Survey Results. - San Mateo, California

Kingridge Sanitary Sewer Line Improvements- Phase III, Biological Resources Report

H. T. Harvey & Associates 3 July 2012

27

Survey Results. Site surveys conducted within a wetland delineation study area that included the a section of the ravine extending through the study area and also within downstream reaches of the ravine but did not extend into privately-fenced yards identified approximately 0.48 ac of jurisdictional Waters of the U.S (H. T. Harvey & Associates 2010a). This study identified 0.33 ac of aquatic habitat within the opposing OHW marks of the stream channel through the length of the wetland delineation study area study area and 0.13 ac of wetlands along the stream in the downstream reach of the ravine (outside the Project study area and Project footprint. Within the Project study area, 0.28 ac of aquatic channel occurs, no streamside wetlands occur, and 2 small, isolated seasonal wetlands occur, comprising 0.02 ac (Figure 2). As this stream discharges to Laurel Creek and eventually, to San Francisco Bay, this stream is expected to be fully jurisdictional. However, the isolated wetlands within the current Project study area were observed to be fed by artificial hydrology in the form of a rooftop collector drain, which channels storm water and discharges it in a concentrated area, thus favoring the establishment of hydrophytic species such as tall umbrella sedge. As these areas are entirely reliant on artificial hydrology, and did not exhibit indicators of hydric soils or a vegetation community dominated by hydrophytes (H. T. Harvey & Associates 2010a), these features are not expected to be jurisdictional. Finally, lateral 2 storm drain outlets within the study area had eroded soils in the areas where they discharge to the unnamed stream. These storm drains represent anthropogenic, non-tidal drainage features installed in uplands, and are also not expected to be jurisdictional. Due to the likelihood that 1 micro-pile may be placed within the stream channel within the upper reach of the stream, it is recommended that the Project apply for Nationwide Permits 18 (Minor Discharges) and 33 (Temporary Construction, Access, and Dewatering).

State Water Quality Control Board Jurisdiction

The RWQCB is responsible for protecting surface, ground, and coastal waters within its boundaries, pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of the California Water Code. The RWQCB has both federal and state jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, for activities that could result in a discharge of dredged or fill material to a water body. Federal authority is exercised whenever a proposed project requires a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the USACE in the form of a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. State authority is exercised when a proposed project is not subject to federal authority, in the form of a Notice of Coverage, Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements. Many wetlands fall into RWQCB jurisdiction, including some wetlands that are not subject to USACE jurisdiction. RWQCB jurisdiction of other waters, such as streams and lakes, extends below the ordinary high water mark. The RWQCB has no formal technical manual or expanded regulations to help in identifying their jurisdiction. The only guidance can be found in Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, Chapter 2 (Definitions), which states “‘waters of the State’ means any surface water or ground water, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” Survey Results. In the study area, all USACE-jurisdictional areas are also waters of the State. In our opinion, there are no other areas that should be considered Waters of the State on the study area (subject to concurrence by the RWQCB), particularly because the isolated wetlands



28

are entirely fed by artificial hydrology. An application must be made to the RWQCB, Central Coast Region, requesting 401 Water Quality Certification for impacts to the tidal waters (i.e., waters of the State) resulting from Project improvements.

Habitats Regulated Under Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq.

Activities that result in the diversion or obstruction of the natural flow of a stream, or substan-tially change its bed, channel or bank, or utilize any materials (including vegetation) from the streambed require that the applicant enter into a Streambed Alteration Agreement with CDFG, under sections 1600-1603 of the California Fish and Game Code. The CDFG potentially extends the definition of stream to include “intermittent and ephemeral streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue-line streams mapped on USGS quads, and watercourses with subsurface flows. Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance can also be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife” (CDFG 1994). Survey Results. The coast live oak/bay/mixed riparian forest that occurs in the study area represents riparian habitat as described under Fish and Game Code sections 1600-1603 (both riparian forest types within this matrix, including the blue gum-dominated forest, are jurisdictional). It is highly likely that CDFG will consider all areas underneath this canopy, up to the point of ornamental landscaping associated with private yards, jurisdictional due to the continuity of the riparian canopy at the site. CDFG is likely to regard the sharp difference between habitat quality and wildlife use within the canyon compared to the surrounding developed habitat outside the canyon to be the most important factor when making their determination. In such a case, they have the purview to claim all areas within the contiguous canopy. Therefore, it is likely that a permit from the CDFG (i.e., Streambed Alteration Agreement or SAA) under Section 1602 of Fish and Game Code will be required for Project actions that would alter the bed and banks of the creek and canyon or impact riparian habitat (including through tree removal or trimming) within the creek and canyon bed and banks. The CDFG will require compensatory mitigation for impacts to riparian habitat resulting in loss of woody vegetation. A tree survey was performed within the Project footprint and is provided as Appendix D.

City of San Mateo Heritage Tree Preservation Ordinance and Policies

The City of San Mateo has a Heritage Tree Ordinance (Municipal Code, Chapter 10.52), which serves to protect heritage trees. This chapter is intended to establish regulations for the removal of heritage trees within the city in order to retain as many trees as possible consistent with the purpose hereof and the reasonable economic enjoyment of private property. (Ord. 1997-24 § 1, 1997; Ord. 1984-7 § 1, 1984; Ord. 1968-35 § 3 (part), 1968: prior code § 65.50). Chapter 10.52.020 defines a heritage tree as any of the following: (1) Any bay (Umbellularia californica), buckeye (Aesculus spp.), oak (Quercus spp.), or redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) tree that has a diameter of ten (10) inches or more measured at forty-eight (48) inches above natural grade; (2) Any tree or stand of trees designated by resolution of the City Council to be of special historical value or of significant community benefit; (3) A stand of trees, the nature of which makes each dependent on the others for survival; (4) Any other tree with a trunk diameter



29

of sixteen (16) inches or more, measured at forty-eight (48) inches above natural grade. Chapter 10.52.050 of the City’s Code provides details regarding reforestation ratios. The proposed project would also be subject to the City’s General Plan 2030 Goal 4, Policy 6 which requires the preservation of heritage trees in accordance with the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance. Survey Results. Fifteen trees to be removed meet the definition of a protected heritage tree either due to being a oak or bay tree with a diameter of at least 10 inches at 48 inches above grade, or being any species of tree with a diameter of at least 16 inches. Therefore, replacement of the removed trees with 15 replacement trees, as either 15-gallon size, 24-inch box size, or other as determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation or designee, is consistent with the City Heritage Tree Preservation Ordinance.



30

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

This section describes our assessment of the impacts to biological resources expected to occur as a result of this Project. The Project is not expected to significantly impact any other sensitive wildlife or plant species if Best Management Practices and other conservation measures (as discussed below) are incorporated into Project activities. CEQA defines “significant effect on the environment” as “a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed project.” Under CEQA Guidelines section 15065, a project's effects on biotic resources are deemed significant where the project would:

• “substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species”

• “cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels”

• “threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community”

• “reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal” In addition to the section 15065 criteria that trigger mandatory findings of significance, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of other potential impacts to consider when analyzing the significance of a proposed project’s effects. The impacts listed in Appendix G may or may not be significant, depending on the level of the impact. For biological resources, these impacts include whether the project would:

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

• “have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service”

• “have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act”

• “interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites”

• “conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance”

• “conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan”



31

This section describes the assumptions and thresholds of significance developed to evaluate impacts on the biological resources of the study area that would result from Project activities. Two general assumptions that influence the assessment of impacts to the study area’s biotic resources are as follows:

1. Direct, detrimental impacts to plant and wildlife species are assumed to be correlated with the loss of habitats with which these species are associated. These losses could result from: site excavation; grading; filling; infrastructure construction; other damage to habitats such that they can no longer sustain a species, or so that the number of individuals that they sustain is reduced; and direct loss due to death, injury, or disturbance by construction activities and human uses to the extent that the species cannot continue their lifecycle activities. The disturbance associated with site construction activities within the Project footprint, including tree removal, could lead to reduction of use for some plant and animal species. However, because this Project is intended to remedy unsatisfactory and worsening site conditions, such as on-going erosion, landslides, and potential raw sewage leaks that could contaminate the watershed, direct, beneficial impacts to habitats are also expected to occur due to the Project. For example, implementation of the Project will protect water quality within the canyon and the unnamed stream and elsewhere downstream in the watershed, on-going erosion of the canyon banks due to the damaged sewer pipe and inadequate storm drain outfalls will be addressed and arrested, and contamination of habitats and soils on-site with raw sewage will be avoided.

2. Indirect impacts could occur in portions of the site not directly impacted, or to off-site habitats and species, due to such factors as degraded water quality; changes in hydrology; noise from construction; disturbance of wildlife from construction; competition by introduced plant species; and other factors.

KEY ASSUMPTIONS

We have made the following assumptions in order to complete this evaluation:

• The limits of construction, staging, and access used to determine the area of direct impacts (the Project footprint) were based on plans provided by Schaaf & Wheeler and discussions with Ben Schick, Peder Jorgensen, and Emily Straley of Schaaf & Wheeler regarding features and trees that will be impacted or avoided during tree removal activities, grading, slope protection, construction access, and micro-pile installation. The intention is to avoid impacts to sensitive habitats (i.e., riparian canopy, wetlands, and the aquatic stream channel) to the maximum extent practicable.

• The study area is located in a highly urbanized area, is isolated from nearby natural habitats elsewhere in the Project vicinity by roads, houses, and culverts, and is surrounded and currently affected by anthropogenic inputs to hydrology, and effects on plant and wildlife habitat such as pesticide and herbicide drift, domestic predators such as cats, routine disturbance and human presence, brush removal by local homeowners, etc.



32

• The proposed sewer replacement and improvements will represent an improvement on existing site conditions, which are unstable and rapidly worsening as the existing pipe incurs greater damage from age-related weakening, root intrusion, and bank erosion.

• All site access for construction and the ultimate development will occur through a driveway from Kingridge Drive.

• Due to the very small, narrow areas available for site access, only small construction equipment will be used during construction, thus minimizing construction-related impacts.

• All areas temporarily disturbed due to grading, tree removal, retaining wall installation, and sewer replacement will be restored to the original topography to the extent feasible (unless the original topography was unstable) and seeded with a native seed mix for erosion control.

EFFECTS FOUND TO BE LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT

Impacts to Developed/Ornamental Stands, Wetlands, and Aquatic Habitats

No long-term adverse effects are expected to occur to either developed/ornamental stands or wetlands within the study area. A small area (< 25 square feet [ft2]) of low-quality, non-jurisdictional seasonal wetlands will be affected by a retaining wall placement. However, as this area only exists due to artificial hydrology, which may be contributing to the current bank instability in this area, the engineered retaining wall is not seen as a significant effect to the habitat itself and instead would represent an improvement on existing conditions. A limited area of aquatic habitat will be lost by the installation of 1 micro-pile and a small area (< 20 ft2) of the surrounding habitat will be temporarily impacted by access for this Project element. The area of temporary impacts within the aquatic habitat is for construction access only. Thus, a total of no more than 1 ft2 of aquatic habitat will be permanently altered by placement of a micro-pile within these areas. These impacts are expected to be minor and self-mitigating in nature.

Potential Impacts to Common Wildlife Species

A variety of common wildlife species, including the species described in the Existing Conditions section above, occur regularly on the Project site and could be impacted by Project activities. However, all of these species are common regionally, and the Project site is not large enough to support any of these species in high numbers. Project activities will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of habitat available to any of these species regionally. Therefore any impacts to these species as a result of Project activities would not be considered significant under CEQA. All native migratory birds are protected by both state and federal statutes, and California native mammals are protected by the California Fish and Game Code (see below). We recommend that this Project implement conservation measures to avoid violating those statutes.

Potential Impacts to Breeding Special-status Birds

Olive-sided flycatchers, yellow warblers, and San Francisco common yellowthroats have all been observed in the Project vicinity during the breeding season and/or documented breeding in the area. Up to 1 pair of olive-sided flycatchers, and up to 2 pairs of yellow warblers and/or



33

common yellowthroats could potentially establish nests on the study area, and could be impacted by Project activities. However, even in the event that any of these species do nest on the site, Project-associated impacts to such a small number of nesting individuals would not result in a substantial effect on regional populations, and alterations in the habitats on the study area would not constitute a substantial loss of habitat for any of these species. Therefore any impacts to these species as a result of Project activities would not be considered significant under CEQA. All migratory birds are protected by state and federal statutes (see below), and therefore we recommend that this Project implement conservation measures to avoid violating those statutes. Implementation of those measures would insure that impacts to olive-sided flycatchers, yellow warblers, and common yellowthroats as a result of Project activities are minimized.

Potential Impacts to Roosting Bats

Western red bats are relatively solitary during both the breeding and nonbreeding seasons, and are expected to occur in low numbers, if at all, within the study area. California myotis and other common bat species may form winter or migratory day roosts and, in the case of California myotis, even potentially maternity roosts in suitable trees within the study area. However, none of these species are expected to occur in large numbers on the Project site, and alteration to potential roosting habitat within the study area as a result of Project activities will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of roosting habitat available regionally. Therefore any impacts to these species as a result of Project activities would not be considered significant under CEQA.

Potential Impacts to San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrats

Although the site offers potentially suitable woodrat habitat, no woodrat nests were found during focused observations conducted during the reconnaissance survey. There are known populations in the Project vicinity, however most of those populations are separated from the study area by substantial urban development including Highway 280. While we cannot rule out the possibility of woodrats dispersing into the study area, the high levels of predatory domestic cats expected to occur in the area, coupled with the lack of evidence of woodrat occupancy of the site, suggest that the species occurs in the study area only in very low densities if it occurs at all. Thus the number of individuals potentially impacted by Project activities is small. Additionally, alterations to potential woodrat habitat on the site due to Project activities would not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of habitat available to the species regionally. Therefore any impacts to these species as a result of Project activities would not be considered significant under CEQA.

EFFECTS FOUND TO BE LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION

Impacts to Coast Live Oak/Bay/Mixed Riparian Forest

Direct impacts are expected to occur to riparian habitat within the Project footprint due to grading, slope stabilization, landslide repair, micro-pile installation, and tree removal. All of the grading-related, slope-stabilization, and micro-pile installation activities are expected to result in a net beneficial effect on current conditions, as these actions will remedy the current erosional issues within the canyon related to the sewer line, and will protect the line from imminent failure



34

in the future. Areas which will be altered already do not exhibit a native topography, related to the installation of the existing sewer line on a graded bench as well as the worsening state of this line as it becomes more and more unstable. All slope stabilization will be accomplished with soil fill and geogrid fabric to allow the project to address the erosion without installing riprap. These areas will allow for continued vegetation growth. Temporary direct impacts will also occur related to installation of the line and improvements, trampling, small areas of grading, and other access-related disturbance. All areas within the riparian forest temporarily disturbed for construction activities and access, including the 10-ft wide construction access path, will be restored to original conditions following construction. Slope stabilization and repairs to the sewer line will prevent further degradation of the riparian habitat resulting from continuing erosion of the banks, and will also avoid negative water quality impacts. However, tree removal required for the Project will have some effects on the continuity of the riparian canopy, and will cause a loss of some mature native trees and non-native trees which provide wildlife habitat. The trees are considered to be permanently lost in this analysis, because tree root growth has been responsible for some of the past damage to the sewer line. Therefore, future maintenance may be required in the tree removal areas to prevent additional root growth and future issues with the repaired sewer line. Riparian habitats often support a disproportionately high number of wildlife species at all trophic levels because of the structural and floristic diversity of the vegetation and the presence of water for at least some portion of the year. Riparian habitats are particularly important to neotropical migratory birds, many of which are riparian-associated or riparian-obligate species during their nesting and migratory periods. In the case of remnant riparian patches such as the Project site, the riparian habitat provides a natural refuge for resident and migratory wildlife in an otherwise inhospitable landscape. However, it is anticipated that in many if not all of these areas, canopy from surrounding trees retained by the project will eventually (within 10 years) grow to fill in the canopy gaps within the canyon. While this represents some temporal loss of riparian habitat, compensatory mitigation (described below in Table 3) will address and mitigate this temporal loss. Oak woodlands and individual oaks are also in decline throughout the state, due to such threats as low regeneration rates, spread of sudden oak death, and other factors. The central reach of the canyon contains a well-structured, mature riparian oak-dominated woodland of relatively high quality given the isolated nature of this habitat. As such, we have recommended replacement of all oak trees to compensate for loss of these trees and impacts to the habitat as a remnant oak woodland community type (See Table 3). Project engineers have worked closely with biologists at all stages of Project design to minimize to the greatest extent feasible which trees will require removal. It is expected that 19 trees will require removal as listed in Table 3 below (trees tagged and identified to species as discussed in Appendix D). Suggested mitigation ratios (mitigation trees: impacted trees) to fully compensate for this impact to the riparian forest and for loss of oaks from within remnant oak woodlands have been based on size and whether the trees are native or non-native, as follows: native trees replaced at 0.5:1 (< 6 inch dbh), 1:1 (7-12 inch dbh), 2:1 (13-18 inch dbh), and 3:1 (> 18 inch dbh); and large non-native trees (> 24 inch dbh) replaced at 0.5:1. Due to the net beneficial



35

nature of the Project for the remaining riparian habitat and remnant oak woodland, not all trees are proposed to be replaced at 1:1. Table 3. Tree Removal within the Project Footprint for the Kingridge Sanitary Sewer Line Improvements – Phase III Project, and Suggested Compensatory Mitigation

Tree to Be Removed (#)

Tree to Be Removed (Species)

Additive Stem Diameter3

Suggested Mitigation

Ratio4 Mitigation Trees

427 Quercus agrifolia 8 1:1 1 428 Quercus agrifolia 20 3:1 3

Not tagged Quercus agrifolia 13 2:1 2 453 Quercus agrifolia 14 2:1 2 459 Quercus agrifolia 12 1:1 1 498 Quercus agrifolia 4 0.5:1 0.5 499 Quercus agrifolia 4 0.5:1 0.5 500 Quercus agrifolia 8 1:1 1 822 Quercus agrifolia 18 2:1 2

Not tagged Quercus agrifolia 20 3:1 3 838 Quercus agrifolia 14 2:1 2 851 Eucalyptus globulus 48 0.5:1 0.5 868 Quercus agrifolia 10 1:1 1 869 Eucalyptus globulus 36 0.5:1 0.5 880 Eucalyptus globulus 30 0.5:1 0.5 882 Eucalyptus globulus 30 0.5:1 0.5

Not tagged Umbellularia californica 14 2:1 2

884 Quercus agrifolia 30 3:1 3 885 Pinus muricata 18 2:1 2

Total 19 trees: 15 native, 4 non-native 351 28

Compensatory mitigation will be provided for these losses, also as described in Table 3. A mix of native riparian trees will be planted according to a Project-specific Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The mitigation trees will be installed at nearby Laurelwood Park (Figure 4), where riparian plantings along Laurel Creek will be installed consistent with the Laurelwood/Sugarloaf Park Master Plan. The mitigation site is located close to the impact area and is within the same Laurel Creek watershed. The mitigation site supports very similar coast live oak riparian habitats to those found on site, although the final planting palette will be developed in relation to the exact planting area footprint and may include a mix of species suited to more active riparian hydrology that typically occur close to the aquatic channel, such as willows. The objective of the mitigation planting is to replace the existing functions and values of the riparian canopy lost due to project improvements with the restoration and creation of replacement riparian forest habitat at Laurelwood Park. It is anticipated that the mitigation plantings and associated restoration to take place at Laurelwood Park will enhance the riparian

3 Measured at diameter at breast height (dbh) 4 Mitigation ratio expressed as mitigation plantings required per tree lost.

1,500 0 1,500750

Feet±

Project Location

Figure 4: Riparian Mitigation Site Location

July 2012

N:\P

roje

cts3

000\

3019

-01\

02 P

hase

\Rep

orts

\Initi

alS

tudy

_MN

D

Kingridge Sanitary Sewer Line Improvements – Phase IIIInitial Study/ MND (3019-02)

CompensatoryMitigation Site



37

habitat values in the Project watershed, and will provide similar functions to the lost habitat, including protection of exposed riparian banks and erosion protection. The restoration plantings will also enhance riparian functions and values in a nearby location that is less isolated and fragmented than that provided by the project site. For restored and created riparian habitat at the Laurelwood Park mitigation site, prior to project-related ground disturbance and tree removal, the City of San Mateo shall supply a Riparian Mitigation & Monitoring Plan (RMMP) for riparian creation. The RMMP shall be prepared by a restoration ecologist and will provide, at a minimum, the following items:

• Habitat impacts summary and proposed habitat mitigation actions.

• Goals of the restoration to achieve compliance with all required regulatory permits

• The footprint and location of the mitigation site and existing site conditions.

• Mitigation design including: o Proposed site construction schedule.

o Description of existing and proposed soils, hydrology, and geomorphology.

o Site preparation plan.

o Invasive species eradication plan, if applicable.

o Soil amendments and other site preparation.

o Planting plan (plant procurement/propagation/installation).

o Maintenance plan.

o Monitoring measures, performance and success criteria.

o Monitoring methods, duration and schedule.

o Contingency measures and remedial actions.

o Reporting measures. This mitigation shall be deemed complete and the City released from further responsibilities when the final success criteria have been met as determined by the City and applicable regulatory/resource agencies. These measures will reduce impacts to the riparian habitat within the study area to a less-than-significant level.

Potential Impacts to Biological Resources from Water Quality Changes

Water quality impacts could occur as a result of increased erosion resulting from grading, slope stabilization, retaining wall installation, micro-pile installation, and tree removal. However, impacts to biological resources will be avoided and minimized through the implementation of the following BMPs and applicant-proposed measures.



38

1. Erosion control designs for the Project will be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in conformance with industry standards. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) will outline the various Best Management Practices (BMPs) and define techniques for placement and maintenance. A SWPPP will be prepared prior to the issuance of grading or construction permits based on the final approved design. The erosion control plans will employ typical erosion control devices including straw wattles, check dams, fabric blankets, and silt fencing. All erosion control materials will be biodegradable and natural fiber.

2. BMPs intended to reduce erosion of exposed soil may include, but are not limited to: seeding of all disturbed areas with native seed mixes, soil stabilization controls, watering for dust control, perimeter silt fences, placement of hay bales and sediment basins.

3. To the maximum extent practicable, micro-pile installation within the aquatic stream channel will occur during the dry season. Construction of the other sewer repair features will also take place during the dry season to minimize soil disturbance and associated erosion within the riparian habitat.

4. BMPs will be implemented to reduce the risk of spills and other accidental exposure to hazardous materials and waste. During construction as staging areas are established across the site, temporary hazardous materials storage will not be located immediately adjacent to any drainage. If excess materials must be disposed of, it shall be done in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations.

No changes are expected to occur to existing hydrologic inputs. Lateral storm drains will be lengthened in 2 areas to minimize erosion associated with the current unimproved outfall locations, but the new outfalls will not be places within the active stream channel. No changes in the current watershed inputs will occur (i.e., new storm drains carrying storm water from areas that do not already currently drain to the unnamed stream within the study area). Implementation of the above measures and BMPs will avoid and reduce impacts to water quality to a less-than-significant level.



39

COMPLIANCE WITH ADDITIONAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

REGULATORY OVERVIEW FOR BIRDS

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C., §703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment, a violation of the MBTA.

California State Fish & Game Code

Migratory birds are also protected in and by the state of California. The State Fish and Game Code §3503 (and other sections and subsections) emulates the MBTA and protects birds’ nests and eggs from all forms of take. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “take” by the CDFG and would constitute a significant impact. Raptors (i.e., eagles, hawks, and owls) and their nests are specifically protected in California under Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5. Section 3503.5 states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.”

Project Applicability

All native birds found on the study area are protected under the MBTA and State Fish and Game Code. Project construction and maintenance activities are not expected to result in take of these protected species. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to the abandonment of nests. Although this type of impact was not determined to be significant under CEQA for the species occurring on the study area, due to their local and regional abundance and/or the low magnitude of the potential impact, we recommend that the following measures be implemented to reduce the risk of a violation of the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code.

Compliance Measures

Measure 1. Avoidance. Avoid nesting-season construction. Construction should be scheduled to avoid the nesting season to the extent feasible. The nesting season for most birds, including most raptors, in the San Francisco Bay Area extends from February through August. Measure 2. Pre-construction/Pre-disturbance Surveys. If it is not possible to schedule construction between 1 September and 31 January, then pre-construction surveys for nesting birds should be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during Project implementation. This survey should be conducted no more than 14 days prior to



40

the initiation of construction activities during the early part of the breeding season (February through April) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May through August). During this survey, the ornithologist will inspect all potential nesting habitats (e.g., riparian vegetation, emergent wetland vegetation) in the study area for nests. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 250 ft for raptors and 50-100 ft for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA or State Code will be disturbed during Project implementation.

CITY OF SAN MATEO TREE ORDINANCES AND PROJECT APPLICABILITY

The City of San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 10.52 provides protection for certain large, native, or otherwise important trees within the city limits, termed “heritage trees.” Removal or actions (such as root impacts) predictably leading to the death of such trees requires a permit be granted. Heritage trees include any bay, buckeye, oak, or redwood tree that has a diameter of 10 inches or more measured at 48 inches above natural grade; as well as any other tree with a trunk diameter of 16 inches or more, measured at 48 inches above natural grade. However, the code also allows any franchised public utility or representative of the City to remove trees which interfere with the safe and efficient operation of the public service for which they are responsible. Subject to the provisions of chapter 7.24 and 17.28, such trees may be removed without permit (Ord. 1984-7 § 3, 1984; Ord. 1968-35 § 3 (part), 1968: prior code § 65.52). The proposed Project meets the conditions for this categorical exemption. However, replacement of at least 15 trees would meet the permit compliance requirements under the City ordinance.



41

LITERATURE CITED

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] 2012. Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research and

conservation [web application]. 2012. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database [a non-profit organization]. Available: http://www.calflora.org/. (Accessed: 10 May 2010 and other dates).

[CDFG] California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed

Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600-1607. Environmental Services Division. [CDFG] California Department of Fish and Game. 2010. List of California Terrestrial

Vegetation Communities. . CEQA Guidelines. 1997. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et seq. [CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Database. 2012. Rarefind Version 3. Produced and

maintained by California Department of Fish and Game. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2012. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants

(online edition). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Accessed on 21 December 2009, 10 May 2010, and 30 April 2012 from http://www.cnps.org/inventory.

[CCH] Consortium of California Herbaria. 2012. Occurrence data provided by the participants

of the Consortium of California Herbaria (ucjepstest.berkeley.edu/consortium/). [eBird] California eBird: North America's destination for birding on the web [Internet]. 2010.

Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology and New York: National Audubon Society. Accessed 11 January 2010 from http://ebird.org/ebird/ca/eBirdReports?cmd=Start

Hickman, J. C. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California

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

California. California Department of Fish & Game. [NRCS] Natural Resource Conservation Service. 1991. Soil Survey of San Mateo County,

Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

[NWI] National Wetland Inventory. 1985 and 2009 (online). NWI map for the USGS 7.5-

minute San Mateo quadrangle. Data available online courtesy of the USFWS at http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html (Accessed 21 December 2009).



42

Sawyer, J. O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native

Plant Society. Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2008. A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd

Edition. California Native Plant Society and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Sequoia Audubon Society. 2001. San Mateo County Breeding Bird Atlas. Published by the Sequoia Audubon Society. 223 pp.



43

APPENDIX A. VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE KINGRIDGE SANITARY SEWER

LINE IMPROVEMENTS – PHASE III PROJECT AREA



44

Appendix A. Plant Species Identified on or Near the Kingridge Sanitary Sewer Line Improvements – Phase III Project Area.

Family Name Scientific Name Common Name Agavaceae Agave americana American century plant Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron diversilobum poison oak Apiaceae Conium maculatum poison hemlock Daucus carota wild carrot Foeniculum vulgare fennel Sanicula crassicaulis Pacific sanicle Apocynaceae Vinca major periwinkle Araliaceae Hedera helix English ivy Arecaceae Phoenix canariensis Canary Island date palm Asteraceae Baccharis pilularis coyote brush Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Cirsium vulgare bull thistle Conyza canadensis horseweed Senecio mikanioides cape ivy Betulaceae Alnus rubra red alder Boraginaceae Cynoglossum grande Hound’s tongue Caprifoliaceae Lonicera hispidula pink honeysuckle Caryophyllaceae Cerastium glomeratum mouseear chickweed Stellaria media common chickweed Cupressaceae Cupressus macnabiana McNab’s cypress Cyperaceae Carex densa dense sedge Cyperus eragrostis tall umbrella sedge Carex schottii Schott’s sedge Fabaceae Acacia sp. non-native acacia (ornamental) Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom Genista monspessulana French broom Lathyrus vestitus Pacific pea Melilotus indicus sweetclover Fagaceae Quercus agrifolia coast live oak Quercus wislizeni interior live oak Geraniaceae Erodium cicutarium red-stemmed filaree Geranium dissectum cutleaf geranium Iridaceae Sisyrinchium bellum blue-eyed grass Hippocastanaceae Aesculus californica California buckeye Juncaceae Juncus effusus bog rush Juncus mexicanus Mexican rush Lamiaceae Marrubium vulgare horehound Mentha spicata spearmint Stachys bullata California hedgenettle Liliaceae Allium triquetrum threecorner leek

Smilacina racemosa (=Maianthemum racemosum)

fat Solomon

Zantedeschia aethiopica calla lily Lauraceae Umbellularia californica California bay



45

Appendix A. Plant Species Identified on or Near the Kingridge Sanitary Sewer Line Improvements – Phase III Project Area.

Family Name Scientific Name Common Name Myrtaceae Eucalyptus globulus blue gum Oleaceae Olea europaea olive Oxalidaceae Oxalis corniculata creeping woodsorrel Pinaceae Pinus attenuata knobcone pine Pinus muricata bishop pine Pinus sp. non-native pine (ornamental) Pinus radiata Monterey pine Poaceae Agrostis stolonifera redtop Bromus diandrus ripgut brome Bromus hordeaceous soft chess Cortaderia selloana Pampas grass Deschampsia cespitosa tufted hairgrass Elymus canadensis Canadian wildrye Hordeum marinum Mediterranean barley Hordeum murinum hare barley Poa annua annual bluegrass Polypogon monspeliensis rabbitsfoot grass Vulpia myuros var. hirsuta velvetgrass Polygonaceae Rumex crispus curly dock Polypodiaceae Polypodium californicum California polypody Portulacaceae Claytonia parviflora Miner’s lettuce Claytonia perfoliata Miner’s lettuce Primulaceae Anagallis arvensis scarlet pimpernel Rosaceae Heteromeles arbutifolia toyon Malus sylvestris apple Prunus ilicifolia holly leaf cherry Prunus subcordata Klamath plum Sorbus aucuparia European rowan Pteridaceae Adiantum jordanii California maidenhair Pentagramma triangularis goldback fern Rubiaceae Galium aparine common bedstraw Rutaceae Citrus sinensis orange Salicaceae Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow Salix laevigata red willow Solanaceae Solanum physalifolium white nightshade The species are arranged alphabetically by family name for all vascular plants encountered during the plant survey. Plants are also listed alphabetically within each family. Species nomenclature is from Hickman (1993), current nomenclature under Baldwin et al. 2012 can be found at http://www.calflora.org/ (Calflora 2012).

http://www.calflora.org/



46

APPENDIX B. SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES

CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FOR OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE KINGRIDGE SANITARY SEWER LINE IMPROVEMENTS – PHASE III PROJECT FOOTPRINT



47

Appendix B. Special-Status Plant Species Considered but Rejected for Occurrence5.

Scientific Name Common Name Lac

k of

Ser

pent

ine

(S),

Alk

alin

e (A

), or

Oth

er

(O) S

oils

/Eda

phic

Con

ditio

ns

Pere

nnia

l and

/or

Shru

b no

t App

aren

t dur

ing

Surv

eys

Out

side

Ele

vatio

n R

ange

for

Spec

ies

Out

side

End

emic

Ran

ge, o

r O

utsi

de K

now

n E

xtan

t Ran

ge, o

r Sp

. Ext

inct

Spec

ific

Hab

itat T

ype

Not

Pre

sent

on

Site

Hig

hly

Dis

turb

ed S

ite C

ondi

tions

Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum Franciscan onion S,O X Amsinckia lunaris bent-flowered fiddleneck X Androsace elongata ssp. acuta California androsace X X Arabis blepharophylla coast rock cress O X X Arctostaphylos andersonii Anderson's manzanita X X Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. franciscana Franciscan manzanita S X X Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. ravenii Presidio manzanita S X X Arctostaphylos imbricata San Bruno Mountain manzanita O X X X Arctostaphylos montaraensis Montara manzanita X X X Arctostaphylos pacifica Pacific manzanita X X X Arctostaphylos regismontana Kings Mountain manzanita O X X Astragalus nuttallii var. nuttallii ocean bluff milk-vetch X Astragalus tener var. tener alkali milk-vetch A,O X Calandrinia breweri Brewer's calandrinia O X Calochortus umbellatus Oakland star-tulip S X Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Congdon's tarplant A X Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi pappose tarplant A,O X Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata San Francisco Bay spineflower O X Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta robust spineflower O X Cirsium andrewsii Franciscan thistle S Cirsium occidentale var. compactum compact cobwebby thistle X Cirsium praeteriens lost thistle X Collinsia multicolor San Francisco collinsia S X Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris Point Reyes bird's-beak O X X Cypripedium fasciculatum clustered lady's-slipper S X X Equisetum palustre marsh horsetail X Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri Hoover's button-celery X Erysimum franciscanum San Francisco wallflower S,O X Fritillaria biflora var. ineziana Hillsborough chocolate lily S X X Fritillaria lanceolata var. tristulis Marin checker lily X Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary S X

5 Plant nomenclature reported in this table is as per Hickman 1993, current nomenclature for all taxa as per Baldwin

et al. 2012 is available from http://www.calflora.org/ (Calflora 2012).

http://www.calflora.org/



48



k of

Ser

pent

ine

(S),

Alk

alin

e (A

), or

Oth

er

(O) S

oils

/Eda

phic

Con

ditio

ns

Pere

nnia

l and

/or

Shru

b no

t App

aren

t dur

ing

Surv

eys

Out

side

Ele

vatio

n R

ange

for

Spec

ies

Out

side

End

emic

Ran

ge, o

r O

utsi

de K

now

n E

xtan

t Ran

ge, o

r Sp

. Ext

inct

Spec

ific

Hab

itat T

ype

Not

Pre

sent

on

Site

Hig

hly

Dis

turb

ed S

ite C

ondi

tions

Gilia capitata ssp. chamissonis blue coast gilia O X Grindelia hirsutula var. maritima San Francisco gumplant S,O X Helianthella castanea Diablo helianthella O X X Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta pale yellow hayfield tarplant X Hesperevax sparsiflora var. brevifolia short-leaved evax O X Horkelia cuneata ssp. sericea Kellogg's horkelia O X Horkelia marinensis Point Reyes horkelia O X Iris longipetala coast iris X Lasthenia conjugens Contra Costa goldfields A X Leptosiphon acicularis bristly leptosiphon X Leptosiphon ambiguus serpentine leptosiphon S X Leptosiphon croceus coast yellow leptosiphon X X Leptosiphon grandiflorus large-flowered leptosiphon O X Leptosiphon rosaceus rose leptosiphon X Lessingia germanorum San Francisco lessingia S X Lessingia hololeuca woolly-headed lessingia S,O Lupinus arboreus var. eximius San Mateo tree lupine X X X Malacothamnus aboriginum Indian Valley bush-mallow O X X X Malacothamnus arcuatus arcuate bush-mallow X X Malacothamnus davidsonii Davidson's bush-mallow X X Malacothamnus hallii Hall's bush-mallow X X Micropus amphibolus Mt. Diablo cottonweed S,O X Microseris paludosa marsh microseris X X Monardella undulata curly-leaved monardella O X Navarretia myersii ssp. myersii pincushion navarretia O X Pedicularis dudleyi Dudley's lousewort X X X Piperia michaelii Michael's rein orchid X X X Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus Choris' popcorn-flower X Plagiobothrys diffusus San Francisco popcorn-flower O X Plagiobothrys glaber hairless popcorn-flower X Polemonium carneum Oregon polemonium X Potamogeton filiformis slender-leaved pondweed O X X X Potentilla hickmanii Hickman's cinquefoil X



49



k of

Ser

pent

ine

(S),

Alk

alin

e (A

), or

Oth

er

(O) S

oils

/Eda

phic

Con

ditio

ns

Pere

nnia

l and

/or

Shru

b no

t App

aren

t dur

ing

Surv

eys

Out

side

Ele

vatio

n R

ange

for

Spec

ies

Out

side

End

emic

Ran

ge, o

r O

utsi

de K

now

n E

xtan

t Ran

ge, o

r Sp

. Ext

inct

Spec

ific

Hab

itat T

ype

Not

Pre

sent

on

Site

Hig

hly

Dis

turb

ed S

ite C

ondi

tions

Sanicula hoffmannii Hoffmann's sanicle S,O X Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda San Francisco campion O X Stebbinoseris decipiens Santa Cruz microseris X Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus most beautiful jewel-flower S X X Suaeda californica California seablite X X X X Trifolium depauperatum var. hydrophilum saline clover A Triphysaria floribunda San Francisco owl's-clover S X Triquetrella californica coastal triquetrella X Tropidocarpum capparideum caper-fruited tropidocarpum A X Zigadenus micranthus var. fontanus marsh zigadenus S



50

APPENDIX C. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES

OCCURRING IN THE PROJECT VICINITY AND SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES WARRANTING CLOSE CONSIDERATION



51

SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES

Federal or State Endangered, Threatened, and Proposed/Candidate Species

San Mateo thorn-mint (Acanthomintha duttonii). Federal Listing Status: Endangered; State Listing Status: Endangered; CNPS List: 1B.1. San Mateo thorn-mint is an annual herb in the mint family (Lamiaceae) that blooms from April to June. It grows on serpentinite soils in valley and foothill grassland and chaparral habitats at elevations of 164 to 984 ft. The USFWS uses the name Acanthomintha obovata ssp. duttonii for the species (CNPS 2012). Associated species include purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra), soap plant (Chlorogalum sp.), ruby chalice clarkia (Clarkia rubicundula), fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea), and fringed Sidalcea (Sidalcea diploscypha). The species is seriously threatened by development, non-native plant species, off-road vehicles, road maintenance, and vandalism. Crystal Springs fountain thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale). Federal Listing Status: Endangered; State Listing Status: Endangered; CNPS List: 1B.1. This perennial herb in the composite family (Asteraceae) is a peninsular endemic that is only known from 3 USGS topographic quadrangles in San Mateo County. All 5 known occurrences are in the vicinity of Crystal Springs Reservoir (CNDDB 2012, CNPS 2012). This species only occurs in serpentinite seeps in chaparral, cismontane woodlands, and valley and foothill grassland habitats. The blooming period of Crystal Springs fountain thistle is from May to October, and its elevational range is approximately 150 to 580 ft. This species is considered to be seriously threatened by urbanization, dumping, road maintenance, non-native plants, and hydrological alterations (CNPS 2012). San Mateo woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum latilobum). Federal Listing Status: Endangered; State Listing Status: Endangered; CNPS List: 1B.1. San Mateo woolly sunflower is a perennial herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae) that blooms from May to June. This species often occurs on serpentinite, on roadcuts in cismontane woodland from 148 to 492 ft in elevation. This California endemic is documented in four USGS quadrangles in San Mateo County. Only 2 occurrences are known to be extant at this time. Development, erosion, and road maintenance threaten the species, although much of 1 occurrence was eliminated in 2002 with herbicide (CNPS 2012). Marin western flax (Hesperolinon congestum). Federal Listing Status: Threatened; State Listing Status: Threatened; CNPS List: 1B.1. Marin western flax is an annual herb in the flax family (Linaceae) that blooms from April to July. This species occurs in serpentinite soils in chaparral and valley and foothill grassland habitats from 16 to 1214 ft in elevation. It is a California endemic documented in 10 USGS quadrangles in Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties. Threats to the species include: development, non-native plants, and foot traffic. It is protected in part at Ring Mountain Preserve in Marin County (CNPS 2012). White-rayed pentachaeta (Pentachaeta bellidiflora). Federal Listing Status: Endangered; State Listing Status: Endangered; CNPS List: 1B.1. This annual herb in the composite (Asteraceae) family occurs in cismontane woodlands and valley and foothill grassland habitats at elevations of approximately 115 - 2050 ft (CNPS 2012). When occurring in grassy habitats, this



52

species is often found on serpentine-derived substrates, scoring a 2.4 (weak indicator) in affinity to serpentine soils (CalFlora 2010). The blooming period extends from March to May. White-rayed pentachaeta was known from 12 USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles in Marin, Santa Cruz, and San Mateo counties, but is now presumed extirpated from all historical locations except those in the Woodside quadrangle in San Mateo County. All of the previously known occurrences were lost to development, making this a major threat for the species. The species is now known from fewer than 20 occurrences, as the Monterey County occurrence once attributed to this species is actually P. exilis var. aeolica. (CNPS 2012).

State Protected or CNPS-listed Plant Species

Coastal marsh milk-vetch (Astragalus pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: None; CNPS List: 1B.2. Coastal marsh milk-vetch is a perennial herb in the legume family (Fabaceae) that blooms from April to October. It occurs in mesic coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and marshes and swamps from 0 to 98 ft elevation. When occurring in marshes, the variety is specifically associated with coastal salt influence and/or and streamsides. Coastal marsh milk-vetch is a California endemic occurring in 15 USGS quadrangles in Humboldt, Mendocino, Marin, and San Mateo counties. Cattle trampling, erosion, and competition pose threats to the variety (CNPS 2012). Johnny-nip (Castilleja ambigua ssp. ambigua). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: None; CNPS Listing Status 4.2. Johnny-nip is an annual, hemiparasitic herb in the figwort family (Scrophlariaceae) that blooms between March and August. This species grows in mesic soils, in coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, marshes, valley and foothill grassland, and margins of vernal pools. This species is widespread, reported from Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Marin, Napa, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Sonoma, and possibly San Francisco Counties, as well as in Oregon, and Washington states. (CNPS 2012). Western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: None; CNPS List: 1B.2. Western leatherwood is a deciduous shrub in the mezereum family (Thymelaeaceae) that blooms from January to April, and sometimes as late as May. It is endemic to California, and is the only species in its family found in the state. This shrub occurs in mesic broadleafed upland forest, closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, riparian forest, and riparian woodland habitats from 164 to 1296 ft in elevation. The species has been documented in 19 USGS quadrangles in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Sonoma counties. Road maintenance may impact the species; however, populations are also generally declining due to low reproductive rates (CNPS 2012). California bottle-brush grass (Elymus californicus). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: None; CNPS List: 4.3. California bottle-brush grass is a perennial herb in the grass (Poaceae) family documented from Marin, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, and Sonoma counties. It occurs in broadleafed upland forest, cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, and riparian woodland habitat at elevations from 49 to 1542 ft. It blooms from May to August and sometimes into November. California bottle-brush grass is threatened by fire suppression (CNPS 2012).



53

Coast lily (Lilium maritimum). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: None; CNPS List: 1B.1. Coast lily is a bulbiferous herb in the lily family (Liliaceae) that blooms from May to August. This species occurs sometimes on roadsides in broadleafed upland forest, closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, freshwater marshes and swamps, and North Coast coniferous forest habitats from 16 to 1558 ft in elevation. This California endemic has been documented in 19 USGS quadrangles in Mendocino, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Sonoma counties, although it has been extirpated from San Francisco and San Mateo counties. Highway 1 populations are frequently subject to disturbance for road maintenance, and urbanization, development, horticultural collecting, logging, grazing, non-native plants, habitat fragmentation, homeless encampments, and recreational activities threaten the species (CNPS 2012). Harlequin lotus (Hosackia gracilis, formerly Lotus formosissimus). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: None; CNPS List: 4.2. Harlequin lotus is a rhizomatous herb in the legume (Fabaceae) family. It occurs within Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Monterey, Marin, San Benito, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, and Sonoma counties, as well as in Oregon and Washington states. It occurs within wetlands and roadsides in broadleafed upland forest, coastal bluff scrub, closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps, North coast coniferous forest, and valley and foothill grassland habitats at elevations of 0 to 2297 ft (CNPS 2012). This species blooms from March to July. It is known to be threatened by grazing. This plant is threatened by grazing, development, feral pigs, habitat alteration, and competition, but can tolerate a moderate level of disturbance as it is sometimes found in wet areas near roadsides.

SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES IN THE PROJECT VICINITY WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA

Federal or State Endangered, Threatened, and Proposed/Candidate Species

California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Federal Listing Status: Threatened; State Listing Status: Special Concern. The California red-legged frog was listed as threatened by the USFWS in 1996 (USFWS 1996). An updated critical habitat designation was published as a final rule in 2006 (USFWS 2006), and a further update was proposed in 2008 (USFWS 2008). The California red-legged frog is a denizen of perennial freshwater pools, streams and ponds throughout the Central California Coast Range and in isolated portions of the western slope of the Sierra Nevada (Fellers 2005). Loss of riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitat; pesticides; and an influx of aquatic predators including bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) are contributing to precipitous declines in red-legged frog populations throughout their range (Davidson et al 2001, Doubledee et al 2004). During the breeding season (late winter-spring) red-legged frogs require deep perennial pools (>2 ft) in creeks, rivers, or lakes below 5000 ft in elevation with emergent vegetation for attaching egg clusters; a lack of nonnative predators such as green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus and Procambarus clarkii), and bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana); and shallow benches to act as nurseries for juveniles (Jennings and Hayes 1994, Fellers 2005). Red-legged frogs can survive in seasonal bodies of water that are dry for short periods if a permanent water body or dense vegetation stands are nearby. After eggs are laid, it takes a minimum of approximately four months for the larvae to



54

metamorphose into juvenile frogs (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Nonbreeding frogs may be found adjacent to streams and ponds in grasslands and woodlands, and may travel up to approximately 2 mi from their breeding locations, across a variety of upland habitats, to suitable nonbreeding habitats (Bulger et al 2003, Fellers and Kleeman 2007). Bulger, J. B., N. J. Scott, Jr., and R. B. Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial activity and conservation of

adult California red-legged frogs Rana aurora draytonii in coastal forests and grasslands. Biol. Conserv. 110: 85-95

Davidson, D., H. B. Shaffer and M. R. Jennings. 2001. Declines of the California red-legged

frog: climate, UV-B, habitat, and pesticides hypotheses. Ecol Applic. 11(2):464-479 Doubledee, R. A., E. B. Muller, and R. M. Nisbet. 2003. Bullfrogs, disturbance regimes, and

the persistence of California red-legged frogs. J. Wild. Manag. 67(2):424-438 Fellers, G. M. 2005. Rana draytonii California red-legged frog. In M. Lannoo, ed. Amphibian

declines: the conservation status of United States species. University of California Press. CA: Berkeley. Pp 552-554

Fellers, G.M. and P.M. Kleeman. 2007. California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) movement

and habitat use: implications for conservation. J. Herpetol. 41(2):276-286 Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in

California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. iii+255 p.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants:

determination of threatened status for the California red-legged frog. Federal Register 61(101):25813-25833.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and

Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-legged Frog, and Special Rule Exemption Associated with Final Listing for Existing Routine Ranching Activities; Final Rule. Federal Register 71(50)19244-19346. Sacramento Field Office. September 2006. 44 pp.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and

Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii); Proposed Rule. Federal Register 73(180)53492-53680. Sacramento Field Office. 16 September 2008. 188pp.

Links to Species Information California Herps: A Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of California http://www.californiaherps.com/frogs/pages/r.draytonii.html?PHPSESSID=7c9c3a95339f8e059b4600e92003f75c

http://www.californiaherps.com/frogs/pages/r.draytonii.html?PHPSESSID=7c9c3a95339f8e059b4600e92003f75c

http://www.californiaherps.com/frogs/pages/r.draytonii.html?PHPSESSID=7c9c3a95339f8e059b4600e92003f75c



55

California Species of Special Concern and California Fully Protected Species Western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Special Concern. The western pond turtle can be found in freshwater aquatic habitats throughout the pacific states from Baja California Norte to northern Washington State (Bury and Germano 2008). The central California population was historically present in most drainages on the pacific slope (Jennings and Hayes 1994), but streambed alterations and other sources of habitat destruction, exacerbated by frequent drought events, have caused substantial population declines throughout most of the range (Stebbins 2003). Western pond turtles can be found in intermittent and perennial slow-moving waters, including stock ponds, streams, marshes, and lakes. Turtles prefer areas with ample basking sites and underwater refugia, and eggs are laid in grasslands or other open uplands up to 400 m or more from water (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Pond turtles may also aestivate in upland areas when water sources are intermittent, but more study is needed (Bury and Germano 2008). Literature Cited Bury, R. B. and D. J. Germano. 2008. Actinemys marmorata (Baird and Girard 1852) – Western

pond turtle, Pacific pond turtle. In A. G. J. Rhodin, P. C. H. Pritchard, P. P. van Dijk, R. A. Saumure, K. A. Buhlmann, and J. B. Iverson, eds.: Conservation biology of freshwater turtles and tortoises: A compilation project of the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. Chelonian Research Monographs 5: 001.2-001.9. http://www.iucn-tftsp.org/cbftt

Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in

California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. iii+255 p.

Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Third edition.

Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, 336 p. Links to Species Information California Herps: A Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of California http://www.californiaherps.com/turtles/pages/a.m.pallida.html Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern (Breeding). The olive-sided flycatcher is a neotropical migratory songbird with a largely boreal (far northern) breeding distribution. In California, the olive-sided flycatcher is distributed throughout the northern portion of the state excepting the Central Valley and eastern deserts, all along the Coast Ranges and the Sierra Nevada, and in the Transverse and Peninsular Ranges in the southern portion of the state. Populations of olive-sided flycatchers have been exhibiting steady and steep declines throughout the range of the species, likely due to conversion of forested habitat to non-forested landscapes, and to loss of habitat on the wintering grounds (Altman and Sallabanks 2000, Widdowson 2008). It is also possible that harvested

http://www.californiaherps.com/turtles/pages/a.m.pallida.html



56

forests, which appear to provide suitable habitat for olive-sided flycatchers, are in fact acting as ecological traps, further depressing the naturally slow reproductive rate of the species (Robertson and Hutto 2007). Olive-sided flycatchers are closely associated with coniferous forest habitats of all types, and breed in mature forests with open canopies, along forest edges in more densely vegetated areas, in recently burned forest habitats, and in selectively harvested landscapes. They appear to have a particular affinity for post-burn forest conditions, suggesting that they are evolutionarily tied to fire cycles (Robertson and Hutto 2007). Optimum breeding habitat for olive-sided flycatchers has been described as coniferous forest near water with 0%-39% canopy closure. Olive-sided flycatchers nest in tall trees, building an open cup nest away from the main trunk in the middle to upper reaches of the tree (Widdowson 2008). Flycatchers arrive on their breeding territories, for which they exhibit high site fidelity, beginning in mid-May; the breeding season extends through late July, when the birds embark on 1 of the longest annual migrations of any songbird, to overwinter in the Andes Mountains of South America (Altman and Sallabanks 2000).

Literature Cited Altman, B. and R. Sallabanks. 2000. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi). In A Poole,

ed. The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/502. Accessed 31 December 2008

Robertson, B. A. and R. L. Hutto. Is selectively harvested forest an ecological trap for Olive-sided Flycatchers? Condor 109: 109-121

Widdowson, W.P. 2008. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi). In Shuford, W. D. and T. Gardali, eds. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California; and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

Links to Species Information California Partners in Flight Species Accounts http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/species/conifer/osflacct.html Cornell Lab of Ornithology: All About Birds http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Olive-sided_Flycatcher.html Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern. The yellow warbler is a widespread neotropical migrant that inhabits wet deciduous forests throughout North America (Lowther et al 1999). In California, yellow warblers can be found occupying riparian habitats along the entire coast, on both eastern and western slopes of the Sierra Nevada up to approximately 1700 ft, and throughout the northern portion of the state. Both the historical and current range excludes the southwestern desert region of the state, and yellow warblers have been largely extirpated from the Central Valley. Their range has remained relatively stable over time, but their populations have declined substantially in many localities due to habitat loss (Cain et al 2003, Heath 2008). Yellow Warblers breed from early May through early August in wet, early-

http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/species/conifer/osflacct.html

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Olive-sided_Flycatcher.html



57

successional or recently disturbed habitats dominated by willow thickets. Ideal breeding habitat for yellow warblers is comprised of dense, shrubby understory and open canopy in riparian corridors, in close proximity to water to nest deter predators (Lowther et al 1999, Cain et al 2003, Heath 2008), where they construct cup nests approximately 1 – 14 m off the ground in upright forks of shrubs or trees in dense willow thickets or in other dense vegetation. Literature Cited Cain, J. W., M. L. Morrison, and H. L. Bombay. 2003. Predator activity and nest success of

willow flycatchers and yellow warblers. J. Wildl. Manag. 67(3): 600-610 Heath, S. K. 2008. Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia). In Shuford, W. D. and T. Gardali, eds.

California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California; and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

Lowther, P. E., C. Celada, N. K. Klein, C. C. Rimmer and D. A. Spector. 1999. Yellow Warbler

(Dendroica petechia). In The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/454

Links to Species Information Life History Accounts and Range Maps - California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx Cornell Lab of Ornithology: All About Birds http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Yellow_Warbler.html San Francisco Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa). Federal Listing Status: None State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern (breeding). The San Francisco (also known as Salt Marsh) subspecies of the widely-distributed common yellowthroat is found only on the immediate coast of California from Tomales Bay in the north to the southern edge of San Mateo County in the south, including the San Francisco Bay. Their current range reflects their historic distribution, but habitat degradation and loss dramatically reduced the abundance of the subspecies within its range, even resulting in local extirpations before increases in freshwater marsh habitats on the bay began increasing in the 1980s as a result of increases in freshwater effluent discharged from wastewater treatment plants (Gardali and Evens 2008). San Francisco common yellowthroats are typically associated with brackish marshes and freshwater riparian swamps; they nest in the dense emergent vegetation that grows up in such moist areas (Guzy and Ritchison 1999). Common yellowthroats will use small and isolated patches of habitat as long as groundwater is close enough to the surface to encourage the establishment of dense stands of rushes (Scirpus spp.), cattails, willows (Salix spp.), Juncus spp., or other emergent vegetation (Nur et al 1997). Ideal habitat, however, is comprised of at least 0.4 ha of thick riparian or marsh vegetation in perpetually moist areas, where populations of brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) are low (Menges 1998). Common yellowthroats build open-

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Yellow_Warbler.html



58

cup nests low in the vegetation, and nest from mid-march through late July. Common yellowthroats remain in their breeding range year-round (Guzy and Ritchison 1999, Gardali and Evens 2008). Literature Cited Guzy, M. J. and G. Ritchison. 1999. Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas). In A Poole,

ed. The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/448. Accessed 31 December 2008

Gardali, T., and J. Evens. 2008. San Francisco Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas

sinuosa). In Shuford, W. D. and T. Gardali, eds. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California; and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

Menges, T. 1998. Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas). In The Riparian Bird Conservation

Plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian-associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v-2.html

Nur, N., S. Zack, J. Evans, and T. Gardali. 1997. Tidal marsh birds of the San Francisco Bay region:

status, distribution, and conservation of 5 category 2 taxa. Final draft report to the United States Geological Survey. Petaluma: PRBO Conservation Science. 66 pp

Links to Species Information California Partners in Flight Species Accounts http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v-2.html Cornell Lab of Ornithology: All About Birds http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Song_Sparrow.html Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus). Federal Listing Status: Forest Service Sensitive Species; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern. The pallid bat occurs throughout California with the exception of the northwest corner of the state and the high Sierra Nevada (Zeiner et al. 1990), but is thought to be imperiled throughout the region (WBWG 1998). Pallid bats are most commonly found in oak savannah and open dry habitats with rocky areas, trees, buildings, or bridges for roosting, and may also occur in open coniferous forests (Zeiner et al. 1990, Ferguson and Azerrad 2004). Coastal colonies typically roost in deep crevices in rocky outcroppings; in buildings; under bridges; and in the crevices, hollows, and exfoliating bark of trees. Although crevices are important for day roosts, night roosts often include open buildings, porches, garages, highway bridges, and mines (Lewis 1994). Colonies can range from a few individuals to over a hundred (Barbour and Davis 1969) and usually this species occurs in groups larger than 20 individuals (Wilson and Ruff 1999). Pallid bats typically winter in canyon bottoms and riparian areas. After mating with males during the late fall and winter, females leave to form maternity colonies, often on ridge tops or other warmer locales (Johnston et al. 2006). Pallid bat roosts are

http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v-2.html

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Song_Sparrow.html



59

very susceptible to human disturbance, and urban development has been cited as the most significant factor contributing to their regional decline (Miner and Stokes 2005). Literature Cited Barbour, R. W., and W. H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. University of Kentucky Press,

Lexington. 286 pp. Ferguson, H., and J.M. Azerrad. 2004. Management recommendations for Washington’s

priority species: volume V. Mammals, pallid bat (Antozous pallidus). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Johnston, D. S., B. Hepburn, J. Krauel, T. Stewart, and D. Rambaldini. 2006. Winter roosting

and foraging ecology of pallid bats in central coastal California. Bat Research News 47:4, p. 115.

Lewis, S. E. 1994. Night roosting ecology of pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus) in Oregon. Amer.

Midl. Nat. 132(2): 219-226 Miner, K. L., and D. C. Stokes. 2005. Bats in the south coast ecoregion: status, conservation

issues, and research needs. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-195. [WBWG] Western Bat Working Group. 1998. Regional Bat Species Priority Matrix.

http://www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_matrix/species_matrix.html. Accessed 11/21/2008

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

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

Volume III: Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. Links to Species Information Western bat Working Group Species Accounts http://www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/species_accounts.html San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens); Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Special Concern. The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat can be found in a variety of woodland and scrub habitats throughout the southern San Francisco Bay area and the adjacent central coast range down to the Pajaro River in northern Monterey County (Hall 1981, Bryiski et al 1990). Woodrats prefer riparian and oak woodland forests with dense understory, as well as thick chaparral habitat (Lee and Tietje 2005, Johnston in prep.). Although woodrats are locally common where they occur, habitat conversion and increased urbanization, as well as increasing populations of introduced predators like domestic cats (Felis cattus) pose substantial threats to this subspecies (Johnston in prep.). Dusky-footed woodrats build large,

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



60

complex nests of sticks and other woody debris, which may be maintained by a series of occupants for several years (Carraway and Verts 1991). Dens serve as nurseries, shelter from weather and predators, and food storage facilities (Carraway and Verts 1991). The breeding season begins in February and sometimes runs through September, with females bearing a single brood of 1 to 4 young per year (Carraway and Verts 1991). Literature Cited Bryiski, P., R. Duke, and H. Shellhammer. 1990. Dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes) In

California’s Wildlife, Vol. 3. Mammals. State of California Department of Fish and Game. D. Zeiner, W. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. Mayer, and M. White, Eds. Pp. 246-247.

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

American Society of Mammalogists. 10 p. Hall, E. R. 1981. The mammals of North America. Second ed., 2 vols. John Wiley and Sons,

New York. 2:699-700. Johnston, D. In prep. Proposed protocols for surveys and mitigation for the San Francisco

Dusky-footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes annectens. Prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the California Department of Fish and Game.

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

California oak woodland. J. Wildl. Manage. 69(3): 1211-1220 Links to Species Information California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Species Accounts http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx



61

APPENDIX D. TREE SURVEY FOR THE KINGRIDGE SANITARY SEWER

LINE IMPROVEMENTS – PHASE III PROJECT

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

KINGRIDGE SANITARY SEWER LINE IMPROVEMENTS – PHASE III TREE SURVEY REPORT

Prepared by

H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES

Ms. Jodi Starbird David J. Powers & Associates

1871 The Alameda, Ste 200 San Jose, CA 95126 408.248.3500 x 37

3 July 2012 Project Number 3019-02

Kingridge Sanitary Sewer Line Improvements- Phase III, Tree Survey Report


i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

GENERAL PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION ......................................................................... 1 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 6

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE AND PROJECT APPLICABILITY ...................... 6 CITY OF SAN MATEO TREE ORDINANCES AND PROJECT APPLICABILITY ............. 7

RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................... 8 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 20 FIGURES: Figure 1. Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2a. Tree Survey Map 1 ....................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2b. Tree Survey Map 2 ....................................................................................................... 5 TABLES: Table 1. Additive Diameter and Total Number of Trees and Stems of Native and Non-native

Species within 10 ft of the Existing Sewer Line and Proposed Improvements to This Line at the Kingridge Sanitary Sewer Line Improvements – Phase III Project Site ........................... 8

Table 2. Trees within 10 ft of the Existing Sewer Line and Proposed Improvements to This Line at the Kingridge Sanitary Sewer Line Improvements – Phase III Project Site ....................... 9



ii

LIST OF CONTRIBUTERS

Patrick J. Boursier, Ph.D., Senior Plant Ecologist, Principal-in-charge Kelly Hardwicke, Ph.D., Project Manager, Senior Plant Ecologist Charles McClain, M.S., Ecologist



1

INTRODUCTION

H. T. Harvey & Associates conducted a tree survey for the Kingridge Sanitary Sewer Line Improvements – Phase III Project, which proposes to replace the Kingridge sanitary sewer main located in the City of San Mateo. The tree survey was conducted to accurately determine impacts to the riparian canopy in the Project area. We collected tree survey data including diameter, species identity, and location in the survey area. These data represent a complete inventory of all trees in the survey area that are greater than or equal to 3 inches in diameter and within 10 ft of the existing sewer line (in the central and upstream reaches where this area may be affected) and proposed improvements. The tree survey centered on trees that could require removal due to construction access needs. This survey does not determine the fate of the trees, but will allow planners to determine which trees are to be removed, relocated, or preserved in place.

GENERAL PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION

The Kingridge sanitary sewer main is located in a steeply-sloped and wooded ravine behind and below some 33 homes on Kingridge Drive between 36th and 42nd Avenues in the city of San Mateo (Figure 1). The canyon is also bordered by houses located on Fernwood Street, but all proposed improvements will take place to the west of the unnamed stream (Kingridge Drive side) that bisects the canyon. The canyon drains from southeast to northwest, parallel to Kingridge Drive, and eventually drains to nearby Laurel Creek via a culvert. Four biotic habitats occur on-site: developed/ornamental stands (including residential buildings and associated hardscape and ornamental plantings within residential yards), central coast live oak-bay riparian forest/mixed riparian forest (within the banks of the canyon), freshwater wetlands, and aquatic habitat within the channel of the unnamed stream. The quality of the riparian forest differs throughout the ravine, with wetland habitats, willows, and blue gum (Eucalytpus globulus) occuring in the downstream reach to the south of the Project study area, a high-quality coast live oak-bay riparian habitat in the central reach containing the study area (Figures 2a and 2b), and blue gums dominating the upstream reach to the south of the study area. Over the length of the canyon, landslides have disturbed and destabilized the bank topography, and in areas the sewer line and other normally subterranean infrastructure have been exposed. The Project site is located on the U.S. Geological Survey’s San Mateo 7.5-minute Quadrangle. Elevation ranges from approximately 100 to 240 feet (ft) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). Natural topography on the site consists of two somewhat steep and heavily wooded hillsides, with a central stream bed that is eroded to bedrock in some areas. The stream has a connection to a high groundwater table, and hydrology is also augmented by runoff from anthropogenic sources such as storm drains and lawn irrigation from the houses surrounding the canyon. Annual precipitation ranges from approximately 15 to 20 inches per year in this part of San Mateo County, and average annual temperatures are between 47 and 62 degrees Fahrenheit (NRCS 1991). Most of the yearly precipitation occurs from November through March. A total of three different soil types underlie the Project study area. These include Los Gatos loam, 30 to 75 percent slopes (found within the canyon); Urban land-Orthents, cut and fill complex, 5 to 75



2

percent slopes; and Orthents, cut and fill-Urban land complex, 5 to 75 percent slopes (NRCS 1991). The latter two soil types are found underlying the residential neighborhood on either side of the canyon. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not mapped any aquatic resources for the study area as part of the National Wetland Inventory Program (NWI).

LLaauu rr ee ll CC rr ee ee kk

San FranciscoBay

1 0 10.5

Miles±

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂_̂

_̂ _̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

Napa

Oakland

San Jose

StocktonMartinez

Hollister

Fairfield

Santa Cruz

San Rafael

Santa Rosa

Redwood City

San Francisco

S O L A N O

S A N TA C L A R A

A L A M E D A

N A PA

S O N O M A

C O N T R A C O S TA

M A R I N

S A N M AT E O

S A N TA C R U Z

S A N J O A Q U I N

S TA N I S L A U S

S A N B E N I T O

Y O L O

M O N T E R E Y

S A N F R A N C I S C O

M E R C E D

PACIFICOCEAN

Project Location

Detail

California

0 20

Miles

±

Figure 1: Vicinity Map

July 20102

N:\P

roje

cts3

000\

3019

-01\

03 P

hase

\Rep

orts

\Tre

e S

urve

y

Project Vicinity

Kingridge Sanitary Sewer Line Improvements – Phase IIITree Survey (3019-02)

!!

! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

! !! ! ! !!

!

!!

!!

!!

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

FERNWOOD ST

KINGRIDGE DR

Matchli

ne Fig

ure 2b

KINGRIDGE CREEK

NT

NT

0

NTNT

NT

488

471

NTNT

NT

NT

0

474 493NT

0483NT

805806

NT

NT

NT

482473

492

476 NT

484

489

NT

NT

490

NT

494486

491

NT

810

825

811

427

439

496

844

857 857

814

481497

801

472

819

818

816820

847

851

467

500

436

463465

466

498499 807

845848

813

425

826

863

475803

821

858859

428

477

804

843

854

860

480

451

454

822

824440

431

446

448

456

460

850

828

849

861855

452447430

429434

453

470449

829

457 464

432

450

448

458

459

478

479

812

815

823

827

438 435

426

437

433

455485

856

862

0

838839

495

830

831

833

468

808

846

802

852

809 817

444

887 841842

832

884

886

441 443

445

469

462461

840

853

442

487

885

Figure 2a: Tree Survey Map1July 2012

N:\P

roje

cts3

000\

3019

-01\

03 P

hase

\Rep

orts

\ID o

f Wat

ers

Kingridge Sanitary Sewer Line Improvements – Phase III Tree Survey (3019-02)

60 0 6030

Feet±

Imagery Source: San Francisco 2008, USGS

LEGENDStudy AreaEasement

!( TreesNT Not tagged due to inaccesibility

423 424

422

Proposed Retaining Wall

Proposed Fence

Proposed Strom Drain! ! Proposed Sewer

Proposed Slope Stabilization

Proposed Work

Note: Tree #s 430, 448, 450, 456, and 458 have been impacted (not by the Project) or died

! ! !! ! !

! ! ! !!

!!

!!

!!

!! !

!!

!!

!!

!!

! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

FERNWOOD ST

KINGRIDGE DR

Match

line F

igure

2aKINGRIDGE CREEK

NT

NT

NTNT

NT

NTNT

NT

NTNTNT

NT

NT

NT

825

844

857857

867

864851

845

848

886

869826

866865

873

882880884

863

878 879

858

859

843 854

860 871870

876

887

824

875

885

850

828

849

861

855

874

872

829883

823

827853

877

881856

862868838839

830 831 833

847846

852837

841 842832

834 836

840

835

Figure 2b: Tree Survey Map 2July 2012

N:\P

roje

cts3

000\

3019

-01\

03 P

hase

\Rep

orts

\ID o

f Wat

ers

Kingridge Sanitary Sewer Line Improvements – Phase III Tree Survey (3019-02)

50 0 5025

Feet±Imagery Source: San Francisco 2008, USGS

LEGENDStudy AreaEasement

!( TreesNT Not tagged due to inaccesibility

Proposed WorkProposed Retaining Wall

Proposed Fence

Proposed Strom Drain! ! Proposed Sewer

Proposed Slope Stabilization



6

METHODOLOGY

H. T. Harvey & Associates’ ecologist Charles McClain, M.S., conducted a tree survey within the Kingridge Sanitary Sewer Line Improvements – Phase III Project site on 29 and 30 March 2010. Ecologist Kelly Hardwicke, Ph.D., also visited the site on 2 December 2011 to identify an inaccessible, untagged tree in the channel to be removed by the project. In accordance with our scope of work, the tree survey boundary was defined by the existing sewer line in the central and upstream reaches and proposed access routes and improvement locations associated with this work. Very small trees and saplings (e.g., <3 inches diameter at breast height [dbh]) were not included in our tree survey. For the purposes of this report, a “tree” was defined as a woody stem with or without multiple trunks with a dbh greater than or equal to 3 inches at 4 ft (approximate breast height above natural grade). No stems in multi-stemmed trees less than the 3 inch dbh cutoff were counted as part of this survey. Locations of each tree were previously surveyed in by a surveyor team due to a thick riparian canopy that prevented the use of submeter Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to map the locations of trees. Trees missed by the surveyor were estimated for location on an aerial photograph in relation to the surveyed location of the other trees, sewer line features, and stream channel in that area. Survey data for all trees in the survey area were collected and compiled. All trees that were accessible were tagged with aluminum labels. Trees rooted in private yards (fenced off, or in landscaped portions of yards), or that were inaccessible due to topography were not tagged, and are shown on the maps as “NT”. Data collected for each tree included species, diameter, and spatial location. Trees were identified to species using The Jepson Manual of Higher Plants of California (Hickman 1993) and Trees and Shrubs of California (Stuart and Sawyer 2001), and are reported here consistent with revised nomenclature in Baldwin et al. 2012, Diameters were measured with a Biltmore stick at 4 ft from ground level (as in the City Ordinance). For multi-stemmed trees (branching below 4 ft), an additive diameter was calculated by adding the diameters; the additive diameter was considered for classification as a “tree” for the sake of this survey. All tree locations were mapped onto an aerial photograph (Figures 2a and 2b).

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE AND PROJECT APPLICABILITY

Streams, ditches, and drainages that contain a defined bed, bank, and channel are under the regulatory jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). In determining the extent and distribution of CDFG jurisdictional habitats within and adjacent to the study area, the site was assessed following the methodology outlined in A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600-1607, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG 1994). The central coast live oak-bay/mixed riparian forest occurs in the area of the canyon itself (both riparian forest types within this matrix are jurisdictional). It is highly likely that CDFG will consider all areas underneath this canopy, up to the point of ornamental landscaping associated with private yards, jurisdictional due to the continuity of the riparian canopy at the site. CDFG is likely to regard the sharp difference between habitat quality and wildlife use within the canyon compared to the surrounding developed habitat outside the canyon to be the most important factor when making their determination. In such a case, they have the purview to claim all areas within the contiguous canopy.



7

Therefore, it is likely that a permit from the CDFG (i.e., Streambed Alteration Agreement or SAA) under Section 1602 of Fish and Game Code will be required for Project actions that would alter the bed and banks of the creek and canyon or impact riparian habitat (including through tree removal or trimming) within the creek and canyon bed and banks. The CDFG will require compensatory mitigation for impacts to riparian habitat resulting in loss of woody vegetation.

CITY OF SAN MATEO TREE ORDINANCES AND PROJECT APPLICABILITY

The City of San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 10.52 provides protection for certain large, native, or otherwise important trees within the city limits, termed “heritage trees.” Removal or actions (such as root impacts) predictably leading to the death of such trees requires a permit be granted. Heritage trees include any bay, buckeye, oak, or redwood tree that has a diameter of 10 inches or more measured at 48 inches above natural grade; as well as any other tree with a trunk diameter of 16 inches or more, measured at 48 inches above natural grade. However, the code also allows any franchised public utility or representative of the City to remove trees which interfere with the safe and efficient operation of the public service for which they are responsible. Subject to the provisions of chapter 7.24 and 17.28, such trees may be removed without permit (Ord. 1984-7 § 3, 1984; Ord. 1968-35 § 3 (part), 1968: prior code § 65.52). The proposed Project meets the conditions for this categorical exemption. However, we have indicated here which trees meet the definition of a heritage tree as per the ordinance.



8

RESULTS

We recorded a total of 256 trees of 3 inches dbh or larger in the survey area (Figure 2). Twenty species were identified (13 native and 7 non-native). Some trees were not identified to species because some anatomical characters important for successful identification to species (e.g., fruits, flowers, cones, etc.) were missing at the time of surveys. They were, however, were ruled out as being native species. Tree locations are shown in Figures 2a and 2b, labeled by tree tag number. Table 1 summarizes the additive diameter of all trees of each species, and total number of trees and stems located within 10 ft of the Kingridge sewer line and/or proposed access routes or other improvements. Coast live oak, blue gum, and California bay were the most frequently occurring trees, had the largest additive diameter, and the most number of stems of all of the species. Nearly 62% of the total additive diameter was due to native species, which were 2.4 times more common than non-native trees. Seventy-eight percent of all stems were from native species. Table 1. Additive Diameter and Total Number of Trees and Stems of Native and Non-native Species within 10 ft of the Existing Sewer Line and Proposed Improvements to This Line at the Kingridge Sanitary Sewer Line Improvements – Phase III Project Site

Common Name Latin Name Native Additive Diameter (inches)

Total Number of

Trees

Total Number of

Stems acacia Acacia spp. N 34 2 2 California buckeye Aesculus californica Y 16 2 2 orange Citrus spp. N 4 1 1

MacNab's cypress

Hesperocyparis macnabiana (formerly Cupressus macnabiana) Y 22 1 1

blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1892 64 68 toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia Y 22 2 4 walnut Juglans hindsii Y 20 1 1 apple Malus spp. N 6 1 1 olive Olea europaea N 6 1 1 knobcone pine Pinus attenuata Y 132 6 6 bishop pine Pinus muricata Y 28 2 2 Monterey pine Pinus radiata Y 30 2 2 pine Pinus spp. N 22 2 2 holly leaf cherry Prunus ilicifolia Y 12 1 2 Klamath plum Prunus subcordata Y 4 1 1 coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Y 2056 101 173 interior live oak Quercus wislizeni Y 44 4 5 arroyo willow Salix lasiolepis Y 30 2 3 ash Sorbus spp. N 10 1 2 California bay Umbellularia californica Y 817 57 90



9

Common Name Latin Name Native Additive Diameter (inches)

Total Number of

Trees

Total Number of

Stems unknown unknown N 20 3 3 Natives 3221 181 291 Non-natives 1994 75 80 Total 5215 256 371

Table 2 lists each tree by number and provides the common name, Latin name, number of stems, diameter of each stem, the additive stem diameter, and heritage tree status (as defined by The City of San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 10.52) for each tree within 10 ft of the proposed improvements and existing sewer line. All 256 trees will likely require mitigation under California State Fish and Game Code if removed or heavily trimmed. A total of 174 of these are considered heritage trees. Table 2. Trees within 10 ft of the Existing Sewer Line and Proposed Improvements to This Line at the Kingridge Sanitary Sewer Line Improvements – Phase III Project Site

Tree # Common Name Latin Name Native Number

of Stems

Diameter of Stems (inches)

Additive Stem

Diameter (inches)

Heritage Tree

330 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 84 84 Y 331 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 84 84 Y 332 acacia Acacia spp. N 1 14 14 N

333 arroyo willow Salix lasiolepis Y 2 7,5 12 N

334 ash Sorbus spp.. N 2 6,4 10 N 335 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 20 20 Y 336 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 40 40 Y 337 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 20 20 Y 338 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 48 48 Y 339 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 20 20 Y 340 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 48 48 Y 341 unknown unknown N 1 10 10 N 342 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 36 36 Y 343 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 16 16 Y 344 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 16 16 Y 345 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 12 12 N 346 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 30 30 Y 347 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 16 16 Y 348 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 2 16,4 20 Y 349 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 30 30 Y 350 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 36 36 Y 351 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 30 30 Y 352 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 20 20 Y 353 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 18 18 Y 354 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 30 30 Y



10


of Stems


Additive Stem

Diameter (inches)

Heritage Tree

355 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 30 30 Y 356 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 36 36 Y 357 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 40 40 Y

358 arroyo willow Salix lasiolepis Y 1 18 18 Y

359 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 14 14 N 360 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 40 40 Y 361 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 24 24 Y 362 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 6 6 N 363 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 20 20 Y 364 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 20 20 Y 365 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 2 6,42 48 Y 366 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 36 36 Y 367 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 48 48 Y 368 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 18 18 Y 369 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 60 60 Y 370 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 34 34 Y

371 MacNab’s cypress

Hesperocyparis macnabiana Y 1 22 22 Y

372 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 48 48 Y 373 olive Olea europaea N 1 6 6 N

374 California bay

Umbellularia californica Y 1 6 6 N

375 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 24 24 Y 376 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 40 40 Y

377 coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Y 1 4 4 N

378 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 10 10 N

379 California bay

Umbellularia californica Y 2 8,8 16 Y

380 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 10 10 N

381 coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Y 1 12 12 Y

382 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 40 40 Y 383 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 40 40 Y 384 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 2 6,6 12 N 385 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 2 5,4 9 N


387 coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Y 2 10,10 20 Y

388 coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Y 3 10,10,6 26 Y



11


of Stems


Additive Stem

Diameter (inches)

Heritage Tree



391 coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Y 4 12,10,10,8 40 Y

392 coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Y 5 15,22,12,2

0,6 75 Y






0,14 66 Y









431 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 16 16 Y





1 Main trunk has been chopped down (not by the Project); remaining tree has been heavily trimmed.



12


of Stems


Additive Stem

Diameter (inches)

Heritage Tree


437 bishop pine Pinus muricata Y 1 10 10 N


0,12 52 Y




442 pine Pinus spp. ? 1 10 10 N

443 Monterey pine Pinus radiata Y 1 14 14 N

444 Monterey pine Pinus radiata Y 1 16 16 N






2 48 Y



452 coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Y 5 12,14,9,9,1

4 58 Y





2 Tree has fallen over (died). 3 Tree has fallen over (died). 4 Tree has fallen over (died).



13


of Stems


Additive Stem

Diameter (inches)

Heritage Tree






462 California bay



464 California bay


465 California bay


466 California bay


467 California bay

Umbellularia californica Y 3 4,4,4 12 Y

468 interior live oak Quercus wislizeni Y 1 4 4 N



471 California bay



473 California bay


474 California bay



0 58 Y



5 Tree has fallen over (died).



14


of Stems


Additive Stem

Diameter (inches)

Heritage Tree




481 holly leaf cherry Prunus ilicifolia Y 2 6,6 12 N

482 California bay


483 California bay








490 California bay


491 California bay

Umbellularia californica Y 2 4,4 8 N


493 California buckeye Aesculus californica Y 1 6 6 N



496 California bay







15


of Stems


Additive Stem

Diameter (inches)

Heritage Tree

500 coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Y 2 4,4 8 N


802 California bay

Umbellularia californica Y 1 20 20 Y



805 California bay


806 California bay


807 Klamath plum Prunus subcordata Y 1 4 4 N

808 California bay




811 California bay


812 California bay



814 California bay

Umbellularia californica Y 7 10,10,10,1

0,8,5,5 58 Y

815 California bay


816 California bay



818 California bay


819 apple Malus spp. N 1 6 6 N


821 California bay





16


of Stems


Additive Stem

Diameter (inches)

Heritage Tree

823 California bay


824 California bay


825 California bay

Umbellularia californica Y 2 6,6 12 N

826 California bay



828 California bay

Umbellularia californica Y 4 8,8,12,5 33 Y

829 California bay


830 interior live oak Quercus wislizenii Y 2 9,5 14 Y

831 California bay



833 interior live oak Quercus wislizenii Y 1 6 6 N



836 California bay




839 California bay




842 California bay



844 California bay




17


of Stems


Additive Stem

Diameter (inches)

Heritage Tree

845 California bay


846 California bay


847 California bay




850 California bay




853 California bay


854 California bay


855 California bay


856 California buckeye Aesculus californica Y 1 10 10 Y

857 California bay



859 California bay


860 California bay





864 toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia Y 2 6,6 12 N

865 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 30 30 Y 866 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 32 32 Y

867 toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia Y 2 6,4 10 N





18


of Stems


Additive Stem

Diameter (inches)

Heritage Tree

870 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 20 20 Y 871 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 20 20 Y 872 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 15 15 N 873 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 30 30 Y

874 knobcone pine Pinus attenuata Y 1 15 15 N

875 knobcone pine Pinus attenuata Y 1 18 18 Y

876 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 20 20 Y 877 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 12 12 N 878 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 24 24 Y 879 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 24 24 Y 880 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 30 30 Y 881 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 12 12 N 882 blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 30 30 Y


Tree A (N/A)

California bay



885 bishop pine Pinus muricata Y 1 18 18 Y


887 walnut Juglans spp. Y 1 20 20 Y N/A acacia Acacia spp. N 1 20 20 Y N/A orange Citrus spp. N 1 4 4 N N/A blue gum Eucalyptus globulus N 1 48 48 Y

N/A knobcone pine Pinus attenuata Y 1 15 15 N

N/A knobcone pine Pinus attenuata Y 1 28 28 Y



N/A pine Pinus spp. ? 1 12 12 N

N/A6 coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Y 1 13 13 Y

N/A coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Y 1 20 20 Y

6 Not tagged, identified by Schaaf & Wheeler.



19


of Stems


Additive Stem

Diameter (inches)

Heritage Tree

N/A coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Y 1 20 20 Y

N/A interior live oak Quercus wislizenii Y 1 20 20 Y

N/A California bay


N/A California bay


N/A California bay


N/A California bay


N/A California bay


N/A California bay


N/A California bay


N/A California bay


N/A unknown unknown N 1 6 6 N N/A unknown unknown N 1 4 4 N



20

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.

Hickman, J. C. 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. University of California

Press. Berkeley, CA. [NRCS] Natural Resource Conservation Service. 1991. Soil Survey of San Mateo County,

Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Stuart, J. D. and J. O. Sawyer. 2001. Trees and shrubs of California. University of California

Press. Berkeley, CA.

AAppppeennddiixx BB

CCuullttuurraall RReessoouurrcceess SSttuuddyy

AAppppeennddiixx CC

GGeeootteecchhnniiccaall EEvvaalluuaattiioonn

Documents

Survey Results. - San Mateo, California