reports, biology studies and wetland delineations completed for nearby development projects were also reviewed. Hydrologic studies, wetland mitigation plans and subsequent mitigation monitoring reports completed for the Home Depot project, which included portions of the study area, were also reviewed as part of the investigation. Local studies and documents reviewed for this vernal pool habitat assessment included the following: ¥ Madonna Eagle Hardware Environmental Impact Report (1998); ¥ Biological Resources Analysis Letter of Findings for the Los Osos Valley Road Improvement Project (Olberding Environmental, 2001); ¥ Wetland Restoration and Mitigation Plans Relating to the Froom Ranch/Home Depot Project (Olberding Environmental, 2002); ¥ San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed Enhancement Plan (Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County, 2002); ¥ Year 1 Wetland Monitoring Report for the Froom Ranch/Boysen Ranch Mitigation Sites (Olberding Environmental, 2003); ¥ Calle Joaquin Realignment Wetland Delineation (Morro Group, 2004); ¥ Irish Hills Plaza II Wetland Delineation Map (Morro Group, 2004); ¥ Hydrologic Monitoring Plan for Sustaining a Separated Wetland Near Calle Joaquin (Balance Hydrologics, 2005); ¥ 90-Day Report of Wet Season Fairy Shrimp Surveys, Calle Joaquin Site, San Luis Obispo (Thomas, 2005); ¥ Irish Hills Plaza Detention Basin Report (Wallace Group, 2006); ¥ Year 5 Wetland Monitoring Report for the Froom Ranch/Home Depot Site (Olberding Environmental, 2007); ¥ Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 Interchange Improvements Project Biological Assessment for Central California Coast Steelhead (2008); ¥ Irish Hills Natural Area Conservation Plan Update (City of San Luis Obispo, 2011); KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 8 ¥ Madonna Enterprises Vachell Lane Property 2013 Wet Season Vernal Pool Branchiopod Survey 90-Day Report (Sage Institute, Inc., 2013); ¥ Madonna Enterprises Vachell Lane Property 2013 Dry Season Vernal Pool Branchiopod Survey 90-Day Report (Sage Institute, Inc., 2014); ¥ Chevron Tank Farm Remediation and Development Project Final Environmental Impact Report (Marine Research Specialists, 2013); and ¥ Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the United States and State of California (Wetland Delineation; KMA, 2015). Other reports from the project area including the VPFS survey findings (both wet season and dry season) for the Calle Joaquin Road Realignment project (conducted by Ms. Thomas), which included the project site, and the Vachell Lane Property (Sage II, 2013) were also reviewed. Conversations with other local branchiopod experts (pers. comm. Mitch Dallas and David Wolff) regarding their recent studies also occurred. Historical aerial photographs obtained from Google Earth were reviewed to further aid in the existing conditions characterization, and were compiled and included as an appendix to this report. The California Natural Diversity Database maintained by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CNDDB, 2017) was searched for listed branchiopod species that have been documented within the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps centered on and surrounding the site. This included the Morro Bay South, San Luis Obispo, Lopez Mountain, Port San Luis, Pismo Beach and Arroyo Grande Northeast quads. Given the project site’s proximity to the Pacific Ocean and geographic setting on the northern flank of the Irish Hills of the San Luis Range in close proximity to San Luis Obispo, the focus on these six quads was deemed a sufficient search area to identify listed branchiopod species occurring in the vicinity of the site for inclusion in the study. To support the Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey was reviewed to determine the soil mapping units present within the study area (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2017). The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s online Wetland and Critical Habitat Mapper (http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html; http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/) were also reviewed to evaluate the extent of documented wetlands and designated critical habitat in the region. 3.2 Vernal Pool Habitat Field Assessment As part of field work for the 2015 Wetland Delineation and 2016 Biological Resources Inventory, KMA’s Principal Biologist Kevin Merk conducted monthly surveys starting in January 2015 through October 2015 to track rain storms and characterize the hydrology of onsite drainage features (i.e., Froom Creek, its tributary drainages and the Los Osos Valley Road Ditch), constructed detention basins and the Calle Joaquin road impoundment. Additional site visits were conducted by Mr. Merk and other KMA biologists during the 2016-17 rain season to further map and define the extent of regulatory agency jurisdiction over the drainages and wetland areas onsite. During the site visits, KMA biologists explored the site extensively on foot and by four-wheel drive vehicle. All areas of hydrologic significance, including Froom Creek, its tributary drainages and associated seeps/springs and the LOVR ditch were visited. Any areas with ponded water or topographic swales or seeps/springs, which appeared to have the potential to pond water or maintain prolonged soil saturation were mapped and assessed for the presence of the three federal wetland criteria (i.e., hydric soils, predominance of wetland vegetation, and wetland hydrology). Please KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 9 refer to the 2015 Wetland Delineation Report and the 2016 Biological Resources Inventory prepared by KMA for further discussion. The Wetland Delineation Overview Map is included in this report. For the vernal pool habitat assessment, two additional site visits were conducted in September 2017 by Mr. Merk and Ms. Thomas to identify and survey areas with ponded water or the potential to contain pond water on a seasonal basis. The surveys searched for potential seasonal ponding indicators such as subtle changes in topography, predominance of wetland vegetation, accumulated sediment, dried mud, cracked clay soils or surface saline deposits. All drainage features, swales, ditches, basins, and topographic depressions were examined to assess the potential of supporting ponding water (at least 3 cm) with little flowing water during the wet season for sufficient duration (estimated at a minimum of two weeks) to allow a fairy shrimp population to complete a reproductive cycle. Aerial photographs of the property, wetland delineation maps, and a Trimble GeoXH 6000 GPS unit were used to record the locations of areas considered potential habitat. Photographs were taken of these locations, and record made of the vegetation present. Plant species were recorded following the Jepson Manual, second addition (Baldwin et al., 2012). Robert Hoover’s The Vascular Plants of San Luis Obispo County, California (1970) and the California Consortium of Herbaria accessed online were also used to identify plants observed onsite. 3.3 Qualifications of Surveyors KMA biologists Kevin Merk and Julie Thomas conducted this vernal pool habitat assessment survey. Both Mr. Merk and Ms. Thomas are familiar with vernal pool habitat and associated vegetation in the San Luis Obispo County area. Mr. Merk has worked extensively throughout California in vernal pool regions conducting wetland delineations and surveying for listed branchiopods and amphibians such as the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). In addition, Ms. Thomas has over 15 years of experience conducting protocol surveys for vernal pool fairy shrimp and assessing potential habitat throughout Central California, including San Luis Obispo County, and holds a valid USFWS 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permit for listed branchiopods (#TE834492-5). 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment VPFS have been recorded at two sites located within two miles of the proposed Froom Ranch project site: ¥ At the former Chevron Tank Farm on Tank Farm Road in San Luis Obispo, multiple surveys have identified VPFS populations in remnant tank rings, former earthen bermed oil reservoirs, drainage ditches with little to no flowing water and other altered landscape features and topographic depressions on the property (Marine Research Specialists, 2013). Linderiella occidentalis (California linderiella), a more common fairy shrimp, has also been recorded on this property, and in some instances co-occurs with VPFS. ¥ A population of VPFS was more recently recorded in a seasonal pond/swale feature on the east side of Vachell Lane between South Higuera Street and Buckley Road in the County of San Luis Obispo during wet season surveys in 2004-05, and again with dry season sampling in 2013. Linderiella occidentalis was also recorded in this location (SII; 2013, 2014). KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 10 The above VPFS sites and the Froom Ranch property are not connected via surface hydrology, but the proximity of these VPFS populations suggests the possibility that cysts could be transported to the Froom Ranch property via birds and other wildlife that could cross urban areas and Highway 101. However, even if viable VPFS cysts were introduced by migrating wildlife, a population could only be established on Froom Ranch if suitable habitat were present. On the Froom Ranch property, KMA identified three features with potential to pond water with a depth and duration sufficient to potentially support listed branchiopod species: two constructed earthen drainage basins that are part of the Irish Hills Plaza infrastructure (“north drainage basin” and “south drainage basin”), and a wetland area adjacent to the intersection of Calle Joaquin and Los Osos Valley Road (“Calle Joaquin wetland”). Please refer to Figures 4 and 5 for location information. Other wetland, creek and drainage features in the Froom Ranch survey area do not provide potential habitat for listed branchiopod species, either because they periodically experience scouring flows, do not exhibit the topography to pond water at the required depth and duration to support the species, or because they are perennially moist seeps. Both the north and south drainage basins, as well as the Calle Joaquin wetland, occur on the NRCS soil map unit Cropley clay, 0-2% slopes (Figure 6), described as follows: Cropley clay 0-2 % slopes. Cropley clay consists of a dark gray or black (10YR 4/1, 3/1, 2/1 moist) clay horizon about 36 inches thick, underlain by a light brown calcareous clay loam to 60 inches or more. Permeability of this soil is slow and the available water capacity is high. Cropley soils formed in alluvium developed from sedimentary rocks. An unnamed component of Cropley clay is listed as a hydric soil when present in drainageways. This inclusion is typically very dark gray throughout, with mottles present in the lower horizons. Mapped inclusions within this series include Diablo clay, Los Osos loam, and Salinas silty clay loam. (NRCS 2015) The Cropley clay soil as described has the characteristics that would enable it to provide a claypan substrate that could pond water on a seasonal basis. Discussion of the VPFS habitat potential of the north and south drainage basins and the Calle Joaquin wetland follows below. Also, please refer to the historic aerial photographs included as Appendix A and site photographs in Appendix B for further detail. 4.1.1 Calle Joaquin Wetland The southwest side of the intersection of Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin contains a wetland community associated with the LOVR roadside drainage ditch, which was likely created or enlarged by alteration of natural topography when the roads were constructed, resulting in increased impoundment of surface and subsurface flow. Under the proposed Froom Ranch plan, this wetland would be in the portion of the property to remain as protected open space. A number of biological and hydrologic studies have been completed at this location for prior projects, including the Calle Joaquin Road realignment, and the LOVR/Highway 101 interchange project. Focused protocol level surveys for VPFS for the Calle Joaquin Road realignment did not locate the species in the wetland area. The 2015 wetland delineation completed by KMA reported that this area exhibited a dense cover of perennial wetland plants trending toward coastal and valley freshwater marsh habitat, Los Osos Valley RoadCalle J o a q u i n Irish Hills PlazaDrainage 1 Drainage 2 Drainage 3 Froom Creek Figure 4a Figure 4b MountainbrookChurch Irish Hills Natural Reserve Study Area Boundary CDFW Jurisdiction (5.41 acres) USACE Wetlands (7.25 acres) USACE Other Waters (2.66 acres) John Madonna Construction, Inc.0 200 400 600 800100Feet Wetland Delineation Overview Source(s): RRM Design Froom Ranch Figure 41 in = 350 ft £¤101 L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d ²1 in = 800 ft 0 530 1,060265Feet Figure 5 Soil Map JM Development Group, Inc. Froom Ranch Approximate Study Area Boundary Soil Type (NRCS Soil Survey) Cropley Clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes Diablo and Cibo clays, 9 to 15 percent slopes Diablo and Cibo clays, 15 to 30 percent slopes Los Osos-Diablo complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes Los Osos-Diablo complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes Obispo-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 75 percent slopes Salinas silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Xererts-Xerolls-Urban land complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes Corducci-Typic Xerofluvents, 0 to 5 percent slopes, occasionally flooded Source: ESRI 2017, USDA 2017 KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 13 indicating prolonged saturated soil conditions. The vegetation in the Calle Joaquin wetland area was: “…dominated by clustered field sedge, and included distinct areas of silverweed (Potentilla anserina - OBL), brown-headed rush (Juncus phaeocephalus - FACW), round-leaf leather root (Hoita orbicularis - OBL), and rough sedge (Carex senta - OBL). Ponded areas containing California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus - OBL), were present along portions of the property edge along Calle Joaquin.” (KMA 2015) The September 2017 field visits conducted for this vernal pool habitat assessment recorded these same dominant vegetation species, and surface ponding of between four and 18 inches was present in the area dominated by California bulrush. The 2015 wetland delineation concluded that this non-riparian wet meadow area dominated by wetland vegetation would be classified as Palustrine Emergent Wetland per Cowardin, and met the federal wetland criteria and falls under regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (KMA 2015; Cowardin et al. 1979; USACE 2008). The dominance of perennial wetland vegetation, observed surface ponding into September, as well as review of historical aerial photographs obtained from Google Earth, suggests that the Calle Joaquin wetland site functions as a semi-perennial to perennial wetland. In addition, during the field visits, a crayfish carcass between the south basin and the Calle Joaquin wetland ponded area provided supporting evidence of the semi-perennial ponding regime (USFWS 2015). If fairy shrimp cysts were introduced into the Calle Joaquin wetland by migrating wildlife or birds, and the pool was inoculated during a period when the pond went intermittently dry, the fairy shrimp population, if established, would likely be eventually decimated by predator species during subsequent wetter years with longer periods of ponding. Although there are exceptions, generally fairy shrimp species such as VPFS are absent from habitats supporting the abundance of predators expected in more permanent waters such as dragonfly larvae, notonectids, dysticid beetles, fish, crayfish; this includes the later stages of temporary habitats when the abundance of predators is usually at a maximum (Keeley and Zedler, 1998; USFWS 2015). Prior fairy shrimp surveys at this site that produced negative results support the conclusion that the Calle Joaquin wetland does not provide suitable fairy shrimp habitat. The 2004-05 protocol fairy shrimp surveys (wet and dry season) conducted at the Calle Joaquin wetland area as part of the Calle Joaquin Realignment Project found no VPFS or other listed vernal pool branchiopod species present (Thomas 2005). Although the footprint of the Calle Joaquin wetland as sampled in 2004-05 was somewhat altered by the subsequent road realignment project, the area continues to function as a semi-perennial to perennial wetland. 4.1.2 Stormwater Detention Basins Construction of the Irish Hills Plaza included two large stormwater detention basins, immediately adjacent to each other and separated by an earthen berm. The basins were constructed between mid-2006 and mid-2007. A temporary basin was also constructed to handle construction runoff before the larger basins were fully operable. After completion of construction of the Home Depot and surrounding areas, surface runoff from the Irish Hills Plaza development is now directed into the larger drainage basins, and the temporary basin was filled in and recontoured, and no longer has the capacity to pond water. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 14 The two currently active drainage basins, referred to here as “north basin” and “south basin” release overflow water to the LOVR Roadside Ditch via a storm drain outfall into a constructed swale. During large storm events, they are designed to discharge water into the wet meadow area along Calle Joaquin via a concrete spillway on the south side of the south drainage basin. Otherwise, water leaves the basins through evaporation and ground percolation. Google Earth historical aerial imagery indicates that these basins have been actively managed, with grading of the basins performed between April and August 2013, disturbing soil and removing vegetation (Appendix A: August 23, 2013). Under the proposed Froom Ranch development plan, these drainage basins would be removed, and runoff would be redirected into new constructed features including a larger basin proposed on the neighboring Mountainbrook Church property adjacent to Froom Creek. During the September 2017 habitat assessment field visits, the north basin featured shallow ponding (average 4-8 inches in depth) throughout much of the basin. Vegetation was dominated by obligate wetland plants such as cattail (Typha latifolia), spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya) and small fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus) along with brown-headed rush (Juncus phaeocephalus) and rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis). The south basin was densely vegetated, but did not have ponded water or the predominance of obligate wetland plants, though signs of recent seasonal ponding were evident in the form of algal mats, cracked soil and surface salt deposits. Dominant vegetation included facultative wetland species such as creeping rye (Elymus triticoides), brown-headed rush, and reed fescue (Festuca arundinacea) with patches of cattails were present in several areas where saturation persists In the more barren patches exhibiting salt crust and/or algal mats from recent drying, prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper; FAC) frequently occurred. Neither Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) nor Hoover’s button celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri), which are both indicators of vernal pool or seasonal wetland habitat, were observed in either drainage basin. Historical aerial photos reviewed on Google Earth show that the north and south basins both dry out seasonally in most years. The high rainfall of 2016-17 may be responsible for the continued ponding seen in the north basin in early September 2017, as well as for ponding that appears to have lasted into the summer in the south basin, based on presence of algal mats and salt deposits. The wetland plant species currently dominating both basins suggest semi-perennial wetland hydrology, but aerial photos taken as recently as September 2016 show the vegetation in both basins as almost entirely brown, with no visible surface ponding. The pattern of seasonal drying shown in the historic aerial photos suggests that it is possible that the basins might have a hydrologic regime in many years that would provide suitable fairy shrimp habitat, even though the current year’s vegetation community is more typical of a semi-perennial wetland, which would be unsuitable habitat. The fact that the basins were constructed as recently as 2006-07, and then graded for maintenance in 2013, and are not hydrologically connected to existing fairy shrimp habitat, makes it unlikely that there has been time for fairy shrimp to be inoculated into the basins and to develop into a sustained population, even if a suitable hydrologic regime exists. Soil disturbance such as grading can easily bury or remove fairy shrimp cysts, and is generally considered incompatible with presence of a persistent fairy shrimp population. Based on the recent construction and management history of these two drainage basins, and the lack of direct connectivity with other fairy shrimp habitat, it is very unlikely that the basins support a population of listed branchiopods. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 15 4.1.3 Critical Habitat Designation The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for VPFS in the region (Units 29C and 30, designated in 2006), but outside the five mile buffer around the study area. The proposed project area is not situated within a critical habitat unit, and no critical habitat attributes were observed within the study area. 5.0 CONCLUSION Based on field surveys and review of relevant background documents of the Froom Ranch site, three features were initially identified as having characteristics of a seasonal ponding and drying regime with the potential to support listed branchiopods: the north and south drainage basins, and the Calle Joaquin wetland. The north and south drainage basins were dominated by wetland vegetation at the time of field surveys in September 2017. Much of the north basin was still ponded with water, averaging four (4) to eight (8) inches in depth. The south basin was not ponded, but showed signs of recent drying in the form of salt deposits on the substrate surface, and much of the basin was dominated by wetland vegetation. These factors could suggest that the drainage basins have a semi-permanent wetland hydrologic regime; however, historic aerial photos show that, in most years since the basins were constructed, the basin vegetation was brown by end of summer, and no ponding is evident. It’s likely that the extent of wetland vegetation and ponding observed in September 2017 is an anomaly resulting from the exceptionally wet 2016-17 rain season, and that in most years the basins do dry out for a number of months, and in general have a seasonal ponding regime. However, both of the drainage basins were constructed within the past 11 years, and since they are not hydrologically connected to known fairy shrimp habitat, there has been limited time and opportunity for inoculation of the basins through wildlife transfer of cysts. In addition, the basins are actively managed to maintain holding capacity and, based on aerial photos, were subject to maintenance activities including grading in 2013. Inoculation and population establishment of fairy shrimp would therefore have had to occur after the 2013 grading. Given the lack of immediate proximity to existing fairy shrimp habitat and the ongoing maintenance activities in the drainage basins, it is considered very unlikely that the drainage basins provide habitat for listed species of branchiopods such as VPFS. The Calle Joaquin wetland had been sampled for listed branchiopods during 2004-05 and no fairy shrimp species were found to occur there. Historic aerial photos suggest that the Calle Joaquin wetland area remains moist or ponded throughout most years. KMA field surveys for this assessment found wetland vegetation dominant in the area subject to ponding, as well as hydric soils and evidence of presence of aquatic predator species generally considered incompatible with listed branchiopod populations. Based on these factors, the Calle Joaquin wetland is not considered potential habitat for listed species of branchiopods. 6.0 REFERENCES Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, Editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual, Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. University of California Press. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 16 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2017. Natural Diversity Data Base of recorded occurrences of special-status species. Accessed September 2017. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter V., F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report No. FWS/OBS/-79/31. Washington, D.C. Ericksen, C.H. and D. Belk. 1999. Fairy Shrimps of California’s Puddles, Pools, and Playas. Mad River Press. Eureka, California. Ferren, W.R., Jr., P.L. Fiedler, and R.A. Leidy. 1996a. Wetlands of California, Part I: History of Wetland Habitat Classification. In Madroño 1996 43(1):105-124. Ferren, W.R., Jr., P.L. Fiedler, R.A. Leidy, et al. 1996b. Wetlands of California, Part II: Classification and Description of Wetlands of the Central and Southern California Coast and Coastal Watersheds. In Madroño 1996 43(1):125-182. Helm, B. P. 1998. Biogeography of Eight Large Branchiopods Endemic to California. In Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems: Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. Witham, C.W., et. al., Editors. CNPS. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Nongame-Heritage Program. Holland, R. F., and S. lain. 1988. Vernal pools. Pages 515-533 in M. B. Barbour and I. Major, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California, new expanded edition. California Native Plant Society, Special Publication Number 9, Sacramento, California. Hoover, R. 1970. Vascular Plants of San Luis Obispo County, California. Keeler-Wolf, Todd et al. 1998. California Vernal Pool Assessment Preliminary Report. Unpublished report prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game. Keeley, J.E., and P.H. Zedler. 1998. Characterization and Global Distribution of Vernal Pools. In Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems: Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. Witham, C.W., et. al., Editors. CNPS. Kevin Merk Associates, LLC. 2015. Froom Ranch, San Luis Obispo, California: Delineation of Waters of the United States and State of California. _______ 2016. Froom Ranch Project, San Luis Obispo County: Biological Resources Inventory. Marine Research Specialists. 2013. Chevron Tank Farm Remediation and Development Project Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Prepared for the City and County of San Luis Obispo. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2015. Web Soil Survey. National Cooperative Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed via: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 17 Platenkamp, G. A. J. 1998. Patterns of Vernal Pool Biodiversity at Beale Air Force Base. In: C. W. Witham, E. T. Bauder, D. Belk, W. R. Ferren Jr., and R. Orduff (eds.). Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems − Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Pages 151–160. Sage Institute, Inc. 2013. Madonna Enterprises Vachell Lane Property 2013 Wet Season Vernal Pool Branchiopod Survey 90-Day Report. Sage Institute, Inc. 2014. Madonna Enterprises Vachell Lane Property 2013 Dry Season Vernal Pool Branchiopod Survey 90-Day Report. Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Simovich, M.A. 1998. Crustacean Biodiversity and Endemism in California’s Ephemeral Wetlands. In Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems: Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. Witham, C.W., et. al., Editors. CNPS. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. United States Department of Defense (U.S. DOD) National Guard Bureau and State of California Army National Guard. 1998. Protection and Monitoring of Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp at Camp Roberts Army National Guard Installation: 1997-98 Annual Report. Submitted to U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura, CA United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the Conservancy Fairy Shrimp, Longhorn Fairy Shrimp, and Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp, and Threatened Status for the Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp. Federal Register, 59: 48136 48153 _______ 2003. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for Four Vernal Pool Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal Pool Plants in California and Southern Oregon. Federal Register 68: 46684 46732. _______ 2007. Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Service Office, Sacramento, CA. _______ 2015. Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods. Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, CA. APPENDIX A Historic Aerial Photograph Review KMA KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. APPENDIX A Historic Aerial Photos (Source: Google Earth) August 4, 2006 Before construction of drainage basins and Calle Joaquin Road reconstruction. Froom Creek visible to left. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. July 30, 2007 Newly constructed drainage basins. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. September 17, 2011 Vegetation cover and possible ponding visible in north basin; south basin well-vegetated with possible salt deposits on soil surface. Ponding visible in Calle Joaquin wetland. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. April 9, 2013 Both drainage basins well-vegetated. Calle Joaquin wetland ponded. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. August 23, 2013 Both drainage basins were recently graded, removing most vegetation from the basin floors, and disturbing soil. At Calle Joaquin wetland, no surface ponding is apparent. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. April 2, 2015 No ponding visible in either of the basins or the Calle Joaquin wetland. Approx. 50% vegetation cover visible in drainage basins. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. September 29, 2016 The north and south drainages are dry, with vegetation dry/dormant. Possible small area of ponding in the Calle Joaquin wetland. APPENDIX B Photo Plate KMA KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 1 APPENDIX B - PHOTO PLATE Photo 1. North drainage basin: Overview of basin, facing northeast. Photo 2. North drainage basin: View to northwest, taken from berm between north and south drainage basins, showing stand of cattails (Typha latifolia) on basin floor. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 2 Photo 3. North drainage basin: Transition from upland plant species such as coast golden bush (Hazardia squarrosa) growing on the berm to dominantly wetland vegetation on basin floor, including stand of cattails (Typha latifolia), as well as ponded water. Photo 4. South drainage basin: facing east from midpoint of berm between basins. Upland vegetation on the berm between the two drainage basins is in foreground, with greener basin floor vegetation below. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 3 Photo 5. South drainage basin: Overview facing south taken from approximate middle of berm between basins. Photo 6. South drainage basin: Example of representative vegetation on basin floor, primarily creeping ryegrass (Elymus triticoides). KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 4 Photo 7. South drainage basin: brown-headed rush (Juncus phaeocephalus), surrounding dried mud with salt deposits and prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper). Photo 8. South drainage basin: small stand of cattails at northeast end in a dense carpet of creeping ryegrass. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 5 Photo 9. South drainage basin: cracked mud and salt deposits indicate past ponding. Photo 10. Calle Joaquin wetland: southwesterly view of ponded water and stand of California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus) in shallow surface water. Area is surrounded by a mix of wetland vegetation with the non-native reed fescue (Festuca arundinacea). KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 6 Photo 11. Ditch from north basin draining water into the LOVR Roadside Ditch adding to surface water in the Calle Joaquin wetland. Photo 12. Crayfish carcass, a known predator of branchiopods and other native amphibians, on ground between south drainage basin and Calle Joaquin wetland. APPENDIX G Response to EIR Consultant Supplement Information Request KMA KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 1 Appendix G – Response to EIR Consultant Supplemental Information Request 1. Amend Biological Resources Inventory report to provide a better description of wetland features in the 3.2 acre Irish Hills Plaza Basin. Response: Biological Resources Inventory Report was revised. Refer to page 20. Also please refer to the Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment and Site Assessment for the California Red-Legged Frog prepared for the project by KMA in 2017. 2. Provide any correspondence with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regarding “spigot wetlands”. Response: The Corps reviewed the Wetland Delineation Report prepared by KMA in 2015 and concurred with the delineation maps that do not identify the constructed basins being subject to their Clean Water Act Section 404 jurisdiction. No mention of the term “spigot wetlands” was included in their determination letter dated September 24, 2015 sent to Mr. John Madonna, but the Clean Water Rule (2015) states that “artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land and used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins or rice growing” are not subject to Clean Water Act regulation. Further clarification is provided in the Clean Water Rule as follows: “Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to upland should irrigation cease” (i.e., a spigot wetland, which refers to a wetland formed artificially) and “water filled depressions created as a result of construction activity” are also not subject to the regulatory authority of the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. If the spigot was turned off, the wetland feature would revert to upland. 3. Provide a complete background/history of the Home Depot temporary settling basin (approximately one acre basin that was removed from the site). Response: It is KMA’s understanding that the Home Depot basin was constructed to handle stormwater for the project to the north. It acted as a temporary settling basin during construction of the neighboring Irish Hills Plaza and Home Depot project. Once construction of the Irish Hills Plaza Basin was complete in 2006, the Home Depot Basin was no longer needed since the project’s stormwater system was tied into the larger Irish Hills Plaza Basin constructed further south. The Home Depot Basin and Irish Hills Plaza Basin were strategically sited in upland areas to avoid any potential wetland features. The Home Depot Basin had an outlet swale shown on the project plans that extended to Los Osos Valley Road, which was through a mapped wetland. The outlet swale was apparently not included in the Department of the Army permit acquired for the project, and once it was constructed, the Corps required the swale to be removed. To allow surface drainage from the basin to flow towards Los Osos Valley Road consistent with historic drainage patterns, notches were cut in the eastern berm to allow water to leave the basin after sediment and stormwater contaminants had settled. Other un-permitted impacts to Corps jurisdictional wetlands also occurred during construction of the project, and the Corps suspended the Nationwide Permit issued for the project. In order to resolve the violations, the applicant combined the two mitigation locations into a single site, the Boysen Ranch, and a revised mitigation plan was prepared by Olberding in 2002. The applicant was required to restore the two areas on the current KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 2 Froom Ranch site where un-permitted impacts occurred, and this included a 0.26-acre stockpile location and 0.36-acre ditch/swale excavated from the temporary basin to Los Osos Valley Road. It also included re-contouring an earthen berm constructed during initial grading on the Boysen Ranch that apparently encroached on existing wetlands to be preserved. Onsite wetland mitigation was originally proposed as part of the project and included constructed swales on the western and southern boundaries of the site. In addition, mitigation measure Bio-2 in the Eagle Hardware EIR stated that the proposed Home Depot Basin should be reconfigured to provide some wetland mitigation for project related impacts. The record is unclear, but it appears that due to the series of violations associated with the project’s Department of the Army permit acquired for wetland impacts, the Corps and developer went to court and a consent decree was issued requiring the completion of additional mitigation. The wetland mitigation requirements were increased to 14.9 acres to compensate for the originally permitted impacts to 2.93 acres of wetland and the construction violations to an additional 2.81 acres. An agreement was made between the Corps and permittee to complete all wetland mitigation requirements offsite at the Boysen Ranch. It is uncertain if the City of San Luis Obispo was involved at that time, but ultimately accepted a conservation easement over the Boysen Ranch wetland mitigation area and annexed the project. The County of San Luis Obispo, which was the lead agency for the Eagle Hardware project, was contacted and no records such as a final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were located to confirm all wetland mitigation associated with mitigation measure Bio-2 was completed offsite. None the less, the Corps reviewed five years of annual monitoring reports for the wetland mitigation efforts at Boysen Ranch and confirmed in a February 19, 2015 letter to Mr. Clint Pearce of Madonna Construction Company that all mitigation requirements (i.e., final success criteria) associated with the project were met, which facilitated termination of the consent decree. 4. Will construction of the proposed stormwater basin on the Mountainbrook Church property impact Froom Creek between the Specific Plan boundary and Calle Joaquin/Highway 101? Response: Based on the preliminary plans prepared to date and the concept that the proposed basin will handle high flows within Froom Creek and reduce flooding potential onsite, approximately 50 to 100 feet of impact is estimated to occur to the southern creek bank of Froom Creek just south of the Specific Plan boundary. The bank on the north side pf the creek where the hotel is located would not be affected. Within this 50 to 100 foot zone, the upper bank would be affected by grading and earth work to create an overflow point to allow high flows within the creek to enter the basin (the inflow feature) and be retained until the flows subsided. A spillway (the outflow feature) would also be constructed within this area to allow flows to potentially re-enter the creek during the larger storm events. The goal will be to site the disturbance area in a more open area outside any riparian scrub habitat. Still, the creek bank will be graded and arroyo willows could be removed and trimmed. Most likely, the upper creek bank would be recontoured to create the inflow/outflow features, but the bed of the channel may also require alteration and possibly armoring with rock slope protection. Should earthen berms be required, they would be strategically set back from the top of bank and outer limits of riparian scrub habitat to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional areas . Ultimately all project related activities that KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 3 affect the Froom Creek’s bed or banks would be under the review and approval (through permit issuance) of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife and NOAA Marine Fisheries Service are also expected to be involved through the interagency consultation process defined under Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act. 5. Amend the Biological Resources Inventory Report to provide further text narrative detailing the current regulatory status of wetlands including replacement at Boysen Ranch. Response: The Biological Resources Inventory was prepared to document existing conditions of the site, and not to provide impact analysis of the proposed Specific Plan project or the history of the neighboring project to the north. The current regulatory status of wetlands onsite are documented in the Wetland Delineation Report prepared by KMA in 2015 and subsequent Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination completed by the Corps (2015 letter from the Corps to Mr. John Madonna). The consent decree was a court order placed on the Home Depot project for impacts to wetlands that exceeded those allowed under the project’s Department of the Army permit. While it appears that there was intent by the lead agency and applicant to provide some wetland mitigation onsite (Eagle Hardware mitigation measure Bio-2), the increase in mitigation requirements rendered by the Corps steered all wetland mitigation to an offsite location at the Boysen Ranch. The Corps evaluated five years of monitoring reports and conducted a site visit to confirm the wetland mitigation effort met the final success criteria identified in the 2002 Wetland Mitigation Plan prepared by Olberding. A letter from the Corps to Mr. Clint Pearce of Madonna Construction (2015) confirmed all mitigation was complete, and subsequently the consent decree was terminated. No wetland mitigation for the Home Depot project (formerly Eagle Hardware) beyond the construction of the west and south swale features occurred on the Froom Ranch property. The updated wetland delineation (KMA 2015) and the final Olberding monitoring efforts used methods described in the Wetland Delineation Manual (and Arid West Supplement) to confirm the extent of Corps Section 404 jurisdictional wetlands on the Froom Ranch and Boysen Ranch and offsite mitigation area. 6. Connectivity to wetlands. As stated in the BRI and Wetland Delineation Report and later confirmed in the Cleath- Harris Geologists Groundwater Assessment report, a combination of surface and subsurface hydrology elements support wetlands along Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin. Groundwater is shallow in this area from the historic confluence of Prefumo Creek and Froom Creek with San Luis Obispo Creek. Road construction and other development in the area may have also further impounded and influenced the hydrology of the area that supports the wetland features on both sides of Calle Joaquin. The Cleath groundwater assessment anticipates increased water available in the Calle Joaquin wetland area once the project is constructed and Froom Creek re-aligned to its historic location. The goal of the Froom Creek restoration concept is to increase the extent of wetland and riparian habitat and create more prolonged seasonal pools in the channel KMA Froom Ranch Project Biological Resources Inventory Revised November 2018 JM Development Group, Inc. 4 capable of providing a stepping stone for steelhead between San Luis Obispo Creek and the upstream reaches of Froom Creek. 7. Value of proposed stormwater basin as a wetland feature. Response: The proposed offsite stormwater basin will replace the Irish Hills Plaza Basin, and will not be used for wetland mitigation due to the need to conduct maintenance similar to the existing basin complex. Maintenance of onsite basins includes annual clearing of vegetation and accumulated sediment and debris. Once constructed, the new basin would be hydroseeded with an assemblage of native species tolerant of seasonal inundation to provide vegetation cover of the basin floor and the earthen berm. Given the presence of seasonal surface water during the winter rain season, some wetland vegetation, such as airborne seed from cattails, is expected to colonize the floor of the basin, similar to the seasonal variation in vegetation in the current Irish Hills Plaza Basin. APPENDIX H Home Depot Wetland Mitigation Information Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (Olberding, 2002) Year 5 Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Report (Olberding, 2007) Mitigation Completion Letter (USACE, 2016) KMA YEAR 5 WETLAND MONITORING REPORT FOR THE FROOM RANCH/HOME DEPOT SITE (Corps File No. 985007300-TW and 20020110-BAH) SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: MADONNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY P.O. Box 3910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 Prepared by: OLBERDING ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Wetland Regulatory Consultants 1390 Willow Pass Road, Suite 370 Concord, California 94520-7975 Phone: (925) 825-2111 FAX (925) 825-2112 Contact: Jeff Olberding OCTOBER 2007 i 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Home Depot/Froom Ranch ....................................................................... 1 1.1.2 Los Osos Valley Road Improvement ......................................................... 1 1.2 Restoration Activities............................................................................................ 2 1.3 Location ................................................................................................................. 3 1.4 Objectives of Monitoring ...................................................................................... 3 2.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 5 3.0 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Performance Criteria ............................................................................................ 5 3.1.1 Percent Cover ............................................................................................. 5 3.1.2 Site Maintenance........................................................................................ 7 3.2 Trend Characteristics ........................................................................................... 7 3.2.1 Plant Vigor and Health .............................................................................. 7 3.2.2 Natural Reproduction/Recruitment ........................................................... 7 3.3 Photo-documentation ............................................................................................ 8 3.4 Summary of Army Corps of Engineers Data Sheets ......................................... 8 4.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Evaluation of Quantitative Success Criteria - Year 5 ........................................ 8 5.0 RECOMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 12 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Summary of Impacts/mitigations to “Waters of the United States” by Habitat Type ...... 2 Table 2 Summary of Restoration and Creation Activity ............................................................... 3 Table 3 Boysen Ranch, Froom Ranch and LOVR Mitigation Monitoring Objectives ................. 4 Table 4 Quantitative Vegetative Success Criteria ......................................................................... 4 Table 5 Relative and Absolute Cover for Plant Species Found in Wetland “B” Data Points at Boysen Ranch .................................................................................................................. 6 Table 6 Wetland Determination by Sample Point ......................................................................... 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS ii ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FIGURES Figure No. 1. Regional Map Figure No. 2. Vicinity Map Figure No. 3. USGS 7.5 Quadrangle Map Figure No. 4. Aerial Photograph Figure No. 5. As-Built Survey (Sheets 1-3) ATTACHMENT NO. 2 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ATTACHMENT NO. 3 DATA SHEETS ATTACHMENT NO. 4 LIST OF PLANT SPECIES ATTACHMENT NO. 5 MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEETS FOR OVERALL SPECIES ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION ATTACHMENT NO. 6 MITIGATION MONITOIRNG DATA SHEETS FOR EVALUATION OF MITIGATION SUCCESS CRITERIA This report should be cited as: Olberding Environmental, Inc. October 2007. Year 5 Wetland Monitoring Report for the Froom Ranch/Home Depot Site, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for Madonna Construction Company, San Luis Obispo, California. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 0 SUMMARY The following document was prepared to present the Year 5 monitoring results of the Boysen Ranch mitigation property and the restoration efforts at the Home Depot on Los Osos Valley Road, located in San Luis Obispo, California (please see Attachment No. 1, Figures 1-3). This report has been prepared as specified in the “Wetland Restoration and Mitigation Plan Relating to the Froom Ranch/Home Depot Project” dated June 10, 2002. The Year 5 monitoring report is the last of five reports that shall be used to determine the overall success of the mitigation site and restoration efforts. The fill of 2.93 acres of jurisdictional seasonal wetland habitat was originally permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer (Corps) to facilitate construction of the Home Depot store located in San Luis Obispo on Los Osos Valley Road. Original mitigation proposed to offset jurisdictional impacts included the creation of 4.7 acres of seasonal wetland habitat. Alleged violations at the Home Depot construction site included 2.81 acres of fill. Mitigation proposed to replace wetland values for the violation was 10.2 acres of seasonal wetland. Also the mitigation included the restoration of 0.9 acres of swale and drainage ditch in the Home Depot construction area. The original mitigation and the mitigation for the violation combined for a total of 14.9 acres of creation. This final acreage was proposed to mitigate all impacts at the Home Depot store site at Froom Ranch with the exception of the restoration work on the swale and drainage ditch. In addition, the impacts associated with the relocation of the roadside ditch parallel to Los Osos Valley Road consisted of 1.37 acres. This impact was mitigated through the construction of 1.51 acres of wetland habitat at the Boysen Ranch mitigation property and the creation of 0.55 acres adjacent to Los Osos Valley Road. Total mitigation for Los Osos Valley road was 2.06 acres. Construction of wetland habitat at the Boysen Ranch mitigation area was achieved in the fall of 2002 with initial monitoring of the site being performed in early 2003. Five wetland polygons were constructed and named Area A, Area B, Area C, Area D, and Area E. A total of 16.96 acres of wetland habitat was created in the five areas for the Froom Ranch/Home Depot Project, the alleged violation, and the Los Osos Valley Road widening. These wetlands were positioned adjacent to an unnamed seasonal creek channel and consisted of shallow basins. Hydrology to the mitigation site was designed to originate from rainfall, from adjacent upland runoff and from flooding when the creek channel is overtopped. The Boysen Ranch mitigation area and the relocated LOVR drainage ditch continue to meet the established success criteria as of the site visit performed in May 2007. The natural wetland hydrology of both sites provides appropriate conditions for the establishment of hydrophytic vegetation. Soils at the mitigation sites meet the criterion to be determined wetland. Cover and wetland species composition are appropriate for the Boysen Ranch and LOVR site and the mitigation monitoring results indicate successful establishment of wetland conditions. 1 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 Background 1.1.1 Home Depot/Froom Ranch This report summarizes the Year 5 monitoring results prepared for Froom Ranch/Home Depot located at the Boysen Ranch, San Luis Obispo, California. This document provides the objectives, methods, results, conclusions and recommendations for the success of onsite wetland mitigation required as a condition of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Permit No. 985007300-TW and Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) Water Quality Certification Resolution No. 98-095. Corps authorization under Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 26 Headwaters and Isolated Waters was verified on February 11, 1999, allowing the construction of the Home Depot store site within the Froom Ranch area along Los Osos Valley Road. Specifically, NWP 26 authorized impacts to approximately 2.93 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Of the 2.93 acres approximately 2.88 acres were to be permanent impacts from fill activities, with the remaining 0.04 acres being temporary impacts. On November 17, 2000, Madonna Construction Company began grading and fill work for the development project. Work at the Boysen Ranch mitigation site was also performed during this time frame, prior to December 20, 2000. In a letter dated March 14, 2001, the Corps suspended NWP 26 verification for the Project because of alleged violations of the permit's terms and conditions. The alleged violations where associated with grading, excavation and placement of fill into non-permitted jurisdictional wetlands associated with development activities. The Corps claims that during project construction an additional 2.81 acres of jurisdictional seasonal wetland habitat was allegedly filled on Froom Ranch and the site of the Home Depot Project. In order to resolve the alleged violations, Madonna proposed the creation of 10.2 acres of new jurisdictional seasonal wetland habitat on the Boysen Ranch site in addition to the 4.7 acres of mitigation habitat originally associated with the Home Depot Project. The two mitigation locations adjoin each other. Combining the two mitigation sites required that the originally prepared mitigation plan be incorporated into one comprehensive document for ease in implementation and monitoring. 1.1.2 Los Osos Valley Road Improvement In addition to the Home Depot construction related mitigation, the mitigation and monitoring activities required for the Los Osos Valley Road Improvement Project (LOVR Project), are included in this document. Madonna Construction Company was authorized by a Department of the Army Section 404 Permit, to permanently fill approximately 0.73 acres and temporarily impact 0.64 acres of degraded seasonal wetland and constructed roadside ditch (drainage ditch) 2 habitat adjacent to the existing roadway. The LOVR Project included the placement of approximately 5,500 cubic yards of fill material (imported soils) into jurisdictional wetlands facilitating the widening of a 2,800-foot segment of Los Osos Valley Road from Garcia Drive to Calle Joaquin, which is located several hundred feet northwest of Highway 101. Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands were replaced at a 1.5:1 ratio by a combination of on-site and offsite mitigation. Approximately 1.37 acres of low quality seasonal wetland and constructed drainage ditch habitat on-site was replaced with 1.51 acres of moderate to high quality seasonal wetlands off-site. This mitigation involved the off-site creation of 1.51 acres of new seasonal wetlands on the Boysen Ranch property. On-site mitigation consisted of the relocation of a drainage ditch at the base of the newly widened LOVR and the construction of a 425-foot bypass swale located several feet off the road in the adjacent field for a total of 0.55 acres. A portion of the ditch along LOVR was vegetated with riparian species. Total mitigation for the LOVR impacts amounts to 2.06 acres. 1.2 Restoration Activities In addition to creating mitigation wetland habitat at Boysen Ranch, the applicant also restored several sites where the alleged violations took place. Areas restored at Froom Ranch included the 0.26 acre stock pile location; and the 0.36 acre excavated ditch leading from the constructed detention basin. In addition, the entire southwestern channel beginning behind (south of) the new building and wrapping around the west side of the project on Froom Ranch were filled. All surface water was directed to the remaining southwestern channel, which leads to the detention basin. The area to be restored at Boysen Ranch included the 0.34 acre berm. Original topography has been restored to pre-impact conditions through minor grading activities. These areas are being allowed to restore naturally. The berm surrounding the constructed detention basin at Boysen Ranch has been redesigned to include several notches to allow higher flows to sheet flow out of the basin rather than discharge through a single channel (see Attachment 1, Figure 8). A total of 0.96 acres was restored at the Home Depot/Froom Ranch area. Table 1 Summary of Impacts/mitigations to “Waters of the United States” by Habitat Type Jurisdictional Type Permitted Impacts (Acres) Alleged Non-Permitted Impacts (acres) Permitted Seasonal Wetland 2.59 0 Permitted Seasonal Drainage Swale 0.25 0 Permitted Roadside Ditch 0.09 0 Seasonal Drainage Swale (Stock Pile) 0 0.26 LOVR Roadside Ditch Excavation 0 0.03 LOVR Roadside Ditch Berm 0.02 3 LOVR Widening 1.37 0 Seasonal Wetland (Detention Basin Channel Excavation) 0 0.36 Seasonal Wetland (Detention Basin Berm) 0 1.8 Seasonal Wetland (Boysen Ranch Berm) 0 0.34 Total 4.3 2.81 Table 2 Summary of Restoration and Creation Activity Activity/Habitat Type Acres Seasonal Wetland Creation at Boysen Ranch 16.41 Seasonal Wetland Restoration at Froom Ranch 0.60 Drainage Ditch Creation at Froom Ranch 0.55 Drainage Ditch Restoration at Froom Ranch 0.36 Total Acres of Wetlands/Waters Proposed to be Created/Restored 17.92 Net Gain of Wetland Habitat Acreage 11.85 1.3 Location The Boysen Ranch Mitigation area is located west of the town of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Approximately 16.96 acres of created wetland habitat was created on the Boysen Ranch immediately adjacent to an existing drainage channel located west of Foothill Road, north of Los Osos Valley Road, and south of O’Conner Way. Attachment 1, Figures 6 and 7, depict the location where seasonal wetland habitat was created. The site is reached by driving west on Los Osos Valley Road through western San Luis Obispo. Drive through town and at Foothill Road turn north. The mitigation area lies to the west of the road. Restoration areas in the Home Depot/Froom Ranch area occur to the south of the Home Depot development area and are depicted in Attachment 1. The areas restored are located on the north side of Los Osos Valley Road north of Highway 101. Along Los Osos Valley Road 0.55 acres of channel habitat were relocated, and the 0.96 acres of restoration at the alleged violation sites were corrected for a total of 1.51 acres at the Froom Ranch/LOVR site. 1.4 Objectives of Monitoring Mitigation monitoring at the Boysen Ranch creation site, Froom Ranch restoration site, and LOVR relocation site, calls for the evaluation of performance criteria (percent cover and site 4 maintenance) and trend characteristics (plant vigor/health, and natural reproduction/recruitment) for the mitigation site. Evaluation of these criteria will allow a determination of the need for erosion control, supplemental reseeding, weed control, and potential human disturbance. Also, the evaluation will determine the success or need for improvement of the mitigation effort. Table 3 below provides the initial target functions for the mitigation site and indicates the status of each function as of May 2007. Table 3 Boysen Ranch, Froom Ranch and LOVR Mitigation Monitoring Objectives Mitigation Site Target Functions Status An overall ratio of 2.5 acres of wetland will be created for each acre of wetland eliminated at Froom Ranch. For the LOVR project an overall ratio of 1.5:1 acres of wetland were created for each acre impacted. Table 1 provides a summary of the wetland impacts, by type, which would result from the proposal and the corresponding wetlands to be created. Impacted wetlands amounted to 7.11 acres. A total of 16.96 acres of wetlands were created in the winter of 2002. Year 5 monitoring verified the attainment of this acreage. Restoration amounted to 0.96 acres at Froom Ranch. Total wetland creation and restoration amounted to 17.92 acres. To assist in obtaining successful mitigation the project will also include the following: 1. No construction would occur in areas under Corps jurisdiction outside the permitted project footprint; No violation May 2007 2. Unless authorized by the Corps, no work would be conducted in or around the created wetland areas that may modify the hydrologic regime of the created habitats once established; No violation May 2007 3. No livestock grazing or plowing will be allowed; No violation May 2007 4. Off-road vehicle use would be restricted; No violation May 2007 5. No work would be conducted in or around the restored wetlands area that may modify the hydrologic regime of the wetlands once established. No violation May 2007 6. No off road vehicle use will be allowed within the wetland mitigation area; No violation May 2007 Table 4 Quantitative Vegetative Success Criteria 1. The site shall meet the 3 parameter wetland criteria as defined by the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual for 17.92 acres of created and restored wetlands; 2. The wetland mitigation site shall have the same dominant wetland plants as the wetland reference site (80% similarity); 5 3. Plant diversity at the wetland mitigation site shall be a minimum of 50% of that found at the reference wetlands; 4. Non-native plant species identified by the Corps and the applicant as "nuisance species" shall not be greater than 5% of the total vegetation cover (cumulative for all species of nuisance plants) within the wetland mitigation area; and 5. The wetland mitigation area shall demonstrate natural hydrology. This shall be indicted by the lack of artificial irrigation for at least two years (with no loss of vegetation) and/or determination of direct surface flow into the wetland site from the two streams. 6. A final, recorded conservation easement shall be provided to the Corps for the 16.96 acre wetland mitigation area. 2.0 METHODOLOGY The mmitigation monitoring survey of the Froom and Boysen Ranch sites was conducted on May 9, 2007 by Olberding Environmental. Field surveys consisted of monitoring 14 pre- established transect lines bisecting the constructed habitat types. At Boysen Ranch 11 transects were located to represent the different areas within the mitigation site. Each transect line contained two to three data points. At Froom Ranch, one transect was established across the area which was restored, and two transects were established along the relocated ditch on LOVR. Conditions along each transect line are documented in photographs taken during the Year 5 monitoring period. These photographs have been included in this report (Attachment No. 2). During the May survey, wetland delineation data forms were completed for each data point location in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation criteria identified in the 1987 "Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual" (1987 Manual) 1. During Year 5, a total of 29 data points were evaluated. Data points were investigated in upland (A) and wetland (B) positions to establish a wetland/upland boundary and compare the vegetation, hydrology, and soils between the two locations. Information for vegetation, hydrology, and soils are provided on the data sheets located in Attachment No. 3. All collected information will be compared with that obtained during the Year 4 (2006) monitoring season. 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Performance Criteria 3.1.1 Percent Cover An average cover of 67 percent was recorded for transects 1 through 11 in Boysen Ranch. The total percent cover between transects ranged from 0 to 100, with wide variation in between. Wetland cells A and C exhibited vegetation cover that exceeded 100 percent due to the layering of vegetation. Wetland cells B and D/E exhibited bare ground in many locations and supported a 1Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual." U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. plus appendices. 6 sparse assemblage of plant species. A goal of 40 percent cover was established for the Year 5 monitoring event, and the average vegetation cover across the site exceeds this number. The upland areas within Boysen Ranch exhibited 100 percent cover composed of a mixture of annual and perennial grass species. Table 5 Relative and Absolute Cover for Plant Species Found in Wetland “B” Data Points at Boysen Ranch Common Name Scientific Name Wetland Indicator Status Relative % Cover Absolute % Cover Rabbit’s Foot Grass Polypogon monspeliensis FACW 32 22 Salt Grass Distichlis spicata FACW+ 20 13 Spike Rush Eleocharis macrostachya OBL 18 12 Ammannia Ammannia coccinea OBL 6 4 Swamp Timothy Crypsis schoenoides OBL 5 4 Alkali Mallow Malvella leprosa FAC 4 3 Parry’s Tarweed Centromadiaea parryi FAC 3 2 Alkali Weed Cressa truxillensis FACW 3 2 Iris-leaved Rush Juncus xipioides OBL 2 1 Brass Buttons Cotula coronopifolia OBL 2 1 Italian Rye Grass Lolium multiflorum FAC* 1 1 Bird’s-foot Trefoil Lotus corniculatus FAC 1 1 Alkali Bulrush Scirpus robustus OBL 1 1 Curly Dock Rumex crispus FACW- 1 1 Water Plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica OBL 1 1 Goosefoot Chenopodium album FAC 1 1 Coyote Thistle Eryngium sp. 1 1 Fiddle Dock Rumex pulcher FAC+ 1 1 Total Percent 103 72 The restored swale adjacent to Home Depot contained a vegetative cover of 100 percent and exceeded goals for Year 5. The LOVR relocated ditch had 100 percent vegetative cover on the banks and minimal cover on the channel bottom due to continuous water flows. The conveyance properties of the ditch may not allow for the growth of vegetation in the channel bottom but the 7 banks support wetland vegetation in excess of the target goals. Cattails were observed to have formed a small cluster upstream from the data points and may establish in the channel as flows slow. 3.1.2 Site Maintenance The mitigation sites were undisturbed during the May, Year 5 monitoring event. No additional maintenance was necessary for the 2007 season. 3.2 Trend Characteristics 3.2.1 Plant Vigor and Health The plants within the Boysen Ranch mitigation area exhibited a high vigor and health rating. All vegetation was robust, exhibited excellent color, and had abundant seed production. The salt grass, rabbit’s foot grass, and meadow barley were especially prolific within and outside of the created wetland cells, especially between Cells A and C and on the south side of Cell B. Wetland conditions have formed outside of the original outline of the basins and the vegetation across the entire mitigation area is thriving. At the restored swale, the plants exhibited medium to high health and cover was complete across the shallow depression. Vegetation at the relocated LOVR ditch exhibited medium to high vigor and health. There were tall recruits with many flowers and seeds which reflects the overall high rating. 3.2.2 Natural Reproduction/Recruitment At the Boysen Ranch area, the percent cover of vegetation remains nearly the same as observed in Year 4 and reflects the stabilization of vegetation across the site. Seed distribution sources that have populated the site include flooding, bird transport, and wind. The wetland vegetation within constructed cells B and D/E continues to spread, although incrementally. In the northern area of the mitigation site the salt grass continues to spread and thicken forming spongy mats where the vegetation depth is six to ten inches. Other species continue to increase in number and coverage including Parry’s tarpant, ammannia, and water plantain. Overall, the natural reproduction and recruitment on the site is excellent for the Year 5 monitoring event. The abundant vegetation exhibited in 2007 is attributed to the consistent rainfall in the region which inundates the mitigation site long into the growing season. For the restored swale area, there was 100 percent cover and recruitment was excellent. However, approximately half of the vegetation consists of wetland species, while the other species present are typically found in uplands. The relocated LOVR ditch exhibited abundant vegetation recruitment and the slopes to the channel are populated with many species such that the cover is 100 percent. The bottom of the 8 channel remains unvegetated and will likely become more populated over time. The flowing nature of the channel will limit vegetation growth to some extent in this region. During the heavy rainfall the high velocity of runoff in the drainage ditch results in scouring which removes soil and sediments from the channel. 3.3 Photo-documentation Please refer to Attachment No. 2 for photographs of the mitigation site. Photographs were taken on May 9, 2007 along several of the transect lines and at various locations around the mitigation site corresponding to areas designations. 3.4 Summary of Army Corps of Engineers Data Sheets Twenty nine data points were evaluated on 14 transects for vegetation, hydrology and soils in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers criteria for determining wetlands. For each transect there is one upland data point for a total of 14 upland positions in the mitigation area. There are a total of 12 wetland data points in the Boysen Ranch mitigation area and three wetland data points at the Froom Ranch/LOVR monitoring area. Attachment No. 3 includes the data forms prepared for the routine wetland determination surveys. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 4.1 Evaluation of Quantitative Success Criteria - Year 5 Success Criteria 1. The site shall meet the 3 parameter wetland criteria as defined by the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual for 14.9 acres of created/restored wetlands. The created wetlands at the Boysen Ranch meet the three Corps parameters for wetlands. Vegetative cover was lacking in those areas that were deeply inundated, but the majority of the site exhibited the germination and robust growth of wetland plant species. Wetland cells A and C exhibit a dense cover of wetland plant species. The wetland cells B and D/E are inundated for a very long duration that extends well into the growing season and typically retain water though late April and into May. The vegetation coverage within the deeply inundated basins reflects the long inundation period as swamp timothy, Parry’s tarweed, water plantain, and spike rush were the more commonly observed species. Other plants observed included alkali bulrush and cattails although these plants form only small colonies around the edges of the basins. Wetland soils were found at all locations as dark chromas and gleying was observed. Hydrology parameters were met at all data point locations as numerous primary and secondary indicators were observed. In summary, overwhelming evidence of the three Corps parameters for delineating wetlands was observed at the Boysen Ranch mitigation site. The restored swale and relocated Los Osos Valley Road ditch met the three Corp parameters for determining wetlands. The vegetation on the ditch banks is composed of hydrophytes which occur where saturation and ponding occurs for an extended period of time. Signs of active 9 hydrology were noted such as water lines on opposing banks, water marks on the plants, thick algal matting, and erosion in the channel. Soils also met Corp hydrology criteria with dark chromas corresponding to the presence of wetland vegetation and the observation of current hydology. Table 6 Wetland Determination by Sample Point Data Point Identification No. Criteria Met Yes/No For: Data Point Status- Wetland/Non Wetland (Y/N) Vegetation Hydrology Soils A1-A N N Y N A1-B Y Y Y Y A2-A N N Y N A2-B Y Y Y Y A3-A N N Y N A3-B Y Y Y Y A4-A N N Y N A4-B Y Y Y Y B1-A N N Y N B1-B Y Y Y Y B2-A N N Y N B2-B Y Y Y Y C1-A N N Y N C1-B Y Y Y Y C2-A N N Y N C2-B Y Y Y Y D/E1-A N N Y N D/E1-B N Y Y Y D/E2-A N N Y N D/E2-B N Y Y Y D/E3-A N N Y N D/E3-B N Y Y Y 10 SP-A N N Y N SP-B Y Y Y Y LOVR-A N N Y N LOVR-B Y Y Y Y LOVR2-B Y Y Y Y Source: Delineation Data Sheets, Olberding Environmental, Inc. 2007. Success Criteria 2. The wetland mitigation site shall have the same dominant wetland plants as the wetland reference site (80% similarity). The wetland vegetation at the Boysen Ranch matches the wetland vegetation found at the reference site. The dominant wetland plants in the reference site consist of salt grass, brass buttons, and bird’s foot treefoil. These species are dominant at the mitigation site such that the 80 percent similarity criterion is satisfied. In 2007, the dominant wetland plants at Boysen Ranch consisted of rabbit’s foot grass, salt grass, and spike rush while bird’s foot trefoil, brass buttons, Mediterranean barley, and meadow barley were all associate species. During 2007, only salt grass was ranked in the top for total cover. The peak observation period for brass buttons, an annual species, occurs earlier in the year and the lower percent cover reflects the later time of year in which monitoring was conducted. It appears that bird’s foot trefoil has decreased in comparison to Year 4 monitoring likely due to out competition by saltgrass. The vegetation within the mitigation site is appropriate for the hydrology conditions and micro topography. The vegetation trends within the mitigation site will vary depending upon total water for each year. Water year conditions during 2006/2007 resulted in a shift in the most dominant plant within the wetland cells. There was a decrease in brass buttons and bird’s- foot trefoil and an increase in rabbit’s foot grass, salt grass, and spikerush. The rhizomatous perennial salt grass is establishing throughout many areas through the ongoing spread of underground runners. Fluctuations in vegetation cover from year to year will likely occur during every monitoring event with total percentage of cover varying, but the core species remaining the same. The restored swale (stock pile site) exhibited vegetation that was inconsistent with the reference site. The swale lacked wetland plants and was dominated by upland grasses. The vegetation at the swale prior to the placement of the stock pile was composed of curly dock, fiddle dock, prickly ox tongue, and rabbit’s foot grass. The restored swale supports Italian rye grass, soft chess, rip gut brome, and other annual grasses typically found in upland positions. The relocated ditch along LOVR exhibited vegetation similar to the reference site. The pre- existing wetland vegetation along the ditch consisted of cattails (Typha latifolia), iris-leaved juncus (Juncus xiphioides), curly dock, and arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis). The banks and channel edges of the created ditch support curly dock, prickly ox tongue, and arroyo willow. Associate species consist of sow thistle, Italian rye grass, iris leaved juncus, and bird’s foot 11 treefoil. Cattails have not established in the section of the ditch that is monitored, but have established upstream from the monitoring location. The wetland mitigation site currently has the same dominant wetland plants as the wetland reference site. Success Criteria 3. Plant diversity at the wetland mitigation site shall be a minimum of 50% of that found at the reference wetlands. The composition of plant species found at the Boysen Ranch mitigation area includes all three of those which were found at the reference site. All the reference species were found within the basins and are continuing to spread in abundance. The Boysen Ranch site contains three of the three reference species, more than 50 percent of the plants found at the reference site, and meets the success criteria 3. The restored swale and relocated LOVR ditch contains three of the four plants found at the reference site and meets the plant diversity criteria with over 50 percent of the reference plant species. Success Criteria 4. Non-native plant species identified by the Corps and the applicant as "nuisance species" shall not be greater than 5% of the total vegetation cover (cumulative for all species of nuisance plants) within the wetland mitigation area. Nuisance plant species were not identified at the wetland mitigation sites. The success criterion 4 was met at Boysen Ranch, the restored swale, and the relocated LOVR ditch. Success Criteria 5. The wetland mitigation area shall demonstrate natural hydrology. This shall be indicted by the lack of artificial irrigation for at least two years (with no loss of vegetation) and/or determination of direct surface flow into the wetland site from the two streams. The Boysen Ranch wetland area demonstrated natural hydrology as the cells within each mitigation area were inundated with water during all or a portion of the winter. Water filled the basins by rainfall, onsite runoff, and from the drainage channel overtopping the banks. The wetland areas demonstrated evidence of natural hydrology as Areas A, B, C, D/E were under water for a long portion of the winter and early spring. Other hydrology indicators in the Boysen Ranch area included drift lines, sediment deposits, algal matting and water marks. Water was also documented to sheet flow into the basin from the south and north over the adjacent grassland vegetation. The entire Boysen Ranch site meets the Corps hydrology criteria based on the observed inundation at the wetland areas, and the presence of four primary indicators. The restored swale and constructed ditch along LOVR was observed to function as designed and exhibited water flows and hydrology consistent with the target goals. Water lines were observed on opposing banks. Algae and drift lines were documented at high positions along opposing banks in 2007. The natural hydrology criteria were met at the swale and LOVR ditch site. 12 Success Criteria 6. A final, recorded conservation easement shall be provided to the Corps for the 14.9 acre wetland mitigation area. The Corps of Engineers is currently in the process of obtaining a qualified third party to hold the easement. 5.0 RECOMENDATIONS The Boysen Ranch site, restored swale and LOVR ditch meet the requirements for mitigation success and no recommendations are proposed at this time. A conservation Easement will need to be recorded over the mitigation site. ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FIGURES Figure No. 1 Regional Map Figure No. 2 Vicinity Map Figure No. 3 USGS Quadrangle Map Figure No. 4 Aerial Photograph Figure No. 5 Jurisdictional Waters Map Figure No. 1 Regional Map Olberding Environmental, Inc. 1390 Willow Pass Road, Suite 370 Concord, CA 94520 (925)825-2111 office This document is not intended for detail design work. Figure 1 Regional Map of the Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site San Luis Obispo, California Figure No. 2 Vicinity Map Olberding Environmental, Inc. 1390 Willow Pass Road, Suite 370 Concord, CA 94520 (925)825-2111 office This document is not intended for detail design work. Figure 2 Vicinity Map of the Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site San Luis Obispo, California Figure No. 3 USGS Quadrangle Map Olberding Environmental, Inc. 1390 Willow Pass Road, Suite 370 Concord, CA 94520 (925)825-2111 office This document is not intended for detail design work. Figure 3 USGS Quadrangle Map of the Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site San Luis Obispo, California USGS Quadrangle for San Luis Obispo Figure No. 4 Aerial Photograph Olberding Environmental, Inc. 1390 Willow Pass Road, Suite 370 Concord, CA 94520 (925)825-2111 office This document is not intended for detail design work. Figure 4 Aerial Photograph of the Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site San Luis Obispo, California Figure No. 5 As-Built Survey (Sheets 1-3) ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PHOTOGRAPHS Photo No. 1. View to the east across Area A exhibiting dominance of rabbits foot grass and other annual forbs. Photo No. 2. View to the south across Area A and D/E exhibiting dense vegetation growth in the foreground and sparse growth in background. Olberding Environmental, Inc. Boysen Ranch Property – May 2007 Photo No. 3. View to the north across Area B showing sparsely growing vegetation in the bottom of the cell. Photo No. 4. View to the north over Area C demonstrating dense growth of rabbit’s foot grass around edges and band of curly dock in the middle of the cell. Olberding Environmental, Inc. Boysen Ranch Property – May 2007 Photo No. 5. View to the north across Area C exhibiting the growth of curly dock, rabbit’s foot grass and other annual forbs. Photo No. 6. View of Areas D/E showing salt grass at the edges of the basin and sparse germination toward the deepest portion of the cell. Olberding Environmental, Inc. Boysen Ranch Property – May 2007 Photo No. 7. Area D/E exhibiting cattails growing from a deeply inundated portion of the cell. Photo No. 8. View of the confluence of the two larger drainage channels. Olberding Environmental, Inc. Boysen Ranch Property – May 2007 Photo No. 9. Photo shows the northern portion of Area A dominated by thick mat of saltgrass. Photo No. 10. View to the west along the drainage channel showing differing zones of vegetation. Olberding Environmental, Inc. Boysen Ranch Property – May 2007 Photo No. 11. View south along the relocated Los Osos Valley Road ditch. Photo No. 12. View to the south within the settling basin. Olberding Environmental, Inc. Boysen Ranch Property – May 2007 Photo No. 13. View to the east of the settling basin. Photo No. 14. View upstream of restored stockpile swale. Olberding Environmental, Inc. Boysen Ranch Property – May 2007 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 DATA SHEETS DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: A1 Plot ID: A VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Vulpia myuros UPL Juncus xiphioides OBL 2. Brassica nigra UPL Erodium cicutarium UPL 3. Bromus hordeaceous FACU 4. 5. Observations & Remarks: 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 0 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” Landscape Position “Ponds No hydrology indicators observed Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence No current hydrology observed. Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? Yes X No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes Yes X No 3. Slope: X 0-2%; or > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; new and old roots, or X none 5. Flooding: X none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or __ very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? Yes X No 8. Continuous ponding duration: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; ___ very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? Yes _X__ No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Upland position for comparison to wetland. Data point located several feet up slope from wetland position. SOILS Data Point ___A1-A_____ Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to ___12____ 10 YR 3/1 Clay ____ to _______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Dark chroma is characteristic of soil series in upland positions. Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ __ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; Land Leveled; Ditch Drained Tile Drained Pumped; Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are:___ Flooded; Ponded; Saturated5 4. Soils: do X do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: do _X do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? Yes X No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes X No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: Data point fails to meet all three Corps wetland criteria. Upland position for comparison to wetland point. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? Yes No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) ___ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular. Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles, or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: A1 Plot ID: B VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Juncus mexicanus OBL Polypogon monspeliensis FACW 2. Rumex crispus FACW- 3. Malvella leprosa FAC 4. Juncus xiphioides OBL 5. Observations & Remarks: 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 100 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks X Drift Lines X Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): X Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: X Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” X Landscape Position “Ponds Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? X Yes No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes X Yes No 3. Slope: X 0-2%; or > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; X new and old roots, or none 5. Flooding: none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or X frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? X Yes No 8. Continuous ponding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; X very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? _ X Yes No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Basin holds water for a long duration during the winter storm period. The basin fills with water and remains flooded during and after rainfall events. Hydrology criteria are met at this location. SOILS Data Point ___1B_____ Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to 12_______ 10 YR 2/1 7.5 YR 4/6 Clay ____ to______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) _ X Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: _ Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment _ Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or _ Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; _ Land Leveled; _ Ditch Drained; _ Tile Drained; _ Pumped; _ Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are: _ Flooded; _ Ponded; _ Saturated5 4. Soils: X do do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: _ X do _ do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? X Yes No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? X Yes No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? X Yes No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: The data point is positioned in a wetland The three Corps criteria for wetlands are met. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? Yes X No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular. Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: A2 Plot ID: A VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Bromus hordeaceus UPL Bromus diandrus UPL 2. Brassica nigra UPL 3. 4. 5. Observations & Remarks: 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 0 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” Landscape Position “Ponds No hydrology indicators observed Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence No current hydrology observed. Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? Yes X No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes Yes X No 3. Slope: 0-2%; or > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; new and old roots, or X none 5. Flooding: X none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or __ very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? Yes X No 8. Continuous ponding duration: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; ___ very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? Yes _X__ No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Upland position for comparison to wetland position. No hydrology indicators were observed. Data point located several feet up slope from wetland. SOILS Data Point ___A2-A_____ Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to ___12____ 10 YR 3/2 Clay ____ to ___ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Dark chroma soils are characteristic of this soil series. Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ __ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; Land Leveled; Ditch Drained Tile Drained Pumped; Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are:___ Flooded; Ponded; Saturated5 4. Soils: do X do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: do _X do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? Yes X No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? Yes X No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes X No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: Data point fails to meet all three Corps wetland criteria. Upland position for comparison to wetland position. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? Yes No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) ___ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular. 5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles, or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: A2 Plot ID: B VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Distichlis spicata FACW+ Polypogon monspeliensis FACW 2. Juncus bufonius OBL Lotus corniculatus FAC 3. 4. 5. Observations & Remarks: 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 100 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks X Drift Lines X Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): X Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: X Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” X Landscape Position “Ponds Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? X Yes No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes X Yes No 3. Slope: X 0-2%; or > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; X new and old roots, or none 5. Flooding: none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or X frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? X Yes No 8. Continuous ponding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; X very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? _ X Yes No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Wetland basin holds water through the rainy season and into spring. Consistent algal matting and sediments on the soil surface are found. This location meets the Corps hydrology criteria to be determined a wetland. SOILS Data Point A2-B Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to ___12____ 10 YR 2/1 Clay ____ to ___ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) _ Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: _ Sulfidic Odor X Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment _ Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or _ Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; _ Land Leveled; _ Ditch Drained; _ Tile Drained; _ Pumped; _ Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are: _ Flooded; _ Ponded; _ Saturated5 4. Soils: X do do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: _ X do _ do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? X Yes No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? X Yes No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? X Yes No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: The data point is positioned in a wetland. The three Corps criteria for wetlands are met. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? Yes X No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular.5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: A3 Plot ID: A VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Bromus hordeaceus UPL Lolium multiflorum FAC* 2. Rumex crispus FACW 3. Hordeum murinum var. leporinum NI 4. 5. Observations & Remarks: 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 0 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” Landscape Position “Ponds No hydrology indicators observed Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence No current hydrology observed. Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? Yes X No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes Yes X No 3. Slope: 0-2%; or > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; new and old roots, or X none 5. Flooding: X none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or __ very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? Yes X No 8. Continuous ponding duration: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; ___ very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? Yes _X__ No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Upland position for comparison to wetland. No hydrology indicators were observed. Data point located several feet up slope from wetland feature. SOILS Data Point ___3A_____ Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to ___12____ 10 YR 3/1 None None Clay ____ to _______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ __ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; Land Leveled; Ditch Drained Tile Drained Pumped; Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are:___ Flooded; Ponded; Saturated5 4. Soils: do X do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: do _X do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? Yes X No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes X No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: Data point fails to meet all three Corps wetland criteria. Upland position for comparison to wetland position. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? Yes No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) ___ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular. 5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles, or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: A3 Plot ID: B VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Polypogon monspeliensis FACW+ Lolium multiflorum FAC* 2. Lotus corniculatus FAC Rumex crispus FACW 3. 4. 5. Observations & Remarks: 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 100 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks X Drift Lines X Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): X Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: X Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” X Landscape Position “Ponds Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? X Yes No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes X Yes No 3. Slope: X 0-2%; or > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; X new and old roots, or none 5. Flooding: none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or X frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? X Yes No 8. Continuous ponding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); X long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? _ X Yes X No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); X long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Alkali crusting was found at this location. Hydrology criteria are met at this location. SOILS Data Point ___3B_____ Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to 12_______ 10 YR 2/1 7.5 YR 6/8 CD Clay ____ to______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) _ X Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: _ Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment _ Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or _ Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; _ Land Leveled; _ Ditch Drained; _ Tile Drained; _ Pumped; _ Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are: _ Flooded; _ Ponded; _ Saturated5 4. Soils: X do do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: _ X do _ do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? X Yes No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? X Yes No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? X Yes No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: The data point is positioned in a seasonal wetland. The three Corps criteria for wetlands are met. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? Yes X No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) _ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular.5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: A3 Plot ID: C VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Distichlis spicata FACW Lolium multiflorum FAC* 2. Lotus corniculatus FAC 3. Cotula coronopifolia FACW+ 4. 5. Observations & Remarks: 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 100 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks X Drift Lines X Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): X Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: X Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” X Landscape Position “Ponds Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? X Yes No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes X Yes No 3. Slope: X 0-2%; or > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; X new and old roots, or none 5. Flooding: none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or X frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? X Yes No 8. Continuous ponding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); X long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? _ X Yes X No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); X long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Alkali crusting was found at this location. Hydrology criteria are met at this location. SOILS Data Point ___3C_____ Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to 12_______ 10 YR 2/1 7.5 YR 6/8 CD Clay ____ to______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) _ X Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: _ Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment _ Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or _ Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; _ Land Leveled; _ Ditch Drained; _ Tile Drained; _ Pumped; _ Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are: _ Flooded; _ Ponded; _ Saturated5 4. Soils: X do do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: _ X do _ do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? X Yes No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? X Yes No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? X Yes No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: The data point is positioned in a seasonal wetland. The three Corps criteria for wetlands are met. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? Yes X No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) _ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular.5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: A3 Plot ID: D VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Distichlis spicata FACW Lolium multiflorum FAC* 2. 3. 4. 5. Observations & Remarks: 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 100 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks X Drift Lines X Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): X Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: X Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” X Landscape Position “Ponds Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? X Yes No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes X Yes No 3. Slope: X 0-2%; or > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; X new and old roots, or none 5. Flooding: none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or X frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? X Yes No 8. Continuous ponding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); X long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? _ X Yes X No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); X long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Alkali crusting was found at this location. Hydrology criteria are met at this location. SOILS Data Point ___3D_____ Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to 12_______ 10 YR 2/1 7.5 YR 6/8 CD Clay ____ to______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) _ X Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: _ Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment _ Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or _ Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; _ Land Leveled; _ Ditch Drained; _ Tile Drained; _ Pumped; _ Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are: _ Flooded; _ Ponded; _ Saturated5 4. Soils: X do do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: _ X do _ do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? X Yes No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? X Yes No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? X Yes No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: The data point is positioned in a seasonal wetland. The three Corps criteria for wetlands are met. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? Yes X No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) _ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular.5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: A4 Plot ID: A VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Bromus hordeaceus UPL Lepidium campestre UPL 2. Rumex crispus FACW 3. 4. 5. Observations & Remarks: 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 0 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” Landscape Position “Ponds No hydrology indicators observed Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence No current hydrology observed. Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? Yes X No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes Yes X No 3. Slope: 0-2%; or X > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; new and old roots, or X none 5. Flooding: X none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or __ very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? Yes X No 8. Continuous ponding duration: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; ___ very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? Yes _X__ No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Upland position for comparison to wetland. No hydrology indicators were observed. Data point located several feet up slope from wetland feature. SOILS Data Point A4-A Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12”): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to ___12____ 10 YR 3/3 None None Clay Loam ____ to _______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ __ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; Land Leveled; Ditch Drained Tile Drained Pumped; Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are:___ Flooded; Ponded; Saturated5 4. Soils: do X do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: do _X do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? Yes X No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? Yes X No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes X No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: Data point fails to meet all three Corps wetland criteria. Upland position for comparison to channel position. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? Yes No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) ___ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular. 5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles, or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: A4 Plot ID: B VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Cotula coronopifolia OBL Polypogon monspeliensis FACW 2. Hordeum murinum var. leporinum UPL Distichlis spicata FACW 3. Malva leprosa FAC* 4. 5. Observations & Remarks: 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 50 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks Drift Lines X Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): X Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: X Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” X Landscape Position “Ponds Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? X Yes No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes X Yes No 3. Slope: X 0-2%; or > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; X new and old roots, or none 5. Flooding: none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or X frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? X Yes No 8. Continuous ponding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); X long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; X very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? _ X Yes No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Hydrology indicators present include algal matting and fine sediment deposits on soil surface. Also alkali crusting is observed on the soil surfaces. Wetland hydrology met at this location. SOILS Data Point ___4B_____ Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to 12_______ 10 YR 2/1 Clay ____ to______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ x Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) _ Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: _ Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment _ Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or _ Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; _ Land Leveled; _ Ditch Drained; _ Tile Drained; _ Pumped; _ Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are: _ Flooded; _ Ponded; _ Saturated5 4. Soils: X do do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: _ X do _ do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? X Yes No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? X Yes No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? X Yes No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: The data point is positioned in a wetland location. The three Corps criteria for wetlands are met here. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? Yes X No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) _ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular.5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: B1 Plot ID: A VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Hordeum brachyantherum FACW 2. Hordeum murinum var. leporinum UPL 3. Lolium multiflorum FAC* 4. 5. Observations & Remarks: 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 67 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” Landscape Position “Ponds No hydrology indicators observed Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence No current hydrology observed. Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? Yes X No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes Yes X No 3. Slope: 0-2%; or X > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; new and old roots, or X none 5. Flooding: X none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or __ very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? Yes X No 8. Continuous ponding duration: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; ___ very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? Yes _X__ No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Upland position for comparison to wetland. No hydrology indicators were observed. Data point located several feet up slope from wetland feature. SOILS Data Point B1-A Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to ___12____ 10 YR 3/1 None None Clay ____ to _______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ __ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; Land Leveled; Ditch Drained Tile Drained Pumped; Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are:___ Flooded; Ponded; Saturated5 4. Soils: do X do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: do _X do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? Yes X No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes X No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: Data point fails to meet all three Corps wetland criteria. Upland position for comparison to channel position. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? Yes No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) ___ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular. 5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles, or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: B1 Plot ID: B VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Polypogon monspeliensis FACW+ Lolium multiflorum FAC* 2. Rumex crispus FACW 3. Juncus mexicanus OBL 4. 5. Observations & Remarks: 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 100 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks X Drift Lines X Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” X Landscape Position “Ponds Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? X Yes No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes Yes X No 3. Slope: X 0-2%; or > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; new and old roots, or X none 5. Flooding: none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or X frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? X Yes No 8. Continuous ponding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); X long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; X very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? _ X Yes No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Primary indicators include algal matting on the soil surface, heavy alkali surface crusting, and sediment deposits. Corps hydrology criteria are met at this location. SOILS Data Point ___B1-B_____ Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to 12_______ 10 YR 2/1 Clay ____ to______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) _ Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: _ Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment _ Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or _ Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; _ Land Leveled; _ Ditch Drained; _ Tile Drained; _ Pumped; _ Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are: _ Flooded; _ Ponded; _ Saturated5 4. Soils: X do do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: _ X do _ do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? X Yes No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? X Yes No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? X Yes No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: The data point is positioned in a wetland location. The three Corps criteria for wetlands are met here. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? Yes X No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) _ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular.5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: B2 Plot ID: A VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Polypogon monspeliensis FACW+ Lotus corniculatus FAC 2. Bromus diandrus UPL 3. 4. 5. Observations & Remarks: 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 50 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” Landscape Position “Ponds No hydrology indicators observed Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence No current hydrology observed. Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? Yes X No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes Yes X No 3. Slope: 0-2%; or X > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; new and old roots, or X none 5. Flooding: X none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or __ very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? Yes X No 8. Continuous ponding duration: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; ___ very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? Yes _X__ No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Upland position for comparison to wetland. No hydrology indicators were observed. Data point located several feet up slope from wetland feature. SOILS Data Point B2-A Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to ___12____ 10 YR 3/2 None None Clay ____ to _______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ __ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; Land Leveled; Ditch Drained Tile Drained Pumped; Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are:___ Flooded; Ponded; Saturated5 4. Soils: do X do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: do _X do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? Yes X No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes X No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: Data point fails to meet all three Corps wetland criteria. Upland position for comparison to channel position. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? Yes No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) ___ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular. 5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles, or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: B2 Plot ID: B VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Centromadiaea parryiFAC 2. Juncus xiphioides OBL 3. Typha latifolia OBL 4. 5. Observations & Remarks: 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 100 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks X Drift Lines X Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” X Landscape Position “Ponds Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? X Yes No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes X Yes No 3. Slope: X 0-2%; or > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; new and old roots, or X none 5. Flooding: none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or X frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? X Yes No 8. Continuous ponding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); X long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; X very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? _ X Yes No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Primary indicators include algal matting on the soil surface, heavy alkali surface crusting, and sediment deposits. SOILS Data Point B2-B Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to 12_______ 10 YR 2/1 Clay ____ to______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Deep cracks in the soil surface Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) _ Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: _ Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment _ Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or _ Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; _ Land Leveled; _ Ditch Drained; _ Tile Drained; _ Pumped; _ Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are: _ Flooded; _ Ponded; _ Saturated5 4. Soils: X do do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: _ X do _ do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? X Yes No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? X Yes No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? X Yes No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: The three Corps criteria for wetlands are met here. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? Yes X No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) _ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular.5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: C1 Plot ID: A VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Bromus diandrus UPL Bromus hordeaceus UPL 2. Lolium multiflorum FAC* Picris echioides FAC* 3. Brassica nigra UPL 4. 5. Observations & Remarks: 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 50 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” Landscape Position “Ponds No hydrology indicators observed Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence No current hydrology observed. Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? Yes X No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes Yes X No 3. Slope: 0-2%; or X > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; new and old roots, or X none 5. Flooding: X none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or __ very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? Yes X No 8. Continuous ponding duration: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; ___ very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? Yes _X__ No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Upland position for comparison to wetland. No hydrology indicators were observed. Data point located several feet up slope from wetland feature. SOILS Data Point C1-A Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to ___12____ 10 YR 3/2 None None Clay ____ to _______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ __ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; Land Leveled; Ditch Drained Tile Drained Pumped; Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are:___ Flooded; Ponded; Saturated5 4. Soils: do X do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: do _X do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? Yes X No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? Yes X No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes X No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: Data point fails to meet all three Corps wetland criteria. Upland position for comparison to channel position. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? Yes No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) ___ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular. 5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles, or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: C1 Plot ID: B VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Polypogon monspeliensis FACW+ Distichlis spicata FAC* 2. Lotus corniculatus FAC 3. Centromadiaea parryi FAC 4. 5. Observations & Remarks: 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 100 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks X Drift Lines X Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” X Landscape Position “Ponds Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? X Yes No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes X Yes No 3. Slope: X 0-2%; or > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; X new and old roots, or none 5. Flooding: none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or X frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? X Yes No 8. Continuous ponding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); X long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; X very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? _ X Yes No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Primary indicators include algal matting on the soil surface, heavy alkali surface crusting, and sediment deposits. Driftlines occur at edges of flooding. Hydrology indicators are met at this location. SOILS Data Point: C1-B Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12”): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to 12_______ 10 YR 2/1 Clay ____ to______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) _ Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: _ Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment _ Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or _ Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; _ Land Leveled; _ Ditch Drained; _ Tile Drained; _ Pumped; _ Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are: _ Flooded; _ Ponded; _ Saturated5 4. Soils: X do do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: _ X do _ do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? X Yes No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? X Yes No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? X Yes No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: The data point is positioned in a wetland location. The three Corps criteria for wetlands are met here. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? Yes X No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) _ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular.5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: C2 Plot ID: A VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Lolium multiflorum FAC* Rumex crispus FACW 2. Bromus diandrus UPL 3. 4. 5. Observations & Remarks: 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 50 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” Landscape Position “Ponds No hydrology indicators observed Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence No current hydrology observed. Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? Yes X No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes Yes X No 3. Slope: 0-2%; or X > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; new and old roots, or X none 5. Flooding: X none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or __ very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? Yes X No 8. Continuous ponding duration: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; ___ very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? Yes _X__ No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Upland position for comparison to wetland. No hydrology indicators were observed. Data point located several feet up slope from wetland feature. SOILS Data Point: C2-A Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to ___12____ 10 YR 3/1 None None clay ____ to _______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ __ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; Land Leveled; Ditch Drained Tile Drained Pumped; Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are:___ Flooded; Ponded; Saturated5 4. Soils: do X do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: do _X do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? Yes X No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes X No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: Data point fails to meet all three Corps wetland criteria. Upland position for comparison to channel position. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? Yes No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) ___ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular. 5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles, or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: C2 Plot ID: B VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Juncus mexicanus OBL Chenopodium album FAC 2. Amania coccinea OBL 3. Centromadiaea parryi FAC 4. 5. Observations & Remarks: 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 100 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks Drift Lines X Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): X Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: X Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” X Landscape Position “Ponds Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? X Yes No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes X Yes No 3. Slope: X 0-2%; or > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; X new and old roots, or none 5. Flooding: none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or X frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? X Yes No 8. Continuous ponding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); X long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; X very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? _ X Yes No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Primary indicators include algal matting on the soil surface, heavy alkali surface crusting, and sediment deposits. SOILS Data Point C2-B Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to 12_______ 10 YR 2/1 Clay ____ to______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) _ Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: _ Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment _ Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or _ Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; _ Land Leveled; _ Ditch Drained; _ Tile Drained; _ Pumped; _ Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are: _ Flooded; _ Ponded; _ Saturated5 4. Soils: X do do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: _ X do _ do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? X Yes No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? X Yes No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? X Yes No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: The data point is positioned in a wetland location. The three Corps criteria for wetlands are met here. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? Yes X No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) _ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular.5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: D/E1 Plot ID: A VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Lolium multiflorum FAC* 2. Avena fatua UPL 3. Bromus diandrus UPL 4. Erodium cicutarium UPL 5. Observations & Remarks: 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 25 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” Landscape Position “Ponds No hydrology indicators observed Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence No current hydrology observed. Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? Yes X No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes Yes X No 3. Slope: 0-2%; or X > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; new and old roots, or X none 5. Flooding: X none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or __ very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? Yes X No 8. Continuous ponding duration: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; ___ very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? Yes _X__ No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Upland position for comparison to wetland. No hydrology indicators were observed. Data point located several feet up slope from wetland feature. SOILS Data Point D/E1-A Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to ___12____ 10 YR 3/1 None None clay ____ to _______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ __ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; Land Leveled; Ditch Drained Tile Drained Pumped; Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are:___ Flooded; Ponded; Saturated5 4. Soils: do X do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: do _X do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? Yes X No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes X No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: Data point fails to meet all three Corps wetland criteria. Upland position for comparison to channel position. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? Yes No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) ___ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular. 5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles, or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: D/E1 Plot ID: B VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. BARE 2. 3. 4. 5. Observations & Remarks: 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 0 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: X Yes No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks X Drift Lines X Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” X Landscape Position “Ponds Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? X Yes No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes X Yes No 3. Slope: X 0-2%; or > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; X new and old roots, or none 5. Flooding: none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or X frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? X Yes No 8. Continuous ponding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); X long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; X very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? _ X Yes No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: This data point represent the deepest pooled wetland mitigation cell which is inundated for a very long duration through the growing season. The length of inundation inhibits abundant vegetation germination. The primary indicators observed include algal matting on the soil surface, heavy alkali surface crusting, and sediment deposits. Corps hydrology criteria are met. SOILS Data Point:D/E1B Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to 12_______ 10 YR 2/1 Clay ____ to______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) _ Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: _ Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment _ Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or _ Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; _ Land Leveled; _ Ditch Drained; _ Tile Drained; _ Pumped; _ Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are: _ Flooded; _ Ponded; _ Saturated5 4. Soils: X do do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: _ X do _ do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? X Yes No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? X Yes No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? X Yes No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: The data point is positioned in a wetland location. The three Corps criteria for wetlands are met here. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? Yes X No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) _ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular.5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: D/E 2 Plot ID: A VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Lolium multiflorum FAC* Plantago lanceolata FAC- 2. Bromus diandrus UPL 3. Lythrum hyssopifolium FACW 4. Lotus corniculatus FAC 5. Observations & Remarks: 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 100 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” Landscape Position “Ponds No hydrology indicators observed Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence No current hydrology observed. Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? Yes X No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes Yes X No 3. Slope: 0-2%; or X > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; new and old roots, or X none 5. Flooding: X none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or __ very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? Yes X No 8. Continuous ponding duration: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; ___ very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? Yes _X__ No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Upland position for comparison to wetland. No hydrology indicators were observed. Data point located several feet up slope from wetland feature. SOILS Data Point ___2A_____ Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to ___12____ 10 YR 3/1 None None clay ____ to _______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ __ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; Land Leveled; Ditch Drained Tile Drained Pumped; Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are:___ Flooded; Ponded; Saturated5 4. Soils: do X do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: do _X do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? Yes X No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes X No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: Data point fails to meet all three Corps wetland criteria. Upland position for comparison to channel position. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? Yes No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) ___ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular. 5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles, or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: D/E 2 Plot ID: B VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Lotus corniculatus FAC Distichlis spicata FACW+ 2. Crypsis schoenoides OBL 3. Polypogon monspeliensis FACW+ 4. 5. Observations & Remarks: 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 100 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks X Drift Lines X Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” X Landscape Position “Ponds Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? X Yes No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes X Yes No 3. Slope: X 0-2%; or > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; new and old roots, or X none 5. Flooding: none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or X frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? X Yes No 8. Continuous ponding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; X very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? _ X Yes No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Primary indicators include algal matting on the soil surface, heavy alkali surface crusting, and sediment deposits. SOILS Data Point: D/E2-B Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to 12_______ 10 YR 2/1 Clay ____ to______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) _ Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: _ Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment _ Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or _ Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; _ Land Leveled; _ Ditch Drained; _ Tile Drained; _ Pumped; _ Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are: _ Flooded; _ Ponded; _ Saturated5 4. Soils: X do do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: _ X do _ do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? X Yes No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? X Yes No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? X Yes No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: The data point is positioned in a wetland location. The three Corps criteria for wetlands are met here. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? Yes X No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) _ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular.5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: D/E3 Plot ID: A VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Avena fatua UPL 2. Bromus diandrus UPL 3. Brassica nigra UPL 4. 5. Observations & Remarks: 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 0 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” Landscape Position “Ponds No hydrology indicators observed Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence No current hydrology observed. Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? Yes X No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes Yes X No 3. Slope: 0-2%; or X > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; new and old roots, or X none 5. Flooding: X none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or __ very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? Yes X No 8. Continuous ponding duration: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; ___ very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? Yes _X__ No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: _X__ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Upland position for comparison to wetland. No hydrology indicators were observed. Data point located several feet up slope from wetland feature. SOILS Data Point D/E3-A Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to ___12____ 10 YR 3/3 None None Clay ____ to _______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ __ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; Land Leveled; Ditch Drained Tile Drained Pumped; Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are:___ Flooded; Ponded; Saturated5 4. Soils: do X do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: do _X do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? Yes X No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? Yes X No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes X No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: Data point fails to meet all three Corps wetland criteria. Upland position for comparison to channel position. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? Yes No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) ___ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular. 5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles, or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: D/E3 Plot ID: B VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Scirpus robustus OBL Crypsis schoenoides OBL 2. Centromadiaea parryiFAC 3. Polypogon monspeliensis FACW- 4. Eleocharis macrostachyaOBL 5. Observations & Remarks: Sparse wetland vegetation coverage over entire cell. 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 100 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: X Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks X Drift Lines X Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” X Landscape Position “Ponds Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? X Yes No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes X Yes No 3. Slope: X 0-2%; or > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; new and old roots, or X none 5. Flooding: none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or X frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? X Yes No 8. Continuous ponding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); X long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; X very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? _ X Yes No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Wetland cell with long duration of inundation. Meets hydrology criteria with sediments on the soil surface, algal mats, and alkali crusting. SOILS Data Point: D/E3-B Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to 12_______ 10 YR 2/1 Clay ____ to______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) _ Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: _ Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment _ Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or _ Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; _ Land Leveled; _ Ditch Drained; _ Tile Drained; _ Pumped; _ Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are: _ Flooded; _ Ponded; _ Saturated5 4. Soils: X do do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: _ X do _ do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? X Yes No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? X Yes No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? X Yes No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: The data point is positioned in a wetland location. The three Corps criteria for wetlands are met here. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? X Yes No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) X Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) _ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular.5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: SP Plot ID: B VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Typha latifolia OBL Lolium multiflorum FAC* 2. Eleocharis macrostachya OBL Scirpus acutus OBL 3. 4. 5. Observations & Remarks: Sparse wetland vegetation coverage over entire cell. 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 100 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: X Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks X Drift Lines X Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” X Landscape Position “Ponds Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? X Yes No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes X Yes No 3. Slope: X 0-2%; or > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; new and old roots, or X none 5. Flooding: none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or X frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? X Yes No 8. Continuous ponding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); X long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; X very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? _ X Yes No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Stock pond has a long duration of inundation. Meets hydrology criteria with sediments on the soil surface, algal mats, and alkali crusting. SOILS Data Point: SP B Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to 12_______ 10 YR 2/1 Clay ____ to______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) _ Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: _ Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment _ Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or _ Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; _ Land Leveled; _ Ditch Drained; _ Tile Drained; _ Pumped; _ Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are: _ Flooded; _ Ponded; _ Saturated5 4. Soils: X do do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: _ X do _ do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? X Yes No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? X Yes No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? X Yes No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: The data point is positioned in a wetland location. The three Corps criteria for wetlands are met here. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? X Yes No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) X Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) _ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular.5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: LOVR Plot ID: B VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Picris echioides FAC Rumex crispus FACW_ 2. Rubus discolor FACW 3. Salix lasiolepis FACW 4. 5. Observations & Remarks: Sparse wetland vegetation coverage over entire cell. 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 100 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: X Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks X Drift Lines X Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” X Landscape Position “Ponds Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? X Yes No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes X Yes No 3. Slope: X 0-2%; or > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; new and old roots, or X none 5. Flooding: none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or X frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? X Yes No 8. Continuous ponding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); X long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; X very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? _ X Yes No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Channel meets hydrology criteria with sediments on the soil surface, algal mats, and alkali crusting. SOILS Data Point: LOVR-B Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to 12_______ 10 YR 2/1 Clay ____ to______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) _ Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: _ Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment _ Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or _ Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; _ Land Leveled; _ Ditch Drained; _ Tile Drained; _ Pumped; _ Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are: _ Flooded; _ Ponded; _ Saturated5 4. Soils: X do do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: _ X do _ do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? X Yes No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? X Yes No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? X Yes No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: The data point is positioned in a wetland location. The three Corps criteria for wetlands are met here. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? X Yes No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) X Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) _ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular.5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles or hydric soil classification. DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 Corps Methodology Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Boysen Ranch Mitigation Site Applicant/Owner: Madonna Construction Company Investigator(s) : Olberding Environmental Date: 5/9/07 County: San Luis Obispo State: CA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? X Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes X No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes X No (If needed, explain answer on reverse or attach separate sheet.) Community ID: herbaceous/shrub/tree Transect ID: LOVR2 Plot ID: B VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Indicator Associate Plant Species Indicator 1. Picris echioides FAC Dipsacus sylvestris NI 2. Sonchus asper FAC 3. Rumex crispus FACW- 4. 5. Observations & Remarks: Sparse wetland vegetation coverage over entire cell. 1. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-): 100 % 2. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? Yes X No; or, 3. Visually observed rooted emergent vegetation growing in flooded, ponded and/or saturated soils: Yes X No 4. Taxonomic Reference(s):__Jepson______________________________________________________ HYDROLOGY X Recorded Data (Attached): Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge X Aerial Photographs: Dates: _________________ ___________________________________________ Other _____________________________________ ___________________________________________ No Recorded Data Found Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: Inundated: Flooded Ponded Saturated in: X Upper 12" of Soil Profile Water Marks X Drift Lines X Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Oxidized Root Channels (Living Roots with Oxidized Rhizospheres) in: Upper 12"of Soil Profile Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Landscape Position “Drains” X Landscape Position “Ponds Current Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) __ Tidal Influence X Non-Tidal Influence Observations: 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? X Yes No 2. Surface Sediment with Bedding Planes X Yes No 3. Slope: X 0-2%; or > 2% 4. Oxidized rhizospheres: new roots only; old roots only; new and old roots, or X none 5. Flooding: none, flooding not probable; rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years, or X frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 6. Continuous flooding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, if <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS 7. Ponding? X Yes No 8. Continuous ponding duration: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); X long, if 5% to 12.5% GS or; X very long, if >12.5% GS 9. Saturation? _ X Yes No 10. Continuous duration of Saturation: ___ None; very brief, if < 2 days; brief, <5% growing season (GS); long, if 5% to 12.5% GS; or X very long, if >12.5% GS Remarks: Wetland cell with long duration of inundation. Meets hydrology criteria with sediments on the soil surface, algal mats, and alkali crusting. SOILS Data Point: LOVR2-B Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Cropley Clay Loam 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aridic Haploxererts Profile Description (Surface to 12"): Drainage Class: moderately well drained Permeability: slow Run off: medium to very high Field Observations Confirm NRCS Mapping? X Yes No Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color (Munsell Moist)Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist)Mottle Abundance1/ Contrast2 Texture3, Concretions, Structures4, etc. 0 to 12_______ 10 YR 2/1 Clay ____ to______ ____ to _______ Hydric Soil Indicators: Historic: Histosol Concretions (Redoximorphic Feature) Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors (chroma 2 ) Listed on National Hydric Soils List _ Other (Explain in Remarks): _________________________ _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _ Dead Root Halos (Redoximorphis Feature) _ Mottles (Redoximorphic features) ___ ________________________________________ ___ _________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Current: _ Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime (nearly free of dissolved oxygen for period of time) Reducing Conditions (Environment _ Other (Explain in Remarks): __________________________________ conducive to the removal of ___________________________ oxygen & chemical reduction of ions) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: Neutral; Slightly Fresh; Freshly Plowed Field Smell; or _ Sulfidic Odor 2. Site has been: Irrigated; _ Land Leveled; _ Ditch Drained; _ Tile Drained; _ Pumped; _ Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils Currently are: _ Flooded; _ Ponded; _ Saturated5 4. Soils: X do do not, become continuously flooded or ponded for long (7 to 30 days) to very long durations; (>30 days) during the growing season; ___ Unknown 5. Soils: _ X do _ do not, become continuously saturated for 14 days or greater WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Conditions Present? X Yes No Wetland Hydrology Conditions Present? X Yes No Hydric Soils Conditions Currently Present? X Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? X Yes No Signature: ______________________________________________ Remarks: The data point is positioned in a wetland location. The three Corps criteria for wetlands are met here. 1. Possible water of the U.S.? Yes X No (can be a water and not a wetland when vegetation is absent if bed and bank present). 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA regulation? X Yes No (If yes, check item(s) below). (a) Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) X Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). (f) _ Isolated wetland NOTES: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92* 1 Mottle abundance: Few (F), Common (C), or Many (M). 2 Mottle contrast: Faint (F), Distinct (D), or Prominent (P). 3 Texture: Sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam , silt, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. 4 Structure: Platy (laminated), prismatic (vertical axis of aggregates longer than horizontal), columnar (prisms with rounded tops), blocky (angular or subangular), or granular.5 Reliance on visual observation of flooding, or ponding is required, or the use of indicators other than factors such as soil color, the presence of mottles or hydric soil classification. ATTACHMENT NO. 4 LIST OF PLANT SPECIES Table 1 Plant Species Observed Scientific Name Common Name Wetland Indicator Status Anagallis arvensis Scarlet Pimpernel FAC Anthemis cotula Mayweed FACU Asclepias fascicularis Narrow-leaved Milkweed FAC Avena fatua Wild Oat UPL Baccharis pilularis Coyote Bush UPL Brassica nigra Black Mustard UPL Briza minor Little Quaking Grass FACW- Bromus diandrus Rip-gut Brome UPL Bromus hordeaceous Soft Chess FACU- Carduus pychnocephalus Italian Thistle UPL Carex sp. Sedge OBL Centaurea solstitialis Yellow Star Thistle UPL Chenopodium album Goosefoot FAC Cichorium intybus Chicory UPL Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle FACU Conium maculatum Poison Hemlock FACW Conyza canadensis Horse Weed FAC Convolvulus arvensis Bindweed UPL Cotula coronopifolia Brass Buttons OBL Cressa truxillensis Alkali Weed FACW Crypsis schoenoides Swamp Timothy OBL Cynodon dactylon Bermuda Grass FAC Cyperus esculentus Yellow Nut Sedge FACW Dipsacus sylvestris Teasle NI Distichlis spicata Salt Grass FACW Eleocharis macrostachya Spike Rush OBL Table 1 Plant Species Observed Scientific Name Common Name Wetland Indicator Status Eremocarpus setigerous Doveweed UPL Erodium cicutarium Red-stemmed Filaree UPL Gastridium ventricosum Nit Grass FACU Geranium dissectum Cutleaf Geranium UPL Hainardia cylindrica Monera Grass FACW+ Heliotropum curassavicum Heleotrope OBL Hemizonia congesta Hayfield Tarplant UPL Hemizonia parryi ssp. congdonii Congdon’s Tarplant FAC Hordeum brachyantherum Meadow Barley FACW Hordeum marinum var. gussoneanum Mediterranean Barley FAC Hordeum murinum var. leporinum Foxtail Barley UPL Holocarpha virgata Virgate Tarweed UPL Juncus balticus Baltic Rush OBL Junucs bufonius Toad Rush FACW+ Juncus xiphioides Iris-leaved Rush OBL Kickxia elatine Sharp-point Fluellin NI* Lactuca serriola Prickly Lettuce FAC Lasthenia fremontii Fremont’s Goldfields OBL Leymus tritichoides Creeping Wild Rye FAC Lepidium nitidum Pepperweed UPL Lolium multiflorum Italian Rye Grass FAC* Lotus corniculatus Bird’s-Foot Trefoil FAC Lotus purshianus Lotus UPL Lythrum hyssopifolia Hyssop Loostrife FACW Lupinus sp. Lupine UPL Table 1 Plant Species Observed Scientific Name Common Name Wetland Indicator Status Malvella leprosa Alkali Mallow FAC* Medicago polymorpha Bur Clover UPL Mimulus guttatus Common Monkey Flower OBL Picris echioides Prickly Ox-Tongue FAC* Phyla nodiflora Common Fog-fruit FACW Plantago coronopus Cut-leaf Plantain FAC Plantago lanceolata English Plantain FAC- Polygonum aviculare Prostrate Knotweed FAC Poa annua Annual Bluegrass FACW Polygonum sp. Smartweed Polypogon monspeliensis Rabbit’s-foot Grass FACW+ Ranunculus californicus California Buttercup NI Raphanus sativa Wild Raddish UPL Rubus procerus Himalaya Blackberry FAC Rumex crispus Curly Dock FACW- Salix lasiandra Arroyo Willow FACW Scirpus acutus Bulrush OBL Scirpus californicus California Bulrush OBL Spurgularia sp. Spurry Trichostema lanceolata Vinegar Weed UPL Trifolium sp. Clover Typha latifolia Cattails OBL Veronica sp. Veronica Vicia sativa Common Vetch FACU Vulpia myuros Rat-tail Fescue FACU Olberding Environmental, Inc. 2007 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEETS FOR OVERALL SPECIES ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR OVERALL PLANT SPECIES ABUNDANCE & DISTRIBUTION CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH MITIGATION SITE NO.1 _____________ DATE: May 9, 2007 QUADRAT NO. A1-B MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO. Year 5 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding Regulatory Requirement: Determine for each year of required compliance monitoring the overall abundance and habitat distribution of the various plant species found within the Corps' approved mitigation sites. No. Species Strata2Overall Cover or Stem Density Abundance/Distribution by Habitat Type3 1 Eleocharis macrostachya Herb 50 2 Distichlis spicata Herb 60 3 Polypogon monspeliensis Herb 10 4 Rumex crispus Herb 5 5 Malvella leprosa Herb 1 6 Juncus xiphioides Herb 1 7 8 9 Total Cover 127 1See attached site location map. 2Herbaceous layer (H), shrub (S), and tree (T). MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR OVERALL PLANT SPECIES ABUNDANCE & DISTRIBUTION CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH MITIGATION SITE NO.1 _____________ DATE: May 9, 2007 QUADRAT NO. A2-B MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO. Year 5 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding Regulatory Requirement: Determine for each year of required compliance monitoring the overall abundance and habitat distribution of the various plant species found within the Corps' approved mitigation sites. No. Species Strata2Overall Cover or Stem Density Abundance/Distribution by Habitat Type3 1 Distichlis spicata Herb 70 2 Juncus xiphioides Herb 20 3 Eleocharis macrostachya Herb 10 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total Cover 100 1See attached site location map. 2Herbaceous layer (H), shrub (S), and tree (T). MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR OVERALL PLANT SPECIES ABUNDANCE & DISTRIBUTION CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH MITIGATION SITE NO.1 _____________ DATE: May 9, 2007 QUADRAT NO. A3-B MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO. Year 5 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding Regulatory Requirement: Determine for each year of required compliance monitoring the overall abundance and habitat distribution of the various plant species found within the Corps' approved mitigation sites. No. Species Strata2 Overall Cover or Stem Density Abundance/Distribution by Habitat Type3 1 Polypogon monspeliensis Herb 85 2 Distichlis spicata Herb 20 3 Juncus xiphoides Herb 10 4 Cotula coronopifolia Herb 5 5 6 7 8 9 Total Cover 120 1See attached site location map. 2Herbaceous layer (H), shrub (S), and tree (T). MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR OVERALL PLANT SPECIES ABUNDANCE & DISTRIBUTION CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH MITIGATION SITE NO.1 _____________ DATE: May 9, 2007 QUADRAT NO. A4-B MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO. Year 5 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding Regulatory Requirement: Determine for each year of required compliance monitoring the overall abundance and habitat distribution of the various plant species found within the Corps' approved mitigation sites. No. Species Strata2Overall Cover or Stem Density Abundance/Distribution by Habitat Type3 1 Polypogon monspeliensis Herb 50 2 Distichlis spicata Herb 20 3 Crypsis schoenoides Herb 10 4 Alissma plantago-laneolata Herb 3 5 Cotula coronopifolia Herb 2 6 7 8 9 Total Cover 85 1See attached site location map. 2Herbaceous layer (H), shrub (S), and tree (T). MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR OVERALL PLANT SPECIES ABUNDANCE & DISTRIBUTION CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH MITIGATION SITE NO.1 _____________ DATE: May 9, 2007 QUADRAT NO. B1-B MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO. Year 5 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding Regulatory Requirement: Determine for each year of required compliance monitoring the overall abundance and habitat distribution of the various plant species found within the Corps' approved mitigation sites. No. Species Strata2Overall Cover or Stem Density Abundance/Distribution by Habitat Type3 1 Centromadiaea paryii Herb 20 2 Amannia coccinea Herb 15 3 Polypogon monspeliensis Herb 5 4 Crypsis schoenoides Herb 5 5 Chenopodium album Herb 2 6 7 8 9 Total Cover 47 1See attached site location map. 2Herbaceous layer (H), shrub (S), and tree (T). MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR OVERALL PLANT SPECIES ABUNDANCE & DISTRIBUTION CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH MITIGATION SITE NO.1 _____________ DATE: May 9, 2007 QUADRAT NO. B2-B MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO. Year 5 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding Regulatory Requirement: Determine for each year of required compliance monitoring the overall abundance and habitat distribution of the various plant species found within the Corps' approved mitigation sites. No. Species Strata2Overall Cover or Stem Density Abundance/Distribution by Habitat Type3 1 Crypsis schoenioides Herb 10 2 Polypogon monspeliensis Herb 10 3 Centromadiaea paryii Herb 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total Cover 25 1See attached site location map. 2Herbaceous layer (H), shrub (S), and tree (T). MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR OVERALL PLANT SPECIES ABUNDANCE & DISTRIBUTION CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH MITIGATION SITE NO.1 _____________ DATE: May 9, 2007 QUADRAT NO. C1-B MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO. Year 5 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding Regulatory Requirement: Determine for each year of required compliance monitoring the overall abundance and habitat distribution of the various plant species found within the Corps' approved mitigation sites. No. Species Strata2Overall Cover or Stem Density Abundance/Distribution by Habitat Type3 1 Polypogon monspeliensis Herb 90 2 Lotus corniculatus Herb 10 3 Centromadiaea paryii Herb 5 4 Lolium multiflorum Herb 5 5 6 7 8 9 Total Cover 110 1See attached site location map. 2Herbaceous layer (H), shrub (S), and tree (T). MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR OVERALL PLANT SPECIES ABUNDANCE & DISTRIBUTION CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH MITIGATION SITE NO.1 _____________ DATE: May 9, 2007 QUADRAT NO. C2-B MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO. Year 5 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding Regulatory Requirement: Determine for each year of required compliance monitoring the overall abundance and habitat distribution of the various plant species found within the Corps' approved mitigation sites. No. Species Strata2Overall Cover or Stem Density Abundance/Distribution by Habitat Type3 1 Eleocharis macrostachya Herb 50 2 Ammannia cocinea Herb 30 3 Centromadiaea paryii Herb 20 4 Rumex crispus Herb 5 5 Chenopodium album Herb 1 6 Alissma plantago-aquatica Herb 1 7 8 9 Total Cover 107 1See attached site location map. 2Herbaceous layer (H), shrub (S), and tree (T MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR OVERALL PLANT SPECIES ABUNDANCE & DISTRIBUTION CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH MITIGATION SITE NO.1 _____________ DATE: May 9, 2007 QUADRAT NO. D/E1-B MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO. Year 5 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding Regulatory Requirement: Determine for each year of required compliance monitoring the overall abundance and habitat distribution of the various plant species found within the Corps' approved mitigation sites. No. Species Strata2Overall Cover or Stem Density Abundance/Distribution by Habitat Type3 1 Eleocharis macrostachya Herb 20 2 Crypsis schoenoides Herb 10 3 Alissma plantago-aquatica Herb 5 4 Eryngium xx Herb 1 5 Centromadiaea parryi Herb 1 6 7 8 9 Total Cover 37 1See attached site location map. 2Herbaceous layer (H), shrub (S), and tree (T) MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR OVERALL PLANT SPECIES ABUNDANCE & DISTRIBUTION CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH MITIGATION SITE NO.1 _____________ DATE: May 9, 2007 QUADRAT NO. D/E2-B MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO. Year 5 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding Regulatory Requirement: Determine for each year of required compliance monitoring the overall abundance and habitat distribution of the various plant species found within the Corps' approved mitigation sites. No. Species Strata2Overall Cover or Stem Density Abundance/Distribution by Habitat Type3 1 Distichlis spicata Herb 8 2 Cressa truxilliensis Herb 7 3 Polypogon monspliensis Herb 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total Cover 16 1See attached site location map. 2Herbaceous layer (H), shrub (S), and tree (T) MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR OVERALL PLANT SPECIES ABUNDANCE & DISTRIBUTION CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH MITIGATION SITE NO.1 _____________ DATE: May 9, 2007 QUADRAT NO. D/E3-B MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO. Year 5 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding Regulatory Requirement: Determine for each year of required compliance monitoring the overall abundance and habitat distribution of the various plant species found within the Corps' approved mitigation sites. No. Species Strata2Overall Cover or Stem Density Abundance/Distribution by Habitat Type3 1 Scirpus robustus Herb 20 2 Eleocharis macrostachya Herb 5 3 Centromadiaea paryii Herb 1 4 Crypsis schoenoides Herb 1 5 Polypogon monspeliensis Herb 1 6 7 8 9 Total Cover 28 1See attached site location map. 2Herbaceous layer (H), shrub (S), and tree (T) MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR OVERALL PLANT SPECIES ABUNDANCE & DISTRIBUTION CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH MITIGATION SITE NO.1 _____________ DATE: May 9, 2007 QUADRAT NO. SP-B MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO. Year 5 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding Regulatory Requirement: Determine for each year of required compliance monitoring the overall abundance and habitat distribution of the various plant species found within the Corps' approved mitigation sites. No. Species Strata2Overall Cover or Stem Density Abundance/Distribution by Habitat Type3 1 Eleocharis macrostachya Herb 40 2 Typha latifolia Herb 20 3 Salix lasiolepis Herb 20 4 Lolium multiflorum Herb 20 5 Scirpus acutus Herb 5 6 7 8 9 Total Cover 105 1See attached site location map. 2Herbaceous layer (H), shrub (S), and tree (T) MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR OVERALL PLANT SPECIES ABUNDANCE & DISTRIBUTION CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH MITIGATION SITE NO.1 _____________ DATE: May 9, 2007 QUADRAT NO. LOVR-B MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO. Year 5 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding Regulatory Requirement: Determine for each year of required compliance monitoring the overall abundance and habitat distribution of the various plant species found within the Corps' approved mitigation sites. No. Species Strata2Overall Cover or Stem Density Abundance/Distribution by Habitat Type3 1 Picris echioides Herb 40 2 Rubus discolor Herb 25 3 Salix lasiolepis Herb 25 4 Rumex crispus Herb 10 5 6 7 8 9 Total Cover 100 1See attached site location map. 2Herbaceous layer (H), shrub (S), and tree (T) MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR OVERALL PLANT SPECIES ABUNDANCE & DISTRIBUTION CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH MITIGATION SITE NO.1 _____________ DATE: May 9, 2007 QUADRAT NO. LOVR2-B MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO. Year 5 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding Regulatory Requirement: Determine for each year of required compliance monitoring the overall abundance and habitat distribution of the various plant species found within the Corps' approved mitigation sites. No. Species Strata2Overall Cover or Stem Density Abundance/Distribution by Habitat Type3 1 Picris echioides Herb 50 2 Sonchus asper Herb 20 3 Rumex crispus Herb 20 4 Distichlis spicata Herb 10 5 6 7 8 9 Total Cover 100 1See attached site location map. 2Herbaceous layer (H), shrub (S), and tree (T) ATTACHMENT NO. 6 MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEETS FOR EVALUATION OF MITIGATION SUCCESS MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR EVALUATION OF MITIGATION SUCCESS CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH QUADRAT NO.A1-B DATE:_May 9, 2007 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO.Year 5 MITIGATION SITE NO. N/A Regulatory Requirement: Provide an annual assessment of mitigation success and provide recommendation for corrective action as necessary. I. Assessment of Vegetation Success _____ criteria met; _____ not met A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 II. Assessment of Erosion: _____ present; _____ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 III. Assessment of Herbivory: _____ present; _____ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 IV. Assessment of Other Disturbance: _____ present; _____ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. if not met, state cause: C. if not met, state cause: D. proposed remedial action:1 Other comments:1 1Attach additional comments as necessary. MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR EVALUATION OF MITIGATION SUCCESS CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH QUADRAT NO. A2-B DATE:_May 9, 2007 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO.Year 5 MITIGATION SITE NO. N/A Regulatory Requirement: Provide an annual assessment of mitigation success and provide recommendation for corrective action as necessary. I. Assessment of Vegetation Success _____ criteria met; ______ not met A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 II. Assessment of Erosion: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 III. Assessment of Herbivory: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 IV. Assessment of Other Disturbance: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. if not met, state cause: C. if not met, state cause: D. proposed remedial action:1 Other comments:1 1Attach additional comments as necessary. MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR EVALUATION OF MITIGATION SUCCESS CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH QUADRAT NO. A3-B DATE:_May 9, 2007 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO.Year 5 MITIGATION SITE NO. N/A Regulatory Requirement: Provide an annual assessment of mitigation success and provide recommendation for corrective action as necessary. I. Assessment of Vegetation Success _____ criteria met; ______ not met A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 II. Assessment of Erosion: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 III. Assessment of Herbivory: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 IV. Assessment of Other Disturbance: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. if not met, state cause: C. if not met, state cause: D. proposed remedial action:1 Other comments: 1Attach additional comments as necessary. MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR EVALUATION OF MITIGATION SUCCESS CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH QUADRAT NO.A4-B DATE:_May 9, 2007 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO.Year 5 MITIGATION SITE NO. N/A Regulatory Requirement: Provide an annual assessment of mitigation success and provide recommendation for corrective action as necessary. I. Assessment of Vegetation Success _____ criteria met; ______ not met A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 II. Assessment of Erosion: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 III. Assessment of Herbivory: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 IV. Assessment of Other Disturbance: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. if not met, state cause: C. if not met, state cause: D. proposed remedial action:1 Other comments: 1Attach additional comments as necessary. MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR EVALUATION OF MITIGATION SUCCESS CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH QUADRAT NO.B1-B DATE:_May 9, 2007 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO.Year 5 MITIGATION SITE NO. N/A Regulatory Requirement: Provide an annual assessment of mitigation success and provide recommendation for corrective action as necessary. I. Assessment of Vegetation Success ______ criteria met; _____ not met A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 II. Assessment of Erosion: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 III. Assessment of Herbivory: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 IV. Assessment of Other Disturbance: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. if not met, state cause: C. if not met, state cause: D. proposed remedial action:1 Other comments: 1Attach additional comments as necessary. MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR EVALUATION OF MITIGATION SUCCESS CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH QUADRAT NO.B2-B DATE:_May 9, 2007 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO.Year 5 MITIGATION SITE NO. N/A Regulatory Requirement: Provide an annual assessment of mitigation success and provide recommendation for corrective action as necessary. I. Assessment of Vegetation Success ______ criteria met; _____ not met A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 II. Assessment of Erosion: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 III. Assessment of Herbivory: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 IV. Assessment of Other Disturbance: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. if not met, state cause: C. if not met, state cause: D. proposed remedial action:1 Other comments: 1Attach additional comments as necessary. MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR EVALUATION OF MITIGATION SUCCESS CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH QUADRAT NO.C1-B DATE:_May 9, 2007 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO.Year 5 MITIGATION SITE NO. N/A Regulatory Requirement: Provide an annual assessment of mitigation success and provide recommendation for corrective action as necessary. II. Assessment of Vegetation Success ______ criteria met; _____ not met E. if not met, state cause: F. proposed remedial action:1 V. Assessment of Erosion: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 VI. Assessment of Herbivory: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 VII. Assessment of Other Disturbance: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. if not met, state cause: C. if not met, state cause: D. proposed remedial action:1 Other comments: 1Attach additional comments as necessary. MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR EVALUATION OF MITIGATION SUCCESS CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH QUADRAT NO.C2-B DATE:_May 9, 2007 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO.Year 5 MITIGATION SITE NO. N/A Regulatory Requirement: Provide an annual assessment of mitigation success and provide recommendation for corrective action as necessary. III. Assessment of Vegetation Success ______ criteria met; _____ not met E. if not met, state cause: F. proposed remedial action:1 VIII. Assessment of Erosion: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 IX. Assessment of Herbivory: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 X. Assessment of Other Disturbance: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. if not met, state cause: C. if not met, state cause: D. proposed remedial action:1 Other comments: 1Attach additional comments as necessary. MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR EVALUATION OF MITIGATION SUCCESS CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH QUADRAT NO.D/E1-B DATE:_May 9, 2007 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO.Year 5 MITIGATION SITE NO. N/A Regulatory Requirement: Provide an annual assessment of mitigation success and provide recommendation for corrective action as necessary. IV. Assessment of Vegetation Success ______ criteria met; _____ not met E. if not met, state cause: Very long inundation period prevents abundant vegetation germination and or growth. F. proposed remedial action:1 None. XI. Assessment of Erosion: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 XII. Assessment of Herbivory: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 XIII. Assessment of Other Disturbance: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. if not met, state cause: C. if not met, state cause: D. proposed remedial action:1 Other comments: 1Attach additional comments as necessary. MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR EVALUATION OF MITIGATION SUCCESS CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH QUADRAT NO.D/E2-B DATE:_May 9, 2007 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO.Year 5 MITIGATION SITE NO. N/A Regulatory Requirement: Provide an annual assessment of mitigation success and provide recommendation for corrective action as necessary. V. Assessment of Vegetation Success ______ criteria met; _____ not met E. if not met, state cause: Very long inundation period prevents abundant vegetation germination and or growth. F. proposed remedial action:1 None. XIV. Assessment of Erosion: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 XV. Assessment of Herbivory: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 XVI. Assessment of Other Disturbance: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. if not met, state cause: C. if not met, state cause: D. proposed remedial action:1 Other comments: 1Attach additional comments as necessary. MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR EVALUATION OF MITIGATION SUCCESS CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH QUADRAT NO.D/E3-B DATE:_May 9, 2007 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO.Year 5 MITIGATION SITE NO. N/A Regulatory Requirement: Provide an annual assessment of mitigation success and provide recommendation for corrective action as necessary. VI. Assessment of Vegetation Success ______ criteria met; _____ not met E. if not met, state cause: Very long inundation period prevents abundant vegetation germination and or growth. F. proposed remedial action:1 None. XVII. Assessment of Erosion: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 XVIII. Assessment of Herbivory: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 XIX. Assessment of Other Disturbance: _____ present; ______ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. if not met, state cause: C. if not met, state cause: D. proposed remedial action:1 Other comments: 1Attach additional comments as necessary. MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR EVALUATION OF MITIGATION SUCCESS CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH QUADRAT NO.SP-B DATE:_May 9, 2007 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO.Year 5 MITIGATION SITE NO. N/A Regulatory Requirement: Provide an annual assessment of mitigation success and provide recommendation for corrective action as necessary. V. Assessment of Vegetation Success _____ criteria met; _____ not met A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 VI. Assessment of Erosion: _____ present; _____ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 VII. Assessment of Herbivory: _____ present; _____ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 VIII. Assessment of Other Disturbance: _____ present; _____ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. if not met, state cause: C. if not met, state cause: D. proposed remedial action:1 Other comments:1 1Attach additional comments as necessary. MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR EVALUATION OF MITIGATION SUCCESS CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH QUADRAT NO.LOVR-B DATE:_May 9, 2007 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO.Year 5 MITIGATION SITE NO. N/A Regulatory Requirement: Provide an annual assessment of mitigation success and provide recommendation for corrective action as necessary. IX. Assessment of Vegetation Success _____ criteria met; _____ not met A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 X. Assessment of Erosion: _____ present; _____ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 XI. Assessment of Herbivory: _____ present; _____ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 XII. Assessment of Other Disturbance: _____ present; _____ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. if not met, state cause: C. if not met, state cause: D. proposed remedial action:1 Other comments:1 1Attach additional comments as necessary. MITIGATION MONITORING DATA SHEET FOR EVALUATION OF MITIGATION SUCCESS CORPS PROJECT NO. 985007300-TW and 200201170-BAH QUADRAT NO.LOVR2-B DATE:_May 9, 2007 RECORDER: Shannon Lindquist TECHNICAL REVIEWER Jeff Olberding MONITORING YEAR 2007 & NO.Year 5 MITIGATION SITE NO. N/A Regulatory Requirement: Provide an annual assessment of mitigation success and provide recommendation for corrective action as necessary. XIII. Assessment of Vegetation Success _____ criteria met; _____ not met A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 XIV. Assessment of Erosion: _____ present; _____ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 XV. Assessment of Herbivory: _____ present; _____ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. proposed remedial action:1 XVI. Assessment of Other Disturbance: _____ present; _____ absent A. if not met, state cause: B. if not met, state cause: C. if not met, state cause: D. proposed remedial action:1 Other comments:1 1Attach additional comments as necessary. APPENDIX E.2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan-2019 Rare Plant Update and Wetland Impact Analysis Memorandum This Page Intentionally Left Blank. 1 KMA KEVIN MERK ASSOCIATES, LLC P.O. BOX 318 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93406 805-748-5837 Environmental Consulting Services MEMORANDUM Date: July 23, 2019 To: John Madonna Organization: JM Development Group, Inc. From: Kevin Merk Email: kmerk@kevinmerkassociates.com cc: Tim Walters, RRM Design Group Re: Froom Ranch Specific Plan–2019 Rare Plant Update and Wetland Impact Analysis At your request, Kevin Merk Associates (KMA) conducted a botanical survey on the Froom Ranch project site during the spring and early summer 2019 to update the special status plant information provided in the Biological Resources Inventory report (BRI; KMA, revised November 2018). We also reviewed the proposed Froom Creek realignment design developed by RRM Design Group to help the City of San Luis Obispo assess potential impacts to the Calle Joaquin wetland habitat that may occur post-construction. As part of the Calle Joaquin wetland impact assessment, we reviewed project plans and hydrology and sediment reports prepared by RRM Design Group (2018 and 2019), the Froom Ranch Development Groundwater Impacts Assessment (Cleath-Harris Geologists, 2018), and the Hydrologic Monitoring Plan for Sustaining a Separated Wetland Near Calle Joaquin (Balance Hydrologics, 2005) to help characterize the Calle Joaquin wetland area and identify potential impacts that may result from construction of the proposed project. This memorandum summarizes the results of the botanical surveys conducted in 2019, and provides our assessment of potential affects to the Calle Joaquin wetland area from construction of the proposed project and realignment of Froom Creek. 2019 Botanical Survey Update KMA conducted a series of surveys during the spring and early summer of 2019 to provide an updated assessment of special status plant distribution within the Froom Ranch study area compared to those surveys conducted in 2015. The results of the 2015 surveys were reported in the BRI and occurrence data illustrat ed on Figure 7 , the Special Status Plant Occurrences Map. Methods of the botanical survey followed those described in the BRI, which included the site being walked using meandering transects to identify all species observed to the level necessary to determine rarity. When rare plant occurrences were encountered, the boundaries of the occurrence were identified and the limits were delineated using a Trimble GeoXH 6000 GPS unit. The GPS data were imported into ARC GIS software and Figure 7A was prepared to show the special status plant observations on the site in 2019 in relation to those occurrences observed in 2015 (see attached). The surveys covered the entire study area, including the Basin Study Area on the Mountainbrook Church property. Surveys occurred on April 27, May 4, May 7, and June 6, 2019. A follow up survey was Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project 2019 Rare Plant Update and Calle Joaquin Wetland Impacts Analysis 2 conducted on June 25, 2019 to evaluate Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense) occurrences previously mapped onsite. Of importance, a newly described species, the Irish Hills spineflower (Chorizanthe aphanantha), was observed and reported from higher elevations in the neighboring Irish Hills Natural Reserve since the 2015 surveys were conducted on the subject site. Two species of spineflower, Palmer’s spineflower (Chorizanthe palmeri) and Brewer’s spineflower (C. breweri), were observed in the study area during the 2015 surveys, and the 2019 survey effort also determined if Irish Hills spineflower was present onsite. As part of this survey effort, several known occurrences of Irish Hills spineflower on the City of San Luis Obispo’s Waddell property were visited to review key identification features and habitat elements where occurrences of this species were documented. Irish Hills spineflower was not observed on the Froom Ranch study area in 2019, nor was it observed on the portion of Irish Hills Natural Reserve immediately adjacent to the site. Overall, species observations made in 2019 were consistent with those reported in the BRI, and special status plants identified onsite were in the same general locations as shown on Figure 7 in that report. Please refer to the attached Figure 7A for a comparison of the 2015 and 2019 survey data. No CRPR 1B species were observed in the Basin Study Area. Given the above average rainfall experienced during the 2018/2019 rain season, the non-serpentine endemic San Luis Obispo owl’s clover (Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis) was observed covering much larger areas of the grassland habitat on the upper terrace in the southwest part of the site compared to the 2015 observations. Serpentine endemic species that were observed on rock outcroppings and thin soiled areas in 2015, such as Brewer’s spineflower, San Luis Obispo serpentine dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina), and Jones’ layia (Layia jonesii), were observed in the same general locations without much expansion or contraction. A previously documented occurrence of Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) growing in the Home Depot temporary basin was reduced in size as the basin had been removed since the 2015 surveys. Still, two patches of Congdon’s tarplant were observed persisting in this area. The small occurrence of chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis) observed on a serpentine rock outcrop in 2015 was not relocated in 2019. Two species not observed in 2015 were identified on the steep upper slopes within the study area during the survey update, and included adobe yampah (Perideridia pringlei; CRPR 4.3) and most beautiful jewel flower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus; CRPR 1B.2). Adobe yampah is on a watch list, and is not very rare or threatened in the project area. It was observed in steeper rocky areas co-mingling with previously mapped CRPR 1B species in the upper southwest corner of the site outside the proposed development footprint. The most beautiful jewelflower is a rare species that is moderately threatened throughout its range. This species was observed in a small grassy opening on a steep rocky slope above a large larkspur (Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae) patch where the grassland segues into coastal scrub/chaparral in the southwest portion of the site (see Figure 7A). The occurrences are outside any proposed development. Searches of the neighboring Irish Hills Natural Reserve outside the project study area located numerous occurrences of both species, as well as the other serpentine endemics observed on the Froom Ranch. Chorro creek bog thistle occurrences mapped in 2015 were also revisited. 2019 survey effort confirmed Chorro Creek bog thistle plants were still present along the upper reach of Drainage 1 and at a seep in Drainage 2. The occurrence at the seep in Drainage 2 had expanded slightly as compared to the observations made in 2015, but the Drainage 1 occurrences were still confined to the channel. Calle Joaquin Wetland Impact Assessment The proposed Froom Creek realignment would route the new channel in an easterly direction towards Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR). The creek bottom would generally be on the existing grade and the site would be built up around it using fill material to raise the site out of the current FEMA floodplain. A low Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project 2019 Rare Plant Update and Calle Joaquin Wetland Impacts Analysis 3 flow channel would be created during the realignment process and top-dressed with the select placement of cobble, rock and boulders salvaged from the old creek alignment. Near LOVR, the channel would arc to the south and parallel LOVR until it reaches the north end of the Calle Joaquin wetland area. The turn of the creek at LOVR would require bank armoring, and the LOVR stormwater ditch would also join the creek in this location. Once the creek channel is in the vicinity of the Calle Joaquin wetland, the eastern fill slope constructed to separate the channel from LOVR would flatten out and the low flow channel would continue along the toe of the western fill slope. In this area, the creek would open up into a wide floodplain area that is the Calle Joaquin wetland. The low flow channel would be designed to handle normal flow events, but it is envisioned that any larger flow event (i.e., greater than the 2-year storm) would be allowed to spread laterally, ultimately flooding the vegetated wetland area. The upland area to the southeast of the wetland would be graded during the creation of the low flow channel to create the connection to the Froom Creek channel at the Mountainbrook Church property line. Based on discussions with RRM Design Group, flowing water in the creek would be moving very slowly, estimated at less than one foot per second, by the time it parallels LOVR and is in proximity to the Calle Joaquin wetland area. Surface water associated with large storm events would gradually fill up the Calle Joaquin wetland area with a depth of approximately three to four feet. Water would continue to flow in a southeasterly direction towards the connection with the creek channel at the Mountainbrook Church property line. The erosive flow velocity and sediment/bed load transport would not be present in this area, and flows would not be expected to erode the densely vegetated wetland zone. By the time any flowing water within the creek would reach the Calle Joaquin wetland, it will have slowed substantially and sediment dropped out in the upper reach since the new channel will be much wider than the current alignment and include vegetation, cobble, gravel, and boulders. Concerns were raised by the EIR consultant about the southerly topographic aspect present where the realigned Froom Creek will interface with the Calle Joaquin wetland. A potential impact was identified that the low flow channel could erode and then migrate towards the topographic low area immediately adjacent to Calle Joaquin that currently supports perennial surface water and a patch of tules. While channel migration may be possible, this area is in fact quite flat with only minor change from the proposed low flow channel to the toe of fill slope associated with Calle Joaquin. The cross section provided as Figure 3.7 in the RRM Hydrology Report is shown at an exaggerated scale for clarity and graphically may appear that the change in topography from the proposed low flow channel to the topographic low point at the base of the Calle Joaquin road prism is more severe than the actual gentle slope. It would seem that with the estimated flow velocity reported in the RRM hydrology and sediment studies that surface water will gradually fill the low flow channel, overtop the small southern bank defining the low flow channel and then gradually fill the flat wetland area. The non-erosive nature of the flow, estimated at 0.7 foot per second, would not be expected to strip the densely rooted wetland vegetation or erode the small southern bank. Once the high water recedes, flows would reduce and then again be contained in the low flow channel. It is also possible that a more braided channel could form through this flat zone overtime. The densely rooted, rhizomatous wetland vegetation characteristic of the area would prevent erosion given this part of the site is so flat and flows would be slow. Select planting of willows and use of appropriate biotechnical erosion controls at the creek-wetland interface would also be used to further minimize the erosion potential and promote proper drainage and maintenance of the low flow channel. As relayed to KMA by RRM Design Group’s engineering team, the lengthening and widening of the Froom Creek channel compared to its existing morphology will reduce flow velocity and subsequent erosion potential for the lower flatter reach of the realigned creek. Select bank armoring and use of vegetation, native cobble and boulders in the channel will reduce the erosion potential through the parts of the creek that may experience swifter flowing water. The low flow channel in the Calle Joaquin wetland area interface would be a shallow swale-like feature excavated upwards of two feet in depth. The densely rooted wetland vegetation in this area along with grassy species composition should be maintained Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project 2019 Rare Plant Update and Calle Joaquin Wetland Impacts Analysis 4 overtime with a similar herbaceous vegetation layer due to shallow groundwater. The constructed low flow channel would be seeded and planted with native vegetation, but it is likely that the wetland plants will recolonize the area due to the prolonged saturated conditions from shallow groundwater. Even if deposition of sediment was to occur when the Calle Joaquin wetland area is submerged, the wetland and riparian plant composition would be expected to regrow through the sediment layer. The planting of riparian trees and shrubs on the banks and buffer areas, and the removal of grazing from the site will also increase the vegetation structure throughout the Calle Joaquin wetland area, and trees and shrubs like willows and cottonwoods are expected to colonize the wetland zone. The project proposes to have stormwater that was directed to the Irish Hills Plaza basin now enter the site in an open channel feature that will treat and direct the water to the extension of the LOVR ditch and then connect to the new Froom Creek channel. It is highly likely that wetland habitat will be created in this channel up to its connection with the LOVR ditch given the amount of stormwater that would be going to this feature compared to the Irish Hills Plaza basin. As proposed, the stormwater drainage features would be planted with a mix of wetland and riparian plants to create a natural looking riparian corridor with wetland habitat to be established in portions of the channel bed with prolonged saturation. Froom Creek in its current alignment on the property contains flowing water for a short period of time, and does not contain areas of prolonged standing water or saturated soils sufficient for wetland plant growth. It is incised with steep banks and no significant vegetation structure such as trees or shrubs is present. The increased water input to the realigned Froom Creek channel from the Irish Hills Plaza and closer proximity to groundwater will likely be expressed by an increase in wetland vegetation throughout the new channel bottom, especially along LOVR near the Calle Joaquin wetland where groundwater is near the surface. The proximity to shallow groundwater in concert with seasonal flow in Froom Creek coupled with stormwater from the Irish Hills Plaza and onsite development are expected to expand the areas of wetland habitat throughout the onsite drainage features providing a substantial increase in wetland surface area and resulting functions and values post construction. As detailed in the Cleath-Harris report and Balance Hydrologics study, groundwater upward leakage is the primary hydrologic influence supporting wetland habitat in the Calle Joaquin area. The perimeter French drain surrounding the Irish Hills Plaza basin is apparently capturing subsurface flow and directing it around the basin to the discharge ditch (refer to Figure 1 in the Cleath-Harris Geologists 2018 report). Stormwater drainage out of the basin is also contributing to the wetland hydrology as it is directed to this same ditch which drains toward the LOVR and Calle Joaquin intersection. Water has been observed flowing out of the pipe into this ditch, even during the prolonged drought when water was not present in the basin. The steady flow of water at the ditch downstream of the Irish Hills Plaza basin during the summer months indicates groundwater is consistently present in this area. The artesian well in the isolated wetland to the south side of Calle Joaquin also confirms that groundwater pressure is significant in this part of the site, and shows that the wetland area is expected to persist even with the relocation of stormwater discharge from the Irish Hills Plaza basin to the proposed drainage feature adjacent to the Irish Hills Plaza. Wetland habitat was present in this part of the site prior to the construction of the Irish Hills Plaza basin, and it is reasonable to expect it to persist with its removal. Conclusions in the Cleath-Harris report state that the proposed project is not expected to significantly impact groundwater, and that groundwater levels in the project area may rise if the detention basin drains are removed along with the basins. Rising groundwater would increase wetland habitat, consistent with the project goal of increasing wetland and riparian habitat onsite. With the proposed creek realignment, the longer reach and flatter grade of the realigned stream channel would allow for a greater surface area and longer duration of wetted stream channel, increasing groundwater recharge when stream flow occurs. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project 2019 Rare Plant Update and Calle Joaquin Wetland Impacts Analysis 5 Based on this analysis, no adverse impacts to wetland habitat are expected to occur from the creek realignment and removal of the Irish Hills Plaza basin. Allowing periodic high flows in the creek to spread over the large flat wetland area would not be expected to have the channel migrate substantially or affect the overall integrity of the wetland area. The area is very flat with a minor taper to Calle Joaquin and is densely vegetated with wetland plants. The area would flood periodically and wetland habitat will be maintained post construction by these periodic flows and shallow groundwater. Seasonal flows in Froom Creek and stormwater from the project site and Irish Hills Plaza will continue to be directed to this general area, which is more or less consistent with the current hydrologic condition. Even if the low flow channel braids or migrates into the center of the Calle Joaquin wetland, a dynamic equilibrium will be found in the area and any wetland vegetation that could be temporarily displaced by open water would be expected to re-establish once flows subside. Wetland vegetation cover on the site would also be expanded in other areas such as the stormwater drainage features constructed next to the Irish Hills Plaza and in the new Froom Creek channel. Wetland species present onsite and proposed for use in the habitat restoration efforts are adapted to drought, and would be expected to persist during periods of prolonged drought, which are anticipated to occur in the future. The goal of the creek realignment effort will be to minimize impacts to the existing wetland habitat during construction, and maintain sufficient post construction hydrology to emulate the current condition . Consistent with the Cleath-Ha rris 2018 report, the current distribution of wetland habitat at Calle Joaquin is primarily supported by groundwater with secondary support from seasonal flows in the LOVR ditch and Irish Hills Plaza drainage, and Froom Creek. Clearly, Froom Creek has not reached overbank conditions in a number of years, and the overbank location identified in past studies is no longer present. Cleath’s characterization of the Froom Ranch valley floor area is that it has shallow groundwater and during the most recent drought period, groundwater levels remained in close proximity to the surface over most of the site. The realigned creek is anticipated to increase the period of time during the winter when standing water is present along LOVR and in the Calle Joaquin wetland area, which will increase habitat area for aquatic species. In addition, groundwater levels are likely to be higher for a longer period of time after the rainy season due to the flatter groundwater gradient resulting from the realigned creek channel morphology and removal of the basin (Cleath-Harris Geologists, 2018). For the Clean Water Act and California Fish and Game Code permitting effort that will be required for the realignment effort, a detailed Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) will be prepared for the final project design. The HMMP will identify the site preparation and planting activities, monitoring requirements and adaptive management strategies to be employed in order to meet final success criteria that will include a stable channel with an overall increase in wetland area, functions and values. The final creek geometry and mitigation and monitoring requirements will be developed in collaboration with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board and California Department of Fish and Wildlife through their review and issuance of their respective permits. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and NOAA Marine Fisheries Service will also be involved in the final design. The overarching concept for the Froom Ranch creek realignment project is that the creek corridor will be a native, self-sustaining riverine system with a mix of woody riparian and herbaceous wetland plant assemblages. By having a wide corridor for the realigned Froom Creek channel, a dynamic equilibrium will be met within the confines of the fill slopes. The use of native vegetation, cobbles and boulders along with a suite of biotechnical erosion controls and rigorous monitoring and adaptive management program will ensure the realigned creek is of better function and value than currently exists in its present location. The stormwater drainage features and realigned Froom Creek will be managed to achieve the desired outcome of having a natural creek system that has enough space to be dynamic while increasing the extent of wetland and riparian habitat onsite, protecting property and structures from flooding, and enhancing the human interface and connection with the natural environment. JM Development Group, Inc.2019 Special Status Plant Occurrences Map Froom Ranch Figure 7A!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community .0 250 500125Feet 1 inch = 350 feet Mountainbrook Church Irish Hills Natural Reserve Irish Hills Plaza Basin Study Area Froom Ranch Study Area Boundary 2019 CRPR 1B Observations Occurrence Area !(Individual Occurrence 2016 Chorro Creek Bog Thistle Occurrence 2016 CDFW List 1B Species Occurrence Ca de ob = Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis Ca ob = Calochortus obispoensis Ce pa co = Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Ch br = Chorizanthe breweri De pa ea = Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae Du ab mu = Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina Du bl = Dudleya blochmaniae La jo = Layia jonesii Se ap = Senecio aphanactis St al pe = Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus Ca de ob Ca de ob Ca de ob Ca de ob Ca de ob Ca de ob Ca de obDe pa ea Ch br De pa eaSt al pe Ca de ob De pa ea Ca de ob Ca de ob Ca de ob Ca de ob Ca de ob Ca de obCa obCa de ob Ca de ob La jo Du bl Du ab muSe ap Ci fo ob Du ab mu Du bl Ch br Du bl Ca de ob Du ab muCh brLa joCa de ob Du ab mu De pa eaCa de obLa jo La jo Ca de ob Ca de ob Ch br Ce pa co La jo De pa eaLa jo Ca de ob Ca de ob Du ab mu Du bl Ca de ob Ci fo ob = Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense Ce pa co Du blLa jo La jo La jo 3-11 Section C: Section C is intended to represent a typical cross section where Froom Creek is proposed adjacent to the existing wetlands. The Channel Bottom is proposed to be configured so that the creek overbank will flow into the adjacent existing wetlands during storm larger than 2-year events. Figure 3.7: Section C 3.8 Conclusion The Froom Creek Restoration program, as proposed, conforms to guidelines for creek design and planting as outlined by the City of San Luis Obispo’s Waterway Management Plan and the California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual. The restored lower reach of the Froom Creek corridor will protect and enhance creek, riparian, fish, and wetland habitats in the Froom Ranch Specific Plan area. Figure 1 Location Map Froom Ranch Cleath-Harris Geologists Wells and Borings Cross Section Lines Specific Plan Area Detention Basin Drains Wetlands Pit with Water Level (9/20/18) Explanation 0 250 500 750 ft A' B' A B Los O so s Va l ley RoadCalle JoaquinHwy. 101Ranch Headquarters Prefumo CreekFroom Creek Forebay Basin Vineyard Church Property Detention Basin APPENDIX E.3 Site Assessment for the California Red-Legged Frog This Page Intentionally Left Blank. FROOM RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (APNs 067-241-030, 067-241-031) SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA SITE ASSESSMENT for the CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG (Rana draytonii) Prepared for: Mr. John Madonna JM Development Group, Inc. P.O. Box 5310 San Luis Obispo, California 93403 Prepared by: Kevin Merk Associates, LLC P.O. Box 318 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 December 18, 2017 KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Site Location and Description ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Proposed Project Description ....................................................................................................................... 4 2.0 METHODS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Background Research ...................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Site Assessment Surveys ................................................................................................................................. 4 2.3 Qualifications of Surveyor .............................................................................................................................. 5 3.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5 3.1 Known Occurrences of California Red-legged Frogs in Region ..................................................... 5 3.2 Habitat Characterization of the Study Area ............................................................................................ 7 3.2.1 Froom Ranch ............................................................................................................................................ 7 3.2.2 Areas Within One Mile of the Property ..................................................................................... 10 3.2.3 Critical Habitat Designation ........................................................................................................... 12 4.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................ 12 5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................ 13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Site Location Map ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 – Aerial Overview Map .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3 - CNDDB CRLF Occurrence Map ....................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4 – Land Cover/Existing Conditions Map ...................................................................................................... 11 APPENDICES Appendix A – Site Assessment Data Sheets Appendix B – Photo Plate Appendix C – Habitat Map from Biological Resources Inventory Appendix D – Wetland Delineation Map with Photo Point Locations KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Kevin Merk Associates, LLC (KMA) conducted a California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii; CRLF) site assessment for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan project located just outside the current southwest city limits of the City of San Luis Obispo. The investigation covered the Froom Ranch (APNs 067-241-030, 067-241-031), and a small portion of property owned by the Mountainbrook Church, which generally includes areas at the southwest side of Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) and north of Calle Joaquin, in San Luis Obispo County, California. This assessment followed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog (USFWS 2005), and is a compilation of information received from regulatory agencies, literature reviews, and field work on the study area conducted by KMA over a two year period. A Biological Resources Inventory Report (BRI) prepared by KMA in January 2016 for the project provides background information referenced herein including a characterization of existing conditions, plant community mapping, and results of floristic and tree inventories. A special status species evaluation was also included in the BRI, and special status wildlife that could potentially occur onsite were identified based on a habitat suitability analysis. The BRI concluded that Froom Creek and the tributary drainage onsite do not appear to support suitable aquatic habitat with a sufficient hydroperiod for CRLF breeding, but that this species could potentially move onto the site from known occurrences in the region during periods of above average rainfall when seasonal aquatic habitat persists into the summer and fall months. As part of the ongoing regulatory agency consultation process, the USFWS in an August 14, 2017 letter from Ms. Julie Vanderwier to Ms. Shawna Scott with the City of San Luis Obispo’s Community Development Department, requested that a Site Assessment for CRLF be completed for the property. The purpose of the Site Assessment is to determine whether suitable aquatic habitat capable of supporting the federal threatened CRLF is present onsite, and if protocol-level surveys are warranted to accurately determine presence or absence to support the proposed project’s environmental review process. The following report details the methods and results of the site assessment, and is intended to build on the information contained in the BRI for the USFWS to make a determination if additional surveys are warranted. 1.1 Site Location and Description The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels located at 12165 and 12393 Froom Ranch Way, totaling approximately 111 acres (APN 067-241-030 and 067-241-031) currently within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County adjacent to City of San Luis Obispo city limits (please refer to Figures 1 and 2). It also includes a southern “spur” where a flood control basin would be constructed on neighboring property owned by the Mountainbrook Church. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between Highway 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. It is currently a working cattle/horse ranch that supports a variety of habitat types including: grasslands (both native bunchgrass and non-native annual), oak woodland (with California bay trees), coastal scrub/chaparral, serpentine outcrops, and seasonal and perennial wetlands that are primarily associated with drainage features. Ruderal or disturbed areas are also present and consist of existing developed areas as well as constructed stormwater basins that are part of the Irish Hills Plaza development. Froom Creek, which flows to San Luis Obispo Creek via a culvert under Calle Joaquin and Highway 101, and three unnamed tributary drainages are also present onsite. Site Location ^_ ²1 in = 10,000 ft 0 1 20.5 Miles Figure 1 Site Location Site Location ^_ 1 in = 1,000,000 ft JM Development Group, Inc. Froom Ranch Source: ESRI 2017 £¤101 L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d Prefumo Creek San Luis Obispo Creek Froom Creek Laguna Lake ²1 in = 2,000 ft 0 1,300 2,600650Feet Figure 2 Aerial Overview JM Development Group, Inc. Froom Ranch Approximate Study Area Boundary National Wetland Inventory (USFWS) Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 4 The region is characterized by a Mediterranean climate, with cool, moist winters and warm, dry summers moderated by the close proximity to the Pacific Ocean. Average annual precipitation in the region of the site is approximately 22 inches, most of which falls between November and April. On-site elevations range from approximately 110 feet above mean sea level (MSL) at the lowest point near the intersection of Calle Joaquin and LOVR, to approximately 410 feet MSL on the upper western hillslopes adjacent to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Soils are primarily Cropley clay in the lower elevations of the site, with large areas of serpentine outcrops and serpentine influenced soils present in the higher elevations of the property to the west. 1.2 Proposed Project Description The proposed Froom Ranch development is envisioned as a residential project with some commercial development in the northeast corner of the site closest to the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. Permanent open space is proposed to occupy about 51% of the Froom Ranch site. The project is divided into two main components: The Madonna Froom Ranch and The Life Plan Community (also known as the Villaggio). The Madonna Froom Ranch would be situated in the northern portion of the Specific Plan Area, just south of the Irish Hills Plaza. It will contain a mix of commercial and residential land uses, and include a hotel and trailhead park. The park will provide a staging area and connection to open space trails within the City’s Irish Hills Natural Reserve. The Villaggio project would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing and include access to assisted living, memory care, and skilled nursing. A recreational facility, restaurants, and movie theater are also planned in this community. For a detailed project description, please refer to the Froom Ranch Specific Plan prepared by RRM Design Group. 2.0 METHODS 2.1 Background Information The study area for this CRLF Site Assessment included the approximately 111-acre Froom Ranch property, and an additional plus or minus 15 acres on the adjacent Mountain Brook Church where a future storm water detention basin would be constructed. Aquatic habitat features within a one- mile radius of the property were also included and generally evaluated in the assessment. As part of the BRI, KMA biologists reviewed site-specific aerial photographs and maps from studies in the region (Google Earth and ESRI, the U.S. Geological Survey San Luis Obispo and Pismo 7.5-minute quadrangles, and the City of San Luis Obispo Irish Hills Natural Area Conservation Plan Update from 2011). The California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB; 2017) was queried for CRLF records within five miles of the site, with increased focus within a one- mile (1.6-kilometer) radius of the site. Museum records (Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, and University of California at Berkley) were also searched online, and other available biological reports from studies conducted in the region such as the LOVR and Highway 101 Interchange project were reviewed. Please refer to the literature cited in the BRI for further detail. In addition, City of San Luis Obispo Natural Resources Manager, Robert Hill, and Biologist, Freddy Otte, were consulted regarding ongoing herpetological field work on the Waddell property located in the headwaters of Froom Creek to the south of the study area. 2.2 Site Assessment Surveys KMA conducted extensive field work on the Froom Ranch over a two year period that spanned from 2015 to 2017. All drainage features onsite were walked on numerous occassions and areas of KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 5 instream seasonally ponded of flowing water were assessed and mapped to aid in determining the site’s potential to support CRLF and other special status aquatic species. Aquatic habitats encountered on the property were characterized (water body type, estimated persistence of water, vegetation, water depth, bank full depth, stream gradient, substrate, and description of banks) as indicated in the protocol site assessment datasheet. Potentially suitable areas were examined for presence of American bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus) and other aquatic predators such as crayfish (likely the genus Pacifastacus). For the BRI, vegetation communities were mapped following the Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf and Evens (2009) habitat classification system in association with Holland’s 1986 classification system. As part of the CRLF site assessment, habitats/vegetation communities within the one-mile radius around the study area were characterized using aerial photographs, topographic maps, and visual surveys conducted from public roads and public open space areas. Aquatic habitats, land uses, and any potential barriers to CRLF movement were noted. 2.3 Qualifications of Surveyor Kevin Merk conducted the site assessment with support from other KMA biologists, and was the primary author of this report. He has hundreds of hours conducting site assessments and protocol level surveys over the last 25 years, and is able to identify all life stages of CRLF. Mr. Merk has also been authorized by the USFWS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (via specific biological opinions) to capture and handle CRLF for various construction/development projects in the Central Coast region of California. 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Known Occurrences of California Red-legged Frogs in the Region The study area is within the historic range of the CRLF (Jennings and Hayes 1994, Stebbins 2003), but is located outside USFWS designated CRLF critical habitat. Critical Habitat Unit SLO-3 is located to the north of the site (USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper, 2017). Please refer to Figure 3, the CRLF Occurrence Map for CNDDB records in the project area as well as the location of critical habitat. The results of the CNDDB query and consultation with the City of San Luis Obispo revealed one CRLF occurrence within one (1) mile (1.6-kilometer) of the property. This record is dated 2006, and documents one CRLF observed within the City of San Luis Obispo’s wastewater treatment pond located on the east side of the Highway 101 corridor (Occurrence No. 895). The next closest record is from 2017 biological surveys on the City of San Luis Obispo’s recently aquired Waddel property. The observation location is approximately 2.3 miles to the west of the study area boundaries within the upper Froom Creek watershed. Other documented occurrences in the project region are on the southern flank of the Santa Lucia Mountains from 1939 in Brizzolari Creek, approximately 3.8 miles to the north of the property (Occurrence No. 1341), and from 1998 at the Avila Beach Golf Resort, approximately 4.6 miles to the south (Occurrence No. 303). Please refer to Figure 3 for the locations of these and other occurrences within one and five mile radii of the site. CRLF Occurrence #895, 2006 Lopez MountainSan Luis ObispoMorro Bay South North East Arroyo GrandePismo BeachPort San Luis Occurrence #258 Occurrence #453, 2008 Occurrence #1065, 1998 Occurrence #156, 1995 Occurrence #245, 1996 Occurrence #157, 1995 Occurrence #303, 1998 Occurrence #1341, 1939 Approximate location where2 adult and 4 juvenile CRLFwere observed in upper FroomCreek on Waddell property.(City of San Luis Obispo, 2017) ²1 in = 8,000 ft 0 1.5 30.75 Miles Figure 3 Regional Location/CRLF Occurrence JM Development Group, Inc. Froom Ranch Approximate Study Area Boundary CNDDB California Red-Legged Frog Occurrence California Red-Legged Frog Critical Habitat (Unit SLO-3) Study Area One Mile Buffer Additional Five Mile Buffer Source: ESRI 2017, CNDDB 2017 KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 7 3.2 Habitat Characterization of the Study Area 3.2.1 Froom Ranch The Froom Ranch consists primarily of grassland habitat with serpentine-based soils and rock outcrops present in the higher elevation areas. The property is situated on the northeastern flank of the Irish Hills, with developed urban areas on the north, east and south boundaries. To the west is undeveloped open space in the City’s Irish Hills Natural Reserve. Seasonal drainage features present include Froom Creek and three small tributary drainages, and the LOVR roadside ditch. The site contains the Irish Hills Plaza Storm Water Basin that handles surface runoff from neighboring development to the north. The basin is located in upland areas between the Froom Creek channel and Los Osos Valley Road, and a small ditch directs drainage water when present into the LOVR roadside ditch, which terminates into the Calle Joaquin wetland further south. As detailed in the BRI, the dominant habitat types observed within the study area included annual (non-native) grassland, serpentine bunchgrass grassland on the higher elevation hillsides, coastal scrub/chaparral on steeper rocky slopes, coast live oak woodland on north facing slopes and along drainages, arroyo willow riparian scrub along the LOVR ditch, and developed/disturbed areas primarily in the northern part of the property. Areas of non-native tree plantings, including blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) and pepper trees (Schinus molle) are also present. Site assessment data sheets were prepared for the Froom Ranch property to characterize potentially suitable habitat areas (please refer to Appendix A). Photographs of the potential habitat areas described herein are provided in the Photo Plate included as Appendix B. The Habitat Map from the BRI is included as Appendix C, and the Wetland Delineation Overview Map (KMA, 2015) is included as Appendix D to help identify location of drainage features, as well as photo point locations. The following provides a summary and brief characterization of the areas that were the focus of the assessment. Froom Creek, an episodic drainage feature, traverses the site generally from north to south, and ultimately passes beneath Calle Joaquin and Highway 101 through a concrete box culvert (over 300 linear feet) before joining San Luis Obispo Creek to the south. The section of Froom Creek within the site is sparsely vegetated, and was composed of a dry cobble bed with bare soil banks and patchy occurrences of grassland species. It was completely dry during the 2015 and 2016 surveys. Flowing water was present in January 2017 following a series of large storm events, and then flow subsided and dried by March into April 2017. No willows or other riparian vegetation is present within this portion of the channel, but a small area (less than 12 inches deep) of instream ponding was observed near the Froom Ranch property southern line near the Drainage 1 confluence. Due to the lack of persistent water (i.e., it did not have any water with a depth of 24 inches for longer than 10 weeks) and any vegetative cover, it does not appear to provide suitable habitat for CRLF. Three ephemeral tributary drainage features are present in the southern portion of the study area that are hydrologically connected to Froom Creek. Small areas of ponded water with adjacent wetland vegetation were observed in the lower reach of the southernmost tributary drainage (Drainage 1 near the confluence with Drainage 2). At this location, a narrow in-channel, seasonal ponded area was observed that appears to be supported by springs or seeps originating on adjacent hillsides. The ponded area consisted of two connected pools less than 16 inches in depth, and covered a total area of approximately 150 square feet (6 feet wide by approximately 25 feet long). The canopy cover was high and consisted of large coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and California bay (Umbellularia californica) trees, with no low overhanging willows or emergent vegetation KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 8 present. Ponded areas were dominated by bare mud/silt and rock, with vegetated areas perched in the flatter area beyond the Drainage 1 top of bank along the lower reach of Drainage 2. Wetland vegetation observed in this flat area included spike-rush (Eleocharis macrostachya), tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), seep monkeyflower (Mimulus guttatus), water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa), rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon). Some common duckweed (Lemna minor) was present in the Drainage 1 channel below ponded areas. The ponded areas at bank full conditions could be as much as six (6) feet deep, but this condition would be unlikely due to the small watershed feeding the tributary, and steep nature of this feature leading towards Froom Creek. Due to the presence of shallow ponding, and limited water duration through early summer months, the ponded areas identified along Drainage 1 are considered to provide low to marginal quality habitat for CRLF. The shallow depth of the instream ponding and lack of emergent vegetation would not be expected to provide suitable refuge habitat for CRLF, and any individuals that potentially found this site, would likely be subject to predation since racoon (Procyon lotor) tracks were regularly observed in this area. If the site was close to a more permanent water body that provided potential breeding habitat, the surrounding oak woodland and bay tree habitats could provide refugia for estivation during the summer but that is highly unlikely given the limited aquatic resources on the site. While not completely isolated from San Luis Obispo Creek where CRLF were observed previously, individuals would have to traverse the over 300 foot long concrete culvert and move up the dry cobble Froom Creek channel to find seasonal water at this location. If a breeding population was near by, Drainage 1 could possibly be used by frogs during dispersal, but no suitable habitat for this species is present to the west, making it unlikely that CRLF would move back and forth into or through this area. Further, ponded water in Drainage 1 would not be expected to provide suitable breeding habitat due to lack of sufficient hydroperiod (water during most years does not persist for over 10 weeks). Calle Joaquin Wetland. Calle Joaquin and Los Osos Valley Road impound surface water alongside the roadways’ eastern and southern sides on a seasonal basis. While culverts were installed to drain high flows under Calle Joaquin into a riparian drainage area across the street and then toward San Luis Obispo Creek to the south, soils remain saturated for a long enough duration to support perennial wetland habitat. The ponded area observed along Calle Joaquin in the winters of 2015 and 2016 were less than 12 inches deep, but contained a predominance of wetland vegetation and several dense clumps of bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus). By the summers of 2015 and 2016 the areas contained marginal surface water ranging in depth from one to four inches in small pockets. During the winter rain season of 2017, ponded water observed in this area for a much longer time period (water was present through September 1, 2017) and averaged approximately 12 to 24 inches in depth. The deepest location observed in the spring 2017 supported upwards of 28 inches of standing water. As stated above, culverts in this area direct water under Calle Joaquin into a triangular riparian drainage area on the south side of Calle Joaquin, that is separated from San Luis Obispo Creek by a hotel, parking lot and Highway 101. It appears that the maximum depth of ponded water in the Calle Joaquin wetland would be approximately three feet before overtopping the curb and spilling onto the street. Adjacent upland areas to the Calle Joaquin wetland area consist of seasonal wetland habitat being overtaken by reed fescue (Festuca arundinacea) planted as forage. Due to the presence of sufficient water depth and emergent vegetation (primarily bulrush), this area would be considered potentially suitable habitat for CRLF. While it is less than 1,000 feet away from the observed CRLF occurrence in the City’s wastewater pond on the eastside of San Luis Obispo Creek, the Calle Joaquin wetland is separated from potentially suitable habitat within the San Luis Obispo Creek KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 9 corridor by urban development including Highway 101, an onramp, hotel, parking lot and Calle Joaquin. It is unlikely that CRLF could disperse overland across Highway 101, Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin onto the site. The triangular drainage area with riparian habitat on the south side of Calle Joaquin could also potentially be used by CRLF based on the presence of dense riparian and wetland vegetation and seasonal ponded water, eventhough it is primarily road runoff with unknown pollutants. Several biological and hydrologic studies have been completed in this general location for other projects, including the Calle Joaquin Road realignment, and the LOVR/Highway 101 interchange project. Focused protocol level surveys for listed branchiopods were also conducted for the Calle Joaquin Road realignment, and these surveys, even though focused on sampling for invertebrates, did not observe CRLF in the wetland area prior to the construction of Calle Joaquin. During this site assessment, Pacific tree frogs and one crayfish were observed in the Calle Joaquin wetland area. The dominance of perennial wetland vegetation, observed surface ponding into September, as well as review of historical aerial photographs obtained from Google Earth, suggests that the Calle Joaquin wetland site functions as a semi-perennial to perennial wetland, and therefore, contains potentially suitable habitat to support CRLF. The proposed project would not affect this area, and the Froom Creek realignment would be situated to maintain the hydrology to support wetland habitat in this part of the property. Irish Hills Plaza Stormwater Detention Basins. Construction of the Irish Hills Plaza included two large stormwater detention basins, immediately adjacent to each other and separated by an earthen berm. The basins were constructed between mid-2006 and mid-2007. The drainage basins release overflow water to the LOVR Roadside Ditch via a storm drain outfall into a constructed swale. During large storm events, the basin is designed to discharge water into the wetland/meadow area along Calle Joaquin via a concrete spillway on the south side of the main basin. Otherwise, water leaves the basin through evaporation and ground percolation. A large french drain system was also constructed around the perimeter of the basin to help maintain wetland vegetation along Calle Joaquin (personal communication with John Madonna). Google Earth historical aerial imagery indicates that these basins have been actively managed, with grading of the basins performed between April and August 2013, disturbing soil and removing vegetation. Under the proposed Froom Ranch development plan, these drainage basins would be removed, and runoff would be redirected into new constructed features including a larger basin proposed on the neighboring Mountainbrook Church property adjacent to Froom Creek. During the August and September 2017 site assessment field visits, the north basin featured shallow ponding (average 4-8 inches in depth) throughout much of the basin floor. Vegetation was dominated by obligate wetland plants such as cattail, spikerush and small fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus) along with brown-headed rush and rabbitsfoot grass. The south basin was densely vegetated, but did not have ponded water or the predominance of obligate wetland plants, though signs of recent seasonal ponding were evident in the form of algal mats, cracked soil and surface salt deposits. Dominant vegetation included facultative wetland species such as creeping rye (Elymus triticoides), brown-headed rush, and reed fescue with patches of cattails present in several areas where saturation appears to persist In the more barren patches exhibiting salt crust and/or algal mats from recent drying, prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper; a facultative wetland species) frequently occurred. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 10 Historic aerial photos reviewed on Google Earth show that the north and south basins both dry out seasonally in most years. The high rainfall in 2017 may be responsible for the continued ponding seen in the north basin into early September 2017, as well as ponding that appears to have lasted into the early summer in the south basin, based on presence of algal mats and salt deposits. The wetland plant species currently dominating both basins suggest semi-perennial wetland hydrology, but aerial photos taken as recently as September 2016 show the vegetation in both basins as almost entirely brown, with no visible surface ponding. The seasonal drying pattern coupled with the physical separation from known occurrences (i.e., the basin was constructed in an upland grassland area away from Froom Creek and the Calle Joaquin wetland) makes it unlikely that CRLF would find the stormwater basins even if they could disperse across Highway 101 and urban areas from San Luis Obispo Creek. Furthermore, with the shallow ponded water present in the basins, it would be unlikely to support breeding habitat for the species since they would be easily preyed upon by larger animals, and a regular hydroperiod of at least 10 weeks does not appear to be present. The fact that the basins were constructed as recently as 2006-07, and then graded for maintenance in 2013, and are not naturally connected to areas of potential habitat in San Luis Obispo Creek, also make it unlikely that CRLF would be able to locate and utilize the basins for seasonal foraging or breeding habitat. Clearly the features do not have the necessary aquatic habitat required to maintain a sustained breeding population of CRLF since they are constructed features with periodic soil disturbance from grading to remove vegetation and accumulated debris and sediment. If the basins were constructed immediately adjacent to suitable habitat (such as the case for the City’s wastewater pond where the CRLF was observed in 2006), were not regularly maintained, and did not have significant movement barriers such as Highway 101 and LOVR in place, it is possible that CRLF could use it on a seasonal basis. 3.2.2 Areas Within One Mile of the Property The area surrounding the subject property consists primarily of developed urban lands to the north and south, and the Irish Hills Natural Reserve to the north and west. Please refer to Figure 4 for existing conditions and land cover types within the one mile study area. Commercial development along LOVR and Highway 101 to the east and south create a formidable barrier for CRLF should they be present in San Luis Obispo Creek or other nearby water bodies and drainage features such as Laguna Lake and Prefumo Creek. While one individual was observed at the City’s wastewater treatment facility on the east side of Highway 101, other focused surveys in the area, and in San Luis Obispo Creek, have been unable to locate CRLF in San Luis Obispo Creek (personal communication with Sage Institute, 2017). If a healthy breeding population was present in San Luis Obispo Creek, it is possible that CRLF could disperse from breeding sites and move through the Froom Creek concrete box culvert under Calle Joaquin and Highway 101 and onto the property. However, it is a very long culvert (measured at over 300 linear feet) which likely would preclude small amphibian movement onto the site. It is also important to note that even if a CRLF were to use the culvert for movement, Froom Creek is a dry episodic drainage feature with no prolonged pools in the vicinity of the culvert. The first seasonal pool is not encountered until further onto the property near the confluence of Drainage 1 and Froom Creek. Even that seasonal in channel pond is short lived, does not have any vegetative cover, and any frog that found the feature would likely be preyed upon by racoon or other birds observed foraging in the area. As stated above, the Highway 101 corridor, LOVR, Calle Joaquin and associated commercial development present a significant barrier to CRLF dispersal from the north, south and east. As Froom Creek Laguna Lake Prefumo Creek East Fork San Luis Obispo Creek San Luis Obispo Creek Dry Creek CRLF Occurrence #895 (2006) Prefumo Creek Seasonally Ponded Areasalong Drainage 1 andFroom Creek Seasonally PondedAreas along Calle Joaquin S. Higuera St.L o s O s o s V a l l e y R d .Highway 101Highway 101Approximate Study Area Boundary Study Area 1 Mile Buffer Wastewater Treatment Pond Retention Basin (Seasonally Ponded) Creek/Drainage Feature Agriculture Grassland Coastal Scrub/Chaparral Oak Woodland Open Water Urban JM Development Group, Inc..0 870 1,740 2,610 3,480435 Feet Habitat and Land Cover Map Source(s): (c) ESRI 2017: CDFW, CNDDB, September 2017; County of San Luis Obispo Froom Ranch Figure 4 Buckley Rd. Tank Farm Rd. B r o a d S t . 1 in = 1,500 ft KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 12 stated above, given past studies in the region, it appears that CRLF occur in low numbers in the San Luis Obispo Creek corridor due to the lack of suitable breeding habitat. Recent study on the City-owned Waddell Property, identified what appears to be a breeding CRLF population in the upper reaches of Froom Creek to the northwest of the project site (personal communication with Robert Hill, 2017). At this location perennial or prolonged, slow moving water sources are available. This is roughly 2.3 miles from the edge of the northern proerty line, and the portion of Froom Creek between the site and observed CRLF occurrences is a highly ephemeral drainage channel with much of the channel and surrounding uplands covered in chaparral habitat that would not be easily traversed by dispersing individuals. Still it is possible that a CRLF could be washed downstream during the high flow events, such as those observed during January 2017. But as discussed herein, the portion of Froom Creek on the study area does not contain the necessary habitat attributes such as long lived, deep pools (24 inches or greater) of slow moving water with thickets of riparian shrubs, trees and emergent wetland vegetation to support foraging or CRLF breeding activities. While seasonal foraging could be supported onsite or in relatively close proximity to the site, it appears that suitable habitat in the immediate project area is limited, and if CRLF are in fact present in San Luis Obispo Creek, they occur at low numbers. 3.2.3 Critical Habitat Designation The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for CRLF in the region (Unit SLO-3). This unit is outside the study area, and no critical habitat attributes were observed within the study area. 4.0 CONCLUSION Typically, adult CRLF require dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation closely associated with deep (greater than 24 inches) still or slow-moving water for breeding habitat. Well-vegetated terrestrial areas within a riparian corridor can provide important sheltering habitat during winter months when high flows are present. The 2015 and 2016 surveys were conducted during below average rainfall years, following severe drought conditions during the previous two years. The drought conditions experienced in the region likely had a significant impact on local amphibian populations and further restricted breeding and dispersal activities. The winter and spring of 2017 was an above average precipitation year, and flowing water was present in Froom Creek in January. In addition, areas of ponded water in onsite features identified on attached data sheets persisted longer than previously observed, but still, vegetation conditions did not change significantly. Based on the results of the site assessment, the most suitable habitat identified on the project site is located in the Calle Joaquin wetland. While we cannot completely rule out CRLF presence from this area, based on the high number of survey hours onsite to date coupled with the major dispersal barriers (i.e., Highway 101, LOVR and surrounding commercial development), CRLF are unlikely to move from San Luis Obispo Creek onto the site. Further, the Froom Creek culvert is very long, and would be a major undertaking for a CRLF to disperse over 300 linear feet through this culvert to access the site. Once onsite, the dispersing individual would need to locate suitable aquatic habitat to persist, and the site assessment confirmed there are no prolonged pools with appropriate depth and vegetative structure in the immediate area of the culvert or within Froom Creek and Drainage 1 on the project site that could support this species. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 13 The portion of Froom Creek on the property does not provide suitable aquatic habitat for the CRLF due to lack of regularly ponded water with a sufficient hydroperiod to support breeding or even foraging activities. Seasonal flows with regularity to support dispersal from nearby breeding areas (such as the upper Froom Creek observation on the Waddell Property), and suitable riparian and wetland vegetation along the channel also appear to be absent. The section of Froom Creek south of the Froom Ranch property on Mountainbrook Church property extending to Calle Joaquin also lacks sufficient hydroperiods, pool structure, and instream vegetation. The southern tributary channel identified as Drainage 1 contained marginally suitable habitat since it has some prolonged surface water present in a channel with a relatively high canopy of coast live oak and California bay. However, the water depth was not suitable since it was regularly observed at less than 18 inches, and dense shrubby vegetation cover such as overhanging willows and emergent wetland plants needed for refuge and cover from predators was also not present. The in stream ponding observed and shown in the attached photo plate, shows an open channel that would be easily accessed by predators such as racoon and other birds present in the area. The Irish Hills Storm Water Basin is a constructed feature in an upland area with an ephemeral ponding regime. In drought years such as 2015 and 2016, no ponding was observed. In 2017, prolonged surface water was present in the north basin into September, and a dense carpet of wetland vegetation was present. The periodic grading and removal of vegetation and sediment from this constructed feature, as well as the water source being from polluted parking lot runoff, also reduces the potential for CRLF presence. The heavily traveled Highway 101 and LOVR corridors create a significant barrier to dispersal from the north and east, including from the 2006 occurrence at the City’s wastewater facility. While CRLF have now been confirmed in the upper Froom Creek watershed, the site is roughly 2.3 miles from this occurrence and the creek corridor and surrounding chaparral vegetation would be challenging for dispersal of CRLF onto the property, especially when considering no suitable pool habitat is present within the study area boundaries. In addition, the areas of marginal CRLF habitat comprised of the lower reach of Drainage 1 did not have a suitable hydroperiod to support CRLF. While the Calle Joaquin wetland contained potentially suitable habitat for CRLF based on the presence of prolonged surface water and dense emergent vegetation. Based on the results of this assessment, it appears unlikely that CRLF could utilize any portion of the site based on its isolation from San Luis Obispo Creek and separation from known occurrences in the region by urban development and unsuitable habitat, and the landscape around the project site is not conducive to CRLF movement. The Calle Joaquin wetland contained potentially suitable habitat, and represents the only location onsite with a higher potential to support the species. Of importance, this area would be avoided by the future project, and maintained as permanent open space. The realignment of Froom Creek has been designed to increase areas of instream ponding on the site and maintain the wetland hydrology of the Calle Joaquin wetland. As such, future development of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan is unlikely to affect CRLF, especially with the incorporation of avoidance measures such as pre-construction clearance surveys and other best management practices implemented during construction of the new Froom Creek channel. 5.0 REFERENCES Bulger, J.B., N.J. Scott, and R.B. Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial activity and conservation of adult California red-legged frogs, Rana aurora draytonii, in coastal forests and grasslands. Biological conservation 110 (2003): 85-95. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 14 Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, Editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual, Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. University of California Press. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2017. Natural Diversity Data Base of recorded occurrences of special-status species. Accessed September 2017. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter V., F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report No. FWS/OBS/-79/31. Washington, D.C. Ferren, W.R., Jr., P.L. Fiedler, and R.A. Leidy. 1996a. Wetlands of California, Part I: History of Wetland Habitat Classification. Madroño 1996 43(1):105-124. Ferren, W.R., Jr., P.L. Fiedler, R.A. Leidy, et al. 1996b. Wetlands of California, Part II: Classification and Description of Wetlands of the Central and Southern California Coast and Coastal Watersheds. Madroño 1996 43(1):125-182. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Nongame-Heritage Program. Hoover, R. 1970. Vascular Plants of San Luis Obispo County, California. Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California, 1 November 1994. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. 255 pp. Kevin Merk Associates, LLC. 2015. Froom Ranch, San Luis Obispo, California: Delineation of Waters of the United States and State of California. _______ 2016. Froom Ranch Project, San Luis Obispo County: Biological Resources Inventory. Marine Research Specialists. 2013. Chevron Tank Farm Remediation and Development Project Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Prepared for the City and County of San Luis Obispo. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2017. Web Soil Survey. National Cooperative Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed via: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app. Rathbun, G.B., and J. Schneider. 2001. Translocation of California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora draytonii). Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:1300-1303. Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Third edition, revised edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 15 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Recovery plan for the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Portland, Oregon. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Revised critical habitat for the California red-legged frog; Final Rule. 17 March 2010. Federal Register 75(51):12815-12864. Spatial data accessed through the Critical Habitat Portal via http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/. APPENDIX A CRLF Site Assessment Data Sheets KMA APPENDIX B Photo Plate KMA KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Appendix B - Photo Plate Photo 1. Southerly view of Froom Creek on the project site, looking downstream. Photo from spring 2016. Note dry, cobble channel with no pool or riffle structure visible since no recent flow. Photo 2. Southerly view of Froom Creek during winter of 2017 showing high flows following series of storm events in early January. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 3. Northeasterly overview of the middle reach of Froom Creek onsite. Channel does not support woody riparian or wetland habitats. Constructed retention basin is visible in the distance. Photo 4. Northerly view of downstream reach of Froom Creek on project site. Photo taken on January 26, 2017. High flows had receded and suspended sediment had dropped out producing clear, cool water averaging 2-6 inches deep. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 5. Another northerly view of downstream reach of Froom Creek at the confluence of Drainage 1, which is visible at the bottom of the photo. Photo 6. Westerly view of Drainage 1 as it connects with Froom Creek near the property boundary. Banks are steeply incised at this location and water depth ranged from 2-6 inches deep with 12 inches present at thalweg location. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 7. Southerly view of downstream reach of Froom Creek on the project site from March 2017 and no ponded water was present following high flows in January. Photo 8. Westerly view of the southern end of Froom Creek at the confluence with Drainage 1 from showing location of instream seasonal ponding that occurs periodically at the base of steep bank in center of photo. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 9. Close up view of seasonally ponded water present in Froom Creek just downstream from the confluence of Drainage 1. Photo taken on September 1, 2017 showing approximately water 2-4 inches deep. Photo 10. Southeasterly view of high flows within Froom Creek entering concrete box culvert under Calle Joaquin. Note approximately two feet of free board within the culvert. Photo taken in early January 2017 following series of large rain events. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 11. Froom Creek reach on the Mountainbrook Church property in the spring 2017 showing dry channel conditions. Photo 12. Drainage 1 confluence with Froom Creek, looking west or upstream toward oak woodland with California bay. One small willow is visible in the channel downstream of oaks. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 13. View of small in stream pool in Drainage 1 below a California bay tree. Size was approximately 25 feet long by 5 feet wide with a water depth between 4 and 16 inches. Photo 14. Downstream view of in stream pool in Drainage 1 at confluence of Drainage 2 as shown on Wetland Delineation Map. Water depth ranged from approximately 4-16 inches. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 15. Northerly view of wetland vegetation at the confluence of Drainage 2 with Drainage 1. Soil was saturated with cattle hoof prints supporting one to two inches of ponded water. Photo 16. Southerly view of wetland vegetation present in the lower reach of Drainage 2 near the confluence with Drainage 1. Seasonal in stream ponding present under the oak and bay trees visible in the distance. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 17. View of Calle Joaquin wetland at the southeastern corner of the site. LOVR ditch and stormwater basin drain to this area before culverts direct water offsite toward San Luis Obispo Creek. Emergent vegetation was present and water depth ranged from approximately 4-18 inches. Photo 18. Northerly view (looking towards LOVR) of the ponded water and emergent vegetation along Calle Joaquin. Area searched for amphibians during surveys and only Hyla regilla observed. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 19. Close up view of ponded water along Calle Joaquin, looking southeast at culvert that drains this area under Calle Joaquin to a riparian area between Calle Joaquin, Hotel, LOVR and Highway 101. Photo 20. View of seasonally ponded water at second culvert under Calle Joaquin. Culvert is approximately 36-inches and drains water from the site under Calle Joaquin to the southwest corner of riparian area next to hotel. Water depth was approximately 6 inches on September 1, 2017. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 21. Westerly overview of the forebay (north basin) in the Irish Hills Plaza Storm Water Basin. Cattails and tules are present in areas of prolonged saturation along with herbaceous wetland species. Photo 22. Easterly view of forebay. Basins contained wetland vegetation in bottom lands with upland grasses on earthen berms. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 23. Easterly view of main basin with spillway visible in the distance. Main basin was considerably drier and had less dense cattail and tule occurrences. Photo 24. Easterly view of ditch leading from Storm Water Basin towards LOVR Ditch and the Calle Joaquin Wetland. Crayfish, a known predator of CRLF, was observed at this location. APPENDIX C Habitat Map from Biological Resources Inventory (KMA 2016) KMA Irish Hills Plaza Mountainbrook Church Los Osos Valley RdHWY 101 Calle J o a q u i n Irish Hills Natural Reserve Froom Creek Drainage 1 Drainage 2 Drainage 3 Study Area Boundary Storm Water Basin (5.21 ac) Sycamore Trees (0.13 ac) Developed/Disturbed (8.88 ac) Eucalyptus Trees (0.61 ac) Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub (1.87 ac) Wetland (7.25 ac) Drainage Feature (2.66 ac) Coast Live Oak/CA Bay Woodland (3.23 ac) Serpentine Rock Outcrop (1.96 ac) Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland (13.46 ac) Coastal Scrub/Chaparral (6.52 ac) Annual Grassland (59.22 ac) 0 230 460 690 920115Feet Habitat Map Figure 4Froom Ranch Source(s): ESRI and its data providers; San Luis Obispo County Parcel Information John Madonna Construction, Inc. 1 in = 400 ft APPENDIX D Wetland Delineation Overview Map (KMA 2015) KMA APPENDIX E.4 Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank. FROOM RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (APNs 067-241-030, 067-241-031) SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA VERNAL POOL HABITAT ASSESSMENT Prepared for: Mr. John Madonna JM Development Group, Inc. P.O. Box 5310 San Luis Obispo, California 93403 Prepared by: Kevin Merk Associates, LLC P.O. Box 318 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 November 28, 2017 KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 VERNAL POOL HABITAT AND VERNAL POOL FAIRY SHRIMP .................................................................. 4 3.0 METHODS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Background Research .......................................................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Vernal Pool Habitat Field Assessment ......................................................................................................... 8 3.3 Qualifications of Surveyors ............................................................................................................................... 9 4.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9 4.1 Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 9 4.1.1 Calle Joaquin Wetland ....................................................................................................................... 10 4.1.2 Stormwater Detention Basins ....................................................................................................... 14 4.1.3 Critical Habitat Designation ........................................................................................................... 15 5.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................ 15 6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................ 15 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Site Location Map ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 – Aerial Overview Map .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3 - CNDDB Map ............................................................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 4 – Wetland Delineation Overview Map ......................................................................................................... 11 Figure 5 – Soils Map ............................................................................................................................................................... 12 APPENDICES Appendix A – Historic Aerial Photograph Review Appendix B – Photo Plate KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Kevin Merk Associates, LLC (KMA) conducted a vernal pool habitat assessment for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan project located just outside the current southwest city limits of the City of San Luis Obispo. A Biological Resources Inventory Report (BRI) prepared by KMA in January 2016 for the project provided background information referenced herein including a characterization of existing conditions, and results of floristic and tree inventories. A special status species evaluation was also included, and special status wildlife that could potentially occur onsite were identified based on a habitat suitability analysis. The analysis concluded that since no vernal pool or suitable seasonal wetland habitat was present, and past focused surveys for listed branchiopods in the Calle Joaquin wetland area produced negative findings, species such as the federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi; VPFS) were unlikely to occur onsite. Populations of VPFS have been identified to the east of the Froom Ranch property, primarily on the former Chevron Tank Farm property, which is within two miles of the study area. A 2013 recorded occurrence was also identified off Vachell Lane within one mile of the property. All occurrences are located to the east of Highway 101 in isolated wetlands and gentle swale complexes. As part of the ongoing regulatory agency consultation process, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in an August 14, 2017 letter from Ms. Julie Vanderwier to Ms. Shawna Scott with the City of San Luis Obispo’s Community Development Department, requested that a vernal pool habitat assessment be completed for the property. The purpose of the vernal pool habitat assessment is to determine whether suitable seasonal pool habitat capable of supporting federal listed vernal pool branchiopods such as VPFS are present onsite that could potentially be impacted by future project development. This report details the methods and results of the vernal pool habitat assessment conducted on the proposed Froom Ranch Specific Plan project site. 1.1 Project Description The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels located at 12165 and 12393 Froom Ranch Way, totaling approximately 111 acres (APN 067-241-030 and 067-241-031) currently within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County adjacent to City of San Luis Obispo city limits (please refer to Figures 1 and 2). It also includes a southern “spur” where a flood control basin would be constructed on neighboring property owned by the Mountainbrook Church. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between Highway 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. It is currently a working cattle/horse ranch that supports a variety of habitat types including: grasslands (both native bunchgrass and non-native annual), oak woodland (with California bay trees), coastal scrub/chaparral, serpentine outcrops, and seasonal and perennial wetlands that are primarily associated with drainage features. Ruderal or disturbed areas are also present and consist of existing developed areas as well as constructed stormwater basins that are part of the Irish Hills Plaza development. Froom Creek, which flows to San Luis Obispo Creek via culverts under Calle Joaquin and Highway 101, and three unnamed tributary drainages are also present onsite. The proposed Froom Ranch development is envisioned as a residential project with some commercial development in the northeast corner of the site closest to the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. Permanent open space is proposed to occupy about 51% of the Froom Ranch site. The project is divided into two main components: The Madonna Froom Ranch and The Life Plan Community (also known as the Villaggio). The Madonna Froom Ranch would be situated in the northern portion of the Specific Plan Area, just south of the Irish Hills Plaza. It will contain a mix of commercial and Site Location ^_ ²1 in = 10,000 ft 0 1 20.5 Miles Figure 1 Site Location Site Location ^_ 1 in = 1,000,000 ft JM Development Group, Inc. Froom Ranch Source: ESRI 2017 £¤101 L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d Prefumo Creek San Luis Obispo Creek Froom Creek Laguna Lake ²1 in = 2,000 ft 0 1,300 2,600650Feet Figure 2 Aerial Overview JM Development Group, Inc. Froom Ranch Approximate Study Area Boundary National Wetland Inventory (USFWS) Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 4 residential land uses, and include a hotel and trailhead park. The park will provide a staging area and connection to open space trails within the City’s Irish Hills Natural Reserve. The Villaggio project would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing and include access to assisted living, memory care, and skilled nursing. A recreational facility, restaurants, and movie theater are also planned in this community. For a detailed project description, please refer to the Froom Ranch Specific Plan prepared by RRM Design Group. 2.0 VERNAL POOL HABITAT AND VERNAL POOL FAIRY SHRIMP Vernal pools are shallow topographic depressions underlain by an impervious soil layer, such as a claypan or hardpan that fill with water during winter rains and dry in spring, creating seasonal aquatic habitat. Vernal pools typically have high levels of native biodiversity, and some pools provide habitat for protected plant, crustacean, and amphibian species (Platenkamp 1998). Vernal pools and seasonal wetlands frequently tend to be small features, often 0.125 acre or smaller, and generally cannot be easily identified on aerial imagery unless the image is high resolution and the pools are filled with water at the time the aerial photograph is taken. Naturally formed vernal pools may occur singly or in complexes, with a series of depressions in close proximity, often connected by swales. Depending on the size of the pool and other environmental factors, a vernal pool may be inundated for a week or upwards of several months before completely drying. This seasonal ponding allows a suite of native flora and fauna that are highly specialized to persist in an area with a wide range of hydrologic conditions. While Holland (1986; Holland and Iain 1988) was historically the primary source for vernal pool taxonomy in the state of California, more recent studies have refined vernal pool classification based on the hydrogeomorphology and dominant vegetation (Ferren et al. 1996; Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf and Evens, 2009). Among the fauna that may utilize vernal pools are a group of small crustaceans in the class Branchiopoda, which includes the invertebrates commonly known as fairy shrimp and tadpole shrimp. Within the state of California, over 25 species of fairy shrimp and tadpole shrimp have been recorded, including five fairy shrimp and one tadpole shrimp that are federally protected as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). San Luis Obispo County is known to host several species of fairy shrimp, with most occurrences in the drier inland areas east of Paso Robles and onto the Carrizo Plain. Within and adjacent to the City of San Luis Obispo, two species of fairy shrimp have been recorded: Linderiella occidentalis (California linderiella), and Branchinecta lynchi (“vernal pool fairy shrimp” or VPFS). California linderiella is a state Species of Concern, and VPFS is federally listed as threatened (USFWS 1994). Populations of VPFS have been recorded at two sites within two miles of the Froom Ranch property, and include the former Chevron Tank Farm property and an adjacent parcel off Buckley Road and Vachell Lane (please refer to Figure 3, the CNDDB Occurrence Map). Although VPFS were once thought to occur only in the Central Valley of California, populations have now been identified as far north as the Agate Desert of southern Oregon and as far south as the Santa Rosa Plateau near Riverside in southern California. The VPFS has the widest geographic range of the federally-listed vernal pool crustaceans, but it is seldom abundant where found, especially where it co-occurs with other species of fairy shrimp (USFWS 2003; Ericksen and Belk 1999). VPFS Occurrence 11/08/2013 San Luis Obispo Lopez Mountain North East Arroyo Grande Port San Luis Pismo Beach Text Morro Bay South Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed ²1 in = 6,000 ft 0 1 20.5 Miles Figure 3 Regional Location/VPFS Occurrence JM Development Group, Inc. Froom Ranch Approximate Study Area Boundary CNDDB Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Occurrence Study Area One Mile Buffer Additional Five Mile Buffer Source: ESRI 2017, CNDDB 2017 KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 6 As with other California freshwater fairy shrimp species, VPFS have unique biological adaptations enabling them to survive long drought seasons, as described in the excerpt below from Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation (USFWS 2007): “The vernal pool fairy shrimp has an ephemeral life cycle and exists only in vernal pools or vernal pool-like habitats; the species does not occur in riverine, marine, or other permanent bodies of water…. Like most other fairy shrimps, the vernal pool fairy shrimp lacks any substantial anti-predator defenses and does not persist in waters with fish (King et al. 1996; Eriksen and Belk, 1999). When the temporary pools dry, offspring persist in suspended development as desiccation-resistant embryos (commonly called cysts) in the pool substrate until the return of winter rains and appropriate temperatures allow some of the cysts to hatch (Eriksen and Belk, 1999). Vernal pool habitats form in depressions above an impervious substrate layer, or claypan/duripan, usually in alluvial fans and terraces (Vollmar, 2002).” “…The thermal and chemical properties of vernal pool waters are two of the primary factors affecting the distributions of specific fairy shrimp species (including the vernal pool fairy shrimp), or their appearance from year to year. Different species may appear in pools from one year to the next, depending on whether the pools fill at a different time of the year. Based on hatching and life history requirements, species may also appear in succession during one season as conditions change within the pool (Simovich and Fugate 1992; Eriksen and Belk 1999)… Active vernal pool fairy shrimp die off when water temperatures get too warm (Helm 1998). In years with low amounts of precipitation or atypical timing of precipitation, (or in substandard habitat) vernal pool species may die off before reproducing (Eriksen and Belk 1999). Adult VPFS are usually less than one (1) inch in length, and are very fragile. Their cysts are tiny, from 0.15 to 0.4 mm in diameter, and are very resilient, especially when dry (Eriksen and Belk 1999). Animals moving through vernal pools, drinking and feeding from them, may aid in dispersing VPFS to new locations: “Long-distance dispersal of anostracan cysts is thought to be enabled by waterfowl and other migratory birds that ingest cysts, and by animals that provide for movement of mud and cysts in feathers, fur, and hooves…” (USFWS 2007) VPFS populations can exist in many types of topographic depressions that pond water seasonally, including ponds that are not naturally-formed vernal pools, if the conditions provide the hydrologic regime, thermal and chemical properties the species requires. A study which sampled over 4,000 California seasonal wetlands identified endemic fairy shrimp and tadpole shrimp in wetlands ranging in type from natural freshwater and alkaline vernal pools to rock outcrop pools to percolation test pits, pools formed in dirt and gravel-based railroad rights of way by vehicular traffic, roadside ditches, stock ponds and more (Helm 1996). In northern San Luis Obispo County, at Camp Roberts National Guard Training Installation, VPFS monitoring programs recorded recurring populations of VPFS in old mortar holes and tank ruts on claypan soils (U.S. DOD and CA ARNG 1998). Simovich’s 1998 paper on “Crustacean Biodiversity and Endemism in California’s Ephemeral Wetlands” summarized characteristics specific to ephemeral water bodies that are missing in more perennial water bodies. The key characteristics identified that restrict or limit anostracans, such as VPFS, to ephemeral water bodies include: lack of fish; predation pressure from other species being KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 7 delayed until after VPFS reproduction is largely complete; and the cyst storage bank in the ephemeral pool, with VPFS cysts hatching at different times and different years, improving the species’ chances of survival (Simovich 1998). Conversely, the following characteristics are indications that the location generally will not provide suitable habitat for listed large branchiopods: “Habitats that swiftly flow water (e.g., creeks, streams, and ephemeral drainages) or habitats that are semi-to-permanently inundated and support perennial populations of predators (e.g. bullfrogs, fish, and crayfish).” (USFWS 2015) 3.0 METHODS 3.1 Background Research Prior to conducting field work, KMA’s Principal Biologist, Kevin Merk, and Senior Biologist Julie Thomas reviewed pertinent background information from the general area. This included previous biological studies in the region and on the subject site, as well as the recently completed Biological Resources Inventory (KMA 2016). Numerous field hours were spent on the study area during the winter and spring months of 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 to characterize the nature and extent of drainage and wetland features subject to Clean Water Act and California Fish and Game Code requirements, which provided direct observation of onsite hydrology. Several Environmental Impact Reports, biology studies and wetland delineations completed for nearby development projects were also reviewed. Hydrologic studies, wetland mitigation plans and subsequent mitigation monitoring reports completed for the Home Depot project, which included portions of the study area, were also reviewed as part of the investigation. Local studies and documents reviewed for this vernal pool habitat assessment included the following: ¥ Madonna Eagle Hardware Environmental Impact Report (1998); ¥ Biological Resources Analysis Letter of Findings for the Los Osos Valley Road Improvement Project (Olberding Environmental, 2001); ¥ Wetland Restoration and Mitigation Plans Relating to the Froom Ranch/Home Depot Project (Olberding Environmental, 2002); ¥ San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed Enhancement Plan (Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County, 2002); ¥ Year 1 Wetland Monitoring Report for the Froom Ranch/Boysen Ranch Mitigation Sites (Olberding Environmental, 2003); ¥ Calle Joaquin Realignment Wetland Delineation (Morro Group, 2004); ¥ Irish Hills Plaza II Wetland Delineation Map (Morro Group, 2004); ¥ Hydrologic Monitoring Plan for Sustaining a Separated Wetland Near Calle Joaquin (Balance Hydrologics, 2005); ¥ 90-Day Report of Wet Season Fairy Shrimp Surveys, Calle Joaquin Site, San Luis Obispo (Thomas, 2005); ¥ Irish Hills Plaza Detention Basin Report (Wallace Group, 2006); ¥ Year 5 Wetland Monitoring Report for the Froom Ranch/Home Depot Site (Olberding Environmental, 2007); ¥ Los Osos Valley Road/U.S. 101 Interchange Improvements Project Biological Assessment for Central California Coast Steelhead (2008); ¥ Irish Hills Natural Area Conservation Plan Update (City of San Luis Obispo, 2011); KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 8 ¥ Madonna Enterprises Vachell Lane Property 2013 Wet Season Vernal Pool Branchiopod Survey 90-Day Report (Sage Institute, Inc., 2013); ¥ Madonna Enterprises Vachell Lane Property 2013 Dry Season Vernal Pool Branchiopod Survey 90-Day Report (Sage Institute, Inc., 2014); ¥ Chevron Tank Farm Remediation and Development Project Final Environmental Impact Report (Marine Research Specialists, 2013); and ¥ Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the United States and State of California (Wetland Delineation; KMA, 2015). Other reports from the project area including the VPFS survey findings (both wet season and dry season) for the Calle Joaquin Road Realignment project (conducted by Ms. Thomas), which included the project site, and the Vachell Lane Property (Sage II, 2013) were also reviewed. Conversations with other local branchiopod experts (pers. comm. Mitch Dallas and David Wolff) regarding their recent studies also occurred. Historical aerial photographs obtained from Google Earth were reviewed to further aid in the existing conditions characterization, and were compiled and included as an appendix to this report. The California Natural Diversity Database maintained by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CNDDB, 2017) was searched for listed branchiopod species that have been documented within the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps centered on and surrounding the site. This included the Morro Bay South, San Luis Obispo, Lopez Mountain, Port San Luis, Pismo Beach and Arroyo Grande Northeast quads. Given the project site’s proximity to the Pacific Ocean and geographic setting on the northern flank of the Irish Hills of the San Luis Range in close proximity to San Luis Obispo, the focus on these six quads was deemed a sufficient search area to identify listed branchiopod species occurring in the vicinity of the site for inclusion in the study. To support the Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey was reviewed to determine the soil mapping units present within the study area (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2017). The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s online Wetland and Critical Habitat Mapper (http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html; http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/) were also reviewed to evaluate the extent of documented wetlands and designated critical habitat in the region. 3.2 Vernal Pool Habitat Field Assessment As part of field work for the 2015 Wetland Delineation and 2016 Biological Resources Inventory, KMA’s Principal Biologist Kevin Merk conducted monthly surveys starting in January 2015 through October 2015 to track rain storms and characterize the hydrology of onsite drainage features (i.e., Froom Creek, its tributary drainages and the Los Osos Valley Road Ditch), constructed detention basins and the Calle Joaquin road impoundment. Additional site visits were conducted by Mr. Merk and other KMA biologists during the 2016-17 rain season to further map and define the extent of regulatory agency jurisdiction over the drainages and wetland areas onsite. During the site visits, KMA biologists explored the site extensively on foot and by four-wheel drive vehicle. All areas of hydrologic significance, including Froom Creek, its tributary drainages and associated seeps/springs and the LOVR ditch were visited. Any areas with ponded water or topographic swales or seeps/springs, which appeared to have the potential to pond water or maintain prolonged soil saturation were mapped and assessed for the presence of the three federal wetland criteria (i.e., hydric soils, predominance of wetland vegetation, and wetland hydrology). Please KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 9 refer to the 2015 Wetland Delineation Report and the 2016 Biological Resources Inventory prepared by KMA for further discussion. The Wetland Delineation Overview Map is included in this report. For the vernal pool habitat assessment, two additional site visits were conducted in September 2017 by Mr. Merk and Ms. Thomas to identify and survey areas with ponded water or the potential to contain pond water on a seasonal basis. The surveys searched for potential seasonal ponding indicators such as subtle changes in topography, predominance of wetland vegetation, accumulated sediment, dried mud, cracked clay soils or surface saline deposits. All drainage features, swales, ditches, basins, and topographic depressions were examined to assess the potential of supporting ponding water (at least 3 cm) with little flowing water during the wet season for sufficient duration (estimated at a minimum of two weeks) to allow a fairy shrimp population to complete a reproductive cycle. Aerial photographs of the property, wetland delineation maps, and a Trimble GeoXH 6000 GPS unit were used to record the locations of areas considered potential habitat. Photographs were taken of these locations, and record made of the vegetation present. Plant species were recorded following the Jepson Manual, second addition (Baldwin et al., 2012). Robert Hoover’s The Vascular Plants of San Luis Obispo County, California (1970) and the California Consortium of Herbaria accessed online were also used to identify plants observed onsite. 3.3 Qualifications of Surveyors KMA biologists Kevin Merk and Julie Thomas conducted this vernal pool habitat assessment survey. Both Mr. Merk and Ms. Thomas are familiar with vernal pool habitat and associated vegetation in the San Luis Obispo County area. Mr. Merk has worked extensively throughout California in vernal pool regions conducting wetland delineations and surveying for listed branchiopods and amphibians such as the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). In addition, Ms. Thomas has over 15 years of experience conducting protocol surveys for vernal pool fairy shrimp and assessing potential habitat throughout Central California, including San Luis Obispo County, and holds a valid USFWS 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permit for listed branchiopods (#TE834492-5). 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment VPFS have been recorded at two sites located within two miles of the proposed Froom Ranch project site: ¥ At the former Chevron Tank Farm on Tank Farm Road in San Luis Obispo, multiple surveys have identified VPFS populations in remnant tank rings, former earthen bermed oil reservoirs, drainage ditches with little to no flowing water and other altered landscape features and topographic depressions on the property (Marine Research Specialists, 2013). Linderiella occidentalis (California linderiella), a more common fairy shrimp, has also been recorded on this property, and in some instances co-occurs with VPFS. ¥ A population of VPFS was more recently recorded in a seasonal pond/swale feature on the east side of Vachell Lane between South Higuera Street and Buckley Road in the County of San Luis Obispo during wet season surveys in 2004-05, and again with dry season sampling in 2013. Linderiella occidentalis was also recorded in this location (SII; 2013, 2014). KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 10 The above VPFS sites and the Froom Ranch property are not connected via surface hydrology, but the proximity of these VPFS populations suggests the possibility that cysts could be transported to the Froom Ranch property via birds and other wildlife that could cross urban areas and Highway 101. However, even if viable VPFS cysts were introduced by migrating wildlife, a population could only be established on Froom Ranch if suitable habitat were present. On the Froom Ranch property, KMA identified three features with potential to pond water with a depth and duration sufficient to potentially support listed branchiopod species: two constructed earthen drainage basins that are part of the Irish Hills Plaza infrastructure (“north drainage basin” and “south drainage basin”), and a wetland area adjacent to the intersection of Calle Joaquin and Los Osos Valley Road (“Calle Joaquin wetland”). Please refer to Figures 4 and 5 for location information. Other wetland, creek and drainage features in the Froom Ranch survey area do not provide potential habitat for listed branchiopod species, either because they periodically experience scouring flows, do not exhibit the topography to pond water at the required depth and duration to support the species, or because they are perennially moist seeps. Both the north and south drainage basins, as well as the Calle Joaquin wetland, occur on the NRCS soil map unit Cropley clay, 0-2% slopes (Figure 6), described as follows: Cropley clay 0-2 % slopes. Cropley clay consists of a dark gray or black (10YR 4/1, 3/1, 2/1 moist) clay horizon about 36 inches thick, underlain by a light brown calcareous clay loam to 60 inches or more. Permeability of this soil is slow and the available water capacity is high. Cropley soils formed in alluvium developed from sedimentary rocks. An unnamed component of Cropley clay is listed as a hydric soil when present in drainageways. This inclusion is typically very dark gray throughout, with mottles present in the lower horizons. Mapped inclusions within this series include Diablo clay, Los Osos loam, and Salinas silty clay loam. (NRCS 2015) The Cropley clay soil as described has the characteristics that would enable it to provide a claypan substrate that could pond water on a seasonal basis. Discussion of the VPFS habitat potential of the north and south drainage basins and the Calle Joaquin wetland follows below. Also, please refer to the historic aerial photographs included as Appendix A and site photographs in Appendix B for further detail. 4.1.1 Calle Joaquin Wetland The southwest side of the intersection of Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin contains a wetland community associated with the LOVR roadside drainage ditch, which was likely created or enlarged by alteration of natural topography when the roads were constructed, resulting in increased impoundment of surface and subsurface flow. Under the proposed Froom Ranch plan, this wetland would be in the portion of the property to remain as protected open space. A number of biological and hydrologic studies have been completed at this location for prior projects, including the Calle Joaquin Road realignment, and the LOVR/Highway 101 interchange project. Focused protocol level surveys for VPFS for the Calle Joaquin Road realignment did not locate the species in the wetland area. The 2015 wetland delineation completed by KMA reported that this area exhibited a dense cover of perennial wetland plants trending toward coastal and valley freshwater marsh habitat, Los Osos Valley RoadCalle J o a q u i n Irish Hills PlazaDrainage 1 Drainage 2 Drainage 3 Froom Creek Figure 4a Figure 4b MountainbrookChurch Irish Hills Natural Reserve Study Area Boundary CDFW Jurisdiction (5.41 acres) USACE Wetlands (7.25 acres) USACE Other Waters (2.66 acres) John Madonna Construction, Inc.0 200 400 600 800100Feet Wetland Delineation Overview Source(s): RRM Design Froom Ranch Figure 41 in = 350 ft £¤101 L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d ²1 in = 800 ft 0 530 1,060265Feet Figure 5 Soil Map JM Development Group, Inc. Froom Ranch Approximate Study Area Boundary Soil Type (NRCS Soil Survey) Cropley Clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes Diablo and Cibo clays, 9 to 15 percent slopes Diablo and Cibo clays, 15 to 30 percent slopes Los Osos-Diablo complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes Los Osos-Diablo complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes Obispo-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 75 percent slopes Salinas silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Xererts-Xerolls-Urban land complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes Corducci-Typic Xerofluvents, 0 to 5 percent slopes, occasionally flooded Source: ESRI 2017, USDA 2017 KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 13 indicating prolonged saturated soil conditions. The vegetation in the Calle Joaquin wetland area was: “…dominated by clustered field sedge, and included distinct areas of silverweed (Potentilla anserina - OBL), brown-headed rush (Juncus phaeocephalus - FACW), round-leaf leather root (Hoita orbicularis - OBL), and rough sedge (Carex senta - OBL). Ponded areas containing California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus - OBL), were present along portions of the property edge along Calle Joaquin.” (KMA 2015) The September 2017 field visits conducted for this vernal pool habitat assessment recorded these same dominant vegetation species, and surface ponding of between four and 18 inches was present in the area dominated by California bulrush. The 2015 wetland delineation concluded that this non-riparian wet meadow area dominated by wetland vegetation would be classified as Palustrine Emergent Wetland per Cowardin, and met the federal wetland criteria and falls under regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (KMA 2015; Cowardin et al. 1979; USACE 2008). The dominance of perennial wetland vegetation, observed surface ponding into September, as well as review of historical aerial photographs obtained from Google Earth, suggests that the Calle Joaquin wetland site functions as a semi-perennial to perennial wetland. In addition, during the field visits, a crayfish carcass between the south basin and the Calle Joaquin wetland ponded area provided supporting evidence of the semi-perennial ponding regime (USFWS 2015). If fairy shrimp cysts were introduced into the Calle Joaquin wetland by migrating wildlife or birds, and the pool was inoculated during a period when the pond went intermittently dry, the fairy shrimp population, if established, would likely be eventually decimated by predator species during subsequent wetter years with longer periods of ponding. Although there are exceptions, generally fairy shrimp species such as VPFS are absent from habitats supporting the abundance of predators expected in more permanent waters such as dragonfly larvae, notonectids, dysticid beetles, fish, crayfish; this includes the later stages of temporary habitats when the abundance of predators is usually at a maximum (Keeley and Zedler, 1998; USFWS 2015). Prior fairy shrimp surveys at this site that produced negative results support the conclusion that the Calle Joaquin wetland does not provide suitable fairy shrimp habitat. The 2004-05 protocol fairy shrimp surveys (wet and dry season) conducted at the Calle Joaquin wetland area as part of the Calle Joaquin Realignment Project found no VPFS or other listed vernal pool branchiopod species present (Thomas 2005). Although the footprint of the Calle Joaquin wetland as sampled in 2004-05 was somewhat altered by the subsequent road realignment project, the area continues to function as a semi-perennial to perennial wetland. 4.1.2 Stormwater Detention Basins Construction of the Irish Hills Plaza included two large stormwater detention basins, immediately adjacent to each other and separated by an earthen berm. The basins were constructed between mid-2006 and mid-2007. A temporary basin was also constructed to handle construction runoff before the larger basins were fully operable. After completion of construction of the Home Depot and surrounding areas, surface runoff from the Irish Hills Plaza development is now directed into the larger drainage basins, and the temporary basin was filled in and recontoured, and no longer has the capacity to pond water. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 14 The two currently active drainage basins, referred to here as “north basin” and “south basin” release overflow water to the LOVR Roadside Ditch via a storm drain outfall into a constructed swale. During large storm events, they are designed to discharge water into the wet meadow area along Calle Joaquin via a concrete spillway on the south side of the south drainage basin. Otherwise, water leaves the basins through evaporation and ground percolation. Google Earth historical aerial imagery indicates that these basins have been actively managed, with grading of the basins performed between April and August 2013, disturbing soil and removing vegetation (Appendix A: August 23, 2013). Under the proposed Froom Ranch development plan, these drainage basins would be removed, and runoff would be redirected into new constructed features including a larger basin proposed on the neighboring Mountainbrook Church property adjacent to Froom Creek. During the September 2017 habitat assessment field visits, the north basin featured shallow ponding (average 4-8 inches in depth) throughout much of the basin. Vegetation was dominated by obligate wetland plants such as cattail (Typha latifolia), spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya) and small fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus) along with brown-headed rush (Juncus phaeocephalus) and rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis). The south basin was densely vegetated, but did not have ponded water or the predominance of obligate wetland plants, though signs of recent seasonal ponding were evident in the form of algal mats, cracked soil and surface salt deposits. Dominant vegetation included facultative wetland species such as creeping rye (Elymus triticoides), brown-headed rush, and reed fescue (Festuca arundinacea) with patches of cattails were present in several areas where saturation persists In the more barren patches exhibiting salt crust and/or algal mats from recent drying, prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper; FAC) frequently occurred. Neither Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) nor Hoover’s button celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri), which are both indicators of vernal pool or seasonal wetland habitat, were observed in either drainage basin. Historical aerial photos reviewed on Google Earth show that the north and south basins both dry out seasonally in most years. The high rainfall of 2016-17 may be responsible for the continued ponding seen in the north basin in early September 2017, as well as for ponding that appears to have lasted into the summer in the south basin, based on presence of algal mats and salt deposits. The wetland plant species currently dominating both basins suggest semi-perennial wetland hydrology, but aerial photos taken as recently as September 2016 show the vegetation in both basins as almost entirely brown, with no visible surface ponding. The pattern of seasonal drying shown in the historic aerial photos suggests that it is possible that the basins might have a hydrologic regime in many years that would provide suitable fairy shrimp habitat, even though the current year’s vegetation community is more typical of a semi-perennial wetland, which would be unsuitable habitat. The fact that the basins were constructed as recently as 2006-07, and then graded for maintenance in 2013, and are not hydrologically connected to existing fairy shrimp habitat, makes it unlikely that there has been time for fairy shrimp to be inoculated into the basins and to develop into a sustained population, even if a suitable hydrologic regime exists. Soil disturbance such as grading can easily bury or remove fairy shrimp cysts, and is generally considered incompatible with presence of a persistent fairy shrimp population. Based on the recent construction and management history of these two drainage basins, and the lack of direct connectivity with other fairy shrimp habitat, it is very unlikely that the basins support a population of listed branchiopods. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 15 4.1.3 Critical Habitat Designation The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for VPFS in the region (Units 29C and 30, designated in 2006), but outside the five mile buffer around the study area. The proposed project area is not situated within a critical habitat unit, and no critical habitat attributes were observed within the study area. 5.0 CONCLUSION Based on field surveys and review of relevant background documents of the Froom Ranch site, three features were initially identified as having characteristics of a seasonal ponding and drying regime with the potential to support listed branchiopods: the north and south drainage basins, and the Calle Joaquin wetland. The north and south drainage basins were dominated by wetland vegetation at the time of field surveys in September 2017. Much of the north basin was still ponded with water, averaging four (4) to eight (8) inches in depth. The south basin was not ponded, but showed signs of recent drying in the form of salt deposits on the substrate surface, and much of the basin was dominated by wetland vegetation. These factors could suggest that the drainage basins have a semi-permanent wetland hydrologic regime; however, historic aerial photos show that, in most years since the basins were constructed, the basin vegetation was brown by end of summer, and no ponding is evident. It’s likely that the extent of wetland vegetation and ponding observed in September 2017 is an anomaly resulting from the exceptionally wet 2016-17 rain season, and that in most years the basins do dry out for a number of months, and in general have a seasonal ponding regime. However, both of the drainage basins were constructed within the past 11 years, and since they are not hydrologically connected to known fairy shrimp habitat, there has been limited time and opportunity for inoculation of the basins through wildlife transfer of cysts. In addition, the basins are actively managed to maintain holding capacity and, based on aerial photos, were subject to maintenance activities including grading in 2013. Inoculation and population establishment of fairy shrimp would therefore have had to occur after the 2013 grading. Given the lack of immediate proximity to existing fairy shrimp habitat and the ongoing maintenance activities in the drainage basins, it is considered very unlikely that the drainage basins provide habitat for listed species of branchiopods such as VPFS. The Calle Joaquin wetland had been sampled for listed branchiopods during 2004-05 and no fairy shrimp species were found to occur there. Historic aerial photos suggest that the Calle Joaquin wetland area remains moist or ponded throughout most years. KMA field surveys for this assessment found wetland vegetation dominant in the area subject to ponding, as well as hydric soils and evidence of presence of aquatic predator species generally considered incompatible with listed branchiopod populations. Based on these factors, the Calle Joaquin wetland is not considered potential habitat for listed species of branchiopods. 6.0 REFERENCES Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, Editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual, Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. University of California Press. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 16 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2017. Natural Diversity Data Base of recorded occurrences of special-status species. Accessed September 2017. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter V., F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report No. FWS/OBS/-79/31. Washington, D.C. Ericksen, C.H. and D. Belk. 1999. Fairy Shrimps of California’s Puddles, Pools, and Playas. Mad River Press. Eureka, California. Ferren, W.R., Jr., P.L. Fiedler, and R.A. Leidy. 1996a. Wetlands of California, Part I: History of Wetland Habitat Classification. In Madroño 1996 43(1):105-124. Ferren, W.R., Jr., P.L. Fiedler, R.A. Leidy, et al. 1996b. Wetlands of California, Part II: Classification and Description of Wetlands of the Central and Southern California Coast and Coastal Watersheds. In Madroño 1996 43(1):125-182. Helm, B. P. 1998. Biogeography of Eight Large Branchiopods Endemic to California. In Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems: Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. Witham, C.W., et. al., Editors. CNPS. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Nongame-Heritage Program. Holland, R. F., and S. lain. 1988. Vernal pools. Pages 515-533 in M. B. Barbour and I. Major, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California, new expanded edition. California Native Plant Society, Special Publication Number 9, Sacramento, California. Hoover, R. 1970. Vascular Plants of San Luis Obispo County, California. Keeler-Wolf, Todd et al. 1998. California Vernal Pool Assessment Preliminary Report. Unpublished report prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game. Keeley, J.E., and P.H. Zedler. 1998. Characterization and Global Distribution of Vernal Pools. In Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems: Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. Witham, C.W., et. al., Editors. CNPS. Kevin Merk Associates, LLC. 2015. Froom Ranch, San Luis Obispo, California: Delineation of Waters of the United States and State of California. _______ 2016. Froom Ranch Project, San Luis Obispo County: Biological Resources Inventory. Marine Research Specialists. 2013. Chevron Tank Farm Remediation and Development Project Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Prepared for the City and County of San Luis Obispo. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2015. Web Soil Survey. National Cooperative Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed via: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 17 Platenkamp, G. A. J. 1998. Patterns of Vernal Pool Biodiversity at Beale Air Force Base. In: C. W. Witham, E. T. Bauder, D. Belk, W. R. Ferren Jr., and R. Orduff (eds.). Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems − Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Pages 151–160. Sage Institute, Inc. 2013. Madonna Enterprises Vachell Lane Property 2013 Wet Season Vernal Pool Branchiopod Survey 90-Day Report. Sage Institute, Inc. 2014. Madonna Enterprises Vachell Lane Property 2013 Dry Season Vernal Pool Branchiopod Survey 90-Day Report. Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Simovich, M.A. 1998. Crustacean Biodiversity and Endemism in California’s Ephemeral Wetlands. In Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems: Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. Witham, C.W., et. al., Editors. CNPS. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. United States Department of Defense (U.S. DOD) National Guard Bureau and State of California Army National Guard. 1998. Protection and Monitoring of Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp at Camp Roberts Army National Guard Installation: 1997-98 Annual Report. Submitted to U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura, CA United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the Conservancy Fairy Shrimp, Longhorn Fairy Shrimp, and Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp, and Threatened Status for the Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp. Federal Register, 59: 48136 48153 _______ 2003. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for Four Vernal Pool Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal Pool Plants in California and Southern Oregon. Federal Register 68: 46684 46732. _______ 2007. Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Service Office, Sacramento, CA. _______ 2015. Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods. Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, CA. APPENDIX A Historic Aerial Photograph Review KMA KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. APPENDIX A Historic Aerial Photos (Source: Google Earth) August 4, 2006 Before construction of drainage basins and Calle Joaquin Road reconstruction. Froom Creek visible to left. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. July 30, 2007 Newly constructed drainage basins. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. September 17, 2011 Vegetation cover and possible ponding visible in north basin; south basin well-vegetated with possible salt deposits on soil surface. Ponding visible in Calle Joaquin wetland. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. April 9, 2013 Both drainage basins well-vegetated. Calle Joaquin wetland ponded. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. August 23, 2013 Both drainage basins were recently graded, removing most vegetation from the basin floors, and disturbing soil. At Calle Joaquin wetland, no surface ponding is apparent. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. April 2, 2015 No ponding visible in either of the basins or the Calle Joaquin wetland. Approx. 50% vegetation cover visible in drainage basins. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. September 29, 2016 The north and south drainages are dry, with vegetation dry/dormant. Possible small area of ponding in the Calle Joaquin wetland. APPENDIX B Photo Plate KMA KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 1 APPENDIX B - PHOTO PLATE Photo 1. North drainage basin: Overview of basin, facing northeast. Photo 2. North drainage basin: View to northwest, taken from berm between north and south drainage basins, showing stand of cattails (Typha latifolia) on basin floor. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 2 Photo 3. North drainage basin: Transition from upland plant species such as coast golden bush (Hazardia squarrosa) growing on the berm to dominantly wetland vegetation on basin floor, including stand of cattails (Typha latifolia), as well as ponded water. Photo 4. South drainage basin: facing east from midpoint of berm between basins. Upland vegetation on the berm between the two drainage basins is in foreground, with greener basin floor vegetation below. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 3 Photo 5. South drainage basin: Overview facing south taken from approximate middle of berm between basins. Photo 6. South drainage basin: Example of representative vegetation on basin floor, primarily creeping ryegrass (Elymus triticoides). KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 4 Photo 7. South drainage basin: brown-headed rush (Juncus phaeocephalus), surrounding dried mud with salt deposits and prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper). Photo 8. South drainage basin: small stand of cattails at northeast end in a dense carpet of creeping ryegrass. KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 5 Photo 9. South drainage basin: cracked mud and salt deposits indicate past ponding. Photo 10. Calle Joaquin wetland: southwesterly view of ponded water and stand of California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus) in shallow surface water. Area is surrounded by a mix of wetland vegetation with the non-native reed fescue (Festuca arundinacea). KMA Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment JM Development Group, Inc. 6 Photo 11. Ditch from north basin draining water into the LOVR Roadside Ditch adding to surface water in the Calle Joaquin wetland. Photo 12. Crayfish carcass, a known predator of branchiopods and other native amphibians, on ground between south drainage basin and Calle Joaquin wetland. APPENDIX E.5 Wetland Delineation This Page Intentionally Left Blank. KMA Kevin Merk Associates, LLC P.O. Box 318, San Luis Obispo, California 93406 805.748.5837(o)/439.1616(f) Environmental Consulting Services August 4, 2015 Dr. Aaron Allen North Coast Branch Chief U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Regulatory Branch – Ventura Field Office 2151 Alessandro Drive, Suite 110 Ventura, California 93001 Subject: Request for Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the Froom Ranch Project, San Luis Obispo, California Dear Dr. Allen: On behalf of John Madonna Construction, Inc., Kevin Merk Associates is submitting this request to confirm the extent of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Section 404 (Clean Water Act) jurisdiction on the Froom Ranch project site located in San Luis Obispo, California. Enclosed please find one hard copy and one electronic copy of the report titled, Froom Ranch (APNs 067-‐241-‐030, 067-‐241-‐031) San Luis Obispo, California Delineation of Waters of the United States and State of California. In summary, the majority of potential Corps jurisdictional areas onsite are ephemeral drainage features located throughout the site. In addition, impoundment of surface and subsurface flow has created wetland features along both Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin. We are currently working with John Madonna Construction, their design team and the City of San Luis Obispo in planning future development of the site. We met with Ms. Erin Hanlon of your staff recently to introduce her to the proposed project. It is our hope to get your concurrence with the findings included in the delineation report so we may work with you to assess final impacts to Corps jurisdictional features resulting from future development, and apply for the appropriate Section 404 permit. Thank you in advance for your assistance with this project. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions during your review. I will follow up within the next few days to schedule a field visit so you or your designated staff member may review this information first hand. Sincerely, Kevin Merk Associates, LLC Kevin Merk Principal Biologist Enclosed: Delineation of Waters of the United States and State of California for the Froom Ranch Project, San Luis Obispo, California (one hard copy and one electronic copy on CD) FROOM RANCH (APNs 067-‐241-‐030, 067-‐241-‐031) SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA DELINEATION OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Mr. John Madonna John Madonna Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 5310 San Luis Obispo, California 93405 Prepared by: KMA Kevin Merk Associates, LLC P.O. Box 318 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 August 2015 KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 REGULATORY OVERVIEW AND DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Federal Regulatory Authority ....................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 State Regulatory Authority ............................................................................................................................ 5 2.3 Criteria for Wetlands and Other Waters .................................................................................................. 5 3.0 METHODS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 4.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8 4.1 Site Overview ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 4.2 Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................................... 10 4.3 Soils ....................................................................................................................................................................... 12 4.4 Hydrology ........................................................................................................................................................... 15 4.5 Jurisdictional Determination Summary ................................................................................................ 16 5.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................ 21 5.1 Federal Waters ................................................................................................................................................. 21 5.2 CDFW Jurisdictional Areas .......................................................................................................................... 22 6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................................ 23 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Site Location Map ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2 – Aerial Overview Map ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3 – Soils Map .............................................................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 4 – Wetland Delineation Overview Map ........................................................................................................ 18 Figure 4a – Wetland Delineation Map ........................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 4b – Wetland Delineation Map ........................................................................................................................... 20 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Sample Point Results Summary .................................................................................................................... 17 Table 2 – Summary of Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. ......................................................................................... 22 Table 3 – Summary of CDFW Jurisdictional Areas ................................................................................................... 22 APPENDICES Appendix A – Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix B – Photo Plate KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Kevin Merk Associates, LLC (KMA) conducted a delineation of potential waters of the United States for the Froom Ranch in San Luis Obispo County, California. Located at the edge of the City of San Luis Obispo at the southwest side of Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) near the intersection with Highway 101, the study area covers approximately 111 acres and is comprised of two parcels (APN 067-‐241-‐030, 067-‐241-‐031). It is composed primarily of undeveloped open space used primarily as grazing lands, and also contains existing buildings and an active mine in the northwestern part of the site. Existing development in the Irish Hills Plaza forms the northern site boundary. LOVR forms the eastern study area boundary and Calle Joaquin forms the southern boundary along with existing development including Mountainbrook Church and several hotels. Steep terrain that is part of the Irish Hills Natural Reserve forms the western boundary. Please refer to Figure 1, the Site Location Map, and Figure 2, the Aerial Overview Map for additional information. The delineation was conducted to determine the location and extent of features that meet the jurisdictional criteria for the following federal and state agencies: ¥ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) criteria as waters of the United States, including wetlands, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1972). ¥ Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and under the Porter-‐Cologne Water Quality Act. ¥ California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdiction, under the California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. The preliminary jurisdictional determination used standard Corps methodology as detailed in Section 3.0. KMA also reviewed relevant background documents, recent and historic aerial photographs of the site, regional and site-‐specific topographic maps, Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Maps, and U.S. Department of Agriculture soils data to better characterize the nature and extent of potential regulatory agency jurisdiction. This report is subject to review by the affected agencies and should be submitted to the Corps, CDFW, and RWQCB for verification during the permitting phase of the project. Portions of the site have been the subject of several environmental studies over the years, including wetland delineation efforts. Previous documents referenced during preparation of this report include: ¥ Madonna Eagle Hardware Environmental Impact Report (1998); ¥ Wetland Restoration and Mitigation Plans Relating to the Froom Ranch/Home Depot Project (Olberding Environmental, 2002); ¥ Calle Joaquin Realignment Wetland Delineation (Morro Group, 2004); ¥ Irish Hills Plaza II Wetland Delineation Map (Morro Group, 2004); ¥ Froom Ranch Wetland Assessment (Morro Group, 2005); ¥ Hydrologic Monitoring Plan for Sustaining a Separated Wetland Near Calle Joaquin (Balance Hydrologics, 2005); ¥ Irish Hills Plaza Detention Basin Report (Wallace Group, 2006); and ¥ Year 5 Wetland Monitoring Report for the Froom Ranch/Home Depot Site (Olberding Environmental, 2007). Site Location Froom Ranch Figure 1 0 2.5 5 7.5 101.25 Kilometers Sources: Sources: National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp.© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed 1 inch = 10,000 feet Site Location 0 100 20050 Kilometers John Madonna Construction, Inc.Site Location Froom Ranch John Madonna Construction, Inc. Figure 2 Aerial Overview Sources: (c) ESRI and its data providers; City of San Luis Obispo Study Boundary 0 125 250 37562.5 Meters 1 inch = 1,500 feet KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. 4 2.0 REGULATORY OVERVIEW AND DEFINITIONS 2.1 Federal Regulatory Authority The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), under provisions of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, has jurisdiction over “waters of the United States” and authorization to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into “waters of the U.S.” “Waters of the U.S.” are defined to include: all waters used in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; all interstate waters and wetlands; all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, that could affect interstate or foreign commerce; all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as “waters of the U.S.”; tributaries of waters otherwise defined as “waters of the U.S.”; territorial seas; and wetlands adjacent to “waters of the U.S.” Waters generally not considered to be Corps-‐jurisdictional include non-‐tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land, artificially-‐irrigated areas, artificial lakes or ponds excavated on dry land used for irrigation or stock watering, small artificial water bodies such as swimming pools, and water filled depressions (51 Fed. Reg. 41, 217 1986). In 2001, the Supreme Court (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) ruled that the Corps exceeded its statutory authority by asserting Clean Water Act jurisdiction over “an abandoned sand and gravel pit in northern Illinois, which provides habitat for migratory birds.” The Supreme Court determined that “non-‐navigable, isolated, intrastate” waters were not subject to federal jurisdiction based solely on the use of such waters by migratory birds (i.e., solely invoking the “Migratory Bird Rule” was insufficient justification) (Guzy/Anderson 2001). The Supreme Court further addressed the extent of the Corps’ jurisdiction in the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States (June 19, 2006), referred to as “Rapanos.” In Rapanos, a sharply-‐divided Court issued multiple opinions, none of which garnered the support of a majority of Justices. This created substantial uncertainty as to which jurisdictional test should be used in routine jurisdictional determinations. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, which encompasses California, answered this in Northern California River Watch v. City of Healdsburg (August 11, 2006). In this case, the Court held that Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Rapanos provided the controlling rule of law. Under that rule, wetlands or other waters that are not in fact navigable are subject to Corps jurisdiction if they have “a (significant nexus) to waters that are navigable in fact.” Presence of a “significant nexus” must be decided on a case-‐by-‐case basis, depending on site-‐ specific circumstances. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Corps subsequently developed an instructional guidebook on how to apply these rulings for all future jurisdictional determinations (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. EPA 2007), and a memorandum providing guidance to implement the Supreme Court’s decision in Rapanos (Grumbles and Woodley 2007). Waters of the U.S. determined by KMA to be under the jurisdiction of the EPA and Corps under the Clean Water Act have thus conformed to the instructional guidebook and memorandum providing guidance to implement the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Rapanos. Delineated wetland features that are not adjacent to (i.e., bordering, contiguous, or neighboring) a traditional navigable water (TNW) or abutting a relatively permanent water (RPW) that is tributary to a TNW are not likely to be subject to federal jurisdiction and are thus determined to not be subject to federal jurisdiction. It KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. 5 is advised to note that the U.S. Supreme Court determined that jurisdictional waters of the U.S. shall be determined on a case-‐by-‐case basis, by the Corps (and EPA), based on a determination of whether a particular wetland or “other water” has a “significant nexus” to a TNW. To summarize, the jurisdictional status determination for each potential water of the U.S. feature was evaluated individually in accordance with the Rapanos guidance as follows. If the feature did not have a hydrologic surface connection to a TNW (e.g., a seasonally inundated wetland abuts an RPW and subject RPW conveys surface water to a TNW) or did not demonstrate a “significant nexus” to a TNW, it was not considered subject to federal jurisdiction. This report describes the features on the property that exhibit the physical characteristics of wetlands or other waters and documents the maximum areal extent of such features that may qualify as “waters of the United States” and be subject to Corps jurisdiction. The aforementioned federal rulings do not alter the extent of State jurisdiction over “waters of the State” (which are subject to Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB] jurisdiction), or “rivers, lakes or streams” subject to California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdiction. State regulatory authority over wetlands and other waters are discussed in the following section. 2.2 State Regulatory Authority The State Water Resources Control Board and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) regulate discharges of fill and dredged material in California, under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and under the State Porter-‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act, through the State Water Quality Certification Program. State Water Quality Certification is necessary for all projects that require a Corps permit, or fall under other federal jurisdiction, and have the potential to impact waters of the State. Waters of the State are defined by the Porter-‐Cologne Act as: “. . . any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” In order for a Section 404 (Corps) permit to be valid, Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires a Water Quality Certification or waiver to be obtained. The Water Quality Certification (or waiver) determines that the permitted activities will not violate water quality standards individually or cumulatively over the term of the action. Water quality certification must be consistent with the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Endangered Species Act, and Porter-‐Cologne Act. The CDFW has regulatory authority over any work within rivers, lakes and streams in the State of California (California Fish and Game Code Sections 1601-‐1603) on public, private and agricultural lands. Features that are regulated by the CDFW include all rivers, streams, or lakes including man-‐ made watercourses with or without wetlands, if they contain a definable bed and bank and support fish or wildlife resources or contribute to that support. The riparian vegetation associated with rivers, streams, and lakes is also typically included within the CDFW jurisdiction. 2.3 Criteria for Wetlands and Other Waters Hydrophytic vegetation occurs in areas where frequency and duration of inundation and/or soil saturation exerts a primary controlling influence on plant species composition. Plant species are assigned a wetland indicator status according to the probability of occurrence in wetlands. More KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. 6 than fifty percent of the dominant plant species must have a wetland indicator status of Facultative, Facultative Wetland, or Obligate Wetland to meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. The National Wetland Plant List: 2014 Update of Wetland Ratings (NWPL), separates vascular plants into the following four basic categories based on plant species frequency of occurrence in wetlands: ¥ Obligate wetland (OBL). Occur almost always (estimated probability >99%) under natural conditions in wetlands. ¥ Facultative Wetland (FACW). Usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67%-‐99%), but occasionally found in non-‐wetlands. ¥ Facultative (FAC). Equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-‐wetlands (estimated probability 34%-‐66%). ¥ Facultative Upland (FACU). Usually occur in non-‐wetlands (estimated probability 67%-‐ 99%), but occasionally found in wetlands (estimated probability 1%-‐33%). ¥ Obligate Upland (UPL). May occur in wetlands in another region, but occur almost always (estimated probability >99%) under natural conditions in non-‐wetlands in the region specified. An area is considered to have hydrophytic vegetation when greater than 50 percent of the dominant species in each vegetative stratum (tree, shrub, and herb) are assigned with the FAC, FACW, and/or OBL status categories. Any species not appearing on the NWPL is assumed to be an upland species. Hydric soils occur in areas that are saturated and/or inundated for a sufficient duration during the growing season to develop anaerobic or reducing conditions. Sufficient duration cannot be defined due to the vast differences in chemistry and mineral composition in soils from site to site and region to region, but can be as short as two weeks during the growing season. Field indicators of hydric soils include, but are not limited to observation of redoximorphic features (e.g., concentrations of oxidized minerals such as iron) and detection of hydrogen sulphide gas. Documentation of a soil as hydric must be verified in the field. Wetland hydrology typically occurs in areas subject to inundation and/or soil saturation with a frequency and duration long enough to cause the development of hydric soils and plant communities dominated by hydrophytic vegetation. If direct observation of wetland hydrology is not possible (as in seasonal wetlands) or records of wetland hydrology are not available (such as stream gauges), assessment of wetland hydrology is frequently supported by primary and secondary indicators such as surface soil cracks and drainage patterns. Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) is the line on the shore or bank of an other waters feature that is established by fluctuations and/or flow of water. The OHWM is located through examination of physical characteristics such as a clear natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, and other appropriate physical characteristics that consider the nature of the surrounding area. 3.0 METHODS KMA principal biologist Kevin Merk and senior biologist Bob Sloan conducted the delineation of potential Corps “waters of the United States,” RWQCB “waters of the State,” and CDFW jurisdictional areas on the study area during February and March, 2015. The delineation used the routine methodology as detailed in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. 7 Laboratory 1987) and refined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2008). The Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin 1979) and Wetlands of the Central and Southern California Coast and Coastal Watershed: A Methodology for Their Classification (Ferren et al. 1995) were also utilized to assist in characterizing on-‐site wetlands, other waters, and other potential jurisdictional areas. KMA biologists also reviewed recent and historical aerial photographs depicting the study area (ESRI and Google Earth 2015), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Obispo, California 7.5-‐minute topographic quadrangle (U.S. Geological Survey 1993), the Soil Survey for San Luis Obispo County, California (National Resources Conservation Service), and the Hydric Soils List for San Luis Obispo County, California to better determine the nature and extent of Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictional areas on the site. All potential waters of the U.S. on the study area were mapped based on the presence of positive indicators for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology for wetlands, and presence of an OHWM pursuant to Corps regulations (33 CFR 328.3 and 33 CFR 328.4) for other waters. The final determination of potential waters of the U.S. within the site was based on the presence of connectivity to a TNW. CDFW jurisdiction was determined based on the extent of the bed and bank or riparian canopy associated with Froom Creek, it’s tributary channels, and the LOVR roadside channel. Data observation points were placed in representative potential wetland features and adjacent upland areas to characterize the extent of federal and State jurisdiction (i.e., identify the wetland edge). Information recorded at each data point location included plant species composition (to determine the presence/absence of hydrophytic vegetation), presence/absence of indicators of wetland hydrology, and in areas containing potential wetland habitat, indicators of hydric soils in accordance with Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006). A soil pit was excavated at each data observation point, to examine the soil for positive indicators of hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Soil pits were excavated to a depth of 14-‐18 inches during the delineation. Hydric soils were presumed absent in areas devoid of hydrophytic vegetation and lack of direct observation of any hydrologic indicators. Positive evidence of wetland hydrology was evaluated in the field, and included observable indicators, such as drainage patterns, saturated soils in the upper 18 inches and the presence of oxidized rhizospheres. Colors of moist soils and redoximorphic features were compared with the Munsell® soil color chart and recorded on wetland determination data forms. Transect locations across the Los Osos Valley Road and Calle Joaquin wetland and meadow areas were based on data point locations documented in the Calle Joaquin Realignment Wetland Delineation (Morro Group, 2004); and Froom Ranch Wetland Assessment (Morro Group, 2005). A data point was considered to be within a Corps-‐defined wetland (an “in” point) if the area contained all three wetland parameters or criteria, which included a dominance of wetland plant species, positive wetland hydrology indicators, and presence of hydric soil indicators. If one or more of these parameters was not met, the point was considered to not be within a Corps-‐defined wetland (an “out” point) and a line was drawn between the two data points. Federal and State jurisdictional areas were delineated in the field using a Trimble GEOXH 6000 capable of decimeter accuracy. Data collected in the field was plotted on a site specific topographic map provided by RRM Design Group. Area calculations of waters of the U.S. and state of California, as well as CDFW jurisdictional areas, were made using ARC GIS 10 (ESRI). KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. 8 4.0 RESULTS A total of 24 data observation points were established to document potential waters of the U.S. and State of California on the site. Approximately 7.25 acres of wetlands (Palustrine Emergent Wetland) and 2.66 acres of other waters (Riverine Intermittent Streambed) were determined to fall under the jurisdiction of the Corps and RWQCB pursuant to the Clean Water Act. A total of 5.41 acres of the site were determined to fall under CDFW jurisdiction. Figure 3 is a soils map illustrating the soil map units present onsite and the immediate surrounding area. Figures 4, 4a and 4b are the wetland delineation map that show data point locations and illustrates the extent of Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictional areas onsite. Appendix A contains the Wetland Determination Data Forms and Appendix B is a photo plate with representative photographs of the study area. 4.1 Site Overview The study area consists primarily of grassland habitat on heavy clay soils in the flatter portions of the site between Froom Creek and LOVR and Calle Joaquin. Serpentine-‐based soils and rock outcrops are present in the higher elevation areas. Seasonal drainage features including Froom Creek and several small tributary drainages, the LOVR roadside channel, seasonal and perennial wetlands, coast live oak woodland with California bay trees, areas of coastal scrub/serpentine chaparral, and non-‐native eucalyptus trees are also present. The study area contains two man-‐ made stormwater detention/retention basins present between the Froom Creek channel and the mapped seasonal wetland areas along LOVR. The larger basin was constructed to receive surface runoff from the Irish Hills Plaza development to the northwest, and the smaller retention basin was constructed as a temporary feature during construction of Home Depot. Froom Creek Froom Creek is an intermittent stream with a relatively small watershed that originates in the Irish Hills to the southwest of the study area. The creek channel bisects the study area in a generally north to south direction, and ultimately passes beneath Calle Joaquin and U.S. Highway 101 via two concrete box culverts, heading to its confluence with San Luis Obispo Creek. San Luis Obispo Creek flows in a westerly direction ultimately connecting to the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach. Due to the lack of dominant wetland vegetation within or adjacent to the channel, Froom Creek was classified as Riverine Intermittent Streambed per Cowardin, and as non-‐wetland waters of the U.S. and state of California subject to Corps, RWQCB and CDFW jurisdiction. Froom Creek Tributaries Three small ephemeral drainage features (identified as Drainages 1, 2, and 3) are present in the southwestern portion of the study area that are tributaries to Froom Creek. Due to the presence of a defined bed and bank, OHWM, and hydrologic connectivity to Froom Creek, these small features were classified as Riverine Intermittent Streambed per Cowardin, and constitute jurisdictional non-‐ wetland waters of the U.S. and state of California. While these drainages were mostly comprised of upland vegetation, areas of wetland and riparian habitat were observed and mapped in specific locations. In addition, several seeps or springs were observed originating on adjacent hillsides and were hydrologically connected to the drainage feature. In-‐channel areas and abutting areas dominated by wetland vegetation are classified as Palustrine Emergent Wetland per Cowardin, and are expected to constitute wetlands under Corps, RWQCB and CDFW jurisdiction. The federally KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. 9 protected Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontale var. obispoense) was also identified in two of the tributary drainages. LOVR Roadside Channel The LOVR Roadside Channel is located along the northern property boundary, and contains a dense willow canopy and wetland understory, along a narrow and shallow constructed channel area. The willow canopy has developed over the last 10 years since the 2005 Wetland Delineation was completed by Morro Group, and the channel appears to have lost capacity due to vegetative growth and sediment accumulation. Current channel dimensions in this area ranged from six inches to two feet deep, and one to four feet wide. Willow canopy and wetland vegetation extended beyond the channel banks into the meadow area, apparently the result of the constructed roadways impounding seasonal surface and subsurface water. Because the majority of in-‐channel and abutting areas are dominated by wetland vegetation, the LOVR channel is classified as Palustrine Emergent Wetland per Cowardin, and is expected to constitute wetlands under Corps, RWQCB and CDFW jurisdiction. Jurisdictional boundaries in this area extend into the LOVR right-‐of way to the road shoulder, which was outside the Froom Ranch property line. Wet Meadow Areas The low-‐lying portion of the site between Froom Creek and the LOVR Roadside Channel/Calle Joaquin is relatively flat, composed of heavy clay soils, and contains areas of annual grassland and perennial grassland dominated by non-‐native species such as Italian ryegrass and reed fescue. Patches of wetland plants were present indicating seasonal impoundment of surface and groundwater by the constructed roadways. Based on aerial photograph interpretation and review of soils, Froom Creek likely traversed through this part of the site prior to connecting with Prefumo Creek and then joining San Luis Obispo Creek in the vicinity of the LOVR Interchange. While areas near LOVR consisted primarily of seasonally moist areas dominated by annual grassland species, areas mapped as wetland along the realigned portion of Calle Joaquin exhibited a more dense cover of perennial wetland plants trending more toward coastal and valley freshwater marsh habitat, which indicates prolonged saturated soil conditions compared to areas along LOVR. Non-‐riparian wet meadow areas dominated by wetland vegetation, are classified as Palustrine Emergent Wetland per Cowardin, and are expected to constitute wetlands under Corps jurisdiction. Detention Basins The northern basin is an approximately one-‐acre temporary basin constructed in upland grassland areas to receive runoff during the construction of Home Depot. During construction of the Irish Hills Plaza, a swale and culverts were installed behind the current Whole Foods and TJ Max buildings to direct surface runoff into this basin and then let it spread overland to support the historic wetland feature in the area. Seasonally ponded water was evident in the basin during aerial photograph review, and patchy occurrences of seasonal wetland vegetation were noted during recent field work confirming some wetland habitat attributes are still present. However, it is our understanding that once the Home Depot and surrounding areas were constructed, surface runoff from this development was directed into the larger basins constructed further south. As a result, this temporary basin was not identified as a potential jurisdictional feature since it was constructed in an upland as a temporary basin to support construction of the neighboring project. KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. 10 The approximately 3.2-‐acre southern basin is a permanent feature constructed in upland grassland habitat to receive runoff from the Plaza Hills I development fronting LOVR. Following development of the Home Depot project, surface runoff was then directed into this basin. It consists of two basins and a spillway, and was sized to contain runoff from any future Phase II development within the study area (Wallace Group, 2006). This basin releases water to the LOVR Roadside Channel by a storm drain and swale. During large storm events, it was designed to discharge water into the wet meadow area along Calle Joaquin via a concrete spillway. Otherwise, water leaves the basin through evaporation and percolation into the ground. This feature was also not identified as a potential jurisdictional feature since it was constructed in an upland area and is part of the neighboring project’s storm drainage system. Both basins are man-‐made structures constructed in uplands, fed primarily by concentrated hardscape runoff from neighboring development. Removing the water source to either basin would likely result in the loss of wetland hydrology, indicating that both basins function as "spigot wetlands", not as natural features. As such, these basins and associated swales are not expected to be subject to Clean Water Act or California Fish and Game Code requirements, and were not delineated in this report. Previously Restored Wetland Areas As mapped by Morro Group in 2005 and as discussed in the Olberding Environmental 2007 Final Mitigation report, a total of 0.62-‐acre of seasonal wetland habitat was restored to pre-‐impact conditions within the northern portion of the study area, following unauthorized grading and stockpiling of soils during construction activities associated with Home Depot. The restoration areas consist of a 0.36-‐acre swale located along the Ranch House road between the temporary basin and the LOVR Roadside Channel, and a 0.26-‐acre area between the Ranch House road and the Irish Hills Plaza parking lot. Please refer to Data Points 16 and 17, respectively. These areas were restored to original contours following removal of unauthorized fill materials, and were then allowed to return to natural conditions. Based on our understanding, no seeding, revegetation, or other enhancement actions were performed, and no conservation easement or other restrictions were placed on the sites. The two sites were included in the mitigation monitoring program required by the Wetland Restoration and Mitigation Plans Relating to the Froom Ranch/Home Depot Project (Olberding Environmental, 2002), and following a verification visit conducted on February 12, 2015, the Corps determined that both sites had met all required performance standards. Currently, both restoration sites are dominated by grassland habitat, and do not exhibit wetland vegetation, soils, or hydrology. However, as stated in the Corps Determination of Compliance letter dated February 19, 2015, the sites are still subject to long-‐term management requirements per the 2002 Mitigation Plan. 4.2 Vegetation Froom Creek and Tributaries The Froom Creek channel was mostly unvegetated, and where present, vegetation consisted primarily of annual grasses, forbs and shrubs common to grassland, coastal scrub and serpentine influenced areas. The smaller tributary channels to Froom Creek in the southwestern part of the site were dominated primarily by grassland species such as Italian rye grass with patches of wetland vegetation. Drainages 1 and 2 also contained areas of coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. 11 California bay (Umbellularia californica) trees. Wetland indicator species present in this area included brown-‐headed rush (Juncus phaeocephalus -‐ FACW), clustered field sedge (Carex praegracilis -‐ FACW), and common rush (Juncus effusus -‐ FACW). A small seep in Drainage 3, and a larger spring fed wetland area at the confluence of Drainages 1 and 2, contained dominant cover of water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa -‐ OBL), spike rush (Eleocharis macrostachya – OBL), and brown-‐headed rush, along with seep spring monkeyflower (Mimulus guttatus -‐ OBL), and western vervain (Verbena lasiostachys -‐ FAC). Upper reaches of Drainages 1 and 2 also contained occurrences of the federally protected Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense), which is an obligate wetland species. A large seep area extends north from Drainage 2 along a hillside, and is dominated by clustered field sedge and spike rush. Portions of this area demonstrated tussock formation resulting from grazing impacts. The upland areas associated with the Froom tributaries were dominated by annual and perennial grasses and forbs, and included areas of native serpentine bunchgrass composed of purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra). Other native species observed in upland grassland areas included red maids (Calandrinia ciliata), star lily (Zigadenus fremontii), hayfield tarweed (Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia), and blue dicks (Dichelostemma capitatum). Wet Meadow Areas Wet meadow areas adjacent to the LOVR channel were dominated by clustered field sedge, Italian ryegrass (Lolium perenne ssp. multiflorum -‐ FAC), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata -‐ FAC), meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum -‐ FACW), brown headed rush, spikerush, birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus -‐ FAC), curly dock (Rumex crispus -‐ FAC), bristly ox tongue (Helminthotheca echioides -‐ FACU), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon -‐ FACU). Meadow areas upslope from the LOVR channel were dominated by Italian rye grass, foxtail (Hordeum marinum -‐ FACU), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus -‐ UPL), mayweed (Anthemis cotula -‐ FACU), slender wild oat (Avena barbata -‐ UPL), storksbill (Erodium botrys -‐ FACU), perennial mustard (Hirschfeldia incana-‐ UPL), and red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens -‐ FACU). Areas adjacent to Calle Joaquin were dominated by clustered field sedge, and included distinct areas of silverweed (Potentilla anserina -‐ OBL), brown-‐headed rush, round-‐leaf leather root (Hoita orbicularis -‐ OBL), and rough sedge (Carex senta -‐ OBL). Ponded areas containing California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus -‐ OBL), were present along portions of the property edge along Calle Joaquin. Meadow areas upslope from Calle Joaquin were dominated by clustered field sedge, tall fescue (Festuca or Schedonorus arundinaceae -‐ FACU), Italian ryegrass, meadow barley, prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola -‐ FACU), and red maids (Calandrinia ciliata -‐ FACU). Many areas of the site contained the introduced annual Italian ryegrass, which is classified as a facultative plant (equally likely to occur within wetland or upland). The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-‐IPC) Inventory Rating for Italian ryegrass is Moderate (having substantial and apparent—but generally not severe—ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure). Italian ryegrass is widespread in California due to use as a planted forage species and for erosion control, and is found in coastal valley and foothill grasslands throughout the state. It germinates and grows in seasonally moist soil conditions, but also grows strongly in dry conditions on clay soils. It is never found in long-‐term saturated soil conditions with strong hydrophytic indicator KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. 12 species, but is sometimes found in or near the upper edge of seasonally wet areas. Because of these characteristics, reliance on the dominance of Italian ryegrass to determine wetland presence could result in an erroneous interpretation of wetland status. Several Sample Points located in the upper meadow areas documented Italian ryegrass as a co-‐dominant species with clustered field sedge, resulting in 100 percent hydrophytic vegetation cover in locations with no wetland hydrology features. In several cases the Data Form Prevalence Index worksheet results confirmed that these Italian ryegrass-‐dominated areas were functioning as upland habitat, despite having passed the Dominance Test. LOVR Roadside Channel The LOVR roadside channel contained a dense band of riparian habitat consistent with the Central Coast Arroyo Willow Riparian Scrub plant described by Holland (1986), and the arroyo willow thickets described by Sawyer et al. (2009). The riparian woodland habitat is dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis -‐ FACW). Understory plants present within the riparian area included California blackberry (Rubus ursinus -‐ FAC), tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis -‐ FACW), water speedwell (Veronica anagallis-‐aquatica -‐ OBL), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus -‐ UPL), Fuller’s teasel (Dipsacus fullonum -‐ FAC), and poison hemlock (Conium maculatum -‐ FACW). The roadside ditch had a relatively consistent understory cover that continued into the wet meadow areas. 4.3 Soils The NRCS identified eight soil map units as occurring on the study area (refer to Figure 3). Of these map units, Riverwash, and Xererts-‐Xerolls are listed as hydric soils by the NRCS California Hydric Soils List for San Luis Obispo County. An unnamed component of Cropley clay, 0-‐2 % slopes, is also considered hydric, when present in drainageways. Cropley clay 0-‐2 % slopes. Cropley clay consists of a dark gray or black (10YR 4/1, 3/1, 2/1 moist) clay horizon about 36 inches thick, underlain by a light brown calcareous clay loam to 60 inches or more. Permeability of this soil is slow and the available water capacity is high. Cropley soils formed in alluvium developed from sedimentary rocks. An unnamed component of Cropley clay is listed as a hydric soil when present in drainageways. This inclusion is typically very dark gray throughout, with mottles present in the lower horizons. This dark gray soil was not observed on-‐ site. Mapped inclusions within this series include Diablo clay, Los Osos loam, and Salinas silty clay loam. Diablo and Cibo clays 9-‐15 and 15 -‐ 30 % slopes. Diablo clay consists of a 0 to 23 inch, black (10YR 2/1) clay formed in residual material weathered from sandstone, shale, or mudstone, commonly displaying fine roots to four inches. The structure is granular to 4 inches, and coarse, angular, and blocky to 23 inches. This moderately to steeply sloping soil is very poorly drained. The soil has moderate erodibility and high shrink-‐swell characteristics, and has potential septic system constraints due to steep slopes and slow percolation. Cibo clay consists of a 0 to 31 inch, dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) clay formed in residual material weathered from hard metasedimentary rocks, and commonly displaying fine roots. The structure is coarse and angular blocky. This moderately to steeply sloping soil is considered very poorly drained. The soil has moderate erodibility and high shrink-‐swell characteristics, and potential septic system constraints due to steep slopes, shallow depth to bedrock, and slow percolation. KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. 13 Los Osos-‐Diablo Complex 5-‐9 and 15-‐30 percent slopes. Los Osos-‐Diablo Complex consists of about 40 percent Los Osos soil, and 35 percent Diablo soil, found on foothills and mountain ridge tops. These soils are moderately deep, well drained, and have low permeability. Typical Los Osos-‐Diablo Complex soil (moist) consists of a very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) loam or black (10YR 2/2) clay, 40-‐60 inches thick. Permeability of Los Osos-‐Diablo Complex soil is rapid, and the available water capacity is low. The available water capacity of Los Osos-‐Diablo Complex soil is low to very high, while surface runoff is rapid. Obispo-‐Rock outcrop 15-‐75% slopes. Obispo-‐Rock outcrop consists of about 50 percent Obispo soil and 30 percent Rock outcrop. Obispo soils are shallow, well drained, slowly permeable soils formed in residual materials weathered from serpentine rock. Typical Obispo soil (moist) consists of a black (10YR 2/1) clay to a depth of about 18 inches, underlain by serpentine rock. The available water capacity of Obispo-‐Rock outcrop soil is low, while surface runoff is rapid or very rapid. Riverwash includes soils found in active stream and river channels, and consists of excessively drained, water deposited sand, loamy sand, and sandy loam with varying amounts of gravel and cobbles present. Riverwash soils located in and along stream channels are generally subject to flooding during and immediately after every storm. Riverwash soils are typically excessively drained, but can be somewhat poorly drained in low lying areas. Permeability is very rapid, surface runoff is very slow, and the erosion hazard is variable. Typical inclusions include Psamments and Fluvents, and Corralitos soils. Riverwash and Psamments and Fluvents located in drainageways are listed as hydric soils. These soils have a Hydric Criteria Code of 4: soils that are frequently flooded for long or very long duration during the growing season. Xererts-‐Xerolls-‐Urban land complex 0-‐15% slopes. The Xererts-‐Xerolls-‐Urban land complex consists of nearly level to strongly sloping soils and miscellaneous areas that are covered by urban structures. Most areas of these soils are used for urban development. The soil materials have been modified by earthmoving equipment or covered by urban structures so that much of their original shape and physical characteristics have been altered. The Xererts of this complex are Cropley or Los Osos-‐Diablo soils. The percentage of the various soils in this complex and the degree of urbanization vary from place to place (SCS 1984). An unnamed inclusion of the Xererts-‐Xerolls-‐ Urban land complex associated with depressions has a Hydric Criteria Code of 2A: soils in Aquic suborder that are somewhat poorly drained and have a frequently occurring water table less than 0.5 feet from the surface for a significant period (usually 14 consecutive days or more) during the growing season. Observed Soil Conditions The upper 14-‐18 inches of the soil profile were examined at 24 sample points to determine presence or absence of positive indicators for hydric soils, and to determine if the soil map units mapped and described by the NRCS were consistent with observed soil characteristics. In addition to the 24 soil pits dug at sample points, three backhoe pits were dug above, below, and adjacent to the hillside seep area between Drainage 2 and Drainage 3, to examine subsoil conditions and assess hydrology and connectivity with the abutting drainage feature. Study Area Boundary Soil Type Cropley clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes Diablo and Cibo clays, 15 to 30 percent slopes Diablo and Cibo clays, 9 to 15 percent slopes Los Osos-Diablo complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes Los Osos-Diablo complex, 5 to 9 percent slopes Obispo-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 75 percent slopes Riverwash Salinas silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Xererts-Xerolls-Urban land complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes 0 230 460 690 920115Feet Soils Map Figure 3Froom Ranch Source(s): (c) Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers (2010): NRCS, SLO County Soils Data (2008) John Madonna Construction, Inc. 1 in = 400 ft KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. 15 Soils observed on the site were generally clayey and often gravelly, with moist and saturated clays present within portions of Drainages 1, 2, and 3, and near the LOVR roadside channel and Calle Joaquin. Areas identified as wetlands occurred in Los Osos-‐Diablo, Cropley, and Diablo and Cibo soils. Non-‐wetland waters were found associated with all soil types present in the study area. Hydric soil criteria per the 2008 Arid West Manual were observed in most of the soil pit locations with dominant wetland vegetation. Several additional pits exhibited redoximorphic features that were either too faint, or too deep to meet one of the Arid West criteria. Previous delineations conducted in 2004 and 2005 classified soils as hydric if redoximorphic features were observed anywhere within the profile. This lower standard for hydric soil criteria, combined with wetter conditions and more vegetative diversity, may have influenced the larger wetland boundary lines mapped in the meadow areas along LOVR in 2004 and 2005. 4.4 Hydrology Froom Creek flows east and then south through the site, before entering San Luis Creek on the south side of Highway 101. Three small ephemeral tributaries drain the southwestern portion of the site, and join Froom Creek near the southern property boundary. The LOVR roadside channel parallels LOVR along the eastern property boundary, and also drains to San Luis Creek. Most of the eastern portion of the property between Froom Creek and LOVR/Calle Joaquin is within the FEMA 1% flood zone (100-‐year base flood area). The section of Froom Creek within the property consists of an incised channel, confined by a man-‐ made earthen berm along the eastern bank. The examination identified bed and bank structure with a defined OHWM four to 15 feet wide, consisting of Riverwash and cobble/gravel deposits. The channel was dry during the investigation with no signs of flow over the last two years. The tributary channels exhibited defined bed and bank structure, and were mostly dry, except for a small seep in Drainage 3 (Sample Point #20), and a larger spring fed wetland area at the confluence of Drainages 1 and 2 (Sample Point #19). A large seep area extends north from Drainage 2 along the adjacent hillside (Sample Point #22). The LOVR roadside channel contained saturated soils, drift lines and debris racks, and was dominated by arroyo willow, brown-‐headed rush, and other hydric vegetation. Low elevation meadow areas adjacent to the LOVR channel and along Calle Joaquin exhibited hydric soil indicators and dominant wetland vegetation, but no obvious hydrology indicators. These areas are within the 100-‐year flood zone, and are flooded periodically during high rainfall events. In addition, these areas have exhibited high ground water levels during high rainfall years, and are hydrologically connected to the LOVR Roadside channel by groundwater flows. Upper meadow areas are flooded less often, and groundwater flows may have been reduced by construction of the Irish Hills Plaza to the west. Stormwater collected from the Plaza hardscape now is directed into the LOVR channel or into the detention basins, which has changed groundwater flow patterns and hydrologic connectivity in the area. Large portions of the site along LOVR and Calle Joaquin are within the 100-‐year flood zone, and as such could be inundated by flood waters during large rainfall events. Due to ongoing drought conditions in the region, the meadow areas examined in this report have not flooded in several years, and groundwater levels are lower than years with normal or above normal precipitation. KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. 16 In 2014, a total of eight shallow monitoring wells were installed on the LOVR/Calle Joaquin meadow areas to document groundwater levels within the top 18 inches of the soil (refer to Figure 4b for well locations). Data was recorded by HOBO U20L water level loggers through the 2014-‐ 2015 rainy season. The shallow wells found no groundwater present within 18 inches of the surface during the 2013/2014 rainfall year, which produced 10.6 inches of rainfall for the San Luis Obispo area (Cal Poly ITRC Weather Station). 4.5 Jurisdictional Determination Summary The boundary lines between potential wetlands and other waters of the U.S. identified in this report are based on the methodology presented in the Arid West Manual, and reflect the conditions currently present on the site. The natural drainage features including Froom Creek and its tributary drainages (Drainages 1, 2, and 3) were delineated based on the extent of an OHWM or areas containing all three wetland criteria. The wet meadow areas are apparently the result of LOVR and Calle Joaquin (and surrounding development) impounding surface flow and groundwater. While large areas of Italian ryegrass are present in the grassland in this portion of the site, detailed analysis of the soil profile was used to determine if the specific area was in fact a wetland. The two restored areas in the northern part of the site referenced in previous studies did not meet Arid West wetland criteria, and are functioning as upland grassland. The reduced wetland areas reflect the new normal conditions, including changes in surface and subsurface hydrology from adjacent development, changes in plant composition, and current drought conditions, as documented through application of the Arid West guidelines. Due to the large number of sample points examined in this study, the collected information was summarized in the following tables to assist during review. Please refer to Figures 4, 4a and 4b for the location of the sample points, and the associated jurisdictional boundary lines. KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. 17 Table 1. Sample Point Results Summary Sample Point # Hydrophytic Vegetation Hydric Soil Wetland Hydrology Jurisdictional Determination 1 NO NO NO Upland 2 YES YES YES Wetland 3 YES YES YES Wetland 4 NO NO NO Upland 5 YES YES YES Wetland 6 YES NO NO Upland 7 YES YES YES Wetland 8 YES YES YES Wetland 9 NO NO NO Upland 10 YES YES YES Wetland 11 YES NO NO Upland 12 YES YES YES Wetland 13 YES YES NO Upland 14 YES YES YES Wetland 15 YES NO NO Upland 16 NO NO NO Upland 17 NO NO NO Upland 18 YES NO NO Upland 19 YES YES YES Wetland 20 YES YES YES Wetland 21 NO NO NO Upland 22 YES YES YES Wetland 23 YES NO NO Other Waters 24 NO NO NO Upland Los Osos Valley RoadCalle J o a q u i n Irish Hills PlazaDrainage 1 Drainage 2 Drainage 3 Froom Creek Figure 4a Figure 4b MountainbrookChurch Irish Hills Natural Reserve Study Area Boundary CDFW Jurisdiction (5.41 acres) USACE Wetlands (7.25 acres) USACE Other Waters (2.66 acres) John Madonna Construction, Inc.0 200 400 600 800100Feet Wetland Delineation Overview Source(s): RRM Design Froom Ranch Figure 41 in = 350 ft Drainage 1 Drainage 2 Drainage 3 Froom Creek Froom Creek23 24 22 21 19 18 20 Match Line Wetland Seep Wetland Seep Wetland Sample Points Study Area Boundary CDFW Jurisdiction (5.41 acres) USACE Wetlands (7.25 acres) USACE Other Waters (2.66 acres) John Madonna Construction, Inc.0 110 220 330 44055Feet Wetland Delineation Map Source(s) : RRM Design (Froom Ranch Topographic Basemap) Froom Ranch Figure 4a1 in = 200 ft 24 MountainbrookChurch Irish Hills Natural Reserve Froom Creek 15 14 13 12 11 7 6 5 4 1 2 10 8 9 3 16 17 48" Storm DrainLos Osos Valley RoadCalle Jo a q u i n Irish Hills PlazaStorm Water Basin Temporary Retention Basin Drainage 1 Drainage 2 Drainage 3 18 19 20 Irish Hills Plaza HWY 101 Irish Hills Natural Reserve Wetland Wetland Seep Sample Points Culvert Inlet/Outlet Monitoring Well Location Study Area Boundary CDFW Jurisdiction (5.41 acres) USACE Wetlands (7.25 acres) USACE Other Waters (2.66 acres) John Madonna Construction, Inc.0 110 220 330 44055Feet Wetland Delineation Map Froom Ranch Figure 4b1 in = 200 ft 24 Match Line Source(s) : RRM Design (Froom Ranch Topographic Basemap) KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. 21 Of interest, observed changes to area hydrology over the last 10 years include: ¥ construction of the adjacent Costco, Home Depot, and Irish Hills Plaza developments; ¥ transport of the resulting hardscape runoff to the LOVR channel or the detention basins; and ¥ Calle Joaquin construction and associated drainage alterations, resulting in the separated wetland area between the site and Highway 101. Observed changes to on-‐site vegetation over the last 10 years include : ¥ increased presence of clustered field sedge (FACW) in wet meadow areas; ¥ disappearance of creek clover (Trifolium wormskjoldii -‐ FACW), and rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis -‐ FACW) from Calle Joaquin wet meadow; ¥ appearance of reed fescue (FACU) as a dominant in the Calle Joaquin wet meadow; ¥ growth of arroyo willow shrubs (FACW) along the LOVR roadside channel; and ¥ appearance of round leaved leather root (OBL) along Calle Joaquin. Rainfall patterns and amounts (rainfall data from the Cal Poly ITRC Weather Station, compiled by rainfall year) were similar despite current drought conditions, as documented below: ¥ 2001-‐2005 had 2 years of at or above normal rainfall (22.9, and 29.8 inches), and 3 years below average (14.79, 15.3, and 16.02 inches). ¥ 2009-‐2013 had 2 years well above normal rainfall (31.7, 31.5), and 3 years below average (14.6, 14.3, and 10.6 inches). 5.0 CONCLUSION This report identifies potential federal and state jurisdictional boundaries within the property, as determined by KMA following a field investigation conducted in winter and spring of 2015. Waters of the U.S. and State of California identified within this report are subject to verification by the Corps and other agencies. As shown on Figures 4a and 4b, Froom Creek, its tributary channels, the LOVR Roadside channel and the abutting wet meadow areas along LOVR and Calle Joaquin are considered to be potentially jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act. Portions of these areas also fall under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB and CDFW as waters of the state. 5.1 Federal Waters The areas that are considered potentially jurisdictional by the Corps consist of wetlands and other waters as mapped on Figures 4a and 4b. The majority of Froom Creek and the associated tributary channels experience a seasonal flow regime and lack dominant wetland vegetation within the OHWM, and such areas are mapped as non-‐wetland other waters habitat (Riverine Intermittent Streambed). Wet meadow areas and spring or seep fed portions of the tributary channels that contain dominant perennial wetland vegetation are mapped as wetland habitat (Palustrine Emergent Wetland). Acreage of the identified jurisdictional areas is presented below. KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. 22 The delineation identified a total of approximately 9.90 acres of Corps-‐jurisdictional waters of the U.S. including wetlands within the site (refer to Table 2). This area calculation is approximate, and has not been confirmed by the Corps. All Corps-‐jurisdictional areas listed in Table 2 also fall under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB as waters of the State of California. No isolated waters were identified within the study area. Table 2. Summary of Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. Waters of the U.S. Total Area (square feet / acre) Total Linear Feet Wetlands Wetland within OHWM 62,420 / 1.43 1,764 Wet Meadow 253,170 / 5.81 N/A Other Waters Intermittent Streambed within OHWM 115,736 / 2.66 8,176 Total Waters of the U.S. 431,326 / 9.90 9,940 5.2 CDFW Jurisdictional Areas As shown on Figures 4a and 4b, Froom Creek and its tributaries, the LOVR channel, and the Calle Joaquin ponding zone fall under CDFW regulatory authority per the California Fish and Game Code. The wet meadow areas are not directly associated with bed and bank features or riparian habitat, and therefore are not expected to be regulated by CDFW. The delineation identified a total of approximately 5.41 acres of CDFW jurisdictional area (refer to Table 3). CDFW jurisdiction includes all Waters of the U.S. within the OHWM listed in Table 2, and additional areas extending to the outer edge of associated riparian vegetation or the property boundaries. Table 3. Summary of CDFW Jurisdictional Areas CDFW Jurisdictional Areas* Total Area (square feet/acre) Total Linear Feet Froom Creek and tributary channels, LOVR roadside channel, Calle Joaquin 235,528 / 5.41 9,841 Total CDFW Jurisdictional Area 235,528 / 5.41 9,841 * Channel width at top of bank or outer extent of associated riparian vegetation. These jurisdictional areas and boundaries are subject to review and verification by the Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW, and this report should be submitted to these agencies as part of any permit applications associated with the proposed project. During the permit review process, the Corps and other agencies may conduct a site visit to verify the jurisdictional boundaries identified in this report, and may approve the report or request amendments to the report based on their findings. KMA advises all interested parties to treat the information contained herein as preliminary pending written verification of jurisdictional boundaries by the Corps. KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. 23 6.0 REFERENCES Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: vascular plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley. Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-‐79/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. Grumbles, Benjamin H., and John Paul Woodley, Jr. 2007. Clean water act jurisdiction following the U. S. Supreme Court's decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States, June 5, 2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of the Army. Guzy, G. S., and R. M. Anderson. 2001. Memorandum: Supreme Court ruling concerning CWA jurisdiction of isolated waters. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers. Hickman, J. Ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press: Berkeley, California. Holland, Robert. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Department of Fish and Game. Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner. 2014. The National Wetland Plant List: 2014 Update of Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2014-‐41: 1-‐42. Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Year 2000 Revised. GretagMacbeth, New York. Sawyer, John, Todd Keeler-‐Wolf and Julie Evens. 2009. Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0), ed. J.S. Wakely, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-‐08-‐28. Vicksburg, MS. U. S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States, version 6.0, edited by G. W. Hurt and L. M. Vasilas. USDA, NRCS in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Fort Worth, TX. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2015. Web soil survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory available at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ APPENDIX A Wetland Determination Data Forms KMA APPENDIX B Photo Plate KMA KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. Photo Plate Appendix B -‐ Photo Plate Photo 1. View of the upper portion of Froom Creek, looking southeasterly (downstream). Note broad, dry, cobbled channel with no pool or riffle structure. Photo 2. View of the middle portion of Froom Creek, grasslands, the permanent detention basin, and wet meadow areas along LOVR and Calle Joaquin, looking east. KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 3. View of the upper portion of the site and Drainage 2, looking east. Photo 4. View of the LOVR roadside channel, looking east along LOVR from the northeast corner of the Study Area. Note lack of defined channel structure in foreground, and dense willow canopy in the distance along lower section of the channel. KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 5. View of ponded water and bulrush occurrences along Calle Joaquin, looking southeast. Photo 6. View of Sample Points 1 (black arrow) and 2 (white arrow), looking east toward LOVR. Sample Point 3 is located in the LOVR channel to the right of 2. KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 7. View of Sample Points 4 (shovel) and 5 (white arrow), looking east toward LOVR. Photo 8. View of Sample Points 6 (shovel) and 7 (white arrow), looking east toward LOVR. KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 9. View of Sample Points 9 (foreground) and 8 (white arrow), looking east toward the LOVR / Calle Joaquin intersection. Photo 10. View of Sample Points 10 (shovel) and 11 (white arrow), looking west toward the permanent detention basin. Note dominant cover of OBL species at 10, and upland grasses at 11. KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 11. View of Sample Points 13 (foreground) and 12 (white arrow), looking east toward the LOVR / Calle Joaquin intersection. Photo 12. View of Sample Points 15 (shovel) and 14 (white arrow), looking east toward the LOVR / Calle Joaquin intersection. KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 13. View of Sample Point 19, in wetland area near confluence with Drainage 1. Photo 14. View of Sample Point 20 at the edge of the small seep on the bank of Drainage 3. KMA Froom Ranch Delineation of Waters of the U.S. and State of California John Madonna Construction, Inc. Photo Plate Photo 15. View of Sample Points 22 (arrow) and 21 (shovel) in the hillside seep area near Drainage 2, looking south. Photo 16. View of Sample Points 23 (arrow) and 24 (shovel) in and adjacent to Drainage 1, looking west. APPENDIX E.6 Preliminary Jurisdiction Determination This Page Intentionally Left Blank. APPENDIX E.7 Wood Environment & Infrastructure Site Reconnaissance Field Notes This Page Intentionally Left Blank. 1 Re: Froom Ranch Peer Review Site Reconnaissance Field Notes The following field notes and attached map (Figure 1) are based on observations made by botanist John Chesnut during the January 18, 2018 Froom Ranch Project site reconnaissance. The observations refer mainly to the upper slope of the Froom Ranch project site. During the site reconnaissance visit, several species including Eastwood’s delphinium (Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae); San Luis Obispo dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina); and Chorro Chreek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense) (Figure 1) were discovered to be located well outside the previously mapped polygons of these species as detailed in the Biological Resources Inventory report by Merk (2016). The new observations made during the January 2018 site reconnaissance indicate that a non-drought year survey would likely show currently occupied polygons have expanded. As shown in the attached Figure 1, a nearly continuous occurrence of Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense) exists for approximately 400 meters along a dry stream drainage. This currently mapped footprint is much larger than the previously documented reported population size (Merk 2016). Just north of the Chorro Creek bog thistle polygon, is a small area where approximately 50 to 100 individuals were observed. These individuals and were noted to have been subjected to severe damage from horse grazing, as the uprooted rosettes were evidence of herbivory. Chorro Creek bog thistle (CNPS CRPR 1B.2) is federally listed as Endangered and State of California listed Endangered. The herbivory observed from horse grazing and also the potential for encroachment of weeds associated with development is of great concern- as this species is both state and federally listed endangered. Evaluation and mitigation of the Chorro Creek bog thistle on this site is recommended to maintain the integrity and increase sustainability of these populations San Luis Obispo dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina; CNPS CRPR 1B.3) was observed south of the drainage in a group of serpentine rock outcroppings. No San Luis Obispo dudleya were documented or mapped in this area by the Merk report. It is assumed that any Serpentine rocky slopes within the site will support more extensive occurrences of this species than were mapped in this area, and should be considered during evaluation and mitigation. Blochman’s dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae; CNPS CRPR 1B.1) was observed in rosette stage at eastern head of the disturbed area. Per communication with John Madonna by Wood botanist John Chestnut, these disturbed lines are attributed to excavations that were completed to determine the location and age of a fault trace that occurs along this hill slope. This rosette is located close to a polygon of Blochman’s dudleya that was documented in the Merk report. Some of this population was most likely lost to the excavation activity that occurred in that area. A Delphinium rosette was found to be occurring on the slope well below the previously mapped extent. This indicates the resources providing necessary nutrients to the Delphiniums are highly underestimated, and most likely in co-existence with the perennial serpentine grassland extent. In addition to the Delphinium rosette, a single spineflower (Chorozanthe sp.) observation was made among the abundant bog thistle polygon along the drainage. Due to its stage of development, it is unknown if this species is a local sensitive species or a common species. In addition to these sensitive plant sightings and recommendations, further habitat mapping is also recommended as the perennial bunchgrass observed in the field during the 2018 site reconnaissance is dominant- spread over much larger polygons than previously mapped in the Merk report. Four separate locations outlined on Figure 1 show the approximate areas of observed serpentine grassland. The two approximate highest concentrations of the perennial grasses, Calochortus and dudleya that are characteristic of serpentine grassland habitats are to the southwest of the site. This high concentration runs north and south of the drainage that holds a large polygon of Chorro Creek bog thistle. These perennial serpentine grasslands will support serpentine associate species, and therefore, a more accurate and less conservative effort for habitat mapping is necessary. F I G U R E PacificOcean Site Reconnaissance Observations (01/18/2018)Froom RanchSan Luis Obispo, Ca. Path: Q:\3551_Planning\FroomRanch_1755100034\MXD\ReportFigures\Memo20180418\Fig1_FroomRanchObs_v3.mxd, herbert.mendes 4/25/2018 11 inch = 500 feet o0500250Feet Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS user communitySource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Legend Project Boundary Species Observations !.Blochman's Dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae) !.Chorro Creek Bog Thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense) !.Delphinium Rosette !.San Luis Obispo Dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina) !.Spineflower (Chorozanthe sp.) Serpentine Grassland !. !. !. !.!. !.!.!.!.!.!. !. !. !. !. !.!. !. !. !. !. !.!. !. !. !.