Item 7.1 Att 4 (5) Ex A - Final_EACCS_Oct2010_Print - City of Dublin

EACCS 

OCTOBER 2010 

EAST ALAMEDA COUNTY CONSERVATION STRATEGY 

FINAL DRAFT 

Alameda County Congestion Management Agency 

Alameda County Resource Conservation District 

Alameda County Waste Management Authority 

California Department of Fish and Game 

City of Dublin 

City of Livermore 

City of Pleasanton 

County of Alameda 

East Bay Regional Park District 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Zone 7 Water Agency

FINAL DRAFT 

EAST ALAMEDA COUNTY CONSERVATION STRATEGY 

P REPARED FOR: 

East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Steering Committee 

100 North Canyons Parkway 

Livermore, CA 94551 

Contact: Mary Lim 

925.454.5036 

P REPARED BY: 

ICF International 

2841 Junction Avenue, Suite 114 

San Jose, CA 95134 

Contact: Troy Rahmig 

408.434.2244 

October 2010

ICF International. 2010. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. Final 

Draft. October. (ICF 00906.08.) San Jose, CA. Prepared for: East Alameda 

County Conservation Strategy Steering Committee, Livermore, CA.

Contents 

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... vi 

List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... viii 

Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1-1 

1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.1.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.1.2 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1-2 

1.1.3 Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 1-3 

1.2 Overview of the Planning Process ................................................................................... 1-4 

1.2.1 Steering Committee ......................................................................................................... 1-4 

1.2.2 Users Advisory Group ...................................................................................................... 1-5 

1.2.3 Public Outreach and Involvement ................................................................................... 1-6 

1.3 Scope of Conservation Strategy ....................................................................................... 1-7 

1.3.1 Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 1-7 

1.3.2 Regulatory Scope ............................................................................................................. 1-8 

1.3.3 Focal Species .................................................................................................................... 1-8 

1.4 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................... 1-11 

1.4.1 Federal and State Endangered Species Laws ................................................................. 1-11 

1.4.2 Other Federal and State Species Laws ........................................................................... 1-17 

1.4.3 National Environmental Policy Act ................................................................................ 1-19 

1.4.4 California Environmental Quality Act ............................................................................ 1-20 

1.4.5 Federal and State Wetland Laws and Regulations ........................................................ 1-20 

1.5 Document Organization ................................................................................................. 1-22 

Chapter 2 Environmental Setting .............................................................................................. 2-1 

2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.2 Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 2-2 

2.2.1 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................... 2-2 

2.2.2 Land Use Categories ........................................................................................................ 2-3 

2.2.3 Land Use Controls ............................................................................................................ 2-7 

2.2.4 Open Space (Public Lands and Private Easements) ......................................................... 2-9 

2.3 Physical Resources ......................................................................................................... 2-15 

2.3.1 Location.......................................................................................................................... 2-15 

2.3.2 Topography .................................................................................................................... 2-15 

2.3.3 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................... 2-16 

2.3.4 Climate ........................................................................................................................... 2-19 

East Alameda County Conservation Strategy i October 2010 

ICF 00906.08

2.3.5 Hydrology ....................................................................................................................... 2-21 

2.4 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 2-23 

2.4.1 Methods ......................................................................................................................... 2-23 

2.4.2 Biological Diversity in the Study Area ............................................................................ 2-31 

2.4.3 Natural Communities and Land Cover Types ................................................................. 2-32 

2.4.4 Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Linkages ................................................................... 2-76 

Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy .............................................................................................. 3-1 

3.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.2 Project-Level Use of the Strategy .................................................................................... 3-3 

3.2.1 Standardized Mitigation .................................................................................................. 3-4 

3.2.2 Impact/Mitigation Scoring of Focal Species Habitat ........................................................ 3-5 

3.3 Independent Conservation Actions ................................................................................. 3-6 

3.4 Methods and Sources ...................................................................................................... 3-6 

3.4.1 Conservation Gap Analysis ............................................................................................... 3-7 

3.4.2 Geographic Units of Conservation ................................................................................... 3-8 

3.5 Conservation Goals and Objectives ................................................................................. 3-9 

3.5.1 Landscape-Level Goals and Objectives .......................................................................... 3-10 

3.5.2 Natural Community–Level Goals and Objectives .......................................................... 3-12 

3.5.3 Focal Species Goals and Objectives ............................................................................... 3-40 

Chapter 4 Conservation Zones .................................................................................................. 4-1 

4.1 Conservation Zone 1 ........................................................................................................ 4-3 

4.1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 4-3 

4.1.2 Conservation Priorities .................................................................................................... 4-4 

4.1.3 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 4-4 


4.2.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 4-4 


4.2.3 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 4-6 


4.3.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 4-6 


4.3.3 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 4-7 


4.4.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 4-8 


4.4.3 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 4-9 

East Alameda County Conservation Strategy ii October 2010 

ICF 00906.08

4.5 Conservation Zone 5 ...................................................................................................... 4-10 

4.5.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 4-10 

4.5.2 Conservation Priorities .................................................................................................. 4-11 

4.5.3 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4-12 


4.6.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 4-13 


4.6.3 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4-15 


4.7.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 4-15 


4.7.3 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4-17 


4.8.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 4-17 


4.8.3 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4-18 


4.9.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 4-19 


4.9.3 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4-21 

4.10 Conservation Zone 10 .................................................................................................... 4-21 

4.10.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 4-21 

4.10.2 Conservation Priorities ............................................................................................ 4-22 

4.10.3 Summary ................................................................................................................. 4-24 


4.11.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 4-25 


4.11.3 Summary ................................................................................................................. 4-26 


4.12.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 4-26 


4.12.3 Summary ................................................................................................................. 4-28 


4.13.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 4-28 


4.13.3 Summary ................................................................................................................. 4-30 

East Alameda County Conservation Strategy iii October 2010 

ICF 00906.08


4.14.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 4-31 


4.14.3 Summary ................................................................................................................. 4-32 


4.15.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 4-33 


4.15.3 Summary ................................................................................................................. 4-35 


4.16.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 4-35 


4.16.3 Summary ................................................................................................................. 4-37 


4.17.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 4-38 


4.17.3 Summary ................................................................................................................. 4-39 


4.18.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 4-40 


4.18.3 Summary ................................................................................................................. 4-41 

Chapter 5 Conservation Strategy Implementation .................................................................... 5-1 

5.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 5-2 

5.2 Implementation Structure ............................................................................................... 5-3 

5.2.1 Implementation Committee ............................................................................................ 5-3 

5.2.2 Public Advisory Committee .............................................................................................. 5-5 

5.2.3 Annual Meeting ............................................................................................................... 5-5 

5.2.4 Data Tracking and Reporting ........................................................................................... 5-6 

5.3 Funding ............................................................................................................................ 5-9 

5.4 Participating Entities ........................................................................................................ 5-9 

5.4.1 Local Governments .......................................................................................................... 5-9 

5.4.2 State and Federal Resource Agencies ............................................................................ 5-10 

5.4.3 Special Districts and Agencies ........................................................................................ 5-10 

5.5 Project-by-Project Regulatory Compliance .................................................................... 5-11 

5.5.1 National Environmental Policy Act ................................................................................ 5-11 

5.5.2 California Environmental Quality Act ............................................................................ 5-11 

5.5.3 Federal Endangered Species Permitting ........................................................................ 5-12 

5.5.4 State Endangered Species Permitting ............................................................................ 5-14 

East Alameda County Conservation Strategy iv October 2010 

ICF 00906.08

5.5.5 Federal Clean Water Act Permitting .............................................................................. 5-14 

5.5.6 Clean Water Act Section 401 and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act ........ 5-14 

5.5.7 State Streambed and Lake Alteration Agreement ......................................................... 5-15 

5.6 Conservation through Mitigation .................................................................................. 5-15 

5.6.1 Roles and Responsibilities of Project Applicants ........................................................... 5-16 

5.6.2 Land Acquisition for Mitigation ..................................................................................... 5-18 

5.6.3 Conservation Easements for Mitigation ........................................................................ 5-20 

5.6.4 Conservation or Mitigation Banks ................................................................................. 5-24 

5.6.5 New Concepts for Mitigation Planning .......................................................................... 5-25 

5.7 Conservation Actions Unrelated to Mitigation—Voluntary Conservation Actions ....... 5-26 

5.7.1 Existing Stewardship Programs ...................................................................................... 5-27 

5.7.2 New Stewardship Programs and Tools .......................................................................... 5-29 

Chapter 6 Literature Cited ........................................................................................................ 6-1 

6.1 Printed References ........................................................................................................... 6-1 

6.2 Personal Communications ............................................................................................. 6-21 

Appendix A 

Appendix B 

Appendix C 

Appendix D 

Appendix E 

Appendix F 

Appendix G 

Wildlife Species List 

Plant Species List 

Glossary 

Species Accounts 

Mitigation Score Sheets 

Conservation Easement Toolkit 

Water Quality Objectives for Use in Designing and Implementing Projects with Impacts 

to Creeks or Wetlands 

East Alameda County Conservation Strategy v October 2010 

ICF 00906.08

Tables 

Appear at the end of chapters in which they are named. 

1-1 Species Proposed for Inclusion as Focal Species for the East Alameda County Conservation 

Strategy 

2-1 Simplified Land Use Planning Designations from Local General Plans 

2-2 Summary of Open Space in the Conservation Strategy as of October 2010 

2-3 Comparison of East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Land Cover Classification to 

Other State and Local Classification Systems 

2-4 Land Cover Types and their Extent in the Study Area 

3-1 Conservation Goals for Land Cover within the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 

Study Area 

3-2 General Avoidance and Minimization Measures to Reduce Effects on Focal Species 

3-3 Species-Specific AMMs 

3-4 Standardized Mitigation Ratios for Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp in the EACCS Study Area 

3-5 Standardized Mitigation Ratios for Longhorn Fairy Shrimp in the EACCS Study Area 

3-6 Standardized Mitigation Ratios for Callippe Silverspot Butterfly in the EACCS Study Area 

3-7 Standardized Mitigation Ratios for California Red-Legged Frog in the EACCS Study Area 

3-8 Standardized Mitigation Ratios for California Tiger Salamander in the EACCS Study Area 

3-9 Standardized Mitigation Ratios for Alameda Whipsnake in the EACCS Study Area 

3-10 Standardized Mitigation Ratios for Non-Listed Species in the EACCS Study Area 

3-11 Standardized Mitigation Ratios for San Joaquin Kit Fox in the EACCS Study Area 

3-12 Standardized Mitigation Ratios for Focal Plant Species in the EACCS Study Area 

4-1 Natural Land Cover Protection Goals for Conservation Zone 1 







East Alameda County Conservation Strategy vi October 2010 

ICF 00906.08












4-19a Modeled Suitable Habitat (acres) for Focal Invertebrate Species 

4-19b Modeled Suitable Habitat (acres) for Reptile and Amphibian Species 

4-19c Modeled Suitable Habitat (acres) for Focal Bird Species 

4-19d Modeled Suitable Habitat (acres) for Focal Mammal Species 

4-19e Modeled Suitable Habitat (acres) for Focal Plant Species 

4-20 Critical Habitat (acres) for Federally Listed Focal Species 

East Alameda County Conservation Strategy vii October 2010 

ICF 00906.08

Figures 

Appear at the end of chapters in which they are named. 

1-1 Study Area 

1-2 How the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Will Work 

2-1 East Alameda County Simplified Land Use Planning Designations from Local General Plans 

2-2 Criteria for Open Space Types 

2-3 East Alameda County Open Space (Public Lands and Private Easements) 

2-4 East Alameda County Topography 

2-5 East Alameda County Soils 

2-6 East Alameda County Unique Soil Resources 

2-7 Watersheds 

2-8 East Alameda County Land Cover 

2-9 Pond Density 

3-1 Conservation Zones 

3-2 Grassland Land Cover 

3-3 Chaparral and Coastal Scrub Land Cover 

3-4 Conifer Woodland and Oak Woodland 

3-5 Aquatic Land Cover 

3-6 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Standardized Mitigation Reference Map 

3-7 Longhorn Fairy Shrimp Standardized Mitigation Reference Map 

3-8 Callippe Silverspot Butterfly Standardized Mitigation Reference Map 

3-9 California Red-Legged Frog Standardized Mitigation Reference Map 

3-10 California Tiger Salamander Standardized Mitigation Reference Map 

3-11 Plants and Non-Listed Wildlife Species Standardized Mitigation Reference Map 

3-12 Alameda Whipsnake Standardized Mitigation Reference Map 

3-13 San Joaquin Kit Fox Standardized Mitigation Reference Map 

East Alameda County Conservation Strategy viii October 2010 

ICF 00906.08

Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Table of Contents 

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 1-1 

1.1.1 Overview ......................................................................................... 1-1 

1.1.2 Background...................................................................................... 1-2 

1.1.3 Purpose ........................................................................................... 1-3 

1.2 Overview of the Planning Process ......................................................... 1-4 

1.2.1 Steering Committee ........................................................................ 1-4 

1.2.2 Users Advisory Group ...................................................................... 1-5 

1.2.3 Public Outreach and Involvement ................................................... 1-6 

1.3 Scope of Conservation Strategy ............................................................. 1-7 

1.3.1 Study Area ....................................................................................... 1-7 

1.3.2 Regulatory Scope ............................................................................. 1-8 

1.3.3 Focal Species ................................................................................... 1-8 

1.4 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................... 1-11 

1.4.1 Federal and State Endangered Species Laws ................................ 1-11 

1.4.2 Other Federal and State Species Laws .......................................... 1-17 

1.4.3 National Environmental Policy Act ................................................ 1-19 

1.4.4 California Environmental Quality Act ............................................ 1-20 

1.4.5 Federal and State Wetland Laws and Regulations ........................ 1-20 

1.5 Document Organization ....................................................................... 1-22 

1.1 Introduction 

1.1.1 Overview 

The East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (hereafter, Conservation 

Strategy) is intended to provide an effective framework to protect, enhance, 

and restore natural resources in eastern Alameda County, while improving and 

streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts resulting from 

infrastructure and development projects. The Conservation Strategy will focus 

on impacts on biological resources such as endangered and other special-status 

East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 1-1 October 2010 

ICF 00906.08

Chapter 1 Introduction 

species as well as sensitive habitat types (e.g., wetlands, riparian corridors, rare 

upland communities). The federal, state, and local entities listed below have 

prepared this Conservation Strategy in partnership: 

• Alameda County (County); 

• Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA); 

• Alameda County Waste Management Authority; 

• Alameda County Resource Conservation District (ACRCD); 

• California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); 

• City of Dublin; 

• City of Livermore; 

• City of Pleasanton; 

• East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD); 

• Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS); 

• San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB); 

• Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7); and 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

The Conservation Strategy will enable local projects to comply with state and 

federal regulatory requirements within a framework of comprehensive 

conservation goals and objectives, and be implemented using consistent and 

standardized mitigation requirements. Section 1.3.1 provides a detailed 

description of the Conservation Strategy study area. 

1.1.2 Background 

Local agencies in eastern Alameda County have until now primarily conducted 

threatened and endangered species permitting for urban growth, infrastructure 

development, and operations and maintenance activities with the Resource 

Agencies (USFWS, CDFG, SFRWQCB) on a project-by-project basis. This has 

often resulted in project delays, inconsistencies during the review process, and 

piecemeal mitigation for special-status species and natural communities. 

The City of Livermore and Zone 7 held early discussions with USFWS and CDFG 

to determine the best course of action for the region. USFWS and CDFG 

identified a need for a comprehensive regional conservation strategy. Initial 

discussions ruled out a habitat conservation plan (HCP) as a tool to provide this 

strategy because of the growth controls in place in the county and the three 

cities. Because of these growth controls, local agencies expect relatively low 

levels of future residential and commercial development on natural lands that 


ICF 00906.08


would typically fund a large part of HCP implementation. Instead, a regional 

conservation strategy that would not result in incidental take permits for 

threatened or endangered species, as is the case in an HCP, was recommended 

as the best tool to reach the common goals. Other local land use and resource 

agencies joined the process in order to address impacts from infrastructure and 

development projects in a comprehensive manner. Since it was anticipated that 

the majority of mitigation that resulted from the Conservation Strategy would 

occur on private lands, the NRCS and ACRCD joined the planning process as well. 

This was enabled in part through a CALFED Bay-Delta Program grant that the 

ACRCD received in 2007 to support the planning process and components of 

Conservation Strategy implementation. A Steering Committee was then formed 

to guide the planning process. 

1.1.3 Purpose 

The primary purpose of this Conservation Strategy is to provide a baseline 

inventory of biological resources and conservation priorities that will be utilized 

by local agencies and resource agencies during project-level planning and 

environmental permitting. To this end, the Conservation Strategy describes 

how to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on selected focal special-status 

species and sensitive habitats. By implementing the Conservation Strategy, 

local agencies can more easily address the legal requirements relevant to these 

species. Projects and activities that will benefit from this Conservation Strategy 

include urban and suburban growth and a variety of road, water, and other 

needed infrastructure construction and maintenance activities. Because this 

Conservation Strategy will not result in permits, but rather serve as guidance for 

project-level permits, individual projects may need to implement different or 

more avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures than what is outlined 

here. To avoid this from happening, the Resource Agencies have participated in 

the development of this Conservation Strategy with the intent that it becomes 

the blueprint for all mitigation and conservation in the study area. 

This Conservation Strategy is designed to serve as a coordinated approach to 

conservation in the eastern portion of Alameda County. This Conservation 

Strategy not only addresses project-level mitigation for potential impacts to 

species and habitats throughout the eastern part of the county, but also 

provides a broader, coordinated approach for local conservation efforts beyond 

those required by mitigation. In turn the strategy will capitalize on existing 

stewardship practices that are a long tradition in the county and encourage new 

means for those practices to persist. This includes identification of important 

conservation priorities in the county that are supported by local stakeholders 

and resource agencies and the importance on not just protection of those 

resources, but management as well. 

This Conservation Strategy will achieve the specific goals listed below. 


ICF 00906.08


• Set priorities for mitigation and conservation to contribute to the protection 

of special-status species and sensitive habitats in eastern Alameda County. 

• Improve corridors and linkages between other conservation planning efforts 

(HCPs/NCCPs) inside and adjacent to the EACCS Study Area. 

• Set goals to document, protect, and enhance native biological and 

ecological diversity in the study area. 

• Establish a set of standards to preserve, enhance, restore, manage, and 

monitor native species and the habitats and ecosystems upon which they 

depend. 

• Streamline and simplify the issuance of permits for future project 

proponents in the study area by indicating clear standards for lawful 

incidental take 1 of species listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to 

the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and California Endangered Species 

Act (CESA) and by setting clear mitigation ratios for focal species and 

sensitive habitats. 

• Standardize avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and compensation 

requirements of the ESA, CESA, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other applicable laws and 

regulations relating to biological and natural resources within the study 

area, so that public and private actions will be governed equally and 

consistently, thus reducing delays, expenses, and regulatory duplication. 

• Provide a less costly, more efficient project review process that will result in 

more productive conservation than the current project-by-project, speciesby-species 

compliance process for special-status species and sensitive 

habitat. 

• Restore natural communities that have been degraded or lost over time 

where possible. 

• Introduce creative solutions to making land management activities which 

benefit focal species more feasible through incentives for and the education 

of the private lands community. 

1.2 Overview of the Planning Process 

1.2.1 Steering Committee 

The Steering Committee comprises the Resource Agencies and a representative 

from each local agency (funding partner) that is likely to have a need to mitigate 

1 Take as defined by the ESA means “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to 

attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Incidental take is take that is incidental to, and not intended as part of, an 

otherwise lawful activity. 


ICF 00906.08


public projects within the study area in the foreseeable future or support 

implementation of the Conservation Strategy through on the ground 

conservation. A list of local agencies and Resource Agencies that were 

represented on the Steering Committee is shown in the opening paragraph of 

this document. During the planning process, the Steering Committee made 

decisions regarding the budget, management, and administration of the 

consultant contract. The Steering Committee directed the Conservation 

Strategy project and made decisions regarding public outreach, including 

convening the Users Advisory Group (UAG) (see Section 1.2.2, below). Decisionmaking 

by the Steering Committee was by consensus. The Steering Committee 

met once a month with additional meetings as needed at their discretion. 

1.2.2 Users Advisory Group 

The UAG was convened to review and provide real-time feedback to the 

Steering Committee and consultants on work products. The UAG was 

comprised of technical and nontechnical representatives from those entities 

that intend to use the strategy, such as local public agencies, USFWS, CDFG, 

Corps, SFRWQCB, developers, landowners, and environmental and conservation 

groups. The Steering Committee solicited participation in the UAG through 

mailings to individuals and groups that live or operate in eastern Alameda 

County. One information meeting was held to discuss the scope of the 

Conservation Strategy and the purpose of the UAG. Those interested in joining 

the UAG then completed an application. Those applications were reviewed by 

the Steering Committee and all that applied were asked to join the UAG. The 

Steering Committee conducted additional outreach to groups that were 

underrepresented on the UAG to create a group that was balanced and 

representative of interests in eastern Alameda County. 

UAG members served as the point of contact for the group they were 

representing. The duties of the UAG included, but were not limited to, the 

following: reviewing, discussing, and providing comments on work products 

from the consultant; providing suggestions and advice of work products to the 

Steering Committee; and serving as a conduit between the Conservation 

Strategy planning process and their respective constituencies. The UAG met 

approximately every 6 weeks during the planning process. 

The UAG consists of 27 individuals (plus several alternates) representing various 

interests. Groups represented on the UAG include: 

• Alameda Creek Alliance; 

• Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission; 

• Audubon Society – Ohlone Chapter; 

• California Coastal Conservancy; 


ICF 00906.08


• California Native Plant Society-East Bay Chapter (EBCNPS); 

• Fletcher Conservation Properties; 

• Friends of Livermore; 

• Friends of Springtown Preserve; 

• Friends of the Vineyards; 

• Greenbelt Alliance; 

• Hacienda Business Park; 

• Home Builders Association of Northern California; 

• Individual Rural Landowners; 

• Lawrence Livermore Laboratories; 

• Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD); 

• Robert Harris & Associates; 

• Save Mount Diablo; 

• San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC); 

• Sierra Club; 

• The Nature Conservancy; and 

• Tri-Valley Conservancy. 

1.2.3 Public Outreach and Involvement 

To address general public inquiries about the Conservation Strategy, the 

Steering Committee convened a public outreach subcommittee to coordinate 

outreach efforts and direct the work of the consultant. The most direct form of 

public outreach that occurred during the planning process was through the 

UAG. The Steering Committee hosted three public meetings at key points 

during the planning process to better inform the public about the process and 

to identify opportunities for the public to become involved. In addition, two 

outreach events were sponsored by the ACRCD to provide a forum for rural 

landowners to ask questions about and provide feedback on the planning 

process. 

Public outreach and review was facilitated through a variety of channels, 

including: 

• Conservation Strategy factsheet; 

• list of frequently asked questions; 

• landowner workshops hosted by ACRCD; 


ICF 00906.08


• Conservation Strategy website with project updates, materials posted for 

review, and Steering Committee contacts; 

• noticed updates to boards and councils delivered by Steering Committee 

representatives from each local agency; and 

• public meetings at key project milestones occurred in: 

 

 

 

May 2009 to review data and conservation goals, 

September 2009 to review conservation priorities and draft strategy, 

and 

September 2010 to review Public Release Draft of strategy, including 

Standardized Mitigation Ratios and Focal Species Habitat Evaluation 

Tools. 

1.3 Scope of Conservation Strategy 

This section introduces key elements of the Conservation Strategy: geographic 

scope (study area), regulatory scope, and focal species. 

1.3.1 Study Area 

The study area lies within Alameda County (Figure 1-1). Alameda County has a 

land area of 525,540 acres; the study area encompasses 271,485 acres, or 

approximately 52% of the county. The study area completely includes the cities 

of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton. The boundary of the study area was 

based on political, ecological, and hydrologic factors (Figure 1-1). The western 

boundary of the study area runs along the Alameda Creek watershed boundary. 

This watershed boundary encompasses small portions of the cities of Fremont, 

Union City, and Hayward, though those jurisdictions were not formally part of 

the planning process. The northern, southern, and eastern boundaries of the 

study area follow the Alameda County line with Contra Costa County, Santa 

Clara County, and San Joaquin County, respectively. The study area includes a 

portion of the Central Valley and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) 

watersheds in the northeastern corner of the study area. Outside of the urban 

areas the study area is largely a mix of grassland and woodland, with some 

intermittent scrub. Most of the study area is subject to some level of grazing as 

ranching is the bellwether if this part of the county. 

The study area includes two other areas where large scale conservation plans 

are being developed during the Conservation Strategy planning process. The 

SFPUC is preparing a habitat conservation plan (Alameda Watershed HCP) for its 

watershed lands in the Alameda Creek watershed. The Alameda Watershed 

HCP study area includes nearly 48,000 acres in southern Alameda and northern 

Santa Clara Counties. The portion of that study area in Alameda County is 


ICF 00906.08


entirely within the Conservation Strategy study area. In addition, the Altamont 

Pass Wind Resource Area Conservation Plan (an HCP and a natural community 

conservation plan [NCCP]) is under development in eastern Alameda County and 

southeastern Contra Costa County. The portion of that planning area that is in 

Alameda County is entirely within the Conservation Strategy study area. 

1.3.2 Regulatory Scope 

The Conservation Strategy does not directly result in permits for any 

participating local agency. Instead, the Conservation Strategy is a tool to inform 

decisions during standard environmental permitting processes for projects that 

occur in the study area (Figure 1-2). However, the USFWS anticipates the 

development of a programmatic biological opinion for their listed species. In 

the future the Conservation Strategy could be used for the basis of a HCP, 

should the need arise. The regional inventory of biological resources presented 

in the Conservation Strategy allows projects to be reviewed by local agencies 

and resource agencies with a standardized regional context and with 

consistency across multiple projects. The standardized avoidance, minimization, 

and mitigation measures for species and natural communities will give local 

agencies, project proponents, and regulators more certainty of regulatory 

expectations and costs. This approach is expected to streamline permitting, 

reducing the overall cost of the permitting process and allowing the focus to be 

on conservation within the study area rather than a prolonged negotiation 

process. Furthermore, the Conservation Strategy will allow mitigation to be 

consolidated, facilitating better conservation and improved management 

reducing overall costs. In addition, the conservation priorities outlined in the 

Conservation Strategy will allow conservation groups to focus their efforts in the 

study area and encourage collaboration on conservation initiatives. 

1.3.3 Focal Species 

The Conservation Strategy creates a framework to protect native biological 

diversity, habitat for native species, natural communities, and local ecosystems 

in eastern Alameda County. The Conservation Strategy will conserve a wide 

range of natural resources, including native species that are common and rare, 

while focusing conservation efforts on species that are the focus of standard 

regulatory processes. 

The Conservation Strategy addresses 19 listed and nonlisted species, called focal 

species (Table 1-1). These focal species comprise 13 wildlife species and 6 plant 

species. The Conservation Strategy provides a framework for long-term 

conservation and management of these species and the habitats that support 

them. The 19 focal species were identified using an initial assessment of the 


ICF 00906.08


occurrence, threat, and conservation opportunities of 132 special-status species 

(see “Species Evaluation,” below). 

The Conservation Strategy includes measures to protect all 19 focal species as if 

they are currently listed as endangered or threatened under ESA and/or CESA 

(see “Definition of Special-Status Species,” below). Therefore, if any nonlisted 

focal species becomes listed in the future, it is anticipated that additional 

conservation within the study area should not be required. 

1.3.3.1 Species Evaluation 

To determine which species would be focal species under the Conservation 

Strategy, a comprehensive list of 132 special-status species that occur or may 

occur in the study area was compiled (Appendices A and B). This list was 

developed by reviewing the following sources: 

• California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (2009); 

• CNPS (2008) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California; 

• CDFG lists of special animals and special plants (California Department of 

Fish and Game 2009a and 2009b); 

• an animal species list obtained from the USFWS website for Alameda 

County (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008); and 

• personal communication with local experts, including wildlife agency staff 

and representatives of local environmental groups including CNPS, Ohlone 

Chapter of the Audubon Society, EBRPD, and Alameda Creek Alliance. 

1.3.3.2 Definition of Special-Status Species 

Special-status species are defined as plants and animals that are legally 

protected under ESA, CESA, or other regulations, and species that are 

considered sufficiently rare by the scientific community to qualify for such 

listing. 

Special-status plants are species with one or more of the following 

characteristics: 

• listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under ESA (50 

Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.12 [listed plants] and various notices 

in the Federal Register [FR] [proposed species]); 

• candidate for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the 

ESA (73 FR 7515–75244, December 10, 2008); 

• listed or candidate for listing by the State of California as threatened or 

endangered under CESA (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 670.5); 


ICF 00906.08


• listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish 

and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.); 

• determined to meet the definitions of rare or endangered under CEQA 

(State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380); 

• considered by CNPS to be “rare, threatened or endangered in California” 

(Lists 1B and 2 in California Native Plant Society 2010) or vascular plants, 

bryophytes, and lichens listed as having special status by CDFG (California 

Department of Fish and Game 2009b); and/or 

• listed by CNPS as plants about which more information is needed to 

determine their status and plants of limited distribution (Lists 3 and 4 in 

California Native Plant Society 2008) that may be included on the basis of 

local significance or recent biological information. 

Special-status animals are species with one or more of the following 

characteristics: 

• listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA 

(50 CFR 17.11 [listed animals] and various notices in the Federal Register 

[proposed species]); 

• candidate for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the 

ESA (73 FR 7515–75244, December 10, 2008); 

• determined to meet the definitions of rare or endangered under CEQA 

(State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380); 

• listed or candidate for listing by the State of California as threatened or 

endangered under CESA (14 CCR 670.5); 

• wildlife species of special concern to CDFG (California Department of Fish 

and Game 2008); 

• fully protected species under the California Fish and Game Code Section 

3511 (birds), Section 4700 (mammals), Section 5515 (fish), and Section 5050 

(reptiles and amphibians); and/or 

• species with no formal special status but thought by experts to be rare or in 

serious decline and to warrant special status based on recent information. 

1.3.3.3 Focal Species Criteria 

For each special-status species with potential to occur in the study area 

(Appendices A and B), information was gathered on its status, population 

trends, distribution, threats, conservation potential, and management efforts. 

The following criteria were then applied to each species to determine whether it 

would be a focal species. To be a focal species, a species typically had to meet 

all four of the following criteria. 


ICF 00906.08


Range: The species is known to occur or is likely to occur within the 

Conservation Strategy study area, based on credible evidence, or the species is 

not currently known in the study area but is expected to occur in the study area 

in the foreseeable future (e.g., through range expansion or reintroduction to 

historic range). 

Status: The species meets at least one of the following statutory criteria: 

• listed under the ESA as threatened or endangered, or proposed for listing; 

• listed under CESA as threatened or endangered or a candidate for such 

listing; 

• listed under the Native Plant Protection Act as rare; or 

• expected to be listed under ESA or CESA in the foreseeable future. Potential 

for listing is based on current listing status, consultation with experts and 

wildlife agency staff, evaluation of species population trends and threats, 

and best professional judgment of the biologists working on the 

Conservation Strategy. 

Impact: The species or its habitat would be adversely affected by activities or 

projects that may result in take of the species. 

Data: Sufficient data on the species’ life history, habitat requirements, and 

occurrence in the study area are available to adequately evaluate and develop 

conservation measures to mitigate impacts that result from future projects to 

levels specified by regulatory standards. 

1.4 Regulatory Setting 

1.4.1 Federal and State Endangered Species Laws 

1.4.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act 

USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) administer the ESA. ESA 

requires USFWS and NMFS to maintain lists of threatened and endangered 

species and affords substantial protection to listed species. NMFS’s jurisdiction 

under ESA is limited to the protection of marine plants and animals, and 

anadromous fishes; 2 all other species are subject to USFWS jurisdiction. 

2 Anadromous fishes are fish that spend part of their life cycle in the ocean and part in fresh water. NMFS has 

jurisdiction over anadromous fish that spend the majority of their life cycle in the ocean. Pacific Lamprey, although 

anadromous, would be under USFWS jurisdiction if it were listed in the future because, although anadromous, it 

spends the majority of its life cycle in freshwater. 


ICF 00906.08


USFWS and NMFS can list species as either endangered or threatened. An 

endangered species is at risk of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 

of its range (ESA Section 3[6]). A threatened species is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable future (ESA Section 3[19]). Section 9 of the 

ESA prohibits the take of any fish or wildlife species listed under ESA. Take, as 

defined by ESA, means “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 

capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Harm is 

defined as “any act that kills or injures the species, including significant habitat 

modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by 

significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, 

or sheltering” (50 CFR 17.3). Section 9 prohibits removing or reducing to 

possession, or maliciously damaging or destroying listed plant species from 

areas under federal jurisdiction and includes prohibiting removal, cutting, 

digging up, damage, or destruction where the action takes place in violation of 

any state law or regulation. ESA and its implementing regulations do not provide 

for exemption from these prohibitions; however, listed plants are subject to the 

regulatory obligations of section 7 of the ESA. Some plants are included in the 

Conservation Strategy in order to meet regulatory obligations under ESA Section 

7 and to comply with CESA. 

The ESA includes mechanisms that provide exceptions to the Section 9 take 

prohibitions. These are addressed in Section 7 for federal actions and Section 

10 for nonfederal actions. 

Section 7 

Section 7 of the ESA requires all federal agencies to ensure that any action they 

authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 

of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

habitat critical to such species’ survival. To ensure that its actions do not result 

in jeopardy to listed species or in the adverse modification of critical habitat 3 , 

each federal agency must consult with USFWS or NMFS, or both, regarding 

federal agency actions that may affect listed species. Consultation begins when 

the federal agency submits a written request for initiation to USFWS or NMFS, 

along with the agency’s biological assessment of its proposed action, and their 

determination that the proposed action “may affect but is not likely to 

adversely affect” or “may affect and is likely to adversely affect” listed species. 

If the initiation package is complete, USFWS or NMFS concurs or does not 

concur with the federal action agency’s determination. If USFWS or NMFS 

concurs that the action will not likely adversely affect the listed species, the 

action may be conducted without further review under ESA. Otherwise, USFWS 

or NMFS must prepare a written biological opinion describing how the agency’s 

3 Critical habitat is defined as specific geographic areas, whether occupied by listed species or not, that are 

determined to be essential for the conservation and management of listed species, and that have been formally 

described in the Federal Register. 


ICF 00906.08


action may or may not jeopardize the continued existence of a species or result 

in the adverse modification of critical habitat. 

If the biological opinion concludes that the proposed action would jeopardize 

the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify its critical 

habitat, the opinion will suggest “reasonable and prudent alternatives” that 

would avoid that result. If the biological opinion concludes that the proposed 

action would take a listed species but would not jeopardize its continued 

existence, the biological opinion will include an incidental take statement. 

Incidental take is take that is “incidental to, and not intended as part of, an 

otherwise lawful activity” (64 CFR 60728). The incidental take statement 

specifies an amount of take that is allowed to occur as a result of the action and 

may require reasonable and prudent measures to minimize the effect of the 

take. 

Any project with a federal lead agency or federal involvement (e.g., a federal 

permit, federal funding, or a project on federal land) must obtain its take 

authorization through Section 7 rather than Section 10 and an HCP. 

Section 10 

Until 1982, state, local, and private entities had no means to acquire incidental 

take authorization as could federal agencies under Section 7. Private 

landowners and local and state agencies risked direct violation of the ESA no 

matter how carefully their projects were implemented. This statutory dilemma 

led Congress to amend Section 10 of the ESA in 1982 to authorize the issuance 

of an incidental take permit to nonfederal project proponents upon completion 

of an approved conservation plan. The term conservation plan has evolved into 

HCP. 

In cases where federal land, funding, or authorization is not required for an 

action by a nonfederal entity, the take of listed fish and wildlife species can be 

permitted by USFWS and/or NMFS through the Section 10 process. Private 

landowners, corporations, state agencies, local agencies, and other nonfederal 

entities must obtain a Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit for take of 

federally listed fish and wildlife species “that is incidental to, but not the 

purpose of, otherwise lawful activities.” 

The take prohibition for listed plants is more limited than for listed fish and 

wildlife. Under Section 9(a)(2)(B) of the ESA, endangered plants are protected 

from “removal, reduction to possession, and malicious damage or destruction” 

in areas that are under federal jurisdiction. Section 9(a)(2)(B) of the ESA also 

provides protection to plants from removal, cutting, digging up, damage, or 

destruction where the action takes place in violation of any state law or 

regulation or in violation of a state criminal trespass law. Thus, the ESA does 

not prohibit the incidental take of federally listed plants on private or other 


ICF 00906.08


nonfederal lands unless the action requires federal authorization or is in 

violation of state law. Thus, Section 10 incidental take permits are only required 

for wildlife and fish species. However, the Section 7(a)(2) prohibition against 

jeopardy applies to plants, and issuance of a Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take 

permit cannot result in jeopardy to a listed plant species. 

The HCP must specify the following mandatory elements (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and National Marine Fisheries Service 1996): 

• impacts that will likely result from the taking of covered species; 

• steps the applicant will take to monitor, minimize, and mitigate such 

impacts to the maximum extent practicable; 

• funding that will be available to implement such steps; 

• procedures to be used to deal with unforeseen circumstances; 4 

• alternative actions to such taking the applicant considered and the reasons 

why such alternatives are not proposed to be utilized; and 

• such other measures that the Director [of the Department of Interior or 

Commerce] may require as being necessary or appropriate for purposes of 

the Conservation Strategy (50 CFR 17.22(b)). 

The following criteria must be met in order for USFWS and/or NMFS to issue a 

section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit: 

• taking will be incidental; 

• impacts of the taking will be minimized and mitigated to the maximum 

extent practicable; 

• adequate funding will be ensured; 

• taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of 

the species in the wild; or 

• other such measures that USFWS and/or NMFS may require as being 

necessary or appropriate for purposes of the HCP (50 CFR 17.22). 

An HCP is intended to satisfy these requirements. 

Prior to the approval of an HCP, USFWS and/or NMFS are required to undertake 

an internal Section 7 consultation, because issuance of an incidental take permit 

is a federal action (see discussion of ESA in “Section 7,” above.) Elements 

specific to the Section 7 process that are not required under the Section 10 

process (e.g., analysis of effects on designated critical habitat, analysis of effects 

4 Unforeseen circumstances are changes in circumstances affecting a covered species or geographic area covered by 

the HCP that could not reasonably have been anticipated by the plan developers, and that result in a substantial and 

adverse change in the status of a covered species. 


ICF 00906.08


on listed plant species, and analysis of indirect and cumulative effects on listed 

species) are included in an HCP to meet the requirements of Section 7. 

While the Conservation Strategy is not an HCP, the discussion of these 

regulatory documents are relevant since there are three HCP’s currently being 

developed within the Conservation Strategy study area. The Conservation 

Strategy does provide a regional approach to conservation which is a similar 

approach for an HCP. The Conservation Strategy does not provide an estimate 

of impacts to species or their habitats during a designated period of time as an 

HCP would, nor does it provide a specific mitigation program to offset those 

estimated impacts. Those are required elements of an HCP that are not part of 

the Conservation Strategy. 

1.4.1.2 California Endangered Species Act 

CESA prohibits take of wildlife and plants listed as threatened or endangered by 

the California Fish and Game Commission. Take is defined under the California 

Fish and Game Code (more narrowly than under ESA) as any action or attempt 

to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” Therefore, take under CESA does not 

include “the taking of habitat alone or the impacts of the taking.” 5 Rather, the 

courts have affirmed that under CESA, “taking involves mortality.” 

Like ESA, CESA allows exceptions to the prohibition for take that occurs during 

otherwise lawful activities. The requirements of an application for incidental 

take under CESA are described in Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game 

Code. Incidental take of state-listed species may be authorized if an applicant 

submits an approved plan that minimizes and “fully mitigates” the impacts of 

this take. 

This Conservation Strategy provides information on state-listed species that 

would be used by project proponents and local jurisdictions to determine 

whether a proposed project could result in take of a state listed species. In 

addition, avoidance and minimization measures and mitigation practices 

outlined in the Conservation Strategy would be referenced by the project 

proponent when creating a plan that minimizes and fully mitigates the impacts 

of the project. By utilizing preapproved mitigation practices and focusing 

mitigation in conservation priority areas described in the Conservation Strategy, 

CESA permit compliance would be streamlined. 

1.4.1.3 Natural Community Conservation Planning Act 

California’s Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCPA) (California 

Fish and Game Code, Section 2800 et seq.) was enacted to implement broad- 

5 Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento, 142 Cal. App. 4th 1018 (2006). 


ICF 00906.08


based planning that balances appropriate development and growth with 

conservation of wildlife and habitat. Pursuant to the NCCPA, local, state, and 

federal agencies are encouraged to prepare NCCPs to provide comprehensive 

management and conservation of multiple species and their habitats under a 

single plan, rather than through preparation of numerous individual plans on a 

project-by-project basis. The NCCPA is broader in its orientation and objectives 

than ESA and CESA, and preparation of an NCCP is voluntary. The primary 

objective of the NCCP program is to conserve natural communities at the 

ecosystem scale while accommodating compatible land use. To be approved by 

CDFG, an NCCP must provide for the conservation of species and protection and 

management of natural communities in perpetuity within the area covered by 

permits. Conservation is defined by the NCCPA and the California Fish and 

Game Code as actions that result in the delisting of state-listed species. Thus, 

NCCPs must contribute to the recovery of listed species or prevent the listing of 

nonlisted species rather than just mitigate the effects of covered activities. This 

recovery standard is one of the major differences between an NCCP and an HCP 

prepared to satisfy ESA or CESA. 

To approve an NCCP under the NCCPA, CDFG must make the following series of 

findings. 

• The NCCP must be consistent with the NCCPA. 

• The NCCP must provide for the conservation and management of the 

covered species (conservation here is defined to mean that the NCCP must 

contribute to species recovery). 

• The NCCP must protect habitat, natural communities, and species diversity 

on the landscape level (definitions of these and other NCCP terms are 

provided in Appendix C, “Glossary”). 

• The NCCP must conserve the ecological integrity of large habitat blocks, 

ecosystem function, and biodiversity. 

• The NCCP must support sustainable populations of covered species. 

• The NCCP must provide a range of environmental gradients and habitat 

diversity to support shifting species distributions. 

• The NCCP must sustain movement of species among reserves. 

• Mitigation and conservation must be roughly proportional to impacts in 

timing and extent. 

• Funding for conservation, monitoring, and adaptive management must be 

adequately assured. 

Although the Conservation Strategy is not an NCCP, the discussion of these 

regulatory documents are relevant since the proposed Altamont Wind 

Resources Conservation Plan, which is an NCCP, is currently in process in the 

Conservation Strategy study area. The Conservation Strategy does not provide 

an estimate of impacts to species or their habitats during a designated period of 


ICF 00906.08


time as an NCCP would, nor does it provide a specific mitigation program to 

offset those estimated impacts and contribute to the recovery of species. 

Further, the Conservation Strategy does not have a formal scientific advisory 

process, as is required for an NCCP. The Conservation Strategy does have a 

stakeholder process, through the UAG, which is something that is required to 

prepare an NCCP. The Conservation Strategy does provide a regional approach 

to conservation, as an NCCP would, and approaches conservation through focal 

species and their habitats at both a local and regional scale. This is similar to the 

approach required in NCCPs. 

1.4.2 Other Federal and State Species Laws 

1.4.2.1 Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 as amended (MBTA), implements various 

treaties and conventions between the U.S., Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the 

former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Under the MBTA, it is 

illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, 

barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, 

nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued 

pursuant to federal regulations (16 United States Code [USC] 703). The 

regulatory definition of take, as defined by 50 CFR 10.12, means to pursue, hunt, 

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 

trap, capture, or collect. As such, take under the MBTA does not include the 

concepts of harm and harassment as defined under ESA. The MBTA defines 

migratory birds broadly; all covered birds in this Conservation Strategy are 

considered migratory birds under the MBTA. 

USFWS provides guidance regarding take of federally listed migratory birds 

(Appendix 5 in the HCP Handbook [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National 

Marine Fisheries Service 1996]). According to these guidelines, an incidental 

take permit can function as a Special Purpose Permit under the MBTA (50 CFR 

21.27) for the take of all ESA-listed covered species in the amount and/or 

number and subject to the terms and conditions specified in an HCP. Any such 

take will not be in violation of the MBTA (16 USC 703–12). The following focal 

species in the Conservation Strategy are protected by the MBTA: 

• golden eagle, 

• western burrowing owl, and 

• tricolored blackbird. 

None of these species are currently listed under ESA or CESA therefore, take 

cannot be authorized or permitted. Focal bird species, as well as other 

migratory birds not listed as focal species by the Conservation Strategy, will 

benefit from seasonal restrictions on construction, restrictions on removal of 


ICF 00906.08


nesting habitat during the nesting period, and other conservation measures 

described in this Conservation Strategy. Individual project applicants will be 

responsible for compliance with the MBTA for migratory birds. 

1.4.2.2 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) prohibits the taking or 

possession of and commerce in bald and golden eagles with limited exceptions. 

Under the Eagle Act, it is a violation to “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, 

offer to sell, transport, export or import, at any time or in any manner, any bald 

eagle commonly known as the American eagle, or golden eagle, alive or dead, or 

any part, nest, or egg, thereof.” Take is defined to include pursue, shoot, shoot 

at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy, molest, and disturb. 

Disturb is further defined in 50 CFR Part 22.3 as “to agitate or bother a bald or 

golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best 

scientific information available (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its 

productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with 

normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.” 

Recent revisions to the Eagle Act authorizes take of bald eagles and golden 

eagles under the following conditions: (1) where the take is compatible with the 

preservation of the bald eagle and golden eagle; (2) take is necessary to protect 

an interest in a particular locality; (3) take is associated with but not the purpose 

of an otherwise lawful activity; and (4) for individual instances of take, the take 

cannot be avoided; or (5) for programmatic take, the take is unavoidable even 

though advanced conservation practices are being implemented (50 CFR 22.26). 

Permits issued under this regulation usually authorize disturbance only; 

however, in limited cases a permit may authorize lethal take that results from 

but is not the purpose of an otherwise lawful activity. 

1.4.2.3 California Fully Protected Species 

In the 1960s, before CESA was enacted, the California legislature identified 

specific species for protection under the California Fish and Game Code. These 

fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time, and no 

licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these 

species for necessary scientific research and relocation of bird species for the 

protection of livestock. Fully protected species are described in Sections 3511 

(birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fish) of the 

California Fish and Game Code. These protections state that “no provision of 

this code or any other law shall be construed to authorize the issuance of 

permits or licenses to take any fully protected [bird], [mammal], [reptile or 

amphibian], [fish].” This Conservation Strategy includes conservation measures 

to avoid taking fully protected species as defined by the California Fish and 


ICF 00906.08


Game Code. The only fully protected species listed as focal species by the 

Conservation Strategy is golden eagle. Other fully protected species expected 

to occur in the study area include, but are not restricted to: 

• American peregrine falcon, 

• bald eagle, 

• white-tailed kite, and 

• ring-tailed cat (ringtail). 

1.4.2.4 California Fish and Game Code 3503 (Bird Nests) 

Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code makes it “unlawful to take, 

possess, or needlessly destroy the nests or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise 

provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.” The 

Conservation Strategy contains conservation measures to avoid and minimize 

such take to the maximum extent practicable in order to comply with Section 

3503. Individual project applicants will be responsible for compliance with 

Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code for bird nests. 

1.4.2.5 California Fish and Game Code 3503.5 

(Birds of Prey) 

Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the take, 

possession, or destruction of any birds of prey or their nests or eggs “except as 

otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” 

The only birds of prey covered by the Conservation Strategy are golden eagle 

and western burrowing owl (Table 1-1). Golden eagle is fully protected; 

therefore, no take of individuals is allowed. The Conservation Strategy contains 

conservation measures to avoid take of golden eagle and avoid and minimize 

take of western burrowing owl in order to comply with Section 3503.5. 

Individual project applicants will be responsible for compliance with Section 

3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code for birds of prey. 

1.4.3 National Environmental Policy Act 

NEPA requires federal agencies to include in its decision-making process 

appropriate and careful consideration of all environmental effects of a proposed 

action and of possible alternatives. Documentation of the environmental 

impact analysis and efforts to avoid or minimize the adverse effects of proposed 

actions must be made available for public notice and review. This analysis is 

documented in either an environmental assessment or an environmental impact 


ICF 00906.08


statement. Project proponents must disclose in these documents whether their 

proposed action will adversely affect the human or natural environment. 

NEPA’s requirements are primarily procedural rather than substantive in that 

NEPA requires disclosure of environmental effects and mitigation possibilities 

but includes no requirement to mitigate. 

1.4.4 California Environmental Quality Act 

CEQA is similar to but more extensive than NEPA in that it requires that 

significant environmental impacts of proposed projects be reduced to a lessthan-significant 

level through adoption of feasible avoidance, minimization, or 

mitigation measures unless overriding considerations are identified and 

documented that make the mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible. 

CEQA applies to certain activities in California undertaken by either a public 

agency or a private entity that must receive some discretionary approval from a 

California government agency. 

Future projects that occur in the Conservation Strategy study area must also 

comply with CEQA at the project level through local jurisdictions. It is expected 

that the avoidance and minimization measures, mitigation standards, and 

conservation actions outlined in this Conservation Strategy will be sufficient to 

inform biological resource issues that arise during the project-level CEQA 

process in the future. Avoidance and minimization measures as well as 

standardized mitigation practices for focal species and sensitive habitats would 

be used to develop mitigation. 

Many of the conservation measures will also benefit other special-status species 

(i.e., species that are not focal species under the Conservation Strategy); such 

measures may be sufficient to meet CEQA standards for these other species as 

well. 

1.4.5 Federal and State Wetland Laws and Regulations 

1.4.5.1 Clean Water Act Section 404 

The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law that protects the physical, 

chemical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters, including lakes, rivers, 

wetlands, and coastal waters. Programs conducted under the CWA are directed 

at both point source pollution (e.g., waste discharged from outfalls and filling of 

waters) and nonpoint source pollution (e.g., runoff from parking lots). Under 

Section 402 of the CWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 

state agencies set effluent limitations and issue permits governing point-source 

discharges of wastes to waters. The Corps, applying its regulations under 

guidelines issued by EPA, issues permits under CWA Section 404 governing 


ICF 00906.08


under what circumstances dredged or fill material may be discharged to waters. 

Section 402 and 404 permits are the primary regulatory tools of the CWA. EPA 

has oversight over all CWA permits issued by the Corps. 

The Corps issues two types of permits under Section 404: general permits 

(either nationwide permits or regional permits) and standard permits (either 

letters of permission or individual permits). General permits are issued by the 

Corps to streamline the Section 404 process for nationwide, statewide, or 

regional activities that have minimal direct or cumulative environmental 

impacts on the aquatic environment. Standard permits are issued for activities 

that do not qualify for a general permit (i.e., that may have more than a minimal 

adverse environmental impact). 

Although the Conservation Strategy will not provide permits under Section 404 

of the CWA for impacts on wetlands or other waters, Section 404 permitting is 

expected to be streamlined substantially as a result. Issuance of a Section 404 

permit often requires the Corps to consult with USFWS and/or NMFS to comply 

with Section 7 of the ESA. This consultation would address the federally listed 

species that could be impacted as the result of changes to or loss of wetland 

habitat. The USFWS will write a Programmatic Biological Opinion for activities 

that need Section 404 permit issuance and are within the Conservation Strategy 

study area. 

1.4.5.2 Clean Water Act Section 401 and the Porter- 

Cologne Water Quality Control Act 

Under CWA Section 401, states have the authority to certify federal permits for 

discharges to waters under state jurisdiction. States may review proposed 

federal permits (e.g., Section 404 permits) for compliance with state water 

quality standards. The permit cannot be issued if the state denies certification. 

In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) and the 

Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Boards) are responsible for the 

issuance of Section 401 certifications. 

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act is the primary state law 

concerning water quality. It authorizes the State Board and Regional Boards to 

prepare management plans such as regional water quality plans to address the 

quality of groundwater and surface water. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality 

Control Act also authorizes the Regional Boards to issue waste discharge 

requirements defining limitations on allowable discharge to waters of the state. 

In addition to issuing Section 401 certifications on Section 404 applications to fill 

waters, the Regional Boards may also issue waste discharge requirements for 

such activities. Because the authority for waste discharge requirements is 

derived from the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and not the CWA, 

waste discharge requirements may apply to a somewhat different range of 

aquatic resources than do Section 404 permits and Section 401 water quality 


ICF 00906.08


certifications. Applicants that obtain a permit from the Corps under Section 404 

must also obtain certification of that permit by the Regional Board. The 

Conservation Strategy does not include certifications under Section 401 or 

waste discharge permits under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. 

These authorizations, if required, must be obtained separately. 

1.4.5.3 Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement 

CDFG has jurisdictional authority over streams, lakes, and wetland resources 

associated with these aquatic systems under California Fish and Game Code 

Section 1600 et seq. CDFG has the authority to regulate work that will 

“substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or 

use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or 

deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, 

flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake.” 

Activities of any person, state, or local governmental agency, or public utility are 

regulated by CDFG under Section 1602 of the code. CDFG enters into a 

streambed or lakebed alteration agreement with the project proponent and can 

impose conditions on the agreement to ensure no net loss of values or acreage 

of the stream, lake, associated wetlands, and associated riparian habitat. 

The lake or streambed alteration agreement is not a permit, but rather a mutual 

agreement between CDFG and the project proponent. Because CDFG includes 

under its jurisdiction streamside habitats that may not qualify as wetlands under 

the CWA definition, CDFG jurisdiction may be broader than Corps jurisdiction. 

A project proponent must submit a notification of streambed alteration to CDFG 

before construction. The notification requires an application fee for streambed 

alteration agreements, with a specific fee schedule to be determined by CDFG. 

Many of the concerns raised by CDFG during streambed alteration agreement 

negotiations are related to special-status species. Activities covered by this 

Conservation Strategy that need a streambed alteration agreement are 

expected to partially or fully meet the standards of the streambed alteration 

agreement through compliance with this Conservation Strategy. 

1.5 Document Organization 

This document is organized into the following six chapters: 

• Chapter 1, “Introduction,” 

• Chapter 2, “Environmental Setting,” 

• Chapter 3, “Conservation Strategy,” 

• Chapter 4, “Conservation Zones,” 


ICF 00906.08


• Chapter 5, “Conservation Strategy Implementation,” and 

• Chapter 6, “Literature Cited.” 

Chapter 2 provides information on existing natural resources within eastern 

Alameda County. Chapter 3 presents the conservation principles and 

approaches central to this Conservation Strategy and describes expected 

outcomes for focal species when the Conservation Strategy is implemented. 

Chapter 4 discusses the 18 conservations zones developed for this Conservation 

Strategy. Chapter 5 describes mitigation and land protection efforts integral to 

the success of the Conservation Strategy, as well as for the implementation 

oversight process. Chapter 6 provides a listing of the sources cited in the 

document or consulted in its preparation. 

The report also contains the following appendices: 

• Appendix A, “Wildlife Species Considered for Inclusion as Focal Species in 

the East Alameda Conservation Strategy,” 

• Appendix B, “Plant Species Considered for Inclusion as Focal Species in the 

East Alameda Conservation Strategy,” 

• Appendix C, “Glossary,” 

• Appendix D, “Species Accounts,” 

• Appendix E, “Focal Species Impact/Mitigation Scoring Sheets,” 

• Appendix F, “Conservation Easement Toolkit,” 

 

 

 

Conservation Easement Template 

Management Plan Guide and Annotated Outline 

Review Criteria for Section 7 Off-site Compensation 

• Appendix G, “Water Quality Objectives for Use in Designing and 

Implementing Projects with Impacts to Creeks or Wetlands.” 


ICF 00906.08

Table11.SpeciesProposedforInclusionasFocalSpeciesfortheEastAlamedaCountyConservationStrategy Page1of3 

 

 

 

 

 

Invertebrates 

 

Branchinectalongiantenna 

 

 

 

 

Branchinectalynchi 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Speyeriacallippecallippe 

 

 

 

Amphibians 

 

 

Ambystomacaliforniense 

 

 

 

Ranaauroradraytonii 

 

 

 

Ranaboylii 

 

 

 

Reptiles 

 

Masticophislateralis 

euryxanthus 

 

 

Fish 

 

 

Oncorhynchusmykiss

Table11.Continued Page2of3 

 

 

 

 

 

Birds 

 

Aquilachrysaetos 

 

 

 

 

 

Agelaiustricolor 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Athenecunicularia 

hypugea 

 

 

Mammals 

 

Taxideataxus 

 

 

 

 

 

Vulpes macrotismutica 

 

 

Plants 

 

Atriplexjoaquiniana 

 

 

Blepharizoniaplumosa 

 

 

 

 

Centromadiaparryi 

congdonii 

 

 

 

 

 

Cordylanthuspalmatus


 

 

 

 

 

 

Deinandrabacigalupii 

 

 

 

Delphiniumrecurvatum 

 

 

 

 

Status 

Sta te Status 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FederalStatus 

 

 

 

 

CaliforniaNativePlantSocietyRanking 

 

Native PlantThreatRankings 

 

 

 

 

 

Criteria 

 

 

 

 

 

• 

• 

 

• 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R e commendedStatus

·|}þ 24 ·|}þ 238 

·|}þ 3 San 

Ramon 

·|}þ 185 

San 

Leandro 

Castro 

Valley 

San 

Lorenzo 

Hayward 

·|}þ 92 

Union 

City 

§¨¦ 880 §¨¦ 680 

Newark 

Fremont 

·|}þ 84 

·|}þ 237 

·|}þ 

·|}þ 130 

·|}þ 4 

Lafayette 

Reservoir 

§¨¦ 0 §¨¦ 880 §¨¦ 680 §¨¦ 580 

Lake 

Chabot 

·|}þ84 

San 

Francisco 

Bay 

Upper 

San Leandro 

Reservoir 

£¤ 101 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Calaveras 

Reservoir 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

Clifton 

Court 

Forebay 

Dublin 

Pleasanton 

Sunol 

East Contra Costa County 

HCP/NCCP 

Livermore 

Bethany 

Reservoir 

Proposed Study 

Area Boundary 

Approved HCPs and 

NCCPs in and Adjacent 

to the Study Area 

In-Process HCPs and 

NCCPs in and Adjacent 

to the Study Area 

Parks and Protected 

Areas 

County Line 

Highways 

Streams 

Reservoirs 

ALAMEDA COUNTY 

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig 1-1 StudyArea.mxd MF (09-13-10) 

ALAMEDA COUNTY 

SANTA CLARA COUNTY 

Santa Clara Valley 

HCP/NCCP 

SFPUC Alameda 

Watershed HCP 

Altamont Pass 

Wind Resource 

Area HCP/NCCP 

San Joaquin 

County HCP 

Figure 1-1 

Study Area 

East Alameda County 

October 2010 

I 

0 1 2 4 6 8 

Miles

Proposed Project in 

EACCS study area 

 

 

Standard Projectby-Project 

Permitting 

 

 

East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 

 

 

 

 

CEQA 

Process 

NEPA 

Process 

State and Federal Permits 1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1-2 

How the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Will Work 

00906.08 Strategy (rev. 3-09)

Chapter 2 

Environmental Setting 


2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 2-1 

2.2 Land Use ................................................................................................ 2-2 

2.2.1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................... 2-2 

2.2.2 Land Use Categories ........................................................................ 2-3 

2.2.3 Land Use Controls ........................................................................... 2-7 

2.2.4 Open Space (Public Lands and Private Easements) ........................ 2-9 

2.3 Physical Resources ............................................................................... 2-15 

2.3.1 Location ......................................................................................... 2-15 

2.3.2 Topography ................................................................................... 2-15 

2.3.3 Geology and Soils .......................................................................... 2-16 

2.3.4 Climate .......................................................................................... 2-19 

2.3.5 Hydrology ...................................................................................... 2-21 

2.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................ 2-23 

2.4.1 Methods ........................................................................................ 2-23 

2.4.2 Biological Diversity in the Study Area ........................................... 2-31 

2.4.3 Natural Communities and Land Cover Types ................................ 2-32 

2.4.4 Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Linkages ................................... 2-76 

2.1 Introduction 

This chapter describes the physical and biological resources within the study 

area that are relevant to the Conservation Strategy. This chapter includes a land 

use section that provides an overview of the major land use and open space 

management agencies operating within the study area. The physical resources 

section provides a characterization of the topography, geology and soils, 

climate, and hydrology of the study area. The biological resources section 

includes a discussion of biological diversity, natural communities, land cover 

types, and focal species in the study area. Together, the land use, physical 

resources, and biological resources sections provide the necessary context for 

the biological goals and objectives upon which Chapter 3, “Conservation 

Strategy,” is based. 


ICF 00906.08

Chapter 2 Environmental Setting 

2.2 Land Use 

This section examines existing land use conditions and land use plans in east 

Alameda County. This section provides history and context for land use in the 

study area; reviews existing land use conditions and relevant land use plans; 

presents the criteria used to determine land use categories; and discusses 

significant existing open spaces in the study area and an open space type 

classification system. 

2.2.1 Existing Conditions 

East Alameda County encompasses 271,485 acres (approximately 424 square 

miles) and represents 52% of Alameda County, which has a land area of 525,540 

acres (approximately 821 square miles). Alameda County is located north of 

Santa Clara County, west of San Joaquin County, and south of Contra Costa 

County (see Figure 1-1 for the regional location of the study area). East 

Alameda County is situated east of the San Leandro Hills and Walpert Ridge 

(Corbett 2005). The cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, a portion of the city 

of Hayward, and surrounding unincorporated areas are the major developed 

areas of east Alameda County (Alameda County Community Development 

Agency 2002). The cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton are completely 

included in the study area. 

According to the most recent Census data, the population of east Alameda 

County is approximately 171,652, about 12% of the population of the entire 

county, which is 1,443,741 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). In east Alameda County, 

Livermore has the most residents, with a population of 80,723(City of Livermore 

2009); followed by Pleasanton, with a population of 68,755 (City of Pleasanton 

2009a); and Dublin, with a population of 46,934 (City of Dublin 2009a). 

Located between the urban areas surrounding the San Francisco Bay and the 

Central Valley, east Alameda County has had considerable growth pressure in 

the recent past. In 1990, the population was approximately 133,000 and will 

most likely exceed 250,000 by 2010, representing an 88% growth (Alameda 

County Community Development Agency 2002). The Association of Bay Area 

Governments (ABAG) has projected that the populations of Livermore, 

Pleasanton, and Dublin will grow to 89,600; 75,300; and 56,800 by the year 

2015, and 95,500; 79,100; and 62,700 by the year 2020, respectively 

(Association of Bay Area Governments 2006). 

Dublin was incorporated in 1982 (City of Dublin 2009b), Livermore was 

incorporated in 1876 (City of Livermore 2009), and Pleasanton was incorporated 

in 1894 (City of Pleasanton 2009a). Dublin was incorporated to accommodate 

the increasing demand for commercial and residential development in the area, 

and has experienced a more recent increase in growth compared to Livermore 


ICF 00906.08


and Pleasanton, which have grown steadily since incorporation (City of Dublin 

2009b). Recent growth in the region and the subsequent impacts on residents’ 

quality of life are major concerns for the region (Alameda County Community 

Development Agency 2002). 

The County and Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin maintain a strong 

commitment to protecting the natural and agricultural resources within and 

surrounding their respective jurisdictions. Reflecting this vision, the County and 

Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton have each adopted an Urban Growth 

Boundary (UGB), while Dublin has adopted Planning Area Boundaries as an 

ultimate build-out line. More detail on the open space policies and UGBs is 

provided in Sections 2.2.4 and 2.2.3.1 below for each participating jurisdiction. 

2.2.2 Land Use Categories 

Understanding the current land use patterns and potential future land uses in 

the study area were an important step in developing the strategy discussed in 

Chapter 3. This understanding, in conjunction with an assessment of the 

biological resources in the study area allowed for the development of a 

conservation strategy that is informed by the current land use patterns in the 

county. Furthermore, land use designations aid the process by informing 

agencies as to the areas that are currently protected, areas that are likely to be 

affected, and areas where conservation will need to occur. The general plans 

for the cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton and Alameda County were 

used to identify the future extent and location of urban and rural development 

in the study area. 

Land use designations vary across jurisdictions and are in many more categories 

than necessary for conservation planning purposes, so the designations were 

simplified and standardized. The process by which a land use map was 

developed and how land use categories for the Conservation Strategy were 

assigned is described below. 

2.2.2.1 Land Use Methodology 

Land use planning designations for Alameda County and the cities of Dublin, 

Livermore, and Pleasanton were used to develop a single land use map for the 

Conservation Strategy. Future land uses were assumed to be consistent with 

the County’s general and specific plans (East County Area Plan [2002]; South 

Livermore Valley Area Plan [adopted by Alameda County Board of Supervisors 

on February 3, 1993]); and the general plans for the City of Dublin [2008], City of 

Livermore [2004], and the City of Pleasanton [2009b]). The County’s general 

and specific plans project future land use to 2010, and the Dublin, Livermore, 

and Pleasanton general plans project future land use to 2025. Using these 


ICF 00906.08


projections for this strategy is appropriate given the strength of each 

jurisdiction’s commitment to constraining future growth within established 

UGBs (see Section 2.2.3 below for a discussion of local land use controls). 

One hundred five land use planning designations from the four land use 

authorities were aggregated into the following three simplified land use 

planning categories: 

• Urban/Developed; 

• Private agriculture, and/or Rangelands; and 

• Public Lands. 

Development of these categories was guided by the nature of the potential 

activities that will require a discretionary permit within each land use category 

and their relative impact on biological resources. For example, the many urban 

land use categories (e.g., commercial, industrial, mixed use) were combined into 

a single land use category, “Urban/Developed,” because all of the land uses 

result in similar effects on biological resources. Table 2-1 shows general plan 

land uses and the land use categories to which they were converted for this 

strategy. Some land use designations were split into two or more of the land 

use categories for this strategy. 

2.2.2.2 Generalized Land Use Categories 

Historically, agriculture has played a major role in the economy of Alameda 

County (Alameda County Community Development Department 2008). 

Agriculture continues to be an important part of modern east Alameda County, 

as the majority of land is used for agriculture, primarily ranching (Alameda 

County Community Development Agency 2007). Other land uses include 

residential, industrial, commercial, open space, parklands, public watersheds, 

and mixed use. Many of these land uses also incorporate grazing, which results 

in some overlap in land use designations. Generalized land use and planning 

designations are shown on Figure 2-1.This map depicts land use designations 

that include both developed and undeveloped areas (for actual land cover, see 

Section 2.4.1.1). 

The Urban/Developed land use planning category includes all industrial, 

commercial, mixed use, institutional, public facilities, public/quasi-public, 

circulation, and major educational facilities land use designations. The study 

area is 271,485 acres, of which 42,088 acres (approximately 15.5%) are 

categorized as Urban Development. 

The Agriculture and Rangelands land use planning category includes lands that 

are actively used for or have been used in the recent past (fallow) for 

agricultural production. In the study area, most of this land is either in 


ICF 00906.08


vineyards, used for livestock production, or is in dry land farming. The 

Agriculture and Rangelands land use planning category comprises 167,449 acres 

(approximately 61.7%) of the study area. 

The Public Lands land use planning category includes lands that are used for 

park or recreation purposes. This category includes lands that are considered 

publicly owned open space or regional parks that may contain some trails but 

do not have extensive park facilities or amenities. This category comprises 

61,949 acres (approximately 23%) of the study area. It should be noted that 

many of these public lands are rangeland and are grazed by livestock. The 

Public Lands land use category does not encompass all open space lands in the 

study area. For example, many private conservation easements or small public 

open space areas are designated as different land use categories in planning 

documents. Others are currently used as rangelands, and thus appear under the 

Agriculture and Rangeland designation on Figure 2-1. Section 2.2.4 discusses 

existing open space in the study area. 

Special Land Use Designations 

There are other areas within the study area that have special designations by 

state (Williamson Act; see discussion below), or under county or city general 

plans. These are overlay designations that are additive to the underlying 

jurisdictional general plan designations. The areas are shown in Figure 2-1 and 

include County Resource Management, Livermore Resource Management, 

Pleasanton Wildlands, and Wind Resource Area. Williamson Act lands are 

described but not shown on Figure 2-1. 

County Resource Management 

This includes areas outside the County UGB, east of the city of Dublin and the 

area surrounding SFPUC watershed lands in the southwestern part of the study 

area (Figure 2-1). This designation is intended mainly for land designated for 

long-term preservation as open space but may include low intensity agriculture, 

grazing, and very low-density residential use. Allowable uses include agriculture, 

grazing, recreational, and open spaces (Alameda County Community 


Livermore Resource Management 

This area is located north of Livermore and east of the city of Dublin (Figure 2- 

1). It overlaps with lands designated as County Resource Management (Alameda 

County Community Development Agency 2002). It is intended mainly for land 

designated for long-term preservation as open space, but may include lowintensity 

agricultural or residential uses. The Resource Management designation 

provides for agricultural uses, recreational uses, habitat protection, watershed 

management, public and quasi-public uses, secondary residential units, active 


ICF 00906.08


sand and gravel and other quarries, reclaimed quarry lakes, and similar and 

compatible uses. This designation is also applied to areas unsuitable for 

development because of public health and safety hazards or environmentally 

sensitive features. One single-family home per parcel is allowed provided that 

all relevant development standards are met (City of Livermore 2004). 

Pleasanton Wildlands 

This area is located south of the city of Pleasanton, bordered by Interstate (I-) 

680 on the west and extending south to San Antonio Reservoir (Figure 2-1). This 

area is outside of the city of Pleasanton; it is within Alameda County and is 

under County jurisdiction. The area includes lands identified as wildlife 

corridors and valuable plant and wildlife habitats such as arroyos, the San 

Antonio Reservoir area, highly vegetated areas, and other natural areas 

necessary to maintain significant populations of plant and animal species. 

Wind Resource Area 

Alameda County, along with the Golden Gate Audubon Society and several 

private wind energy companies, are currently developing a regional 

conservation plan for the wind resource area. This area is located in the 

northeastern part of Alameda County, extending to the Contra Costa and San 

Joaquin County lines on the north and east, and through the Altamont Hills to 

the west (Figure 2-1). This area has special designation due to existing wind 

energy facilities and the intention to continue to develop and utilize wind 

resources in the future. This designation is primarily to facilitate real estate 

disclosures about existing wind energy facilities and the potential for future 

wind facility uses. The designation also restricts changes in land use that are 

incompatible with future wind energy generation (Alameda County Community 


California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) 

The purpose of the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (California 

Government Code 51200–51295), commonly known as the Williamson Act, is to 

provide incentives, through reduced property taxes, to deter the early 

conversion of agricultural and open space lands. In return for the preferential 

tax rate, the landowner is required to sign a contract with the county or city 

agreeing not to develop the land for a minimum 10-year period. Contracts are 

automatically renewed annually unless a party to the contract files a notice of 

nonrenewal or petitions for cancellation. All lands defined by the state as 

“prime farmland, other than prime farmland, and open space land” are eligible 

for coverage by a Williamson Act contract. Land classified as other than Prime 

Farmland or open space land can be placed under contract if it is located in an 

area designated by a county or city as an agricultural preserve. Approximately 

24% of Alameda County is under Williamson Act contract. Nearly all of that is in 

the study area and comprises nonprime agricultural land. There are several 


ICF 00906.08


parcels of prime farmland south of Livermore. Nearly all of this is under 

permanent agricultural conservation easements held by the Tri-Valley 

Conservancy. 

However, on July 28, 2009, the Governor of California signed the austere 2009– 

2010 Budget Act (Assembly Bill 1, Fourth Extraordinary Session and various 

associated bills), which drastically affected the Williamson Act. During this 

budget term, counties and cities will not be reimbursed by the state for 

property taxes not received as a result of land that is not developed. This 

enactment is a strong disincentive for counties and cities to continue their 

Williamson Act programs, and to enter into any additional contracts. The 

repercussions of the 2009–2010 Budget Act may impact Williamson Act lands in 

Alameda County. 

2.2.3 Land Use Controls 

The existing boundaries of urban growth are discussed below for the county and 

each participating city. 

2.2.3.1 Boundaries to Urban Growth 

The establishment of an UGB is an important mechanism utilized by cities and 

counties to encourage growth within a specified area to avoid urban sprawl. 

Development within an UGB reduces impacts on farmland, wildlife habitat, 

energy consumption, and pollution. The UGB also creates buffers between 

communities. Areas outside of the UGB may not be suitable for development 

due to significant natural resources, agricultural uses, or issues related to public 

health and safety. Conversely, some areas within the UGB may not be suitable 

for development for the same reasons. The following sections describe UGBs 

established in Alameda County and the cities of Dublin, Livermore, and 

Pleasanton. 

Alameda County 

Measure D was passed in November 2000 by the Alameda County electorate. 

The measure, called the Save Agriculture and Open Space Lands Initiative, 

amended segments of Alameda County’s general plan, which includes the East 

County Area Plan (ECAP) (Alameda County Community Development Agency 

2002). The Initiative had several purposes: to preserve and enhance agriculture 

and agricultural lands; to protect natural resources, wildlife habitats, 

watersheds, and open space lands of Alameda County; and to limit suburban 

sprawl. 


ICF 00906.08


To accomplish these goals, Measure D amended the general plan to establish 

the County’s UGB. The County’s UGB focuses urban-type development in and 

near existing cities (Alameda County Community Development Agency 2002). 

Urban development within the UGB allows for efficient delivery of public 

services and utilities, avoiding increased costs to taxpayers and impacts to the 

environment (Alameda County Community Development Agency 2002). 

Measure D applies to all areas of Alameda County, providing the UGB was 

established after the adoption of this measure. General and specific plans for 

cities within Alameda County have been amended, or will be amended, to 

comply with Measure D. Since Pleasanton’s UGB was adopted in 1996, prior to 

the passage of Measure D, it is exempt from this requirement. The County UGB 

in the Conservation Strategy study area encompasses the cities of Dublin, 

Livermore, and Pleasanton (Figure 2-1). 


The general plan for the city of Dublin designates Planning Area Boundaries to 

limit the development that occurs outside of the city limits (City of Dublin 2008). 

The planning area limits are defined by the Primary Planning Area Boundary, the 

Eastern Extended Planning Area Boundary, and the Western Extended Planning 

Area Boundary (City of Dublin 2008). 

The Primary Planning Area is entirely within the city limits of Dublin. The 

Eastern Extended Planning Area (approximately 4,200 acres) utilizes a 

Development Elevation Cap Policy, which does not allow development above 

770 feet without a new specific plan or an amendment to the current general 

plan (City of Dublin 2008). The Eastern Extended Planning Area is the largest 

remaining area in Dublin available for development. An Urban Limit Line for the 

Western Extended Planning Area (approximately 500 acres) was adopted in 

November 2007 and follows the existing city limit line. The Urban Limit Line was 

defined to protect natural resources in the hills west of Dublin. Development 

outside the Urban Limit Line is not permitted without an amendment to the 

land use designation in the city’s general plan (City of Dublin 2008). 

Livermore 

The city of Livermore is entirely within an UGB (City of Livermore 2004). The 

UGB was established in order to protect agricultural and natural resources and 

to prevent future urban development outside Livermore (City of Livermore 

2004). The UGB was finalized after two initiatives were passed. The first, passed 

by local voters in March of 2000, is the South Livermore Urban Growth Boundary 

Initiative, which defines the UGB around the southern portion of the city (City of 

Livermore 2004). The second, passed by the Livermore City Council in 

December of 2002, is the North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative, 


ICF 00906.08


and defines the UGB around the northern portion of Livermore (City of 

Livermore 2004). 

Pleasanton 

The city of Pleasanton defines an UGB in the general plan, passed by voters in 

1996 (City of Pleasanton 2009b). Areas outside of the Pleasanton UGB are 

designated unsuitable for development due to important natural resources, 

agricultural resources, parks and recreation, regional significant wildlands, or 

scenic ridgelines (City of Pleasanton 2009b). The UGB is also used to protect 

public health and safety and to create a buffer between communities. Although 

the UGB is intended to permanently designate areas where development will 

not occur, there are provisions under the initiative that allow for adjustments 

(City of Pleasanton 2009b). If a proposed amendment is otherwise consistent 

with the general plan; would not have a significant adverse affect on agriculture, 

wildlands, or scenic ridgeline views; is contiguous with existing urban 

development; would not induce further adjustments to the UGB; and would 

provide for urban public facilities and services in an efficient and timely manner, 

the adjustment to the UGB may be granted (City of Pleasanton 2009b). 

2.2.4 Open Space (Public Lands and Private Easements) 

Alameda County and the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin are closely 

connected to the surrounding natural landscapes. As described above, the 

Public Lands land use planning category provides an incomplete picture of open 

space areas within the study area. Missing are private conservation easements 

and small public lands that may be important conservation areas. It is critical to 

understand the location and biological values of all open space in the study area 

so that the Conservation Strategy can identify gaps in local protection and help 

to fill those gaps. 

The following section provides an overview of existing open space within the 

study area. 

2.2.4.1 Existing Conditions 

For the purposes of this study, open space land in East Alameda County consists 

of public lands or private lands within existing protections through conservation 

easements or deed restrictions (see “Open Space Classification” section below 

for further explanation and examples). Public and private open space lands in 

the study area are subject to a variety of resource-management regimes. As a 

result, the level of habitat protection varies amongst the existing open space, 

providing different habitat for the focal species and natural communities. 


ICF 00906.08


Management for natural resources on these lands helps support focal species 

and other native species and maintains the functions of natural communities. 

Because some of these existing open space lands will be relied upon to support 

the Conservation Strategy, existing open space need to be distinguished by their 

value to the strategy. To do this, open space areas have been categorized as 

described below. 

The value of protected open space areas for focal species and natural 

communities is greatest when land use protections and stewardship are in place 

in perpetuity. Type 1 open space lands (see “Open Space Classification” below 

for definition of land types) are considered lands protected in perpetuity. The 

value of open space for the strategy is similarly improved when a natural 

resource management plan is in place and adequate funding exists to maintain 

or enhance populations or natural communities. Open space areas that do not 

have land use protections in perpetuity but do have ecological protection as 

their primary management goal may still support the Conservation Strategy. 

However, because of the lack of permanent and irrevocable protections and 

adequate stewardship funding, there is a risk of changes in land use or resource 

management emphasis in the future. The categories that fall under this are 

Type 2 Open Space lands. 

The following classification of open space was developed to account for 

differences in land use protections and resource management emphasis and to 

assist in the development of the Conservation Strategy. 

2.2.4.2 Open Space Classification 

The protection and resource management status of open space lands has been 

evaluated and classified based on the level of land use protection and the 

general level of ecological management. Each open space unit within the study 

area was assigned to one of four resource management types (Type 1, 2, 3, or 4) 

using the decision-making process shown in Figure 2-2. The location of all open 

space categories is shown on Figure 2-3. The amount of land protected as open 

space is summarized in Table 2-2. 

Type 1 Open Space is permanently protected public or private land subject to 

conservation easement or deed restriction, where the primary purpose and 

management goal of the land is for ecological protection. This is considered the 

most protection. Examples of Type 1 Open Space include the areas under 

conservation easement at Brushy Peak Regional Preserve, the Ohlone 

Conservation Bank, or other private lands subject to a conservation easement. 

Many of these areas are managed using livestock grazing. 

Type 2 Open Space includes public lands where the primary intent of land 

management is for ecological protection but the land is not subject to 

irrevocable protection such as a conservation easement or deed restriction. 


ICF 00906.08


Type 2 Open Space lands could become changed to Type 1 lands, or reduced in 

protection to become Type 3 or 4 lands. Examples of Type 2 Open Space include 

Ohlone and Sunol Wilderness, the portion of Brushy Peak Regional Preserve not 

under conservation easement, Sycamore Grove Park, and Springtown Alkali 

Sink. Many of these areas are managed using livestock grazing. 

Type 3 Open Space involves public lands that may contain some land uses other 

than ecological protection. These lands would include parklands classified as 

parks, open space, or special protection units where something other than 

ecological protection is designated as the primary use (e.g., recreation, 

watershed protection). Type 3 could also include private lands under 

agricultural easement to preserve livestock grazing or dry land farming. Also 

included would be the undeveloped portions of watersheds under ownership or 

management by a public agency, including SFPUC, California Department of 

Water Resources (DWR), Zone 7, and Alameda County Water District (ACWD). 

Other large examples of Type 3 Open Space includes Site 300 (Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory), Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area, and 

Del Valle Regional Park. This area is considered least protected out of the other 

types. Public access is varied. It could potentially be more protected to become 

Type 2 lands or these lands could be sold for development. Recreation activities 

in these parks are often not conducive to management of natural resources. 

Type 4 Open Space consists of developed portions of public lands, such as Camp 

Parks Military Reservation, that retain some ecological value. It includes public 

golf courses, some landscaped areas, and developed neighborhood parks. Type 

4 would also include private lands under agricultural easements to preserve 

vineyards, orchards, or other cultivated agriculture. 

Of the 271,485-acre study area, 67,976 acres (25%) are currently protected as 

open space (Types 1 through 4) (Table 2-2). These areas range from urban parks 

to county and state parks of varying size. Protected open space also includes 

private or public lands protected by conservation easements or deed 

restrictions. It should be noted that while the open space designations were 

assigned based on the level of protection on each parcel, these designations are 

not representative of the type and quality of management that occurs there. In 

other words, a parcel that is designated as Type 4 Open Space could well be 

managed better and more consistently than a parcel that is designated as Type 

1 Open Space. 

2.2.4.3 Protection and Resource Management Status of 

Open Space Lands 

Open space lands in the study area are managed by several different agencies 

for a variety of purposes. The following section provides an overview of local 

land management agencies with holdings in the study area and the major open 

space units that they manage and operate. 


ICF 00906.08


California Department of Parks and Recreation 

In east Alameda County, California Department of Parks and Recreation owns 

Bethany Reservoir State Recreation Area (802 acres), Carnegie State Vehicular 

Recreation Area (3,850 acres), and Lake Del Valle State Recreation Area (5,005 

acres) (State of California 2008; Figure 2-3). Bethany Reservoir is the northern 

terminus of the California Aqueduct. The associated Bethany Reservoir State 

Recreation Area provides opportunities for water recreation, including fishing 

and windsurfing as well as biking along the California Aqueduct Bikeway. 

Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area is located on the eastern edge of the 

study area. The park straddles the Alameda/San Joaquin County line. The park 

provides active riding area on a diversity of terrain ranging from rolling hills to 

steep canyons. Lake Del Valle State Recreation Area surrounds Lake Del Valle 

and provides hiking, horseback riding, and water recreation. It is also the 

eastern gateway to the 28-mile Ohlone Trail. This park is operated by EBRPD. 


The EBRPD offers and maintains 1,700 square miles (over 100,000 acres) of 

regional parks in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. EBRPD maintains 14 

regional parks, 19 regional preserves, nine regional recreation areas, 13 regional 

shorelines, and 15 regional trails (East Bay Regional Park District 1997). EBRPD 

is currently in the process of preparing an HCP for several of their park lands in 

Contra Costa County. 

EBRPD manages approximately 85,000 acres of regional parks, which are 

typically large parklands with high biological value that also have recreational 

opportunities. To be considered under this classification under EBRPD 

standards, a regional park must be at least 500 acres, including land and water, 

and must include scenic or natural resources in at least 70% of the park area 

(East Bay Regional Park District 1997). Regional parks also have the capacity to 

accommodate a range of recreational activities, as long as recreational areas are 

less than 30% of the overall park area (East Bay Regional Park District 1997). 

Regional parks in the study area are Del Valle Regional Park (5,005 acres), 

Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park (3,387 acres), and Vargas Plateau Regional Park 

(1,043 acres) (Figure 2-3). 

Regional preserves, including wilderness areas, are ecologically valuable areas 

with significant natural or cultural features (East Bay Regional Park District 

1997). A regional preserve may include such essential features as open space, 

wilderness, scenic beauty, flora, or fauna; or archeological, historic, or 

geological resources (East Bay Regional Park District 1997). Regional preserves 

have irrevocable protection within the EBRPD (some regional preserves also 

have irrevocable conservation easements associated with them). Regional 

preserves in the study area provide important protections for focal species and 

natural communities targeted by this Conservation Strategy. Regional preserves 


ICF 00906.08


in the study area are Sunol Regional Wilderness (6,881 acres), Ohlone Regional 

Wilderness (8,714 acres), Brushy Peak Regional Preserve (406 acres), and 

Mission Peak Regional Preserve (470 acres) (Figure 2-3). 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300 

Site 300, located in eastern Alameda and western San Joaquin Counties north of 

Corral Hollow Road (Figure 2-3), is owned and operated by Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory for the purpose of conducting unique scientific 

experiments. Research includes explosives tests and fabrication, reactions of 

materials under high pressure and temperature (shock physics), and 

hydrodynamic tests, among others (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

2008a). The site is approximately 7,000 acres in size, 803 acres of which is in the 

Conservation Strategy study area. 

Site 300 is inhabited by a diverse assemblage of flora and fauna. From its 

southern boundary within the Corral Hollow Creek floodplain, the property rises 

in a series of southeast-northwest trending ridges to nearly the northern 

perimeter. Several ephemeral streams flow through Site 300 during the wet 

winter months and discharge into Corral Hollow Creek at the southern boundary 

of the site. Most flow is direct runoff with a very small contribution from both 

intermittent and perennial springs (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

2008b). 

Less than 5% of the property-area is developed. Developed areas with buildings 

are generally separated from wildland settings with high-security fences, and 

very few of these developed areas provide habitat for native flora and fauna. 

The most common vegetation types found at Site 300 are California annual 

grassland, native grassland, coastal sage scrub, and oak woodlands. California 

annual grassland covers about 5,647 acres of the property. The native perennial 

grassland community is dominated by pine (one-sided) bluegrass and purple 

needlegrass and covers about 723 acres of the property. Stands of native 

grasslands are confined mainly to the northern half of the facility. Occurrence of 

native grass-dominated vegetation appears to be associated with annual 

controlled burning. Another major vegetation community, coastal sage scrub, 

occurs in the southwestern part of the site and covers approximately 108 acres 

(Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 2008b). 

Livermore Area Parks and Recreation District 

Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD) defines open space parks 

and preserves as “larger land areas with outstanding natural or cultural features 

warranting conservation for their natural value, educational benefit and 

enjoyment by the public” (Livermore Area Recreation and Park District 2008). 

Within the study area, LARPD currently owns and operates two open space 


ICF 00906.08


parks: Sycamore Grove Park/Veterans Park (774 acres) and Holdener Park (55 

acres); and one open space preserve, Garaventa Wetlands Preserve (24 acres). 

LARPD owns 507 acres of Brushy Peak Regional Preserve (the remainder is 

owned by EBRPD), but the entire Preserve is managed by East Bay Regional Park 

District (Livermore Area Recreation and Park District 2008). Overall, LARPD 

parks and preserves represent 1,360 acres of natural open space (Livermore 

Area Recreation and Park District 2008). LARPD also owns and manages several 

trail facilities. 

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Watershed Lands 

The SFPUC owns, leases, and manages 63,000 acres of watershed lands across 

three counties in California (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 2008). 

The Alameda Watershed, which is split between Santa Clara and Alameda 

Counties, includes 36,000 acres of SFPUC watershed lands, of which 23,000 

acres are located in Alameda County (Figure 2-3; San Francisco Public Utilities 

Commission 2008). The Alameda Watershed is used primarily for water storage 

and supply from two major reservoirs: San Antonio and Calaveras. Water 

supplies for Calaveras Reservoir originate from local runoff. San Antonio 

Reservoir is supplied by local sources as well as water from the Hetch Hetchy 

Aqueduct that transfers water from the Sierra Nevada. While the primary 

purpose of SFPUC watershed lands is for watershed protection, the agency also 

uses the watershed lands for several other purposes, including quarry 

operations, plant nurseries, utilities routing, and water conveyance. The entire 

areas is managed under a grazing management plan to enhance native flora and 

fauna. This watershed is valuable for wildlife and plant life, supporting more 

than 17 types of natural communities (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 

2008). SFPUC is currently preparing an HCP for operations and maintenance 

within its Alameda Watershed lands. 

Tri-Valley Conservancy 

The Tri-Valley Conservancy oversees conservation easements and manages 

lands in eastern Alameda County, including north and south Livermore, south 

Pleasanton, west Altamont Hills area, and the future Chain of Lakes Recreation 

Area. The purpose of the Tri-Valley Conservancy is “to permanently protect the 

fertile soils, rangelands, open space, and biological resources and to support a 

viable agricultural economy in the Tri Valley Area” (Tri-Valley Conservancy 

2005). The Tri-Valley Conservancy protects lands through acquisitions, 

conservation easements, deed restrictions, conditional transfers, reverter 

clauses, management agreements, leases, mutual covenants, and donations. 

The Tri-Valley Conservancy also has ongoing stewardship programs for acquired 

lands. The Tri-Valley Conservancy got its start in 1994 in southern Livermore 

with the approval of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan (City of Livermore 

1993) and the dedication of numerous agricultural easements on vineyards to 


ICF 00906.08


ensure this land use persisted in that area. The original purpose of the Tri- 

Valley Conservancy has expanded to other areas of the Tri-Valley region, 

including the north Livermore Valley (Tri-Valley Conservancy 2008). The Tri- 

Valley Conservancy now operates throughout most of the study area in 

Livermore, Dublin, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Sunol. 

2.3 Physical Resources 

This section describes the physical setting of the study area, including location, 

topography, geology and soils, and hydrology. Sources used to map and 

describe the physical setting of the study area are listed below: 

• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data on topography and hydrology (U.S. 

Geological Survey 1999), 

• geologic maps of the area (California Department of Conservation 1990), 

• soil survey information (Welch 1981; Welch et al. 1966), 

• serpentine and alkaline soils derived from soil survey information (Welch 

1981; Welch et al. 1966), 

• aspect and slope derived from USGS data on topography and hydrology 

(U.S. Geological Survey 1999), and 

• watershed data from California Interagency Watershed Map (CalWater 

version 2.2.1) (California Interagency Watershed Mapping Committee 

1999). 

Topography, hydrology, and soil data were downloaded from agency websites 

and imported into ArcMap, where files were clipped and converted into the 

projection for the study area. 

2.3.1 Location 

The study area covers approximately 271,485 acres in the eastern portion of 

Alameda County. The study area is bounded by the Contra Costa County line to 

the north, the San Joaquin County line to the east, the Santa Clara County line to 

the south, and the ridgeline of the East Bay Hills to the west. The western 

boundary of the study area is the western boundary of the Alameda Creek 

watershed. 

2.3.2 Topography 

The topography of the study area is extremely variable, ranging from steep 

ridges of the northern Diablo Range in the east to rolling hills of the East Bay 


ICF 00906.08


Hills in the west to expansive valleys in the north-central and northeast portions 

of the study area. Elevations in the study area range from 3,840 feet along 

Valpe Ridge in the Diablo Range to 10 feet in the extreme northeast corner of 

the study area, near the Delta-Mendota Canal. Other important low points in 

the study area include the Sunol Valley at approximately 125 feet above mean 

sea level and the extensive Livermore Valley, ranging from 400 to 500 feet and 

containing the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin. Notable peaks and 

other high points in the study area include Cedar Mountain at 3,675 feet, Man 

Ridge at 3,500 feet, and Wauhab Ridge at 3,200 feet, all of which are located 

within the northern Diablo Range in the southeast portion of the study area 

(Figure 2-4). 

2.3.3 Geology and Soils 

2.3.3.1 Regional Geologic Context 

The Conservation Strategy area is located within the central portion of the Coast 

Ranges Geomorphic Province. In the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area), the 

Coast Ranges Province is characterized by a series of northwest-trending enechelon 

ridges and valleys bounded by active faults of the San Andreas system, 

which forms the boundary between the Pacific and North American tectonic 

plates (Norris and Webb 1990). From west to east, these faults include the San 

Gregorio, the San Andreas, the Hayward-Rodgers Creek, Calaveras, Concord- 

Green Valley, Greenville, and Ortigalita, together with a number of smaller 

structures. 

2.3.3.2 Geology of the Study Area 

The study area can be divided into four distinctive geologic domains: the East 

Bay Hills, northern Diablo Range, Livermore Valley, and Mount Diablo uplift. 

The northwest-trending East Bay Hills are located on the western edge of the 

study area and are bounded on the west by the Hayward fault and on the east 

by the Calaveras fault. The Hayward fault zone is a complex deformational front 

that shows an overall right-lateral sense of separation but includes fault strands 

characterized as west-vergent thrusts, steeply dipping east-vergent thrusts, and 

vertical or near-vertical faults (Crane 1995). At the latitude of the study area, 

the central portion of the East Bay Hills uplift exposes deep marine sedimentary 

rocks of Cretaceous age, variously mapped as the Panoche Formation (Wagner 

et al. 1991) and as yet unnamed sandstone and shale (Graymer et al. 1996). 

Along the east flank of the uplift, the primarily right-slip Calaveras fault 

juxtaposes markedly different geologic formations. On both sides of this fault 

zone, the substrate is a complexly faulted and folded terrain. To the immediate 

west of the Calaveras fault zone along the plan area boundary, the substrate is 

largely composed of shallow marine sandstone, conglomerate, and shell breccia 


ICF 00906.08


of the Miocene Briones Formation. East of the Calaveras fault, surface 

exposures consist of surficial alluvial and landslide deposits of Holocene age 

(Graymer et al. 1996). 

The southern and eastern portion of the plan area encompasses the northern 

Diablo Range, which is the easternmost principal uplift of the central Coast 

Ranges province. The structure of the Diablo Range is broadly antiformal, with a 

core of Franciscan rocks such as Eylar Mountain terrain (sandstone, siltstone, 

conglomerate and chert), Melange terrane, and Undivided Franciscan 

greenstone (Graymer at al. 1996), flanked by younger sedimentary strata (Norris 

and Webb 1990). The Altamont Hills, in the northeastern-most corner of the 

plan area, are characterized by the sands, pebbles, and white sandstone of the 

Miocene-Age Neroly Formation and Cierbo Formation, as well as interbedded 

deep marine sandstone and shale of Late Cretaceous age. South and west of 

the Altamont Hills, the structure of the Diablo Range is largely influenced by the 

presence of the northwest-striking Ortigalita fault, just east of the range’s crest. 

The area directly on the fault juxtaposes conglomerate and sandstone of the 

Panoche Formation (Great Valley Group) against Franciscan bedrock (Wagner et 

al. 1991; Graymer et al. 1996). The Panoche Formation is overlain by an eastdipping 

sequence of clastic sedimentary strata ranging in age from Eocene 

through Quaternary of marine and shell marine origin (Sullivan and Waters 

1980). 

The Livermore Valley, containing the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, lies 

south and west of the Diablo Range and east of the East Bay Hills. This valley, an 

east-west trending valley, unique to this area, is a deep alluviated depression 

(Ollenburger 1986) containing sediments deposited as part of the Livermore 

Gravels Formation. The Greenville fault forms the eastern border of this valley, 

separating it from the western foothills of the Diablo Range. It is postulated 

that the Greenville Fault is connected to the Concord Fault at depth by a buried 

“blind” thrust fault system (Wetlands Research Associates 2004). It is this 

interaction of the Greenville and Concord Faults that has created the Mount 

Diablo uplift, a presently active (Crane 1995), Late Quaternary tectonic feature 

located in the north-central portion of the study area. The bedrock structure of 

the Mount Diablo uplift is composed of rocks of the Miocene Green Valley/ 

Tassajara Formation and is postulated to contain deposits of the Livermore 

Gravels Formation (Graymer et al. 1996). The core of the Mount Diablo uplift, 

located just north of the plan area, contains older Franciscan rocks, flanked by 

east- and westward-younging sedimentary strata of Eocene through Pliocene 

age. 

2.3.3.3 Soils 

Because of the geologic, microclimatic, and topographic diversity of the study 

area, the soils are also very diverse, and a large number of individual soil units 

have been mapped. These have been organized into four soil associations 


ICF 00906.08


consisting of soil units of similar texture and composition and related derivation. 

Following is a general overview of soil characteristics in the study area, by 

geographic position (Soil Conservation Service 1966) (Figure 2-5). 

• East Bay Hills. Soils in the moderately sloping to very steep areas of the 

East Bay Hills are mainly silt loam soils assigned to the Millsholm–Los Gatos– 

Los Osos association. Soils in the more gently sloping easternmost portion 

of these hills are clay loams and gravelly loams of the Positas-Perkins 

association. 

• Northern Diablo Range. The portion of the Diablo Range that falls within 

the study area is characterized by clay soils of the Altamont-Diablo 

association to the north and various rocky loams of the Vallecitos-Parrish 

association to the south. 

• Livermore Valley. The Livermore Valley floodplain supports very gravelly 

soils assigned to the Yolo-Pleasanton association, interspersed with loams 

and clays of the Rincon-San Ysidro association. 

• Mount Diablo Uplift. The soils of the Mount Diablo uplift are largely clays 

of the Altamont-Diablo association cut by creek beds containing clay and 

loam of the Clear Lake–Sunnyvale association. 

Of particular importance from a conservation perspective are the study area’s 

serpentine and alkali soils. Serpentine soils are typically very shallow, nutrientpoor 

(i.e., containing low levels of nitrogen, potassium, phosphorous, and 

molybdenum essential for normal plant growth), and high in magnesium, and 

may contain elevated levels of the heavy metals chromium and nickel that are 

toxic to many plant species (Kruckeberg 1954, 1984). Water availability in 

serpentine soils may also be limited (Davis et al. 1997). As a result, serpentine 

soils support limited and highly specialized floras and vegetation associations 

that often include a high number of endemic (i.e., largely or entirely restricted 

to serpentine soils) and special-status species (Kruckeberg 1984, Safford et al. 

2005). The only serpentine soil found in the study area is eroded Henneke rocky 

loam soil type. These soils are found only in the southern portion of the study 

area, with large deposits in the northern Diablo Range, in areas such as Cedar 

Mountain, and in smaller areas found in the East Bay Hills (Figure 2-6). 

Another soil type that can support rare and sometimes endemic flora is alkali 

soils. Alkali soils are created through the process of alkalization—the 

accumulation of exchangeable sodium in soils. This accumulation generally 

occurs when water evaporation or absorption pushes the soil solution to a point 

where calcium and magnesium are no longer soluble and the relative proportion 

of sodium increases as a result (Richards 1954). As a result of this relatively high 

level of sodium, alkali soils support a number of endemic and special-status 

species. Alkali grasslands and alkali wetlands occur only on alkali soils and 

contain a variety of halophytic plant species (species adapted to high salinity 

levels). Alkali soils of the plan area include the Pescadero clay and Solano fine 

sandy loam, which are found only in the northeastern portion of the study area 


ICF 00906.08


(Figure 2-6). There are approximately 4,234 acres of alkali soils within the study 

area, most of which exist in small exposures scattered throughout the 

northeastern portion of the study zone, particularly in drainages or depressions. 

However, there are two large expanses of alkali soils that support unique 

wetland and grassland habitats in the study area: Springtown Alkali Sink, located 

just north and east of the city of Livermore, and the Mountain House Grasslands 

and Wetlands complex in the northeast corner of the study area. The 

characteristics of both of these unique areas are discussed later in this chapter 

in Section 2.4.3.6, “Wetlands.” 

2.3.4 Climate 

Climatically, the study area is intermediate between the moderate, marine 

Mediterranean conditions of the Bay Area and the more marked seasonality of 

the interior Central Valley. The study area is characterized as a standard 

Mediterranean climate in that it has extended periods of precipitation during 

the winter months and virtually no precipitation from spring through autumn. 

For the period January 1903–December 2008, average annual maximum 

temperature in Livermore was 73.2° F; average minimum was 45.5° F. During 

that same period, the warmest month is July and the coolest is January 

(Western Regional Climate Center 2009). 

The wet season generally extends from November through April, while rainfall 

from May through October tends to be minimal. Annual average rainfall varies 

significantly due to topography and related orographic and rain shadow effects. 

The average annual rainfall varies in the study area and fluctuates depending on 

elevation and aspect. For example, at Calaveras Reservoir, in the southwest 

corner of the study area, average annual precipitation was 20.10 inches for the 

period August 1959–June 1977; in Livermore for the period of January 1903– 

December 31, 2008 average annual precipitation was 14.22 inches (Western 

Regional Climate Center 2009). Just outside of the study area to the east, 

average annual rainfall in Lone Creek Canyon was 7.65 inches for the period 

October 1943–June 1969 (Western Regional Climate Center 2009). However, 

average rainfall figures can be somewhat misleading because, in addition to 

seasonal variation, droughts in California are not uncommon. Snow may occur 

in the mountains in the southern half of the study area, where the headwaters 

for the watersheds are located, but it melts quickly and does not provide 

significant flow in the late spring to early summer. 

2.3.4.1 Global Climate Change 

Global climate change is the observed increase in mean global temperature due 

to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, primarily carbon dioxide, as a result 

of human industrialization (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). 


ICF 00906.08


Global climate change is also predicted to include secondary global effects such 

as sea-level rise and changing weather patterns. 

Current global and regional trends suggest that climate change is likely to have 

an effect on the study area. However, current or near-term forecasting 

technology for modeling changes in climate at the regional or county scale is not 

effective. Most global climate models predict temperature increases. The 

change in temperature over the past century is a global average of 0.6 o C (33°F). 

To make predictions of future climate change, the baseline is set using the 

historical average from 1961 to 1990. A temperature increase as high as 6 o C 

(42.8°F) is predicted under climate change scenarios (Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change 2007). According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (2007), temperatures during the twenty-first century are predicted to 

increase from 2 to 3°C (35.6–37.4°F) along the western, southern, and eastern 

continental edges to more than 5°C (41°F) in the northern region. Californiabased 

models project average annual temperatures to rise by 3 o C (37.4°F) 

during the next 50 years (Hayhoe et al. 2004, Cayan et al. 2008). There is 

considerable uncertainty on whether precipitation will increase or decrease 

over the next half century as a result of climate change. Model predictions for 

California range from a 6 millimeter (0.24 inch) decrease in precipitation to a 

70 millimeter (2.8 inch) increase (Hayhoe et al. 2004). Consequently, it is likely 

that the climate in the study area would shift to be either warmer and wetter or 

warmer and dryer. 

Second, range and distribution of species and natural communities may shift 

(Parmesan 1999; Pimm 2001; Walther et al. 2002; Easterling et al. 2000). 

(Range is the area over which a species occurs or potentially occurs, whereas 

distribution refers to where a species is located within its range.) This is of 

particular concern for narrowly distributed species that already have restricted 

ranges due to urban growth or altitudinal gradients. 

Also, increases in disturbance events, such as fire or flooding, could increase the 

distribution of disturbance-dependent land cover types, such as annual 

grassland within the study area (Brown and Hebda 1998; Lenihan et al. 2003; 

Fried et al. 2004; California Climate Change Center 2006; Rogers and Westfall 

2007). An increase in the frequency and intensity of disturbance could increase 

the likelihood that these events will harm or kill individual covered species, 

many of which are already quite rare. Events that occur with unpredictable or 

random frequency (called stochastic events) such as those described above can 

have an inordinately negative effect on rare species. 

Third, the number or density of individuals found in a particular location may 

change. This may be triggered in large part by changes in resource availability 

associated with an increase or decrease in precipitation (Martin 1998; Dukes 

and Mooney 1999; Walther et al. 2002; Lenihan et al. 2003; Millar et al. 2006; 

Pounds et al. 2006). Changes such as these may benefit one species at the 

expense of another. 


ICF 00906.08


Fourth, over a longer time period, species may change in outward appearance 

and behavior. Changes in climate may favor different adaptive strategies or 

appearances that may lead to genetic shifts (Davis and Shaw 2001). 

2.3.5 Hydrology 

The Alameda Creek watershed is by far the largest watershed in the county, 

covering more than 635 square miles (including 77% of the county), and 

stretching from Mount Diablo (Contra Costa County) in the north, to 

Mount Hamilton in the south (Santa Clara County), to Altamont Pass in the east. 

The general drainage pattern is east to west through three major arroyos: 

Arroyo las Positas, Arroyo Mocho, and Arroyo del Valle. These arroyos join 

Arroyo de la Laguna in Pleasanton, which drains the Livermore Valley in a 

southerly direction approximately 18 miles to San Francisco Bay via Niles 

Canyon and Alameda Creek outside of the study area (Zone 7 Water Agency 

2006) (Figure 2-7). 

Runoff from the northern region flows to tributaries of Alameda Creek. Runoff 

from much of the southern part of the watershed is either collected and stored 

in Calaveras and San Antonio Reservoirs, which are part of San Francisco’s water 

system (SFPUC owns 36,000 acres of the watershed), or is collected in Lake Del 

Valle. Most of the watershed is undeveloped, and is either in private rangelands 

or public lands. Only about 7% of the total acreage of the watershed is 

developed. 

For about 39 miles, Alameda Creek flows from its headwaters on the 

northwestern slopes of the Diablo Range in Santa Clara County to south San 

Francisco Bay. Headwater elevations are close to 4,000-feet, with stream 

gradients downstream through the upper reaches varying from between 1 and 

5%. Alameda Creek is an intermittently perennial stream in the upper 

watershed, but in the Sunol Valley, where principal stream channels are broad 

and the substrate is characterized by deep, coarse alluvium, a high rate of 

infiltration results in dry reaches during the summer months. Many of the 

tributaries that supply flows to Alameda Creek are historically intermittent and 

can be isolated from the mainstem beginning in early to midsummer (Welch et 

al. 1961). This is especially true of streams, both natural and channelized, that 

drain the Livermore Valley. For example, the natural hydrology of the Alameda 

Creek watershed has been altered by water supply activities as well as by 

development and flood control. 

Discharges from quarries in the Pleasanton area contribute intermittent flow in 

Arroyo de la Laguna, which joins Alameda Creek just upstream of Niles Canyon 

(Gunther et al. 2000). Most of the flow for Arroyo de la Laguna comes from 

releases from Lake del Valle, as well as flow from Arroyo los Positas, San Ramon 

creek, and Alamo Creek. Arroyo de la Laguna is the main tributary that feeds 

into Alameda Creek from the northwest (Figure 2-7). Arroyo de la Laguna’s 


ICF 00906.08


channel drains approximately 400 square miles of Alameda Creek watershed in 

the Tri-Valley region (Alameda County Resource Conservation District 2006). 

Arroyo Mocho is a tributary of Arroyo de la Laguna, and its headwaters are 

located southeast of Livermore (Alameda Creek Alliance 2009). Arroyo Mocho 

has intermittent perennial flow due to fault zone seepage (Smith 1998) and the 

Zone 7 Artificial Recharge program that releases water from the South Bay 

Aqueduct into Arroyo Mocho and recharges groundwater resources (RMC 

2006). This in turn has disrupted the natural hydrologic regime in Arroyo Mocho 

and permanently altered the ecology of the stream downstream of Livermore. 

The Upper watershed is unaffected by Zone 7’s artificial releases; and the 

“hydrologic regime” remains mostly “natural”. 

Arroyo Valle joins Arroyo de la Laguna from the north. Flows in Arroyo Valle 

below Lake Del Valle are regulated by DWR’s dam operations (i.e., “flood 

releases” and Zone 7’s and ACWD’s “water rights” releases; whereas above the 

Lake the flow regime is “natural”. Sinbad Creek drains the valley created by 

Sunol Ridge and Pleasanton Ridge (Leidy et al. 2003). It is 7.5 miles long and 

drains a 6.44-mile area, joining Arroyo de la Laguna 0.5 mile upstream of 

Alameda Creek (Herron et al. 2004). 

Arroyo Las Positas is the major drainage feature through the Livermore Valley, 

draining approximately 7,000 acres. The creek originates in the Altamont Hills 

and continues in a westerly direction, following I-580 to the confluence with 

Arroyo Mocho, also a tributary to Alameda Creek. Arroyo Seco drains into 

Arroyo Las Positas from the north (Oakland Museum of California 2009). Arroyo 

Los Positas is a gaining stream in its upper reaches providing for perennial flows 

along its entire length. 

Stonybrook Creek is a tributary to Alameda Creek. The Stonybrook Creek 

watershed lies within Alameda County, about 7 miles east of Hayward. The 

watershed runs north to south and has a drainage area of 6.9 square miles. 

Elevations within the basin range from 160 feet at its mouth to 2,191 feet. Its 

mouth joins Alameda Creek in Niles Canyon, approximately 13 river miles 

upstream from San Francisco Bay (Love 2001). 

Upper Alameda, La Costa and Indian Creeks and Arroyo Hondo occur south of 

San Antonio Reservoir. Indian and La Costa Creeks both flow northward and 

terminate at the San Antonio Reservoir (Leidy et al. 2003) (Figure 2-7). Calaveras 

Reservoir sits in the southwestern portion of the watershed, in both Alameda 

and Santa Clara Counties, while San Antonio Reservoir is to the north in 

Alameda County (SFPUC 2007). 

Three major reservoirs have a significant impact on present hydrologic 

conditions in Alameda Creek. Del Valle Reservoir was completed in 1968 and is 

operated as a component of DWR’s State Water Project (SWP). Del Valle 

Reservoir is managed as regulatory storage for the South Bay Aqueduct and for 


ICF 00906.08


flood control and recreation. Del Valle Reservoir captures the entire flow of the 

Arroyo Valle watershed. ACWD and Zone 7 each have storage rights in Del Valle 

Reservoir of 7,500 acre-feet (af). The Del Valle watershed connects to Arroyo de 

la Laguna in the Livermore Plain. Part of the ACWD storage may be released to 

Arroyo Del Valle Creek, where it flows to Arroyo de la Laguna and Alameda 

Creek for recharge in the Niles Cone area. 

SFPUC completed San Antonio Reservoir in 1965 on San Antonio Creek, 1.5 

miles upstream of its confluence with Alameda Creek. San Antonio Reservoir 

stores water from the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct and the SWP. It also captures all 

flows from the headwater streams of San Antonio Creek. 

SFPUC completed Calaveras Reservoir in 1925, but hydrologic conditions may 

have been altered as early as 1913 when construction of the dam began. 

Calaveras Dam is located about 0.8 mile upstream of the Alameda Creek 

confluence. Calaveras Reservoir captures the flow from Calaveras Creek and the 

large Arroyo Hondo tributary watershed. In addition, flows from upper 

Alameda Creek are diverted about 3 miles upstream of the Calaveras Creek 

confluence through the Alameda Creek Diversion Dam tunnel into Calaveras 

Reservoir. Calaveras Reservoir spills relatively infrequently, about once in 5 

years on average, and spills are relatively small, averaging 275 cubic feet per 

second (Hagar et al. 1993). 

2.4 Biological Resources 

2.4.1 Methods 

2.4.1.1 Land Cover Mapping 

One of the primary data sources for the Conservation Strategy is a detailed map 

of land cover types within the study area based on the geographic information 

system (GIS). A land cover type is defined as the dominant character of the land 

surface discernible from aerial photographs, as determined by vegetation, 

water, or human uses. Land cover types are the most widely used units in 

analyzing ecosystem function, habitat diversity, natural communities, wetlands 

and streams, and covered species habitat. Data sources, mapping standards, 

and the classification and interpretation of land cover types are discussed 

below. 

Data Sources 

The following are the primary sources of information for the land cover mapping 

in the study area: 


ICF 00906.08


• true-color aerial photographs (1.5 foot-resolution) flown in November 2005 

(acquired from AirPhoto USA); 

• digital ortho photography (1-meter [3.3-foot] resolution) flown in January 

2005 (acquired from National Agriculture Imagery Program); and 

• digital ortho photography (4-inch resolution) flown in 2007 (acquired from 

Zone 7). 

The ancillary data sources listed below were used to obtain information not 

available in the primary sources and to check the mapped information for 

accuracy: 

• wetlands in north Livermore and Alameda County from the Vasco-Laughlin 

Resource Conservation Plan (Jones & Stokes 2001); 

• Alameda Rare Plants data provided by California Native Plant Society; 

• Review of the land cover data layer in the north Livermore area by CNPS, 

especially with regard to polygons characterized as alkali meadow and scald, 

alkali wetland, valley sink scrub, seasonal wetland, and California annual 

grassland; 

• rare species occurrence point data from CNDDB (2009) [some land covers 

could be verified by the presence of associated rare plants]; 

• local roads provided by the Environmental Science Research Institute 

(2008); 

• serpentine and alkaline soils derived from soil survey information (Welch 

1981; Welch et al. 1966); and 

• land cover data from the SFPUC Alameda Creek watershed HCP, digitized in 

2003 and based on 2001 aerial photos. 

In addition to using existing data sets, ICF International staff conducted field 

visits in accessible portions of the study area to develop and verify land cover 

mapping. An initial field visit was conducted on January 25, 2008, to develop 

the land cover classification and to perform preliminary verification of aerial 

photograph signatures. Other field visits were conducted in August and 

September 2008 to verify land cover types and consistency of mapping and to 

collect additional data for land cover type descriptions. Initial mapping was 

verified by visual inspection from locations accessible by public roads and roads 

on state-owned and private lands. Areas were selected for field verification on 

the basis of the land cover types that were difficult to distinguish in aerial 

photos and accessibility. Once field visits were conducted, land cover mapping 

was revised on the basis of field findings. 


ICF 00906.08


Land Cover Type Classification 

A classification system for land cover types was developed for the study area 

based primarily on CDFG’s widely used classification system (California 

Department of Fish and Game 2003a, 2007), which in turn is based on the 

vegetation classification system developed for the Manual of California 

Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). Additional input was obtained from 

field visits by ICF International staff and based on experience in mapping similar 

habitats in adjacent counties. 

The land cover classification system (Table 2-3) was developed with input from 

vegetation and wildlife specialists familiar with the study area. The land cover 

classification was developed with the criteria listed below. 

• Each land cover type must be distinguishable on the digital aerial 

photography based on a unique and consistent signature, or with the use of 

ancillary data such as soil types or geologic substrate. 

• Each land cover type should be useful to the Conservation Strategy in terms 

of defining the location and extent of an important vegetation type, habitat 

for covered species, or unique natural community. 

• The land cover type classification should be compatible with existing local, 

regional, and national land cover classification schemes when possible while 

reflecting the unique nature of many vegetative communities in Alameda 

County. 

A list of land cover types is given in Table 2-3. A comparison of land cover types 

and common statewide and regional vegetation classification systems is 

presented in the same table (Table 2-3). An effort was also made to ensure that 

the land-cover classification of this Conservation Strategy was as consistent as 

possible with that of the other large conservation plans, including the East 

Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP and the Alameda Watershed HCP. 

Mapping Procedures 

ArcGIS 9.0 software was used to create a GIS dataset of land cover types. The 

land cover classification also defined the minimum mapping unit that was used 

for each land cover type. Minimum mapping units are the smallest area 

mapped for each type. Minimum mapping units range from 0.25 acre for 

wetland and riparian land cover types to 10 acres for most other land cover 

types. This range of minimum mapping units is sufficient for regional 

conservation planning and balances the need for high resolution (smaller 

minimum mapping unit) with schedule and budget limitations (larger minimum 

mapping unit). Minimum mapping units are also limited by the resolution of the 

imagery and the distinctiveness of the land cover signature relative to adjacent 

land cover. 


ICF 00906.08


A 10-acre minimum mapping unit was used for all land cover types, except for 

the land cover types noted below: 

• all wetland and aquatic types, which were mapped at a 0.25-acre minimum 

mapping unit; 

• rock outcrops, which had no minimum mapping unit (but due to aerial 

photo resolution had a likely minimum mapping unit of 0.1–0.25 acre); and 

• riparian woodlands, which were mapped at a 0.25-acre minimum mapping 

unit. 

The mapping process involved digitizing polygons on screen (a process known as 

heads-up digitizing) from the primary aerial photographs described above, 

followed by limited field verification. 

Polygons were digitized for areas with distinct image signatures that met 

minimum mapping unit requirements. Digitizing was completed on screen by 

ICF staff. Digitizing was conducted while viewing the aerial imagery at mapping 

scales of 1:4,800 or 1:6,000. Staff was provided with grids of 0.25 acre and 10 

acres to assist in maintaining the minimum mapping units during digitization. 

Once digitized, polygons were assigned to land cover types on the basis of the 

criteria in the land cover type definitions (described below under each land 

cover type). 

During the mapping process, polygons with uncertain land cover types were 

flagged for verification. First, polygons were reviewed in-house by a senior 

botanist. However, in some cases, heavy shadows on the aerials photograph 

made desktop verification difficult. In these cases, upon completion of 

mapping, staff verified these ambiguous polygons in the field where access was 

available. 

Serpentine bunchgrass grassland and serpentine chaparral were mapped based 

on the intersection of annual grassland and chaparral, respectively, with the 

serpentine soils and geology layers that support those natural communities. 

Ancillary information was used to supplement the land cover information 

acquired by aerial photograph interpretation. Wetland data from the Vasco- 

Laughlin Resource Conservation Plan was used to verify and augment the 

wetlands mapping, especially for the alkali wetlands in the northern part of the 

study area. Data from Zone 7 was used as the stream layer for the study area. 

In addition, draft maps were presented to the Steering Committee and UAG. 

Within those groups, experts familiar with the vegetation in the study area 

provided feedback to increase the level of detail for certain land cover types in 

the study area, such as blue oak and valley oak woodlands, alkali grasslands, 

alkali wetlands, valley sink scrub, and sycamore alluvial woodlands. 


ICF 00906.08


Accuracy Assessment 

A field accuracy assessment was performed to quantify the reliability of the oak 

woodlands (i.e., valley oak versus blue oak); coastal scrub, and chaparral land 

cover types. (A formal accuracy assessment could not be conducted for all land 

cover types due to the inaccessibility of large areas of the study area and 

limitations of project budget.) Field verification was conducted by two staff 

members, including one botanist. Field verification was performed by visual 

observation of land cover units from publicly accessible roads, sometimes using 

binoculars and views from vantage points where possible. 

A polygon was classified in one of three ways. The first classification was “no 

change,” meaning the polygon was mapped correctly. The second classification 

was “error,” indicating a misinterpretation from the aerial imagery. The third 

classification was “change,” indicating a land use change that occurred after the 

aerial photographs were taken. 

As a result of the accuracy assessment, it was determined that the vast majority 

of oak woodlands in the area are dominated by blue oak. Valley oak woodlands 

in this area are difficult to discern during desktop mapping, and at the minimum 

mapping unit. Therefore, all oak woodlands in the Conservation Strategy study 

area were mapped as blue oak woodland land cover category. However, during 

plan implementation, valley oak woodlands may be located and mapped on 

specific parcels; therefore, this land cover category was retained, and is 

described below. 

2.4.1.2 Focal Species 

Ecology and Distribution 

Species accounts of each of the 19 focal species (Table 1-1) are provided in 

Appendix D. These accounts summarize listing status, distribution in the study 

area, ecological information, and threats in the study area and the region. The 

accounts represent the best available scientific data for each species on which 

to base this Conservation Strategy. The species accounts are not intended to 

summarize all biological information known about a species. Rather, each 

account summarizes scientific information that is relevant to the species in the 

study area. The biological data in these accounts form the basis for the 

conservation strategy presented in Chapter 3. 

Land cover types are the basic unit of evaluation for habitat modeling, analyzing 

potential impacts, and developing conservation strategies for focal species. 

Most focal species are associated with one or more distinctive land cover types. 

These land cover type associations, plus other habitat features, were used to 

develop habitat distribution models for 13 of the 19 focal species. These habitat 


ICF 00906.08


associations provide additional information on the potential for species 

distribution and conservation needs in the study area. 

2.4.1.3 Distribution of Potential Habitat 

Habitat distribution models were developed for select focal species to predict 

where in the study area species are more likely to occur based on known habitat 

requirements. These models have been used to assist in filling the gaps in 

survey information for focal species and to assist in developing the Conservation 

Strategy for each species by highlighting the areas that have habitat attributes 

that support the species needs. 1 Habitat distribution models for 13 of the focal 

species are described in detail in the respective species account (and shown in 

Appendix D). Methods used for all models are described below. 

Because of model limitations (see “Model Limitations” below), predictive 

models could not be developed for 6 of the 19 covered species. For longhorn 

fairy shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp, available location data and the 

resolution of the land cover mapping were insufficient to precisely identify 

potential habitat. For the callippe silverspot butterfly, the number of known 

occurrences within the study area was so low and the habitat requirements so 

general that habitat potential could not be modeled with confidence. For these 

species, range maps were produced based on expert knowledge of potential 

habitat rather than developing predictive habitat models using habitat 

associations. Livermore Valley tarplant and recurved larkspur did not require 

modeling due to the fact that suitable habitat within the study area is well 

known and highly restricted. Central California coastal steelhead does not 

currently occur in the study area due to barriers downstream of the study area 

in Alameda Creek. A potential habitat map was created to show habitat 

potential for this species should barriers be removed (rather than a suitable 

habitat map). 

Model Structure and Development Methodology 

The 13 habitat models described in the species accounts were designed to 

estimate the extent and location of key habitat characteristics of each species 

and to be repeatable and scientifically defensible, while remaining as simple as 

possible. The models are spatially explicit, GIS-based, “expert opinion models” 

based on identification of land cover types that provide important habitat for 

these species. Land cover types were identified as suitable habitat based on the 

known or presumed habitat requirements and use patterns of each species. 

1 Habitat distribution models have been developed on a regional scale using regional data. The models are 

intended for use in regional planning and do not provide accurate site-specific species information. For project 

planning, model results must always be field-verified. 


ICF 00906.08


When supported by appropriate data, the models also incorporate physical 

parameters, including: 

• elevation limits, using an absolute limit when data supported a clear limit; 

• soil type ; 

• slope; and 

• distance to highways and other urban development. 

Further, in some cases, perimeter zones that were used to designate habitat are 

defined by a certain distance from a land cover type. For example, the 

California tiger salamander model identifies upland habitat for underground 

habitat and dispersal. Upland habitat was designated based on its distance 

from potential breeding sites (e.g., ponds, wetlands). 

Determinations of suitable land cover types and additional physical parameters 

were based on available data from peer-reviewed scientific literature; survey 

reports; environmental documents; and local knowledge of the species, if 

available. When data were inconclusive or contradictory, general values were 

assumed in estimating suitable habitat. See below for a discussion of the model 

limitations. 

Focal Species Locations 

Documented occurrences of focal species within the study area were used to 

validate and refine the models. Sources of occurrence data are listed below: 

• CNDDB (2009); 

Tricolored Blackbird Portal (Information Center for the Environment, University 

of California, Davis 2009).The majority of species occurrence records come from 

the CNDDB (CNDDB 2009). CNDDB records represent the best available 

statewide occurrence data but are limited in their use for conservation planning, 

as discussed below. 

California Natural Diversity Database Limitations 

CNDDB records rely on field biologists to voluntarily submit information on the 

results of surveys and monitoring. As a result, the database is biased 

geographically toward areas where surveys have been conducted or survey 

efforts are greater (many areas have not been surveyed at all and this is not 

reflected in the database). The database may also be biased toward species 

that receive more survey effort. For example, there have been more surveys for 

California red-legged frog than other special-status wildlife because it is a listed 

species. Conspicuous diurnal species such as raptors likely receive greater 

survey effort than nocturnal species such as American badger. Plants typically 


ICF 00906.08


receive less survey effort than wildlife. Additionally, negative survey results are 

not reflected in the database. 

Data that are reported to the CNDDB are done so with varied precision. Some 

occurrences are very well documented with explicit locations (e.g., global 

positioning system [GPS] coordinates), while others are reported with more 

general location information. CNDDB staff qualitatively categorized each 

occurrence record into one of two categories: specific and nonspecific 

(California Natural Diversity Database 2009). 

A specific occurrence has sufficient information to be located on a standard 

USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map. This information may be based on political 

or natural features but has been very well described by the observer. These 

occurrences are mapped by CNDDB as points with an 80-meter (262.5-foot) 

radius or as specific polygons when information allows. 

A nonspecific occurrence is a species occurrence that has been documented by 

the observer in very general terms. Sometimes the precise location is unclear or 

lacks critical information that does not allow it to be mapped accurately. These 

occurrences are mapped by CNDDB as circular features with a radius of 0.1, 0.2, 

0.4, 0.6, 0.8, or 1.0 mile. These occurrences can also be mapped with nonspecific 

polygons, such as the boundary of a park where an occurrence is known 

to occur. 

Model Limitations 

The precision of the habitat distribution models is limited by several factors, 

including the 10-acre/0.25-acre minimum mapping units used to map each land 

cover type. Areas of suitable habitat smaller than the mapping thresholds were 

not mapped and could therefore not be incorporated into the models. This 

constraint limited the degree of resolution of some habitat features potentially 

important to some species. For example, models developed for species which 

use wetland habitat likely underestimate the amount of habitat available on the 

landscape since small and seasonal wetland can often be overlooked during 

aerial photo interpretation. Plus, with a minimum mapping unit of 0.25 acre, 

many of those small patches of aquatic habitat would then be categorized as 

the surrounding habitat category (typically annual grassland or oak woodland), 

thus not adequately showing the maximum extent of aquatic habitat for that 

species. 

The habitat distribution models were limited to distinguishing habitat uses 

based on key life history requirements such as breeding, foraging, or dispersal 

that are tied to land cover types. The data do not allow for further distinctions 

of habitat quality on a regional scale. To account for these limitations, 

conservative estimates of habitat parameters were used. This approach tends 

to overestimate the actual extent of suitable or required habitat for this species, 


ICF 00906.08


but is consistent with current conservation planning practices when data are 

limited (Noss et al. 1997). In general the habitat models simply show where a 

species is more likely to occur than not, based on the basic life history 

requirements that have been reported in the scientific literature. 

2.4.2 Biological Diversity in the Study Area 

2.4.2.1 General Overview 

Species richness, a measure of the number of species in a defined region, is the 

most readily available measure of diversity and is generally accepted as an index 

of biological wealth of a region. The number of species that are endemic or 

unique to a geographic region can provide a measure of biological 

distinctiveness that is recognized as another measure of biological wealth. 

When NatureServe, a nonprofit organization that provides scientific data for 

conservation efforts, examined the diversity and endemism of species for all 50 

states in the United States, California ranked first in both categories (Stein 

2002). The Bay Area Open Space Council is currently in the process of carrying 

out the Uplands Goals Project, a science-based effort to identify upland 

habitats, linkages, compatible uses and ecological processes required to 

preserve natural resources in the Bay Area (Bay Area Open Space Council 2004). 

A unique combination of climate, geography, and topography make California 

one of the most biologically diverse areas in the world. California is home to 

several of the nation’s biological “hotspots” and has been identified as one of 25 

“hotspots” of biodiversity worldwide (Stein et al. 2000). 

With a geography that is bordered by the Pacific Ocean, includes San Francisco 

Bay, and expands eastward into the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, the 

Bay Area is one of only six global hotspots of species rarity in the United States 

(California Department of Fish and Game 2003b). Nine counties comprise the 

Bay Area and account for just over 18,000 km 2 , (6,950 miles 2 ) or nearly 5%, of 

the state. Within that 5%, 64 of the 194 natural communities occur (Wild 2002). 

This accounts for 33% of the natural communities in California. These natural 

communities were mapped by the California Gap Analysis project, a coordinated 

effort between the University of California, Santa Barbara and the USGS 

Biological Resources Division to assess the status of biodiversity in California. 

More than a dozen major rivers flow into the Central Valley (which comprises 

the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys) from the Sierra Nevada, southern 

Cascade, and Coast Ranges, and these rivers flow into the Sacramento and San 

Joaquin Rivers. The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers converge in the Delta, a 

vast network of wetlands that ultimately empties into the Pacific Ocean via the 

San Francisco Bay (California Department of Fish and Game 2003b). From the 

south, several more rivers and creeks flow directly into San Francisco Bay and 

the bay itself is lined with tidal wetlands and marshes. These aquatic resources 


ICF 00906.08


alone support over 200 species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians 

(California Department of Fish and Game 2003b). This interface with the San 

Francisco Bay, coupled with an assortment of upland habitat types with 

exceptional soil diversity and topography, makes the Bay Area a critical element 

in the biodiversity of California and of the world. 

East Alameda County has important statewide examples of oak woodlands 

(California Department of Fish and Game 2003a) and vernal pool complexes 

(California Department of Fish and Game 1998). Although species counts and 

analyses specific to the study area have not been performed, these national and 

statewide studies strongly suggest that the biological diversity within the study 

area is high in most plant and animal groups relative to other parts of California 

and the United States. The highest density of nesting golden eagles in the world 

has been reported in the Diablo Range (Hunt and Hunt 2006). Grasslands are 

also dominant in east Alameda County, and they connect other ecological 

communities, such as oak woodlands and vernal pools. Serpentine habitats in 

the area support serpentine endemic plants (e.g. Cedar Mountain). 

The following sections further discuss biodiversity and describe the various 

natural communities and land cover types of the Conservation Strategy. 

2.4.3 Natural Communities and Land Cover Types 

Natural communities are defined by the vegetative communities within them. 

Accordingly, the vegetative communities, or land cover types, within each 

natural community are described below and shown in Figure 2-8. 

This Conservation Strategy includes seven natural communities, as defined by 

the groups of land cover types in Table 2-3: 

• grassland; 

• chaparral and coastal scrub; 

• oak woodland; 

• conifer woodland; 

• riparian forest and scrub; 

• wetlands; and 

• open water. 

In addition, two broad categories of nonnatural land cover types are defined 

and described below: 

• cultivated agriculture; and 

• developed. 


ICF 00906.08


The description of each natural community provides information on historical 

land cover, associated wildlife, ecosystem function, and threats. Each of the 37 

land cover types used in this Conservation Strategy is discussed in one of the 

natural communities, as shown in Tables 2-3 and 2-4. When data are available, 

vegetation associations are also described for each land cover type. Vegetation 

associations are distinct units of plant communities defined by the dominant 

species of plants that are consistently found on the landscape. The results of 

the land cover mapping are summarized in Table 2-4 and described below for 

each land cover type. See Figure 2-8 for the land cover map using all land cover 

types. 

2.4.3.1 Grassland 

Grassland consists of herbaceous vegetation dominated by grasses and forbs. 

Grassland in the study area is classified into the six land cover types below: 

• California annual grassland; 

• nonserpentine native bunchgrass grassland; 

• serpentine bunchgrass grassland; 

• alkali meadow (including alkali scalds); 

• valley sink scrub; and 

• rock outcrop. 

CDFG considers serpentine bunchgrass grassland, alkali meadow, and valley sink 

scrub as sensitive biotic communities (CNDDB 2009). Rock outcrops are most 

prominent in grassland communities in the northern portion of the study area, 

and serpentine seep is typically associated with grasslands; therefore, they are 

both discussed in this natural community. 

Grassland Land Cover Types 

Within the study area, California annual grassland was identified by its smooth, 

pale signature on aerial photograph, lacking the dark green signatures of woody 

plants taken during the summer months. Native grasslands could not be 

distinguished reliably from annual grasslands on the available imagery. Alkali 

meadows and scalds were mapped using a two-step process. First, heads up 

digitizing was used to determine where stands of annual grassland occur within 

the study area. Then, alkaline soils were overlayed with the stands of annual 

grassland in GIS to predict the presence of alkali meadows. Alkali meadows 

occur on alkaline soils of the Pescadero, Solano, Marvin, and Reyes soil series 

(Soil Conservation Service 1966). Finally, botanists from East Bay CNPS review 

several land cover polygons in the north Livermore area for accuracy. The land 


ICF 00906.08


cover type of several of these polygons were modified based on the field 

experience of those individuals. 

California Annual Grassland 

California annual grassland occupies an estimated 116,828 acres (43%) of the 

study area (Table 2-4). This land cover type is found throughout the study area 

but is concentrated in the areas south of Pleasanton, northeast of Livermore, 

and in the eastern third of the study area between Livermore and the 

Alameda/San Joaquin County line (Figure 2-8). 

California annual grassland is an herbaceous plant community dominated by 

nonnative annual grasses (Holland 1986, Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). In the 

study area, annual grassland was mapped where grasses and forbs dominate 

the land cover and where trees and shrubs comprise less than 10% canopy 

cover. The dominant species are mostly nonnative grasses from the 

Mediterranean basin, such as soft chess, red brome, wild oats, ripgut brome, 

and rat-tail fescue). In the spring, many of the annual grasslands are 

interspersed with a variety of native wildflowers typical of the inner Coast 

Ranges. Commonly found species of wildflowers in these grasslands include 

lupine, fiddleneck, popcornflower, California poppy, owl’s clover, and clarkia 

(Jones & Stokes 2003). In some areas, nonnative weedy vegetation, such as 

thistles, mustards, and a variety of other weedy forbs, are also common. 

Focal plant species that may be found in this land cover type include big tarplant 

and Congdon’s tarplant. Focal wildlife species that could occur in California 

annual grasslands include San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, California 

red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, golden eagle, tricolored blackbird, 

and American badger. Alameda whipsnake may use grasslands adjacent to 

chaparral or scrub for movement. California red-legged frog and California tiger 

salamander breed in aquatic habitats (e.g., ponds) within grasslands, and use 

grasslands as movement and underground refugia habitat. Grassland provides 

potential habitat in the study area for all life stages of the federally endangered 

callippe silverspot butterfly (see the species account in Appendix D for more 

information). Several species of birds also use annual grasslands as important 

foraging habitat. 

Nonserpentine Native Bunchgrass Grassland 

Nonserpentine native bunchgrass grasslands are patchily distributed in the 

study area and generally occur as small patches within the larger annual 

grassland complex. Accordingly, nonserpentine native bunchgrass grasslands 

contain an abundance of nonnative annual grasses mixed with perennial grasses 

and forbs. Native grassland could not be distinguished from annual grassland 

on aerial photographs of the study area. Consequently, this land cover type was 

mapped as annual grassland. 


ICF 00906.08


Nonserpentine native bunchgrass grasslands are considered a sensitive biotic 

community and are dominated by native perennial bunchgrasses, such as purple 

needlegrass and Sandberg bluegrass. This community type likely occurred 

throughout most of the county in areas now characterized by annual grassland, 

urban development, and cultivated agriculture. 

The extent of nonserpentine native bunchgrass grassland in the study area is 

unknown, though occurrences of this community have been reported near 

Bethany Reservoir and at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300 

(on the border with San Joaquin County) (Jones & Stokes 2003). Additional 

stands have been reported near Brushy Peak Regional Preserve, in Sunol-Ohlone 

Regional Wilderness, and on private ranchlands south of Pleasanton (East Bay 

California Native Plant Society file information). 

Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland 

Serpentine bunchgrass grassland occupies approximately 241 acres (0.09%) of 

the study area (Table 2-4). This land cover type is found strictly on serpentine 

soils or bedrock. In the study area, there are two primary stands of serpentine 

bunchgrass grassland: one just north of Calaveras Reservoir west of Alameda 

Creek, and another northeast of there on Apperson Ridge (Figure 2-8). 

Serpentine grassland is considered a sensitive biotic community by CDFG. This 

unique type of open grassland occurs on soils derived from serpentine parent 

materials. The ultramafic rocks from which serpentine soils are derived are rich 

in magnesium, nickel, and heavy metals that may be toxic to plants and poor in 

calcium, nitrogen, and other nutrients required for normal plant growth 

(Kruckeberg 1984). Serpentine grassland is found at scattered locations in the 

North and South Coast Ranges and in the Sierra Nevada (Holland 1986), 

although most of the documented occurrences of serpentine grassland are in 

the Bay Area (CNDDB 2009). 

The floristic composition of serpentine grassland is quite heterogeneous, both 

within and between sites, and dependent on both soil chemistry and the 

interaction of environmental factors such as slope exposure (McNaughton 

1968), disturbance (Hobbs 1985; Hobbs and Mooney 1985, 1991), and annual 

variation in rainfall (Dobkin et al. 1987; Hobbs & Mooney 1991). Serpentine 

grassland is generally a mosaic of perennial bunchgrass stands and mixed 

assemblages of perennial and annual grasses and herbaceous wildflower species 

(McCarten 1987). Characteristic grass species in serpentine grassland include 

purple needlegrass, one-sided bluegrass, California melic, squirreltail, big 

squirreltail, prairie junegrass, California oatgrass, and annual fescue (Hobbs and 

Mooney 1985; Holland 1986; McCarten 1987; Hooper and Vitousek 1998; 

California Natural Diversity Database 2009). Wildflowers, most commonly 

California goldfields, tidy-tips, owl’s-clover, California poppy, hayfield tarweed, 

and rosinweed, often form conspicuous patches of color within the grassland 

matrix. The flora is composed primarily of native species (although nonnative 


ICF 00906.08


species such as soft chess can also be common) and is generally more diverse 

than the flora of grasslands on nonserpentine substrates (McNaughton 1968). 

Serpentine grassland provides habitat for many plants that are endemic or nearendemic 

to serpentine soils, such as Sharsmith’s onion. 

Alkali Meadow and Scalds 

Alkali meadow and scald is relatively rare in the study area. It is found on 977 

acres (0.4%) in the northeast corner of the study area in scattered patches north 

of Livermore and in the Altamont Pass region (Table 2-4). The most notable 

areas where this land cover occurs include the Springtown Alkali Sink and the 

northeast corner of the study area between Bethany Reservoir and the 

Alameda/Contra Costa County line (Figure 2-8). 

Dominant species in alkali meadows include saltgrass, wild barley, and alkali 

ryegrass. The associated herb cover consists of halophytes, including saltbush, 

alkali heath, alkali weed, alkali mallow, and common spikeweed. Alkali meadow 

(alkali grassland) community type is considered a significant natural community 

by CNDDB because of its rarity and the pressing threats to the remnant 

communities from land use conversion, invasive species, and changes in 

hydrologic regime within the watershed. Focal plant species that may be found 

in this land cover type include San Joaquin spearscale, recurved larkspur, 

Congdon’s tarplant, palmate-bracted bird’s-beak, and Livermore Valley tarplant. 

Valley Sink Scrub 

Valley sink scrub, also known as alkali sink scrub, was mapped on 410 acres 

(0.15%) of the study area. It generally occurs in the northern half of the study 

area, most notably in the Springtown Alkali Sink and adjacent to Frick Lake just 

northeast of Livermore, and in the northeast corner of the study area between 

Bethany Reservoir and the Alameda/Contra Costa County line in the Mountain 

House Alkali Grasslands and Wetlands complex. Valley sink scrub could also 

occur in any of the locations mapped as alkali meadow and scald, and the land 

cover should be mapped at the parcel scale during project review. 

This community develops where clay-rich alkaline soils are seasonally saturated 

because of a shallow water table, low surface runoff, and slow infiltration 

(Bittman 1985). Valley sink scrub is rare compared with its historical extent, and 

most of the remaining occurrences are highly degraded (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1998). This habitat is considered sensitive by CDFG (CNDDB 2009). 

Valley sink scrub is dominated by a discontinuous shrub layer of iodine bush and 

alkali seepweed. The herbaceous layer consists of a patchwork of barren, saltencrusted 

scalds and alkali grassland vegetation. Focal plant species that may 

occur in valley sink scrub include San Joaquin spearscale, palmate-bracted bird’s 

beak, and Livermore Valley tarplant. Focal wildlife species that may occur or are 


ICF 00906.08


Rock Outcrop 

known to occur in valley sink scrub include San Joaquin kit fox and western 

burrowing owl. California red-legged frogs and California tiger salamanders may 

use valley sink scrub for upland habitat or as habitat or for movement corridors. 

Rock outcrops are a rare land cover type, totaling 99 acres (0.04%) of the study 

area) (Table 2-4). They are primarily found in annual grasslands although they 

also can be present in chaparral and oak woodlands. This land cover type is 

likely underrepresented in the land cover map because these features are 

difficult to see on aerial photographs, particularly if they occur underneath a 

chaparral or woodland canopy. Accordingly, many small areas of rock outcrops 

are likely included in the chaparral/scrub, grassland, and oak woodland land 

cover types. 

Rock outcrops are frequently encountered in grasslands. These outcrops are 

exposures of bedrock that typically lack soil and have sparse vegetation. Within 

the study area, several types of rock outcrops are present and are derived from 

sedimentary, volcanic, and metamorphic sources. Rock outcrops identifiable on 

aerial photographs were mapped based on their unique aerial photograph 

signatures. Rock outcrop signatures appear as textured areas with mottled 

coloring that contrasted in color and texture with the surrounding cover types 

on aerial photographs. There was no minimum mapping unit. The greatest 

concentrations of rock outcrops occurs in the north central part of the study 

area, just east of Brushy Peak Regional Preserve, in the Sunol-Ohlone Regional 

Preserve, and on private lands on Cedar Mountain. 

Rock outcrops host common wildlife species such as western fence lizard and 

western rattlesnake. These species may use outcrops for basking and as 

foraging areas. Common birds include rock wren, and several species of raptors 

(e.g., prairie falcon) use rock outcrops for nesting or perching. In addition, the 

rock outcrops in the study area support unique seasonal pools, one of the few 

places in California where the rare longhorn fairy shrimp occurs. The rock 

outcrops that are known to support this species are shown in Figure D-5 in 

Appendix D. 

Ecosystem Functions 

The grassland types within the study area function as a dominant natural 

community, linking small and large patches of all other natural communities in 

the landscape such as oak woodland, riparian and aquatic communities, 

northern mixed chaparral/chamise chaparral, and northern coastal 

scrub/Diablan sage scrub. Rock outcrops, vernal pools, and seeps are contained 

within the larger matrix of grasslands, and in some cases, the functions and 

threats to the integrity of these land cover types differs from the larger 

grassland matrix. This section primarily addresses the grassland types. 


ICF 00906.08


Differences, where relevant, are noted for the land cover types contained within 

grasslands. 

Grasslands provide critical upland habitat for a variety of amphibians dependent 

on adjacent aquatic habitats such as ponds and seasonal wetlands. These 

amphibians move through grasslands during the rainy season to disperse to 

other aquatic sites, and may find refugia within grasslands during the dry 

season. Grasslands are important for burrowing rodents such as ground 

squirrels and gophers. Rodent burrows, in turn, provide habitat for a variety of 

other species, including burrowing owls and amphibians seeking refugia. The 

diverse and abundant rodent community supports an assemblage of raptors 

that feed on them, including golden eagle, northern harrier, and white-tailed 

kite. 

Grasslands also help maintain water quality through soil retention and by 

filtering out sediment and nutrients from runoff. They provide surface runoff 

areas, wildlife habitat, and forage for grazing livestock. The key characteristics 

of grassland habitat that contribute to these functions are a high cover of 

herbaceous vegetation and a low to absent cover of woody vegetation. 

The replacement of native grasses and herbs by fast-growing nonnative annual 

grasses and herbs has affected ecosystem function in grasslands. Unlike 

perennial grasses, annual grasses generally do not develop extensive, long-lived 

root networks. These long-lived root networks are important to the function of 

the grassland ecosystem for a number of reasons, including protection of the 

topsoil from erosion and provision of habitat for a wide variety of soil 

microorganisms that create the base of the grassland food web. The production 

of plant biomass within grasslands has also shifted seasonally. In the past, 

native perennial grasses continued to grow actively into early summer and 

emerge from a period of dormancy early in fall. In contrast, nonnative annual 

grasses tend to dry out in late spring or early summer and germinate anew in 

fall. This shift has dramatic effects on the seasonal availability of forage for 

native herbivores such as insects and rabbits (and to a lesser extent, mule deer), 

as well as the type of seeds and cover available for smaller mammals. 

The key natural disturbances that have shaped and continue to influence 

grassland composition and extent are fire and grazing. It is important to note 

that these two management tools should be utilized together to be most 

effective. Without some grazing pressure grassland can build up heavy biomass 

loads which in turn create very hot fires. Those hot fires can be detrimental to 

the seed bank as well as above ground vegetation. Periodic fire is an important 

influence on the grassland community. Historically, fires from both lightning 

strikes and human ignition, as well as soil conditions, kept woody vegetation 

from invading grassland and converting it into chaparral or oak woodland in 

higher elevation sites. At lower elevations, grassland was likely always the 

dominant vegetation community, kept open by native grazers such as tule elk 

and pronghorn, as well as by drought and fire. Prescribed burning has become 


ICF 00906.08


an important management tool in grasslands and other natural communities. 

However, this technique is becoming increasingly difficult to implement due to 

cost, safety concerns from expanding urban and rural development, and 

difficulty obtaining permits because of air quality requirements. 

Grassland is considered a fire-tolerant community. The direct effect of fire on 

grassland is to remove essentially all of the aboveground biomass. Fires in 

grasslands are therefore described as stand-replacing fires. The immediate 

effect of this biomass removal on annual grasses is negligible, as they have 

typically completed their growth cycle before fires occur (Howard 1998). 

Perennial bunchgrasses suffer a temporary loss of foliage, but regenerate 

immediately through tillering and regrowth of green foliage that typically 

remains in the center of grass tussocks (Steinberg 2002). 

The immediate effect of a fire in grasslands is typically an increase in annual forb 

germination and flowering and an increase in overall productivity in response to 

the light and nutrients made available by the removal of the thatch layer 

(Harrison et al. 2003). In the 2 to 3 years following a fire, the elimination of the 

thatch layer may shift the species composition of grasslands towards annual 

forbs and small-seeded species such as purple needlegrass and little quaking 

grass (Howard 1998, Steinberg 2002). In the absence of grazing, however, a 

thatch layer will reestablish in approximately 3 years, and this effect will 

disappear. Burning appears to have little long-term effect on annual grassland 

(Heady 1988, Paysen et al. 2000, Kyser and Di Tomaso 2002). In grasslands that 

are already dominated by nonnative annual grasses, nonnatives may increase 

their dominance following fire by outcompeting natives for the newly available 

space and light. In many parts of the study area fire suppression continues. 

Current methods to mimic the natural disturbance that would be caused by fire 

include grazing, mowing, and prescribed burns. Those management techniques 

are discussed briefly in Chapter 3. 

2.4.3.2 Chaparral and Coastal Scrub 

Chaparral shrub communities are found throughout California on rocky, porous, 

nutrient-deficient soils and on steep slopes up to 2,000 meters (6,561.7 feet) in 

elevation (Keeley 2000). These communities are dominated by densely packed 

and nearly impenetrable drought-adapted evergreen woody shrubs, 1.5–4 

meters (5–13 feet) tall, that possess small, thick, leathery sclerophyllous leaves 

(Hanes 1988, Keeley 2000). Herbaceous and arboreal growth forms are often 

lacking or play minor roles in this community (Keeley 2000). Chaparral species 

have both deep and shallow roots that allow them to tap water in several soil 

layers (Schoenherr 1992). The deep roots also allow chaparral to tolerate 

summer drought conditions and stay active during this period of water stress. 

Chaparral is divided into two land cover types in the study area: 

• northern mixed chaparral/chamise chaparral; and 


ICF 00906.08


• mixed serpentine chaparral. 

Collectively chaparral and coastal scrub communities consist of approximately 

3.4% of the study area (Table 2-4). CDFG considers the latter a sensitive biotic 

community (CNDDB 2009). 

Northern coastal scrub, in comparison, to chaparral scrub is generally 

characterized by low shrubs, usually 0.5–2 meters (1.6–6.6 feet) tall with soft 

non-sclerophyllous leaves, and interspersed with grassy openings (Holland 

1986). Although coastal scrub is found in both northern and southern 

California, the form and variety of species varies greatly between the two 

regions. Coastal sage scrub in southern California is characterized by droughtdeciduous 

shrubs that lose their leaves with the onset of arid summer 

conditions. In southern California, this community lacks a significant herb layer. 

Northern coastal scrub is characterized by the absence of drought-deciduous 

shrubs and the presence of an herb-rich community, which is likely a result of 

plentiful annual rainfall and regular summer fog (Heady et al. 1988, California 

Partners in Flight 2004). Northern coastal scrub is also less diverse floristically 

than coastal sage scrub and shrubs are generally taller and more densely spaced 

(California Partners in Flight 2004). The range of this northern coastal scrub can 

be defined as a narrow coastal strip from southern Oregon to Point Sur in 

Monterey County (Holland 1986; Heady et al. 1988). Because the range of 

northern coastal scrub is limited by climate, the Conservation Strategy study 

area supports some of the easternmost stands in the state. 

Chaparral and northern coastal scrub land cover types provide core habitat for 

Alameda whipsnake. Alameda whipsnakes use these land cover types for 

breeding, foraging, and thermoregulation. Contiguous stands are necessary to 

support viable populations of Alameda whipsnakes throughout its range. 

Chaparral and northern coastal scrub land cover types provide upland habitat 

for California red-legged frogs, and foraging habitat for golden eagles. San 

Joaquin kit fox and American badger will move through and forage in scrub land 

cover types with low densities of shrub canopy cover. Areas with higher 

densities of shrubs are less suitable for both of those species. 

Chaparral and Northern Coastal Scrub Land Cover Types 

Northern Mixed Chaparral/Chamise Chaparral 

Northern mixed chaparral/chamise chaparral occupies an estimated 2,684 

acres, or approximately 1%, of the total study area (Table 2-4). This land cover 

type is found in the southeastern part of the study area. The largest stands are 

along Cedar Mountain Ridge southeast of Lake Del Valle and then further 

southeast between Mines Road and the Alameda/San Joaquin County line 

(Figure 2-8). 


ICF 00906.08


Northern mixed chaparral/chamise chaparral is classified by Holland (1986) as 

“broad-leaved sclerophyll shrubs, 2–4m tall, forming dense, often nearly 

impenetrable vegetation… [with] usually little or no understory vegetation [and] 

often considerable accumulation of leaf litter.” Northern mixed 

chaparral/chamise chaparral appeared darker green in color on aerial photos 

than other chaparral types in all seasons, and frequently occupied larger areas. 

Ideally, chamise chaparral could be split into a separate land cover type but it 

could not be distinguished on the aerial photograph from northern mixed 

chaparral. 

Dominant shrubs in this community in the study area are chamise, manzanita, 

scrub oak, and ceanothus. Other important species are toyon, coffeeberry, 

madrone, California bay, birchleaf mountain-mahogany, poison-oak, bush 

monkey flower, and California yerba santa. Some chaparral stands may be 

almost entirely composed of dense stands of chamise (Holland 1986). 

Northern mixed chaparral may intermingle with northern coastal scrub/Diablan 

sage scrub, foothill pine and oak woodlands, and mixed oak woodland and 

forest. There seems to be a close association between northern mixed 

chaparral/ chamise chaparral and foothill pine and oak woodland in the study 

area. 

Mixed Serpentine Chaparral 

Mixed serpentine chaparral occupies an estimated 3,788 acres (1.4%) of the 

study area in at least 54 distinct patches (Table 2-4). Nearly all of the mixed 

serpentine chaparral is found along Cedar Ridge, between Cedar Mountain and 

the Alameda/Santa Clara County line. These stands are large and seem 

relatively contiguous on aerial photos. The site specific condition of the habitat 

or continuity of the land cover has not been confirmed. A small patch of mixed 

serpentine chaparral is located just north of Calaveras Reservoir on the west 

side of Alameda Creek. This patch is small and isolated, though there are 

patches of northern coastal scrub/Diablan sage scrub in the area (Figure 2-8). 

Mixed serpentine chaparral consists of fire-adapted shrubs found on serpentine 

soils (California Partners in Flight 2004). Serpentine chaparral is generally more 

open than other chaparral types, and shrubs tend to be shorter and have leaves 

that are reduced, curled, or thickened (Hanes 1988, California Partners in Flight 

2004). Dominant shrubs in this community in the study area are very similar to 

those discussed for northern mixed chaparral/ chamise chaparral, above. A 

common indicator shrub on serpentine soils is leather oak. 

Northern Coastal Scrub/Diablan Sage Scrub 

Northern coastal scrub/Diablan coastal scrub occupies an estimated 2,700 acres 

(1%) of the study area (Table 2-4). Though this land cover type is spread 

throughout the southern part of the county, most of it is concentrated in the 


ICF 00906.08


south central part. The larger stands are located on or near SFPUC Alameda 

watershed lands. There are a few patches spread through the Pleasanton Hills 

between Pleasanton and Union City (Figure 2-8). 

Northern coastal scrub/Diablan sage scrub is composed primarily of evergreen 

shrubs with an herbaceous understory in openings. This land cover type is 

usually found at elevations below 300 feet (California Partners in Flight 2004). 

On aerial photographs, northern coastal scrub/Diablan sage scrub appeared a 

distinctive shade of pale turquoise-green in summer images and pale tan in fall 

and winter images; this land cover type typically occurs on south facing slopes, 

often in relatively small stands interspersed with annual grassland and oak 

woodland. 

Northern coastal scrub/Diablan sage scrub communities are dominated by 

California sagebrush and black sage, with associated species including coyote 

brush, California buckwheat, poison-oak, and bush monkey flower (Holland 

1986). Northern coastal scrub/Diablan sage scrub occurs on both serpentine 

and nonserpentine substrate; however, northern coastal scrub that occurred on 

mapped serpentine soils was mapped as mixed serpentine chaparral. The 

dominant woody plants in this land cover type are nearly the same among 

different soil types. 


Northern coastal scrub/Diablan sage scrub may intermingle with northern mixed 

chaparral/chamise chaparral, coastal prairie (grassland), and mixed evergreen 

forest (Heady et al. 1988) and serve as an important corridor for wildlife. In 

addition, small mammals tend to forage on grassland species that are close to 

shrub canopies because they afford greater protection (Keeley 2000). Because 

sage scrub species are less woody than chaparral species and tend to direct 

their energy to leaf growth, the structure of coastal scrub communities tends to 

be open with an herbaceous ground layer (California Partners in Flight 2004). 

This open structure is important to the white-crowned sparrow and the sage 

sparrow. Allen’s hummingbird and the orange-crowned warbler are also 

associated with this land cover type. The leaves of sage scrub contain important 

nutrients for herbivorous insects, more so than northern mixed 

chaparral/chamise chaparral. Peak leaf nutrient levels in scrub appear to 

coincide with the height of bird breeding season and may be an important food 

source (California Partners in Flight 2004). California sage and black sage, 

members of both northern coastal scrub/Diablan sage scrub and northern 

mixed chaparral/chamise chaparral communities, are important food resources 

for small mammals, reptiles, and bird species. In addition, both communities 

have a relatively low proportion of nonnative species due to dense shrub 

canopies, soil types, and dry conditions, and thus are important resources to 

wildlife. 


ICF 00906.08


The fire-following forbs associated with northern mixed chaparral/chamise 

chaparral are abundant for 1 or more years after a fire and provide high-quality 

habitats for a diversity of insects and other wildlife. The unique flora of postfire 

chaparral contributes to its trait of supporting the highest concentration of 

special-status plants of any community in California (California Native Plant 

Society 2001). Many species that inhabit chaparral also inhabit adjacent 

grassland and oak woodlands; however, some birds and mammals are found 

largely in the dense cover and shade of mature chaparral stands. 

Many of the plants in the chaparral and northern coastal scrub communities 

have evolved to be dependent on periodic fire for regeneration (Holland 1986, 

Hanes 1988, Schoenherr 1992). In fact, communities dominated entirely by 

chamise cannot sustain themselves in the absence of fire (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2002). Some species of chaparral have peeling bark or volatile oils that 

promote fire (Schoenherr 1992). Many of the dominant shrubs, such as 

manzanita and ceanothus, have adapted to fire by resprouting from basal burls 

or woody root crowns following a fire event. Other species have seeds that 

require fire to initiate growth (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002, Rundel and 

Gustavson 2005). Regrowth is triggered by removal of the overstory, typically 

by fire. Chemicals in smoke and charred wood also stimulate germination in a 

wide variety of native forbs that lie dormant as seeds in the soil for decades 

before a fire. Fire occurrence that is too frequent, however, can lead to the 

elimination of these communities altogether and promote annual grassland 

succession. 

2.4.3.3 Oak Woodland 

One of the most common natural communities in the study area (22.1%), oak 

woodland is dominated by upland hardwood trees, usually various species of 

oaks. The oak-dominated land cover types that occur in the study area are 

listed below: 

• blue oak woodland, 

• valley oak woodland, 

• coast live oak forest and woodland, and 

• mixed evergreen forest/oak woodland. 

These land cover types were defined as part of the oak woodland natural 

community, an upland tree-dominated community with at least 10% cover of 

hardwood tree species. Oak savannah land cover was not mapped as a separate 

category. Oak savannah is a transition land cover between grassland and oak 

woodland where oak trees are widely spaced and canopy cover is less than 10%. 

This community is common in the study area but due to the subjective nature of 

describing this land cover type when interpreting aerial photos, land covers 

were either categorized into grassland or oak woodland. Due to the density of 


ICF 00906.08


trees being less than 10% oak savannahs were categorized as grassland. CDFG 

considers blue oak woodland and valley oak woodland sensitive biotic 

communities (CNDDB 2009). 

Oak Woodland Land Cover Types 

With the exception of blue oak woodland and valley oak woodland, the 

different oak woodland land cover types showed quite different signatures on 

aerial photographs, in terms of color and texture, and each typically occupied 

different landscape positions. Blue oak woodland and valley oak woodland 

were initially mapped as separate land cover types; however, during field 

verification of mapping efforts it was determined that there were 

inconsistencies in how valley oak woodland was mapped. It should be noted 

that in most areas species of oak are mixed though one species can be 

dominant. Since stands of valley oak woodland and black oak woodland were 

not able to be mapped using aerial photos, it will be necessary to ground truth 

oak stands that will either be affected by activities in the future or will serve as 

mitigation offsets. 

Oak woodland-associated wildlife species addressed by the Conservation 

Strategy include California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, Alameda 

whipsnake, golden eagle, and western burrowing owl. Alameda whipsnake may 

use oak woodland for movement between chaparral or coastal scrub habitats. 

California tiger salamanders use the grassy understory of open woodlands for 

dispersal or refuge and aquatic sites for breeding. The California red-legged frog 

uses this habitat type for breeding, foraging, and refugia. Golden eagles use 

woodlands and forest edges, when associated with dependable food supply, for 

roosting, nesting, and foraging. San Joaquin kit foxes may use this community 

for movement through the study area, though areas of high oak density would 

be less suitable. The ecotone between oak woodlands and annual grassland 

does provide movement habitat for San Joaquin kit fox and American badger. 

The western burrowing owl uses open woodlands with low-stature vegetation 

for foraging and burrowing. Some of these grasslands sites could be adjacent to 

oak woodlands. 

Blue Oak Woodland 

Blue oak woodland and forest occupies approximately 26,321 acres, or 9.7%, of 

the study area (Table 2-4). It is present in scattered locations in the southern 

half of the study area. This land cover typically occurs in the low to midelevation 

hills in slightly drier microclimates. Large stands of blue oak woodland 

occur on both west and east sides of Lake Del Valle, in the hills south of 

Pleasanton, and along the ridges in the south-central and southeastern portions 

of the county (Figure 2-8). There is potential for valley oak woodlands to be 

intermixed with blue oak woodland in all of these places, depending on the local 

site conditions. Though it is not mapped as a separate land cover, valley oak 


ICF 00906.08


woodland is discussed below to highlight its unique attributes and differences 

from blue oak woodland. 

Blue oak woodland was identified by the color of the canopy: pale to midgreen 

in summer imagery, in contrast to coast live oak, and leafless in winter. The 

canopy of blue oak woodland could be closed or relatively open. Aspect was 

important in distinguishing blue oaks from other deciduous oak species: blue 

oak woodland in the study area typically occurred on south-facing aspects; 

however, ridgetop stands of large, well-spaced blue oaks also occurred and 

could be difficult to distinguish from valley oaks. 

Blue oak woodland is dominated by blue oak, a highly drought-tolerant species 

adapted to growth on thin soils in the dry foothills. Blue oaks grow slowly in 

these soils and may take decades to reach maturity. They generally occur on 

sites that are drier and have lower levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and organic 

matter than those where valley oak or coast live oak are found (Griffin 1973, 

Baker et al. 1981). Although blue oaks can become established on south-facing 

slopes during wetter years or where mesic conditions are present, they are 

generally found on north-facing slopes (Griffin 1971). However, in the central 

California Coast Ranges, blue oak woodland is more common on south-facing 

slopes (Miles and Goudey 1997). California buckeye and foothill pine are 

associate tree species in this community. 

The understory varies from shrubby to open, with a composition similar to that 

of the adjacent nonnative grassland. Understory species typically include 

annual grasses, hollyleaf cherry, poison-oak, and coffeeberry. Blue oak 

woodland is considered a sensitive community by CDFG when the following 

species are present: blue oak, valley oak, and coast live oak/grass (CNDDB 

2009). 

Valley Oak Woodland 

Valley oak woodland is mapped as blue oak woodland on Figure 2-8. Due to 

difficulty differentiating between blue oak woodland and valley oak woodland 

and other mixed oak woodland alliance, these land cover types were all 

classified as blue oak woodland. During field verification, there were no 

standard rules that could be applied to the data set or the heads up digitizing 

that would allow this valley oak woodland to be mapped accurately. It should 

be noted that valley oak woodland could occur anywhere that blue oak 

woodland is mapped. Field verification would be necessary to confirm which 

type of oak woodland was present and what percentage consisted of valley 

oaks. For potential locations of valley oak woodland in the study area, see “Blue 

Oak Woodland,” above. 

Although valley oak is typically found in alluvial soils in California, it also occurs 

in nonalluvial sites on broad ridgetops and midslope benches. Valley oak 

woodland is characterized by a fairly open canopy of mature valley oaks with a 


ICF 00906.08


grassy understory, generally on valley bottoms and north-facing slopes (Griffin 

1971, Holland 1986, Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). Valley oak woodlands often 

form a mosaic with annual grasslands, and are also found adjacent to other land 

cover types, including mixed oak woodland, blue oak woodland, and riparian 

woodland types. Valley oak woodland is generally denser on valley bottoms 

where the tree roots can penetrate to the groundwater, and less dense on 

ridges where trees need wider spacing to develop larger root systems (Griffin 

1973). 

Trees in the valley oak community are typically mature and well spaced. They 

are usually the only trees present in this open-canopy woodland and have no 

shrub layer, and the understory is dominated by nonnative annual grasses. As 

with most oak communities, regeneration typically is episodic, occurring 

periodically in “mast years” when acorn production is high and some acorns 

germinate by avoiding acorn predators such as acorn woodpeckers and 

California ground squirrels. Creeping wild rye, poison-oak, mugwort, and 

California rose are common native species in riparian portions of valley oak 

woodland. 

Coast Live Oak Woodland and Forest 

Coast live oak woodland and forest occupies approximately 1,221 acres, or 

0.5%, of the study area (Table 2-4). The largest stands occur on the western 

side of the study area in the Pleasanton Hills just north of State Route 84 and 

south of Livermore between Arroyo Mocho and Lake Del Valle. There are also 

scattered patches on the ridges in the southwestern portion of the study area 

(Figure 2-8). 

The coast live oak woodland and forest land cover type mostly includes stands 

of coast live oak, although California bay is often a major component, and other 

live oaks and scattered deciduous trees are often present. 

Coast live oak woodland and forest was identified by its closed canopy and even 

dark green color that was the same in all seasons, and by its landscape position, 

occurring generally on north-facing valley slopes and valley bottoms. There was 

often an abrupt transition between annual grassland and coast live oak 

woodland, with coast live oak woodland occupying valley slopes and annual 

grassland occurring on the surrounding ridges. Coast live oak woodland also 

often occurred adjacent to other oak woodland types. 

Grasses and herbs are common in this land cover type. Other species found in 

this land cover type include coffeeberry, bush monkey flower, redberry 

buckthorn, and California sagebrush (Allen et al. 1989). In addition, California 

blackberry, bugle hedge nettle, wood fern, and poison-oak can be present. 

Across the Central Coast Ranges, stands occur at lower elevations (200–3,250 

feet, mean 1,205 feet) on north and northeast aspects. Slopes are generally 


ICF 00906.08


steep (36% on average), and parent material is primarily sedimentary sandstone 

and shale, with loam soils (Allen et al. 1989). 

Mixed Evergreen Forest/Oak Woodland 

Mixed evergreen forest/oak woodland is one of the most common woodland 

communities in the study area, occupying 32,497 acres, or 12%, of the study 

area (Table 2-4). It is present throughout the southern half of the study area. 

The largest contiguous stands are in the Pleasanton Hills, between Pleasanton 

and Union City, and along north facing slopes on the ridges of the south-central 

part of the study area (Figure 2-8). 

Mixed evergreen forest/oak woodland is characterized by a diverse overstory 

often dominated by coast live oak. This land cover type contains a mix of codominant 

oaks such as coast live oak, blue oak, and valley oak. The canopy of 

this land cover type is generally more open and includes some deciduous 

species. In addition to the array of dominant oaks in this land cover type, a 

number of both broad-leafed evergreen and deciduous trees are present, 

including California bay, madrone, California buckeye, and black oak (Holland 

1986; Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). Where shrubby, the understory consists 

of patches of toyon, poison-oak, and scrub oak. Where more open, the 

understory typically consists of annual grasses and shade-tolerant perennials, 

such as yerba santa and common snowberry. 


Oak woodlands perform a variety of ecological functions, including nutrient 

cycling, water storage and transport, and wildlife habitat (Giusti et al. 2004). 

Oak woodlands share many of the same functions as the adjacent grassland and 

chaparral communities. However, the structure and food provided by the 

dominance of oak trees in this community distinguish it from the other natural 

community types. Oak woodland is one of the most biologically diverse 

communities in California, providing essential habitat for approximately 2,000 

plant; 5,000 insect; 80 amphibian and reptile; 160 bird; and 80 mammal species 

(Merelender and Crawford 1998). Large acorn crops and a diverse insect fauna 

provide high-quality food for a wide variety of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and 

mammals. 

Dense oak woodlands provide cool, shady refugia for wildlife during the hot, dry 

summer, and more sparse oak woodlands offer raptors ideal hunting perches. 

Open-canopy oak woodlands provide upland habitat for California tiger 

salamander, which live in burrows in the grassland understory or beneath 

isolated oaks. These oak woodlands also provide nesting and foraging habitat 

for a variety of bird species. The grassland understory provides habitat for 

fossorial rodents such as ground squirrels and gophers, which are prey for red- 


ICF 00906.08


tailed hawks, coyotes, and great horned owls. Rodent burrows, in turn, provide 

habitat for a variety of other species, including burrowing owls and amphibians. 

Oak woodland is a fire-adapted ecosystem, and fire has likely played a large role 

in maintaining this community type in the study area. Fire creates the 

vegetation structure and composition typical of oak woodlands, and this natural 

community has experienced frequent, low-severity fires that maintain woodland 

or savannah conditions. In the absence of fire, the low or open understory that 

characterizes the land cover type is lost. Ultimately, closed-canopy oak forests 

are replaced by shade-tolerant species because oaks cannot regenerate and 

compete in a shaded understory. Soil drought may also play a role in 

maintaining open-tree canopy in dry woodland habitat 

Recruitment of young oak trees into the population is an ongoing issue in much 

of California. Recruitment is often suppressed by livestock grazing and can also 

be influence by populations of non-native pigs. Acorns are an important food 

source for non-native pigs and grubbing in oak woodlands can uprooted 

seedlings and saplings. 

A recent influence on oak woodlands is sudden oak death. The disease, first 

identified in 1995, has since spread to 12 counties and killed tens of thousands 

of oaks. Research indicates that coast live oaks and black oaks appear to be the 

most susceptible to this disease (Rizzo et al. 2003). Sudden oak death, caused 

by the pathogen Phytophthora ramorum, is a serious threat to oak woodlands 

and mixed evergreen forests in northern California. The pathogen can kill adult 

oaks and madrone; California bay, buckeye, and maple host the pathogen 

without being killed by it. Blue oak and valley oak have not shown symptoms of 

the pathogen. Sudden oak death has been confirmed in San Mateo, Santa Cruz, 

Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara Counties. As of April 2009 there are no 

confirmed locations of sudden oak death in the study area. However, there are 

confirmed locations just outside the study area near Castro Valley and 

surrounding Upper San Leandro Reservoir. It is unknown whether climatic or 

other factors will limit the spread of sudden oak death in the study area. 

2.4.3.4 Conifer Woodland 

In addition to hardwood-dominated upland land cover types, conifer-dominated 

land cover types also occur in the study area. The three conifer-dominated 

communities listed below occur in the study area: 

• foothill pine–oak woodland, 

• Coulter pine woodland, and 

• Sargent cypress woodland. 


ICF 00906.08


Conifer Woodland Land Cover Types 

Foothill Pine–Oak Woodland 

Foothill pine–oak woodland occupies approximately 22,695 acres, or 8.4%, of 

the study area (Table 2-4). This land cover type dominates the southeastern 

corner of the study area, from Crane Ridge, north of Cedar Mountain, east to 

the Alameda/San Joaquin County line and south to the Alameda/Santa Clara 

County line (Figure 2-8). In addition, there are patches of this land cover type 

throughout the southwestern part of the study area, including some sparse 

patches in the Pleasanton Hills and throughout the ridges on SFPUC Alameda 

watershed lands. 

Foothill pine–oak woodland was identified by the obvious signatures on aerial 

photographs of well-spaced emergent foothill pine crowns, which appear pale 

gray-green with clear shadows over the lower canopy of contrasting darker 

green evergreen oaks. Foothill pine–oak woodland often occurred along valley 

floors within chaparral communities in the eastern foothills, and also occurred 

adjacent to other oak woodland land cover types and on serpentine soils. 

Found at elevations ranging from 200–2,100 feet, foothill pine integrates with 

blue oak and mixed oak woodlands at higher elevations, forming the foothill 

pine–oak woodland land cover type. Here, the canopy is dominated by 

emergent foothill pine with a typically dense understory of scattered shrubs, 

often those found in adjacent chaparral and scrub communities, and nonnative 

annual grasses and forbs. Oaks become more prevalent at lower elevations, 

often forming a closed canopy layer below the emergent pines, and the 

understory lacks an appreciable shrub layer. In the foothills to the east, 

associated canopy species include blue oak, interior live oak, coast live oak, and 

California buckeye (Griffin 1977). Closer to the coast, coast live oak, valley oak, 

blue oak, and California buckeye are typically found. 

Associated shrub species include ceanothus species, bigberry manzanita, 

California coffeeberry, poison-oak, silver lupine, blue elderberry, California 

yerba santa, rock gooseberry, and California redbud. 

Coulter Pine Woodland 

Coulter pine woodland occupies approximately 74 acres, or 0.03%, of the study 

area (Table 2-4). Within the study area, Coulter pine woodlands occur on slopes 

at elevations ranging from 900–3,400 feet. These woodlands are bordered by 

mixed evergreen forest/oak woodland, blue oak woodland, and California 

annual grassland. 

Three small stands of Coulter pine woodland occur in the southern portion of 

the study area. One stand is located in the Sunol Regional Wilderness, south of 

Maguire Peaks between Gear Road and Welch Creek; another occurs along 


ICF 00906.08


Indian Creek south of Wauhab Ridge. The third stand is on Rocky Ridge near the 

southern portion of Lake Del Valle (Figure 2-8). Coulter pine is common in the 

mountains of southern California and Baja California, Mexico. The study area 

represents the northern extent of the species’ range. Small stands of this 

species are also found in Contra Costa, Marin, and Sonoma Counties. 

Coulter pine is typically dominant in these closed canopy stands. Other tree 

species that are commonly associated with Coulter pine woodlands include 

bigcone Douglas-fir, black oak, canyon live oak, coast live oak, interior live oak, 

foothill pine, or ponderosa pine. The shrub layer can range from sparse to 

dense and the ground layer is typically sparse. Topographically, Coulter pine 

woodlands occur in uplands on all aspects. The soils tend to be shallow and well 

drained (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). 

Sargent Cypress Woodland 

Sargent cypress woodland has been mapped from one location in the study area 

and occupies approximately 653 acres, or 0.2%, of the study area (Table 2-4). 

This large stand is located on the north side of Cedar Mountain and ranges from 

approximately 2,000–3,400 feet in elevation (Figure 2-8). This stand is bordered 

by mixed serpentine chaparral, foothill pine–oak woodland, blue oak woodland, 

and mixed evergreen forest/oak woodland. Sargent cypress woodland is likely 

overestimated on Cedar Mountain. In order to ensure that all of the land cover 

was captured, the area was mapped as one single polygon. Ground truthing 

was not possible, with except for viewing areas through binoculars from a 

distance. A more detailed map of the distribution of Sargent cypress woodland 

on Cedar Mountain would be beneficial to inform protection and management 

of this species and land cover type. 

Sargent cypress is found in disjunct stands throughout many of the coastal 

counties of California. The stand in the study area may be highly disjunct from 

other stands. The nearest similar large stands occur in Marin County on Mount 

Tamalpais and in the Santa Lucia Mountains of Monterey County. 

Sargent cypress is a common or dominant species in this stand. Other species 

that may be associated with Sargent cypress woodland include bigberry 

manzanita, valley oak, leather oak, silk tassel, California bay, foothill pine, 

interior live oak, and knobcone pine. Because of the inaccessibility of the 

Sargent cypress stand in the study area, exact species associates are uncertain. 

Sargent cypress woodland stands typically occur on ultramafic soil, and trees are 

generally less than 15 meters (49.2 feet) tall. The tree canopy of these stands is 

typically open and the shrub layer ranges from sparse to dense. The most 

common shrub in Sargent cypress woodlands is leather oak. The ground layer is 

typically sparse (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995, Barbour et al. 2007). 


ICF 00906.08



Similar to oak woodland, these forests and woodlands provide food, nesting, 

and cover to a variety of wildlife. However, the structure and food resources 

that conifer-dominated forests provide make them a valuable resource. 

Evergreen oaks such as coast live oak, as well as California bay, madrone, and 

foothill pine, provide year round shelter unlike the largely deciduous vegetation 

of riparian forest and scrub. A largely continuous, dense leaf canopy and 

abundant tree cavities act to shade wildlife, provide habitat for nesting and 

offer protection from predators. In addition, thick layers of leaf litter, 

ephemeral ponds, and wetlands can provide secondary habitat for soil 

invertebrates and amphibians by offering protection from desiccation and 

foraging habitat. 

Mixed evergreen forest/oak woodland lacks drought adaptations and generally 

grows in more mesic habitats, typically on north-facing slopes (Griffin 1971, 

1973). Survival of coast live oak appears to be higher for seedlings growing 

under a shrub canopy, apparently as a result of more mesic soil conditions 

under the shade of shrubs (Callaway and D’Antonio 1991; Muick 1991; Plumb 

and Hannah 1991; Parikh and Gale 1998). Coast live oak, the dominant species 

in this land cover type, has acorns that germinate relatively slowly and have a 

low rate of root elongation, which limits the ability of seedlings to survive under 

more xeric conditions (Matsuda and McBride 1986). The root system of coast 

live oaks consists mostly of lateral roots, a configuration that does not favor 

survival under xeric conditions (Callaway 1990). 

A major factor influencing the distribution of conifer woodland land cover types 

is fire intensity and frequency. Throughout California the combination of 

logging and burning at the end of the nineteenth century resulted in the 

conversion of conifer-dominated forests to chaparral and oak-dominated 

woodlands. Periodic stand replacing fire is necessary to boost seed generation 

in many conifer species. 

2.4.3.5 Riparian Forest and Scrub 

Riparian vegetation in the study area was classified into four land cover types: 

• mixed willow riparian scrub, 

• sycamore alluvial woodland, 

• mixed riparian forest and woodland, and 

• desert olive scrub. 

At the state level, riparian plant communities are considered sensitive because 

of habitat loss and their value to a diverse community of plant and wildlife 


ICF 00906.08


species. Additionally, CDFG has identified them as a sensitive natural 

community (California Department of Fish and Game 2003a). 

Riparian forest and scrub provide habitat for several focal wildlife species, 

including the California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, and 

Alameda whipsnake. California red-legged frog uses riparian habitat type for 

breeding, foraging, and refugia. Foothill yellow-legged frog utilize aquatic 

habitat for thermoregulation, foraging, and avoidance of predators. Alameda 

whipsnake use riparian forest and scrub habitats for movement during 

dispersal. No focal plants are strictly associated with riparian forest and scrub 

land cover types. 

Riparian Forest and Scrub Land Cover Types 

Within the study area, riparian forest and scrub land cover types were identified 

primarily by their landscape position along creeks and around open water 

bodies. Several common riparian trees species—willows, cottonwood, and 

sycamore—appeared to hold their leaves after they turn color in fall, and early 

winter imagery clearly showed these distinctive yellow crowns, either in pure 

stands or mixed with the dark green canopies of coast live oak and bay in more 

mixed riparian woodland. The plant assemblage and width of riparian corridors 

found along the banks and floodplains of rivers and streams vary. Dominant 

influencing factors include the steepness of the channel, the frequency of 

disturbance, and the hydrologic regime present. 

Sycamore Alluvial Woodland 

Sycamore alluvial woodland occupies 597 acres comprising 17 distinct polygons 

in the land cover data set, which is about 0.2% of the total study area (Table 2- 

4). Each polygon represents a separate stand of sycamore alluvial woodland. 

The primary stands are along Alameda Creek, just southeast of San Antonio 

Reservoir, and south of Livermore along Arroyo Valle in Sycamore Grove Park 

(Figure 2-8). 

Sycamore alluvial woodland was readily identified by the large, well-spaced 

sycamore crowns. In early winter aerial imagery, the large pale branches and 

halo of fallen golden-yellow leaves were visible. The landscape position, on 

broad alluvial valley floors, was also indicative of this land cover type. 

The sycamore alluvial woodland land cover type is generally present on broad 

floodplains and terraces along low gradient streams with deep alluvium. Areas 

mapped as sycamore alluvial woodland are generally open canopy woodlands 

dominated by California sycamore, often with white alder and willows (Salix 

spp.). Other associated species include bigleaf maple, valley oak, coast live oak, 

and California bay. 


ICF 00906.08


The understory is disturbed by winter flows, and herbaceous vegetation is 

typically sparse or patchy. Typically, plants such as willows, coyote brush, mule 

fat, California buckeye, blackberry, Italian thistle, poison-oak, common 

chickweed and bedstraw populate the streambanks. 

Although it occurs along streams, sycamore alluvial woodland undergoes 

extreme variation in water availability. During the rainy season, the stream 

channel and adjacent terraces are subject to flooding. During the summer 

drought, the streams are generally dry, and little moisture is available in the 

stony substrate. The alluvial substrate contains little soil and is nutrient poor. 

Flooding also subjects sycamore alluvial forest to frequent disturbance. 

However, this disturbance appears to benefit regeneration of western 

sycamores. Regeneration from seed appears to occur in pulses correlated with 

large flood events (Shanfield 1984). Trees that are damaged by flooding can 

also resprout from the roots and trunk (Shanfield 1984). Anthracnose, a fungal 

disease, can defoliate the trees in springtime (Holstein 1984). Heavy cattle 

grazing may inhibit recruitment of sycamore seedlings, although recruitment 

may occur under light grazing in favorable (wet) years (Smith 1989). 

Mixed Riparian Forest and Woodland 

Mixed riparian forest and woodland occupies approximately 2,323 acres, which 

is about 0.9% of the total study area (Table 2-4). Mixed riparian forest and 

woodland is found in association with streams throughout the study area. 

Stands of this land cover include sections of Arroyo de la Laguna as it passes 

Pleasanton, Arroyo Los Positas and Arroyo Mocho as they pass through 

Livermore, the upper reaches of Tassajara Creek, and several other stream 

courses in the study area (Figure 2-8). 

Mixed riparian forest and woodland land cover types are similar to willow 

riparian forests and woodlands in species occurrences. They are found in and 

along the margins of the active channel on intermittent and perennial streams. 

Generally, no single species dominates the canopy, and composition varies with 

elevation, aspect, hydrology, and channel type. This land cover type captures 

much of the riparian woodland and forest in the study area and includes several 

associations that could not be distinguished on the aerial photographs. The 

major canopy species throughout the study area are California sycamore, valley 

oak, coast live oak, red willow, and California bay. Associated trees and shrubs 

include California black walnut, other species of willow, California buckeye, 

Fremont cottonwood, and bigleaf maple. 

Focal species associated with this land cover type are the same as sycamore 

alluvial woodland and mixed willow riparian scrub. 


ICF 00906.08


Mixed Willow Riparian Scrub 

Mixed willow riparian scrub occupies an estimated 664 acres in 39 unique 

stands, which is about 0.24% of the total study area (Table 2-4). Mixed willow 

riparian scrub occurs in and along the margins of the active channel on 

intermittent and perennial streams. In the study area, the most contiguous 

reach of willow riparian forest and scrub occurs along Arroyo Mocho, just 

southeast of Livermore, and along Arroyo Valle as it passes through Livermore 

(Figure 2-8). 

In the east Bay Area, streamside habitat dominated by shrubby willows is 

classified as Central Coast Riparian Scrub (Holland 1986). Although red willow 

and arroyo willow remain the most common dominant canopy species in this 

habitat, the name of the land cover has been changed to mixed riparian forest 

and scrub to better reflect the conditions within the study area. Understory 

development in willow scrub or forest land cover types is dictated by canopy 

density. Where the canopy is more open and dominated by trees or scattered 

willow scrub, an understory of shrubs and herbs is present. 

A range of conditions exists among the mixed willow riparian scrub community. 

Yellow willow, red willow, arroyo willow, and narrowleaf willow are the 

dominant canopy species in this habitat. Scrub communities typically consist of 

scattered willows and mule fat occurring in and along the margins of open 

sandy washes. Understory development in this land cover type is controlled by 

canopy density. 

California red-legged frog and foothill-yellow legged frog utilize this land cover 

year-round for breeding and movement, though some of the stream course that 

pass through urban areas are less suitable. Alameda whipsnake uses riparian 

forest and scrub habitats for movement during dispersal. No covered plants are 

strictly associated with riparian forest and scrub land cover types. Riparian 

corridors in general are important as movement habitat for nearly all terrestrial 

species. These communities serve to connect the landscape as they move 

through other land cover types. 

Ecosystem Function 

While riparian land cover types occupy a very small percentage of the total land 

cover in the study area, they are particularly important because they are among 

the most structurally complex and richly diverse habitat types in terms of plant 

and animal associations. 

Riparian communities support both terrestrial and aquatic species by providing 

movement corridors across the landscape and both nesting and foraging 

habitat. For example, California red-legged frog may be found in sycamore 

alluvial woodland year-round, while California tiger salamander and foothill 


ICF 00906.08


yellow-legged frog may move through this land cover type. Riparian 

communities can also support high levels of invertebrate production; provide 

moist, cool refugia during the hot, dry summer; have moderate stream 

temperatures; help armor streambanks; and support the aquatic food chain by 

means of input of vegetative and other detritus. Denser canopies reduce direct 

solar radiation to streams and creeks, thereby lowering water temperatures and 

may increase habitat value for aquatic wildlife. However, algal growth, which 

increases aquatic insects, requires a partially open canopy for light. Increased 

light also improves feeding efficiency of steelhead in fast water. Differences in 

vegetative structure between riparian communities lead to varying effectiveness 

in providing these ecosystem functions. For example, mixed willow riparian 

scrub, with its lower vegetation structure, is often less effective in reducing 

stream temperatures than riparian woodland. On the other hand, it may 

provide better nesting and foraging habitat for migratory passerine birds that 

prefer the dense thicket habitat provided by scrub. 

Riparian communities are shaped by their proximity to water and by periodic 

flooding that maintains the structure and composition of this land cover type. 

Wet-season flooding replenishes alluvial soils that are deficient in minerals and 

organic matter. Flooding also subjects riparian forest to frequent disturbance 

that benefits regeneration of certain species, including California sycamore, 

white alder, and black willow. Regeneration from seed appears to occur in 

pulses correlated with large flood events (Shanfield 1984). Additionally, trees 

that are damaged by flooding can resprout from the roots and trunk (Shanfield 

1984). Flood and drought cycles of natural streams tend to result in a mosaic of 

structure and composition in riparian plant communities. This mosaic may be 

lost in altered flow regimes downstream of reservoirs. 

2.4.3.6 Wetlands 

Wetland habitat includes areas subject to seasonal or perennial flooding or 

ponding, or that possess saturated soil conditions and that support 

predominantly hydrophytic or “water-loving” herbaceous plant species. 

Because wetlands are periodically waterlogged, the plants growing in them 

must be able to tolerate low levels of soil oxygen associated with waterlogged 

or hydric soils. The presence of flood-tolerant species is often a good indication 

that a site is a wetland even if the ground appears to be dry for most of the year 

(Barbour et al. 1993), or if hydrologic influences are less obvious. 

Wetland habitat in the study area is classified into three land cover types; vernal 

pools are described under seasonal wetlands: 

• perennial freshwater marsh, 

• seasonal wetland, and 

• alkali wetland. 


ICF 00906.08


In general, wetlands represent a sensitive biotic community due to their limited 

distribution and importance to special-status plant and wildlife species 

statewide. 

Wetland Land Cover Types 

Within the study area, wetlands were identified and mapped on the basis of 

their aerial photograph signatures and landscape positions that would support 

wetland hydrology. In late season (May – July) aerial imagery, wetlands appear 

greener than surrounding annual grassland. The minimum mapping unit for all 

wetland land cover types was 0.25 acre. Wetland subtypes were distinguished 

based on the color and texture of the signature on aerial photos. On early 

spring (February – May) aerial imagery, perennial freshwater marsh appeared 

pale brown and rough in texture because the emergent plants (cattails and 

bulrushes) have died back and not yet started to grow. In contrast, seasonal 

wetlands appeared dark green, but they are difficult to distinguish from the 

surrounding annual grassland, which also appears dark green at this time of 

year. In early winter imagery, both types of wetlands appear dark green, the 

color of the seasonal wetlands contrasting with the adjacent annual grasslands, 

which at that time of year appeared brown. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory data layer was 

examined and compared with the aerial photographs to assist in the recognition 

of additional wetland areas, as was ICF International file data on wetlands that 

have been delineated north of Livermore. 

Perennial Freshwater Marsh 

Within the study area, perennial freshwater marsh occupies an estimated 62 

acres at only 12 sites, which is 0.02% of the total study area (Table 2-4). The 

perennial freshwater marsh occurs primarily in small patches along stream 

courses or drainages as they pass through the valley floor (Figure 2-8). 

Perennial freshwater marsh is likely to have been underestimated in the land 

cover mapping due to the small size of these features and the difficulty of 

distinguishing marsh from the surrounding grassland on the spring aerial 

photos. Some perennial freshwater marsh is also difficult to distinguish from 

seasonal wetland during winter. 

Perennial freshwater marsh is dominated by emergent herbaceous plants 

(reeds, sedges, grasses) with either intermittent flooded or perennially 

saturated soils. Freshwater marshes are found throughout the coastal 

drainages of California wherever water slows down and accumulates, even on a 

temporary or seasonal basis. A freshwater marsh usually features shallow water 

that is often clogged with dense masses of vegetation, resulting in deep peaty 

soils. Plant species common to coastal and valley freshwater marsh 

predominantly consist of cattails, bulrushes, sedges, and rushes. Dominant 


ICF 00906.08


species in perennial freshwater wetland in the study area include rabbitsfoot 

grass, nutsedge, willow weed, and watercress. Dominant species in nontidal 

freshwater marsh are narrow-leaved cattail, rice cutgrass, bur-reed, alkali 

bulrush, and perennial peppergrass. 

Focal species that may be found breeding in the perennial freshwater marsh 

land cover type include tricolored blackbird and California red-legged frog . 

Seasonal Wetlands 

Within the study area, seasonal wetlands occupy an estimated 547 acres in an 

estimated 80 distinct sites, which is 0.2% of the total study area (Table 2-4). 

These seasonal wetlands occur primarily in the northern half of the study area, 

particularly north of Livermore. Seasonal wetlands also occur in association 

with riparian land cover along Arroyo Las Positas and Altamont Creek. This land 

cover type often occurs adjacent to alkali wetland. These two land cover types 

were differentiated based on the underlying soils in the land cover mapping 

(Figure 2-8). Seasonal wetlands are likely underrepresented in the land cover 

map because of their typically small size and isolated locations, and difficulty in 

interpreting the photographic signature of individual features. However, large 

seasonal wetland complexes (i.e., groups of many small pools or wetlands) were 

easily visible on aerial photos. 

Seasonal wetlands are freshwater wetlands that support ponded or saturated 

soil conditions during winter and spring and are dry through the summer and 

fall until the first substantial rainfall. The vegetation is composed of wetland 

generalists, such as hyssop loosestrife, cocklebur, and Italian ryegrass that 

typically occur in frequently disturbed sites, such as along streams. Common 

species in seasonal wetlands within the study area include watercress, water 

speedwell , and smartweeds (Jones & Stokes 2001). See the sections below on 

the Springtown Alkali Sink and Mountain House Alkali Grasslands and Wetlands 

for more details on the largest seasonal and alkali wetland complexes in the 

study area. 

Vernal Pools 

Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that pond water on the surface for extended 

durations during winter and spring and dry completely during late spring and 

summer due to an underlying hardpan. This hardpan restricts the percolation of 

water and creates a “perched” seasonal water source. These ephemeral 

wetlands support rare and unique flora and fauna that are adapted to the 

drastic changes in hydrologic regime. They support specialized flora largely 

composed of native wetland plant species and fauna with life histories enabling 

them to tolerate the wide range of conditions in vernal pool communities. 

Vernal pools in eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties occur in distinctive 

topography with low depressions mixed with hummocks or mounds. These 


ICF 00906.08


depressions fill with rainwater and runoff from adjacent areas during the winter 

and may remain inundated during the spring to early summer (Tri-Valley 

Conservancy 2008). Vernal pools are most prevalent in California annual 

grasslands east and north of Livermore and in the northeast corner of the study 

area, northeast of Bethany Reservoir. Vernal pools are located in the grassland 

immediately west and north of the Springtown alkali sink, and adjacent to 

Cayetano Creek near its confluence with Arroyo Las Positas (Tri-Valley 

Conservancy 2008). 

Alkali Wetlands 

Within the study area, alkali wetlands occupy an estimated 717 acres, which is 

0.4% of the total study area (Table 2-4). These wetlands occur primarily in the 

northern half of the study area, particularly along stream channels where alkali 

soils occur. Larger alkali wetland complexes occur in the Springtown Alkali Sink, 

north of Livermore, and just south of Bethany Reservoir near Mountain House 

(Figure 2-8). Alkali wetlands support ponded or saturated soil conditions and 

occur as perennial or seasonally wet features on alkali soils. Alkali wetlands 

were mapped where wetlands occurred in association with alkali soils 

(Figure 2-6). 

The vegetation of alkali wetlands is composed of halophytic plant species 

adapted to both wetland conditions and high salinity levels. Typical species 

include those common to both seasonal and alkali wetlands, such as salt grass, 

alkali heath, and common spikeweed. 

Alkali wetlands provide function and value for wildlife similar to those provided 

by seasonal wetlands. The array of wildlife species found in seasonal wetlands 

is also found in alkali wetlands. See the sections below on the Springtown Alkali 

Sink and Mountain House Alkali Grasslands and Wetlands for more details on 

the largest alkali wetland complexes in the study area. 

Springtown Alkali Sink 

The Springtown Alkali Sink is a biologically unique area that supports several 

state- and federally listed plant and wildlife species (Kohlmann et al. 2008). It 

encompasses approximately 1,150 acres at the northern edge of the city of 

Livermore and adjacent Alameda County. The sink is a topographic depression 

in which salts have concentrated; these salts, and the unique and complex 

surface and groundwater hydrology of the region, support an unusually high 

diversity and density of sensitive biotic communities and special-status species. 

Boundary of the Sink 

Historically, Springtown Alkali Sink occupied an irregularly shaped area of more 

than 3,000 acres. The historical boundaries of the sink can be determined 

through historical aerial photos and the extent of the saline-alkaline soils (Soil 


ICF 00906.08


Conservation Service 1966; Coats et al. 1988). The sink formerly extended west 

to the intersection of Hartford Avenue and North Livermore Avenue, east to 

Frick Lake, south almost to I-580, and north almost to the “May School Road” 

line (a line formed by extending May School Road to the east). 

The extent of the sink has been greatly reduced by residential development in 

the south and agricultural operations in the north. High-quality habitats are 

currently found in two disjunct areas on either side of Vasco Road. This 

boundary is based largely on the extent of saline-alkaline soils of the Pescadero 

and Solano soil series, which indicates the historical extent of the sink. The 

larger of the two areas of the sink stretches from Ames Road in the east to 

North Livermore Avenue in the west. This area also includes a small watershed 

upstream of the intersection of Raymond Road and Ames Street that contains 

saline-alkaline soils and special-status species, and supports the hydrology of 

the sink. East of Vasco Road, the sink includes a high density of wetlands and 

special-status species, and the saline-alkaline soils along Brushy Peal Tributary. 

The most prominent feature in this area is Frick Lake, the only large saline vernal 

pool known to exist in the county. 

Hydrology of the Sink 

The sink is influenced by both surface and groundwater flows into the basin 

from fresh and saline sources. Surface flows to the sink come from seven southand 

southwest-draining subbasins (Jones & Stokes 2003). The largest subbasins 

are those containing Brushy Peak Tributary and Altamont Creek; these 

contribute saline-alkaline flows from the east and northeast. The remaining six 

subbasins are considerably smaller than the Brushy PeakAltamont Creek 

subbasin. In the past, the Brushy PeakAltamont Creek subbasin contributed by 

far the largest proportion of surface water and groundwater entering the sink’s 

wetland and saline-alkaline habitats (Coats et al. 1988; Phillip Williams & 

Associates 1988; Questa Engineering Corporation 1998). Because of significant 

modifications to Altamont Creek and grading related to residential 

development, a greater proportion of the surface water and groundwater 

entering the sink’s lowland habitats now comes from subbasins to the north and 

northwest, particularly the subbasin that contains North Livermore Avenue 

(Questa Engineering Corporation 1998). 

At present, the most prominent hydrologic feature in the sink is Frick Lake, 

located in the area’s northeastern corner. Frick Lake is a seasonally ponded 

basin that covers about 24 acres at high water. The lake is primarily fed by 

incidental precipitation and by runoff from rangelands to the east. Minor 

amounts of runoff also enter the lake from the north and south. Vegetation 

surrounding the lake suggests that its water is saline. Neither the chemistry nor 

the origin of the lake has been studied to date. Frick Lake may have formed as 

uplift along the Greenville Fault blocked westward-flowing drainages at the 

rangefront, pooling water behind a local topographic high; although Laughlin 


ICF 00906.08


Road follows the west margin of the lake, it was likely built on an existing 

elevated surface and does not appear to confine the lake. 

The sink also contains a high density of seasonal wetlands and vernal pools. 

These pools fill with water in the winter and slowly dry during spring. The pools 

are formed in depressions within a mosaic of “hogwallow” or “mima mound” 

topography. The pools are fed by surface runoff in the complex 

microtopography and small channels that wind through the sink. These pools 

support a high diversity of aquatic and semiaquatic organisms, as described 

below. 

The sink also receives significant influx of salts and flows just below the surface 

in a shallow groundwater layer. This shallow layer occurs from the surface to 

between 6 and 10 feet deep, above a semiconfining claypan/hardpan (Phillip 

Williams & Associates 1988; Questa Engineering Corporation 1998). Near the 

surface, groundwater flows into the sink through buried channels that may have 

been historical stream channels. These subsurface channels enter the sink from 

the northwest, north, and northeast. Although not well studied, they appear to 

extend as far west as North Livermore Avenue, as far north as Manning Road, 

and as far east as Laughlin Road (Questa Engineering Corporation 1998). These 

subsurface channels appear to play a major role in water budget and salt 

balance of the sink (Lamphier & Associates and SWA Group 2000), and point to 

the importance of preserving the groundwater hydrology within the larger 

watersheds of the sink. 

Biotic Communities of the Sink 

Biotic communities within the sink consist of valley sink scrub, alkali grassland, 

and California annual grassland. All three of those land cover types are 

described above under “Grassland,” in Section 2.4.3.1. 

Special-Status Species of the Sink 

The sink is unique, in part, because of its concentration of special-status species. 

Probably the most unique of these species is palmate-bracted bird’s beak, listed 

as endangered under the ESA and CESA. Other special-status plant species that 

occur in the sink include brittlescale, San Joaquin spearscale, hispid bird’s-beak, 

and Livermore Valley tarplant. Special-status wildlife species known to occur in 

the sink include California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, vernal 

pool fairy shrimp, and western burrowing owl. San Joaquin kit fox may 

occasionally use the eastern portion of the sink. 

Recent Changes and Continuing Threats 

Recent land use changes have significantly reduced the extent of the sink and 

reduced its quality and functioning. Some of these changes continue to pose 


ICF 00906.08


threats to the continued existence of the habitats and special-status species in 

the sink. 

Land Use Changes to the Sink 

Land use changes to the sink probably began with agricultural operations in the 

area, mostly livestock grazing, around the time of the California Gold Rush (i.e., 

circa 1850). By 1940, aerial photos show rural roads, including Raymond Road, 

Hartford Avenue, Vasco Road, and Laughlin Road, surrounding the sink (Jones & 

Stokes 2003). Vasco Road bisected the sink in 1940 as it does today, but all 

stream channels, including Altamont Creek and Brushy Peak Tributary, appear 

intact. Agricultural operations, including dryland farms, also surrounded the 

sink by 1940. No development occurred in the center of the sink until 1968, 

when the first of many residential subdivisions were built in and around the sink 

(Coats et al. 1988). With the increase in residents, the sink also experienced 

significant degradation from a variety of anthropogenic effects, including offhighway 

vehicles (OHVs); brush clearing for fire breaks; noise and light pollution 

from adjacent neighborhoods; and predation from pets, particularly house cats. 

Activities such as OHV use and brush clearing have been discontinued, but 

others, such as mountain bicycles, pets, and light and noise pollution, continue 

to degrade the functions of the sink. In the recent past a proposal was put 

forward to locate several acres of irrigated agriculture upstream of the sink. A 

change in land use of this magnitude would likely alter the hydrology of the sink 

even further. 

Hydrologic Changes to the Sink 

Altamont Creek was historically a shallow, braided channel that likely flooded 

parts of the sink’s lowlands on an annual or biannual basis. This flooding 

provided important surface water and salt inputs to the sink. Altamont Creek 

was historically fed both by surface runoff and by outflow of shallow 

groundwater in the upland portions of the subbasin. In 1968 and again in 1985, 

Altamont Creek was widened, deepened, and channelized to increase its flood 

conveyance capacity (Coats et al. 1988). As a result, Altamont Creek no longer 

floods on an annual or biannual basis. Its current estimated flood cycle is 20 

years (Questa Engineering Corporation 1998). Consequently, it now delivers 

significantly less surface water and soluble salts to wetlands and saline-alkali 

habitats in the lowland portions of the sink than it did in the past. 

Beginning in 1968 and continuing through the 1980s, development has had 

significant impacts on drainage in the sink. For example, in the 1960s and 

1970s, a number of small surface drainages were diverted. This caused gullies 

to form locally, lowered local groundwater levels, and reduced surface water 

flow into the lowland sink. Historical patterns of groundwater flowing into the 

sink may have been altered by recent development. Grading associated with 

residential development between Broadmore Street and Vasco Road may have 

reduced or diverted shallow subsurface flow into the sink from the watershed to 


ICF 00906.08


the east, although subsurface flow from the north remains largely intact. 

Development has also likely reduced groundwater recharge by increasing the 

paved area in the basin and decreasing infiltration. Moreover, when Altamont 

Creek was channelized for flood control purposes, it was also substantially 

deepened. As a result, Altamont Creek may now intercept the shallow 

unconfined aquifer and drain groundwater that would otherwise enter the 

southern portion of the sink. 

Mountain House Alkali Grasslands and Wetlands 

The only site in Alameda County (besides the Springtown Alkali Sink) that 

supports alkali soils and intact stands of valley sink scrub and alkali grassland is 

an area of approximately 267 acres in the northeastern corner of the county 

referred to as the Mountain House Alkali Grassland and Wetlands complex. The 

site occurs near the intersection of Kelso and Bruns Roads between the Delta- 

Mendota Canal and the California Aqueduct. A small portion of the site extends 

into adjacent Contra Costa County. 

In alkali grassland, dominant grasses include saltgrass and wild barley. The 

associated herb cover consists of halophytes, including saltbush, alkali heath, 

seepweed, alkali weed, saltmarsh sand spurry, and common spikeweed. Stands 

of iodine bush are also present, indicating valley sink scrub. Perennial wetlands 

at the site are abundant, dominated by stands of cattail, American bulrush, and 

rabbitsfoot grass. No formal biological surveys of this site have been conducted, 

so it is unknown whether special-status plants or wildlife are present. Specialstatus 

species that could occur on the site include San Joaquin spearscale, 

heartscale, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and vernal 

pool tadpole shrimp. Cattle grazing occurs on the site but appears to be having 

only moderate impacts. Light to moderate livestock grazing may be beneficial 

to alkali grassland species because cattle reduce the cover of nonnative plants. 

Further study of this site is warranted to determine whether special-status 

species occur. 


Wetland functional values are provided through several physical and biological 

processes (National Research Council 2001). Perennial and seasonal wetlands 

function as essential habitat for amphibians that depend on aquatic 

environments for reproduction and juvenile development. These wetlands also 

provide high levels of insect production, which in turn creates a major food 

source for amphibians, birds, and other insectivorous species. The cyclical 

nature of inundation and drought in seasonal wetlands allows these systems to 

support a unique suite of highly adapted biota. Perennial wetlands are 

permanent water sources during the dry season in an otherwise arid landscape 

and thus function as essential habitat for a wide variety of water-dependent 

wildlife. 


ICF 00906.08


Wetlands also perform important functions with regard to physical processes. 

For example, wetlands play an important role in regulating biogeochemical 

cycles such as the nitrogen cycle. Wetlands also mediate flows in local streams 

and springs by providing temporary surface water storage and gradual recharge 

to local aquifers. On a small scale, wetlands in the study area also reduce 

erosion and sedimentation by reducing surface runoff. 

Marshes recharge groundwater supplies and moderate streamflow by providing 

water to streams. This is an especially important function during periods of 

drought. The presence of marshes in a watershed helps to reduce damage 

caused by floods by slowing and storing floodwater. As water moves slowly 

through a marsh, sediment and other pollutants settle down to the bottom of 

the marsh. Marsh vegetation and microorganisms also use excess nutrients for 

growth that can otherwise pollute surface water such as nitrogen and 

phosphorus from fertilizer. 

2.4.3.7 Open Water 

Open water land cover types consist of open water or aquatic habitats such as 

lakes, reservoirs, rivers, canals, and ponds (including quarry and stock ponds) 

that do not support emergent vegetation. Open water habitat in the study area 

is classified into five land cover types: 

• pond, 

• quarry pond, 

• reservoir, 

• stream, and 

• canal/aqueduct. 

Open water land cover types were historically less prevalent than they are 

currently. With the exception of stream land cover, lakes, reservoirs, and ponds 

did not exist in the study area until they were built to support livestock and 

provide a water supply for the human population. 

Open Water Land Cover Types 

Pond 

There are estimated to be 686 ponds that occupy approximately 413 acres 

(0.15%) of the study area (Table 2-4). Ponds are scattered evenly through the 

study area, particularly in areas surrounded by California annual grassland, 

where grazing is likely to occur (Figure 2-8). Ponds are important habitat 

networks that facilitate species movement and increase breeding diversity. 


ICF 00906.08


Quarry Pond 

Ponds are small (less than 20 acres) perennial or seasonal water bodies with 

little or no vegetation. If vegetation is present, it is typically submerged or 

floating. Ponds may occur naturally or may be created or expanded for livestock 

use (stock ponds). All ponds discernible on aerial photographs were mapped. 

Ponds were easily discernible on the basis of two distinctive aerial photograph 

signatures. One signature— smooth, uniform, and dark black—indicates deeper 

and less turbid ponds. The other signature—light gray-brown—generally 

indicates a shallower or more turbid pond. The latter signature was more 

difficult to discern on the aerial photographs. Where discernible, this land cover 

type was mapped to the high water line. Some wetland land cover types were 

likely included as ponds if vegetation was sparse or not visible on photos. The 

minimum mapping unit was 0.25 acre. Additional ponds not discernible through 

the aerial photograph analysis are likely located through the study area. 

The majority of the ponds in the study area are most often stock ponds that 

provide water to grazing livestock. Lands historically used for grazing, but 

currently protected as open space, also contain historical stock ponds in 

disrepair that may be a result of not using grazing as a management tool. Plants 

often associated with ponds include floating plants such as duckweed (Lemna 

spp.) or rooted plants such as cattails, bulrushes, sedges, rushes, watercress, 

and water primrose. Stock ponds are often surrounded by pasture with grazing 

livestock. Immediately adjacent to the stock pond, soil may be exposed due to 

the continued presence of livestock. Stock ponds without grazing may be 

overgrown and surrounded by wetland vegetation including willows, cattails, 

reeds, bulrushes, sedges, and tules, thus reducing habitat value for wildlife. 

Focal species that use ponds during all or part of the year include California tiger 

salamander, California red-legged frog, and tricolored blackbird. These species 

rely on ponds and browsing animals for breeding sites. No focal plants are 

associated with ponds. 

Quarry ponds occupy approximately 1,246 acres (0.46%) of the study area 

(Table 2-4) in 53 sites. Quarry ponds were differentiated from nonquarry ponds 

in aerial photos due to their location within quarries and their lack of 

vegetation. Quarry ponds are concentrated in eastern Pleasanton and western 

Livermore and along Alameda Creek, in the Sunol Valley (Figure 2-8). 

The majority of quarry ponds lack vegetation because of a number of factors, 

including frequent fluctuations in water level, high levels of turbidity, and steep 

slopes. Quarry ponds that maintain constant water levels or that have been 

removed from active use (i.e., are fallow) have vegetation associations similar to 

those of other ponds. They may have a dense cover of tules, cattails, or willows 

along the pond margins, with limited emergent vegetation in the deeper interior 

sections. 


ICF 00906.08


Reservoir 

The age and size of a quarry pond influences its biological productivity and 

potential to support wildlife and plant species. Like other aquatic resources, 

reclaimed or late-stage quarry ponds may provide foraging and resting habitat 

for a variety of wildlife species. These late-stage quarry ponds can support fish, 

waterfowl, and invertebrates. However, because most of the quarry ponds in 

the study area are in use and subject to high levels of turbidity and extreme 

fluctuations in water level, they do not support habitat for wildlife or plants. 

However, quarries in general can support breeding amphibians. 

Quarrying operations for sand, aggregate, and gravel in the study area are 

located on wide alluvial floodplain terraces. Accordingly, development of 

quarry ponds can have a profound effect on the local hydrologic cycle and 

associated stream habitat and biota. The quarry ponds in the Sunol Valley tend 

to be deep and appear to be dug well below the depth of the local water table. 

Thus, these ponds may lower the local water table, reducing groundwater 

inputs into the stream and reducing available soil moisture for riparian plants. 

The effects of this hydrologic alteration may be compounded by groundwater 

intercepting and collecting in the quarry pond before it reaches the stream 

channel. Lowered local groundwater levels would also affect the stream by 

increasing surface water losses to groundwater during the dry season. 

No focal species use quarry ponds in the study area as habitat, though western 

burrowing owls could use berms and levees around the edge of quarry ponds if 

California ground squirrels were present. The ability of this land cover type to 

support focal species is subject to its primary purpose and management 

directives. 

Reservoirs cover 1,886 acres (0.69%) of the study area (Table 2-4). Reservoirs 

are open water bodies, larger than 20 acres, that are managed for water 

storage, water supply, flood protection, and/or recreational uses. These 

features were easily targeted on aerial photographs based on the smooth, 

uniform, dark signatures of open water. Where discernible, reservoirs were 

mapped to the high water line. The high water line was observed on the aerial 

photographs as either obvious rings of sparse vegetation or an open water 

signature. 

The major reservoirs in the study area are San Antonio, Calaveras (partially in 

the study area), Lake del Valle, Chain of Lakes, and Bethany. San Antonio 

Reservoir, impounded by the James H. Turner Dam, was constructed in 1964 

and is located 1.5 miles upstream of San Antonio Creek’s confluence with 

Alameda Creek. San Antonio Reservoir can store approximately 50,500 af of 

water from a number of sources, including Alameda Creek, the Hetch Hetchy 

Aqueduct, and the SWP. Calaveras Reservoir was completed in 1925 and is 

located on Calaveras Creek, 0.8 mile upstream of its confluence with Alameda 

Creek. This reservoir is currently maintained at 30% of capacity because of 


ICF 00906.08


seismic concerns. At full capacity, this reservoir can store approximately 96,900 

af of water. 

Lake del Valle is located approximately 5 miles south of Livermore. The lake is 

created by Del Valle Dam, which was placed on Arroyo del Valle. This lake 

receives water from the local watershed and the SWP and provides water for 

the South Bay Aqueduct. At full capacity, this reservoir can store approximately 

77,100 af of water (DWR 2001). 

Bethany Reservoir is located about 10 miles northwest of Tracy in Alameda 

County. The reservoir serves as a forebay for the South Bay Pumping Plant and 

a conveyance facility in this reach of the California Aqueduct. At full capacity, 

this reservoir can store approximately 4,804 af of water (DWR 2001). 

Plants often associated with reservoirs include those plants common to deep 

water systems. Algae are the predominant plant life found in the open waters 

of reservoirs. Depending on reservoir temperature, water level, and other 

environmental conditions, algal blooms may occur, resulting in thick algal mats 

on the surface of the reservoir. If the reservoir edges are shallow, plant species 

similar to those found in ponds may be present. If the reservoir has steeper 

edges, water depth and fluctuations in reservoir height may prevent the 

establishment of vegetation. Upland and riparian trees that were not removed 

during the construction of the reservoir, or that were planted afterwards, may 

be present around the perimeter of the reservoir. 

Focal species that could use the margins of reservoirs, or the inlets where 

streams flow into reservoirs, include California red-legged frog and tricolored 

blackbird. 

Stream 

The stream land cover type covers 244 miles within the study area (Table 2-4). 

Major streams in the study area include Alameda Creek, San Antonio Creek, 

Arroyo Valle, Arroyo Mocho, Arroyo Las Positas, Altamont Creek, and Tassajara 

Creek (Figure 2-7). Streams can be unvegetated along their banks or support 

various types of riparian vegetation. Streams that support riparian vegetation 

were categorized into one of the three riparian land cover types. For a complete 

picture of the extent of streams in the study area the stream and riparian land 

covers should be considered together. 

The stream land cover type includes perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral 

watercourses characterized by a defined bed and bank. Perennial streams 

support flowing water year-round in normal rainfall years. These streams are 

often marked on USGS quadrangle maps with a blue line, and are known as 

blue-line streams. In the semiarid Mediterranean climate of the study area with 

its wet and dry seasons, perennial streamflows are enhanced in the dry season 

through groundwater aquifer contributions, flows from shallower springs/seeps, 


ICF 00906.08


and reservoir releases. Intermittent (seasonal) streams carry water though 

most of the wet season (November–April) and are dry through most or all of the 

dry season (May–October) in a normal rainfall year. More specifically, in the 

wet season, intermittent streamflow occurs when the water table is raised, or 

rejuvenated, following early season rains that fill shallow subsurface aquifers. 

Intermittent flows can also be considered as the baseflows between storm 

events that continue on through much of the winter season. Ephemeral 

streams carry water only during or immediately following a rainfall event. 

The stream land cover type is most closely associated with riparian plants (see 

the “Riparian Forest and Scrub” section above for discussion of riparian land 

cover types). The riparian plant composition and width of the riparian corridor 

vary depending on channel slope, magnitude and frequency of channel and 

overbank flows, and the frequency/duration of flooding flows that inundate the 

broader floodplain. Willows may become established in-channel in areas of 

sediment deposition, unless suppressed by intensive grazing. Woody debris, 

such as fallen trees that are submerged in streams, provides good habitat and 

shelter for fish and aquatic invertebrates. 

Stream systems provide habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates, which are an 

important food source for local and downstream populations of fish, birds, and 

other animals. Alameda Creek in the study area is used by rainbow trout. 

Further downstream, below the flood control drop structure (Bay Area Rapid 

Transit weir) adjacent to the Quarry Lakes Regional Recreation Area and outside 

of the study area, central California coast steelhead and Central Valley fall-run 

Chinook salmon have been observed. Central California coast steelhead use 

streams with suitable depths, velocities, and temperatures for juvenile rearing 

and feeding. Juvenile Central Valley fall-run Chinook salmon use the margins of 

rivers and streams after emerging from gravels to feed. They also use 

overhanging vegetation and substrate for cover. Focal species that rely on 

stream land cover include California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, 

and tricolored blackbird. Alameda whipsnake and San Joaquin kit fox could use 

the riparian corridors adjacent to stream habitats for movement corridors. 

Canal/Aqueduct 

Canal/aqueduct land cover type covers 198 acres (0.07%) of the study area 

(Table 2-4). Both the California Aqueduct and the South Bay Aqueduct run 

through the northeast corner of the study area (Figure 2-8). Due to the nature 

of these human-made structures, canals and aqueducts are often managed for 

minimal vegetation to enhance the flow of water through the channels. They 

also convey a large amount of water and contain deep water with swift flow 

year-round. While these canals and aqueducts can serve as loafing habitat for 

some waterfowl species, they generally do not have much habitat value. In 

addition, because these waterways are so wide and deep, they create barriers 

to movement on the landscape for terrestrial species. 


ICF 00906.08


No focal species use the canal/aqueduct land cover type as habitat. 


Open water land cover types perform a variety of functions in both biological 

and physical terms. Biologically, water is the most critical component required 

to support the life cycle of all aquatic and terrestrial species. Open water land 

cover types support the species at the lowest level of the food chain—algae. 

Aquatic invertebrates feed on algae and other plant debris in streams, ponds, 

and reservoirs. In turn, these invertebrates become food for fish, birds, bats, 

and other insect-feeding species. The cycle continues up the food chain, 

supporting species of the highest trophic levels, including large carnivores and 

humans. 

Physically, stream systems, most notably natural stream systems, provide the 

essential conduits to convey flows, sediments, and nutrients across the 

watershed. Streams transport weathered minerals and eroded sediments from 

upper watershed source areas through intermediate watershed positions 

ultimately to lower watershed depositional areas or discharges beyond the 

watershed. While the general, and classical, characterization of watersheds into 

upper erosional, middle transitional, and lower depositional areas may often 

hold true, in greater detail, all areas of the watershed can witness erosion, 

transport, or storage functions. Nutrients from exposed soil and decomposed 

organic matter are also carried downstream with the sediment, across the valley 

floor, and finally into the estuary. Alluvial soils, high in organic content and 

nutrients, are excellent for agriculture. Sediment influx to estuaries helps 

maintain a marshland buffer along the shoreline that supports a myriad of 

wildlife. 

Streams provide ecosystem functions and values much greater than the 

proportion of the landscape they occupy. Streams provide habitat for a wide 

array of aquatic insects that, in turn, function as food for amphibians, birds, and 

other insectivorous species. Perennial streams function as permanent water 

sources in an otherwise dry landscape. Streams also provide movement 

corridors between different terrestrial communities. In this way, networks of 

ephemeral, seasonal, and perennial streams link chaparral/scrub, oak 

woodland, riparian woodland, and grassland habitats. These links are not only 

important for the movement of wildlife, but also represent the fastest means of 

transporting energy and nutrients through a watershed. Thus, it is through 

stream networks that organic matter and minerals are transported from the 

highlands and deposited in the lowlands. 

Stock ponds enhance all other habitats in terms of value for wildlife. Ephemeral 

ponds in particular, typically provide adequate breeding conditions for California 

tiger salamander and California red-legged frogs. Since these ponds dry in the 

summer, they are not suitable for non-native amphibians such as bullfrogs or 


ICF 00906.08


fish. However, if ponds dry too early (June) they will not be wet long enough for 

CTS or CRLF to complete their breeding cycle. Many upland species rely on 

streams and ponds as water sources, especially during the dry summer months. 

Quarry ponds have little ecological value and contribute few ecological services. 

Quarrying operations can be sources of sediment in a watershed, as well as 

raising water temperature in streams downstream of water release points. This 

in turn can have a negative effect on native stream species, including migratory 

fishes. 

Reservoirs are typically sediment sinks, obstructing the natural sediment 

transport of streams. Through natural processes, streams erode sediment from 

streambanks and move it downstream. In an unimpeded setting, sediment 

carried from the upper watershed is deposited along the length of the stream, 

thus creating an equilibrium of eroded and deposited sediment. When a dam is 

built across a stream, all but some of the finest sediment transported from the 

upper watershed drops out of suspension in the reservoir, where velocities are 

too low to maintain the sediment load. The resulting effect is that downstream 

reaches are sediment-starved, and no new sediment is available to replace 

eroded sediment downstream of the dam. This results in the stream 

downcutting and deepening and also results in a reduction in gravels suitable 

for steelhead and salmon spawning downstream of reservoirs. 

In addition, large reservoirs fill with and store large amounts of turbid storm 

runoff. Settling of the finer clay and silt particles may take months, resulting in 

persistent releases of turbid water in winter and early spring. The slowly 

settling materials may also result in much higher turbidities near the bottom 

outlet valve than in the surface waters. While the natural streams upstream of 

reservoirs rapidly clear between storms, the streams downstream of reservoirs 

may be persistently turbid and interfere with steelhead and salmon feeding in 

winter and spring, reducing their growth and potential ocean survival. In 

addition, the slowly released fine sediments may result in silty substrate below 

the reservoirs, reducing survival of eggs in spawning gravels and abundance of 

insects. In addition, because the reservoirs are deep and store cool winter 

runoff, the water released out of the bottom of the reservoir can be much 

cooler than the surface water and also cooler than the stream upstream of the 

reservoir in late spring and summer. 

The primary function of canals and aqueducts is to transport water for 

agricultural irrigation and for urban and suburban uses. The modification of 

channels results in a more linear alignment and does not allow a channel to 

meander as it would in its natural state. This results in higher flows and 

potential scour of the stream channel (e.g. Arroyo Mocho). Engineered 

channels are often constructed with high levees or channel walls. High walls 

keep flows within the channel and protect property that has been built adjacent 

to the stream. 


ICF 00906.08


2.4.3.8 Cultivated Agriculture 

Cultivated agriculture encompasses all areas where the native vegetation has 

been cleared for irrigated agricultural use or dryland farming. This natural 

community does not include rangeland, which is characterized as an agricultural 

land use (most rangeland in the study area is classified as annual grassland and 

considered above in Section 2.4.3.1, “Grassland”). The irrigated agriculture 

community is classified into four land cover types: 

• orchard, 

• vineyard, 

• developed agriculture, and 

• cropland. 

In all of these cases, the land may have been in production in the past but 

showed little or no sign of crop production currently (e.g., fallow fields). In 

some instances, these land cover types were indistinguishable on aerial 

photographs (e.g., newly planted orchards strongly resemble row crops). In 

such cases, the area in question was mapped as cropland. 

Cultivated Agriculture Land Cover Types 

Orchard 

Vineyard 

Orchards are those areas planted in fruit-bearing trees. Orchards were 

distinguished on the basis of tree cover, canopy characteristics, and distinctive 

production rows. Most orchards in Alameda County are olive orchards. 

Orchards comprise an estimated 203 acres of the study area (0.1%) at 11 

distinct sites (Table 2-4). There are two fallow orchards in western Pleasanton 

(Figure 2-8). The remaining orchards in the study area are located south of 

Livermore, intermixed with vineyards. 

Some focal species may be found in orchards. For example, where natural open 

spaces abut, some individual San Joaquin kit foxes or American badgers may 

move through orchards. Orchards are less suitable as denning habitat for these 

species. Several species of birds, including western burrowing owl, tricolored 

blackbird, and golden eagle may forage around the edges of orchards. 

California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander may disperse through 

orchards between areas of more suitable habitat. 

Vineyards are identified on the basis of a row production pattern and canopy 

characteristics. Vineyards appeared similar to orchards on the aerial 


ICF 00906.08


photographs but were characterized by more closely spaced rows with a 

smaller, less dense vegetation canopy. 

Vineyards occupy 2,684 acres of the study area (1.0%) (Table 2-4). Vineyards 

are mostly located south of Livermore, though some vineyard development is 

also starting north of Livermore (Figure 2-8). Vineyard development in natural 

habitats substantially degrades wildlife habitat. Some focal species are 

sometimes observed in vineyards (e.g., foraging and movement). In some areas, 

nonnative weedy vegetation, such as thistles, mustards, and a variety of other 

weedy forbs, may be found. 

Developed Agriculture 

Cropland 

Developed agriculture was identified by the presence of large agricultural 

buildings, such as greenhouses and shadehouses (associated with nurseries), 

corrals, wineries, barns/sheds, or housing. Aerial photographic signatures were 

generally distinctive because of their large agricultural structures or high 

densities of livestock. 

This land cover type occupies 526 acres (0.2%) of the study area in small patches 

scattered throughout the study area (Table 2-4). Focal species that may be 

found in this land cover type include western burrowing owl (e.g., in some of 

the larger corrals that may be less intensively used), golden eagle, tricolored 

blackbird (foraging), San Joaquin kit fox, and American badger. This land cover 

can similarly be used by California red-legged frog and California tiger 

salamander as upland or movement habitat. 

Tilled land not appearing in the aerial photographs to support orchard or 

vineyard was mapped as cropland. Cropland is the most common of the 

farmland land cover types in the low-lying areas of the study area, occupying 

7,923 acres (2.9%) (Table 2-4). Croplands are abundant throughout the 

Livermore Valley north and south of the city of Livermore (Figure 2-8). 

Row-crops are those areas tilled and cultivated for agricultural crops such as 

corn, grain, strawberries, peppers, and pumpkins. These row-crops can also be 

converted to other agricultural uses. Fallow fields include fields that were not in 

production at the time of aerial photos, but may be utilized for grain, row-crops, 

and hay and pasture in subsequent years. 

Hay and pasture include both dryland settings and irrigated areas. The key 

difference between hay production and pasture is that crops are harvested 

onsite and consumed offsite (hay is also cut, bailed, and trucked offsite), 

whereas pasture is consumed by livestock onsite. Common vegetation includes 

fast-growing forage grasses, such as wild oats and Italian ryegrass, as well as 

irrigated legumes such as alfalfa, sweet clover, and true clover. In some areas, 


ICF 00906.08


nonnative weedy vegetation, such as thistles, mustards, and a variety of other 

weedy forbs, are also common. 

Focal species expected to be found in this land cover type are tricolored 

blackbird, western burrowing owl, callippe silverspot butterfly, and golden 

eagle, all of which forage in grain crops and pastures. Western burrowing owls 

may also breed in agricultural settings if ground squirrel burrows are present. 

San Joaquin kit fox may move through this land cover type if it occurs near 

suitable grassland areas. California tiger salamander and California red-legged 

frog disperse through croplands to reach suitable breeding and upland habitat. 


This land cover type has relatively low value for native plants and wildlife in 

terms of habitat that supports full life cycle needs of focal species. Nonetheless, 

cultivated agriculture does provide some benefit, although species composition 

and habitat value depends heavily on the planting cycle. For example, cropland 

has a higher value for terrestrial mammals (e.g., black-tailed jackrabbit) and 

herbivorous birds (e.g., red-winged blackbird) near harvest time, when the 

standing crop is mature and produces a quantity of food (e.g., fruit, seeds), than 

it does after the harvest when the cropland is fallow. Agricultural production 

methods can also have an impact on wildlife use. For example, production 

practices such as clean farming, where farm edges are maintained as 

vegetation-free areas, reduce cover and movement opportunities for wildlife; 

on the other hand, wildlife friendly farming, where native cover crops and 

hedgerows are used between crops and on farm edges, can increase 

opportunities for wildlife use in croplands. 

In addition, cultivated agricultural lands often play a key role in providing 

connectivity between larger open space areas, especially in urbanized areas 

such as the Livermore Valley. Maintaining connectivity between patches of 

natural land cover that provide habitat supports a diversified genetic pool due 

to the ability of populations to disperse, comingle, and interbreed. Cultivated 

agriculture also often is associated with streams used for irrigation that may 

support riparian vegetation, trees (planted as windbreaks), and shrubs. These 

areas may provide habitat to songbirds, raptors, amphibians, and reptiles, as 

well as provide a movement corridor for other species. 

2.4.3.9 Developed 

Developed land cover types were mapped and described for the study area in 

order to describe the extent and distribution of modified lands. Developed 

areas were classified into the land cover types listed below: 

• urban-suburban, 


ICF 00906.08


• rural-residential, 

• landfill/solid waste, 

• golf courses/urban parks, 

• ornamental woodland; and 

• ruderal. 

Developed land cover types were mapped on the basis of their distinct 

signatures on aerial photographs and are readily distinguishable from naturally 

occurring signatures in any terrain. The minimum mapping unit for all 

developed land cover types was 10 acres. 

Developed Land Cover Types 

Developed land cover types cover 35,469 acres (13.1%) of the study area 

(Table 2-4). Developed areas comprise all types of development for residential, 

commercial, industrial, transportation, landfill, landscaping, and recreational 

uses (e.g., sites with structures, paved surfaces, horticultural plantings, golf 

courses, and irrigated lawns). Developed sites were mapped on the basis of 

their distinct signatures on aerial photographs. Developed areas are often 

characterized by geometric or regular shapes and are readily distinguished from 

naturally occurring signatures in any terrain. 

Urban-Suburban 

Urban-suburban areas comprise 28,973 acres (10.7%) of the study area 

(Table 2-4). The major urban-suburban area in the study area includes the cities 

of Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin. The urban-suburban land cover 

comprises areas where the native vegetation has been cleared for residential, 

commercial, industrial, transportation, or recreational structures, and is defined 

as one or more structures per 2.5 acres. These include areas that have 

structures, paved and impermeable surfaces, horticultural plantings, and lawns 

smaller than 10 acres (irrigated lawns larger than 10 acres were mapped as 

urban parks). Many small, rural residential areas were observed in the study 

area. Such areas were mapped as urban if they exhibited at least 10 acres of 

buildings, turf, and pavement. Rural residential areas of less than 10 acres that 

were adjacent to or surrounded by agriculture and/or natural land cover types 

were mapped as the adjacent land cover type. 

Vegetation found in the urban-suburban land cover type is usually in the form of 

landscaped residences, planted street trees (i.e., elm, ash, liquidambar, pine, 

palm), and parklands. Most of the vegetation is composed of nonnative or 

cultivated plant species. 


ICF 00906.08


It is less likely that focal species would be found in urban-suburban areas. The 

exception would be western burrowing owl, which sometimes thrives in 

suburban areas that have been cleared for development (prior to development 

occurring). In addition, the alkali wetlands that occur in north Livermore 

(adjacent to urban development) support may alkali wetland species, including 

the palmate-bracted bird’s beak. 

Rural Residential 

Landfill 

Rural residential areas comprise 3,198 acres (1.2%) of the study area (Table 2-4). 

Rural residential areas are mainly located in the foothills that surround the cities 

of Livermore, Pleasanton, and Dublin (Figure 2-8). 

The rural residential land cover type is similar to the urban-suburban type 

except that it is typically much less dense (defined as less than one structure per 

2.5 acres) and usually contains extensive landscaping and/or irrigated lands 

(including small areas of pasture). 

Several covered species may be found in urban-suburban areas. Mobile species 

such as golden eagle, western burrowing owl, tricolored blackbird, San Joaquin 

kit fox, or American badger may move through rural residential land cover if it 

occurs adjacent to or near natural habitat. Similarly, California tiger salamander 

may utilize areas that have open grasslands and are near suitable breeding sites. 

Callippe silverspot butterfly will move through rural residential areas to disperse 

between patches of grassland. 

The landfill land cover type comprises 536 acres (0.2%) of the study area (Table 

2-4). There are 14 landfills within the study area, only five of which are 

currently active (Figure 2-1). The two largest active landfills are the Altamont 

Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility and the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill. 

The Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility has a 2,130-acre permitted 

facility boundary and a 472-acre permitted disposal area. The Vasco Road 

Sanitary Landfill has a 326-acre facility boundary and a 222-acre permitted 

disposal area (California Integrated Waste Management Board 2009). 

Landfills are those areas where vegetation has been cleared and large amounts 

of soil have been moved for solid waste disposal. Typically, these areas are 

excavated pits into which refuse is placed and compacted. After a landfill is 

closed and capped, it may be returned to natural habitats through planting and 

management. Only active landfills were mapped in this category. Although 

inactive landfills were mapped as either ruderal or the natural land cover type in 

the surrounding area, often annual grassland, much of their area may be capped 

and not support ground-burrowing mammals. 


ICF 00906.08


Landfills are highly disturbed areas while in use. They often attract some 

wildlife, such as gulls, crows, pigeons, and rats. 

Golf Courses/Urban Parks 

Urban parks and golf courses comprise 2,759 acres (1.0%) of the study area 

Table 2-4). Urban parks are located within cities in the study area and tend to 

be smaller in scale than a county or regional park. Many serve as neighborhood 

or community parks. Urban parks and golf courses are located throughout the 

urbanized areas of the study area (Figure 2-8). 

Golf courses and urban parks are composed predominantly of nonnative 

vegetation and provide limited habitat for native wildlife. Urban parks are 

unlikely to support any focal species. Golf courses on the fringe of urban areas 

are known to support California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, 

western burrowing owl, or tricolored blackbird, particularly if ponds are present 

on or near the golf course. Habitat quality in and around golf courses is typically 

of lower quality because golf course apply fertilizers and other chemical 

treatments that may run off into waterways and onto adjacent lands during rain 

events. 

Ornamental Woodland 

Ruderal 

The ornamental woodlands land cover type comprises only 40 acres (0.01%) of 

the study area (Table 2-4). Ornamental woodland was mapped primarily in 

areas surrounded by development, where the signatures on aerial photographs 

and locations did not meet the characteristics of oak or riparian woodlands. 

Ornamental woodland was included as a separate land cover type because 

some stands could provide habitat for raptors or other migratory birds. 

Ornamental woodlands are those areas where ornamental and other introduced 

species of trees, including eucalyptus, have been planted or naturalized and 

dominate, forming an open to dense canopy. 

While ornamental woodland land cover does not provide appropriate habitat 

for most focal species, this land cover type may support breeding raptors, 

including the golden eagle. 

This land cover type is relatively common in the study area (4,798 acres; 1.8%) 

and generally occurs on the edges of or within developed areas (Table 2-4). 

Areas mapped as ruderal are disturbed areas characterized by sparse nonnative, 

typically weedy vegetation. Most ruderal areas are vacant parcels surrounded 

by developed areas (Figure 2-8). Additional areas mapped as ruderal include 

most of the lands around gravel quarry ponds between Pleasanton and 

Livermore. Some areas mapped as ruderal may actually be cropland that has 

been left fallow for a year or more. Ruderal areas that have not experienced 


ICF 00906.08


substantial disturbance (e.g., disking) for a number of years may develop into 

annual grasslands. The minimum mapping unit for the ruderal land cover type 

was 10 acres. 

Where vegetation is present, ruderal land cover is dominated by a mixture of 

nonnative annual grasses and weedy species, such as black mustard, thistles, 

and wild radish, that tend to colonize quickly after disturbance. Wildlife 

common to ruderal habitats can include species closely associated with urban 

development, such as house sparrow, European starling, rock dove, western 

scrub-jay, black-tailed jackrabbit, raccoon, opossum, striped skunk, and house 

mouse. Focal species such as the western burrowing owl often use ruderal 

habitats in the Bay Area for both nesting and overwintering habitat. However, 

ruderal habitats frequently become overgrown with vegetation, which becomes 

fire-prone, dense, matted, and uninhabitable for wildlife species. 

2.4.4 Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Linkages 

This section explains the importance of habitat connectivity and wildlife linkages 

(also known as wildlife corridors), summarizes potential wildlife linkages that 

may exist in the study area, and discusses focal and other species that might use 

and be affected by the fragmentation of these corridors. 

Urban sprawl, roads, conversion of wildlands, and other anthropogenic 

influences are fragmenting habitat throughout California. Habitat 

fragmentation is one of the greatest threats to biodiversity because it impedes 

or prevents the exchange of individuals and genetic material among populations 

of wildlife and plants, thereby reducing genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is 

important in a population because it increases the chances that individuals can 

survive catastrophic events such as fire, disease, drought, or invasion by 

nonnative species. Moreover, entire populations may disappear by chance or 

from a catastrophic event. Habitat fragmentation may prevent suitable habitat 

from being recolonized from healthy populations after such an event. For larger 

species of mammals, long-distance movement and dispersal is an important 

aspect of their basic biology and is critical for their long-term survival. Habitat 

connectivity and wildlife linkages are particularly important in the current 

setting of climate change; species need to disperse to find suitable habitat they 

can tolerate, which is fluctuating due to shifting climate patterns. Maintaining 

and preserving wildlife corridors is critical to the persistence and survival of 

many species (California Wilderness Coalition 2001). 

For the purposes of this strategy, wildlife linkages are defined as habitat areas 

that may allow for the long-distance movement of wildlife from one area to 

another. Linkages can be anything from a narrow strip of habitat that functions 

as a tunnel or conduit (i.e., only permit movement but not breeding or foraging) 

to a large area of intact habitat that is used for movement or dispersal and 

other life functions. There are two main reasons a species may need to use 


ICF 00906.08


wildlife linkages. Some species require linkages for periodic migrations among 

different habitat types used for breeding, birthing, feeding, or roosting. Wildlife 

movement from one important habitat area to another may vary from daily to 

seasonal migration depending on the species. The second need for a linkage is 

the permanent immigration or emigration of individuals among habitat patches, 

allowing for gene flow and recolonization after local extinction (Beier and Noss 

2000; Hilty et al. 2006; Groom et al. 2006). 

Linkage requirements differ greatly from species to species. Specific 

characteristics of linkages, such as dimensions, location, and quality of habitat, 

can influence wildlife use. Wider linkages are more effective than narrower 

linkages (Merenlender and Crawford 1998, Hilty and Merelender 2004; Hilty et 

al. 2006; Groom et al. 2006). In addition, linkages that do not include adequate 

buffers from the urban interface or disturbed areas are not used as often. A 

linkage that does not function properly can become a “death trap” either by 

isolating individuals from a core population or by not delivering them to habitat 

that meets basic requirements for survival and reproduction (Groom et al. 

2006). 

All of the focal species, to some degree, rely on habitat linkages to maintain 

populations and their genetic integrity. However, some of the more mobile 

focal species rely on habitat linkages extensively for movement. For example, 

San Joaquin kit fox moves through the Altamont Hills between populations in 

the southern portion of its range and Contra Costa County. Golden eagle also 

moves extensively through the study area during migration and for local 

foraging while resident in the area. The Pacific Flyway, which diverges into east 

Alameda County, is an important migration movement corridor for raptors and 

other bird species. Bobcat and cougar also commonly traverse this area in 

search of food. These species are examples of relatively long-distance 

movement that requires consideration of habitat linkages at a larger scale. In 

contrast, California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog move over 

smaller distances, often from pond to pond or wetland to stream. Their 

movement needs must therefore be considered at a more local scale, within the 

study area. 

Based on an assessment of the movement needs of the focal species and in 

order to assess and ultimately conserve connections at the scales discussed 

above, three categories of linkages are discussed below: 

• grassland corridors in east Alameda County, 

• aquatic-upland connectivity throughout the study area, and 

• riparian/stream connectivity throughout study area. 


ICF 00906.08


2.4.4.1 Grassland Corridors 

Historically, the grasslands in eastern Alameda County were all connected 

through the lowland valleys and stream systems through the Livermore Valley. 

The majority of this area has been converted to urban and agricultural uses, 

fragmenting and separating grassland habitat. The undeveloped northeastern 

portion of the study area is also bisected by I-580. This regional freeway creates 

a fairly impenetrable barrier between the northern and southern parts of the 

study area, with only a few linkages (undercrossings) under the freeway 

between Livermore and the Alameda/San Joaquin County line. Maintaining 

contiguity of this eastern part of the study area is important to the integrity of 

the grassland habitat complex and the wildlife populations that depend on it. 

San Joaquin kit fox provides the best opportunity to discuss and perhaps study 

the connectivity of the grassland complex in the eastern part of the study area. 

The grassland complex in northeastern Alameda County contains a portion of 

the northernmost extent of the range for San Joaquin kit fox. Northern Contra 

Costa County is the northern extent of the taxon’s range (USFWS 1998). The 

Altamont Hills in Alameda County are believed to provide an essential link to 

suitable kit fox habitat in the northern extreme of the species’ range (H. T. 

Harvey & Associates 1997), allowing for genetic exchange between kit fox in 

Contra Costa and Alameda Counties and those further south in San Joaquin, 

Stanislaus, and Merced Counties. 

The primary kit fox range in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties is in the Diablo 

Range along the eastern portion of the two counties. This area is characterized 

by annual grasslands with pockets of oak woodland and chaparral habitats. 

There appear to be three primary kit fox linkages that cross I-580 between the 

east edge of Livermore and the Alameda/San Joaquin County line. The main 

“corridor” is the wide grasslands flanking I-580 between Vasco Road and Grant 

Line Road. This area could also be breeding and foraging habitat for the kit fox 

(i.e., not just used for movement). In order for this corridor to remain functional 

over time, some area would need to be protected on either side of I-580 to 

ensure that the linkage remains open enough to facilitate kit fox movement. 

For the most part kit foxes moving through the Altamont Hills between northern 

and southern Alameda County are impeded by I-580. There are two sizeable 

underpasses along the stretch of freeway between Livermore and the county 

line: near Greenville Road in Livermore, and near the San Joaquin County line at 

the Grant Line Road exit and North Midway Road (Jones & Stokes 2003). There 

are likely additional crossing opportunities under I-580, through culverts (both 

water conveyance culverts and farm implement undercrossings) and along the 

edges of water transport canals (service roads). The importance of these small 

corridors to the connectivity of kit fox populations in Alameda County is 

unknown, but because they are so few in number and provide the only 

connections along a very large and generally impassable freeway, they merit 

further study and may warrant protection. 


ICF 00906.08


In addition to San Joaquin kit fox, these linkages likely provide passage for 

American badger; mule deer; California ground squirrel; and perhaps, in some 

instances, California red-legged frog; along with several other generalist wildlife 

species. In addition, Alameda County supports a relatively large population of 

nesting golden eagles (Hunt et al. 1998). Golden eagles use annual grasslands as 

their primary foraging habitat. They are sensitive to fragmentation of this 

habitat, and smaller patch sizes may lead to declines in prey populations. 

2.4.4.2 Aquatic-Upland Corridors 

Several special-status reptiles and amphibians rely on both aquatic and upland 

habitats to complete their life cycle. These species use ponds, streams, and 

other aquatic habitats that are interspersed within the annual grassland/oak 

woodland/chaparral complex in eastern Alameda County. Details about how 

this applies to particular focal species are discussed in the “Species Accounts” 

(Appendix D). Generally, aquatic habitats such as streams and ponds provide 

important breeding habitat, while the matrix of upland habitats between those 

aquatic habitats and riparian corridors that are often found along streams 

provide movement habitat. This movement habitat, or corridor, allows 

individuals from the same species but different populations to interact and 

ultimately breed. This allows genetic flow between and within populations and 

protects the species from genetic homogeneity, which over time could result in 

reduced numbers of individuals. To better understand the relationship between 

aquatic breeding resources within the study area, the spatial relationship 

between ponds and streams was examined through GIS analysis. 

Using the pond data layer that was digitized during the land cover mapping 

process, a moving window analysis was used to highlight the relationship 

between ponds in the study area. The moving window had a radius of 1-mile 

(3.14 square miles). This distance was chosen as a conservative compromise 

between typical movement distances of California tiger salamander and 

California red-legged frog. Each time the moving window was moved to a new 

location the density of ponds in the 3.14 mile 2 areas was calculated. By 

repeating that process multiple times throughout the study area, a picture of 

the density of ponds and their relative distance to other ponds begins to 

emerge. 

Figure 2-9 shows aquatic features in the study area in relationship to one 

another to estimate the degree of connectedness for species such as California 

tiger salamander and California red-legged frog that can move between aquatic 

features inter- or intraseasonally. Parts of the study area, with a higher density 

of aquatic features, that are “connected” have a higher probability that 

individual red-legged frogs or tiger salamanders could interact with other 

members of the local populations. The exception to that rule occurs along the I- 

580 corridor where the distance between aquatic resources is enough to 

provide reasonable connectivity to species, but the barrier that I-580 creates 


ICF 00906.08


precludes that connectivity in most cases. Arroyo Las Positas provides a 

movement corridor under I-580 in several places (Jones & Stokes 2003). 

Figure 2-9 also shows where there are longer distances between aquatic 

features. Some of these “gaps” in connectivity are the result of steeper 

topography, and thus a lack of stock ponds, but others are related to unnatural 

features on the landscape such as highways or reservoirs. Some of the areas 

where gaps in aquatic features emerge include: 

• area between Livermore and Dublin across Cayetano Creek —low pond 

density in this area seems to leave populations between Cottonwood Creek 

and Cayetano Creek isolated from those in the eastern part of the study 

area; 

• east of Livermore and south of I-580—this area has a low pond density 

relative to the rest of the study area; 

• north of Dublin, between Alamo Creek and Cottonwood Creek—this is a 

connection which would allow species to move from Alameda County 

northwest into Contra Coast County; 

• East Bay Hills north of Alameda Creek—there is relatively low pond density 

in the part of the study area. Sinbad Creek provides an aquatic connection 

through this part of the study area. 

In Chapter 3, conservation opportunities are discussed with respect to how to 

create or restore habitats in these gaps that will increase regional connectivity 

for species dependent on aquatic features for at least part of their life cycle. 

2.4.4.3 Stream-Riparian Corridors 

The importance of streams and associated riparian areas for the connectivity of 

the study area is discussed in both the stream and riparian woodland land cover 

sections, above. At a landscape level, stream and riparian habitats connect the 

study area and serve and the primary source of nutrient movement through 

natural systems. At the species level, the primary functions of stream and 

riparian habitats are for movement and cover. Within the study area, these 

habitats provide movement and foraging habitat for several focal species, 

including Alameda whipsnake, San Joaquin kit fox, and California tiger 

salamander. These habitats also provide breeding habitat for California redlegged 

frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, and Central California coast steelhead. 


ICF 00906.08

Table21.SimplifiedLandUsePlanningDesignationsfromLocalGeneralPlans Page1of4 

LandUseCategory 

AlamedaCountyEastCounty 

AreaPlan 

(1994,amended2000) 

DublinGeneralPlan 

(updated2007) 

LivermoreGeneralPlan 

(2003) i,ii 

PleasantonGeneralPlan 

(1996,currentlybeing 

revised) 

 

Urban/Developed 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DowntownArea(general 

designation)




AreaPlan 

(1994,amended2000) 


(updated2007) 


(2003) i,ii 



revised) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agriculture




AreaPlan 

(1994,amended2000) 


(updated2007) 


(2003) i,ii 



revised) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PublicLands

Tb a le21.SimplifiedLandUsePlanningDesignationsfromLocalGeneralPlans Page4of4

Table 2-2. Summary of Open Space in the Conservation Strategy as of October 2010 

Open Space 

Classification 

Acres in the 

Study Area 

Percentage of Open 

Space in Study Area 

Type 1 4,238 6.2 1.6 

Type 2 24,106 36.5 8.9 

Type 3 31,322 46.1 11.5 

Type 4 8,310 12.2 3.1 

Total 67,976 100 25.0 

Percentage of 

Total Study Area

Table23.ComparisonofEastAlamedaCountyConservationStrategyLandCoverClassificationtoOtherStateandLocalClassificationSystems Page1of4 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grassland 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ChaparralandCoastalScrub 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OakWoodland


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ConiferWoodland 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RiparianForestandScrub 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wetlands 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OpenWater


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CultivatedAgriculture 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Developed

Table23.Continued Page4of4

Table24.LandCoverTypesandtheirExtentintheStudyArea 

Page1of2 

 

 

 

 

Grasslands 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ChaparralandCoastalScrub 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OakWoodland 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ConiferWoodland 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RiparianForestandScrub 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wetland 2 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OpenWater(Aquatic) 2

Table24.Continued 

Page2of2 

 

 

 

 

 

CultivatedAgriculture 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Developed 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total 5,109 271,485 100

Bethany 

Reservoir 

P 

Patterson Run 

Arroyo Mocho 

Brushy Creek 

Arroyo Las Positas 

Gold Creek 

Arroyo de la Laguna 

Arroyo Seco 

Arroyo Mocho 

Hayward 

Pleasanton 

!. !. 

!. 

!. 

Livermore 

!. 

!. 

!. !. 

!. !. 

!. 

Arroyo Valle 

Dry Creek 

!. 

!. 

§¨¦ 680 §¨¦ 580 

Sinbad Creek 

Alameda Creek 

Williams Gulch 

§¨¦ 680 

·|}þ84 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

La Costa Creek 

Shafer Creek 

Indian Creek 

Leyden Creek 

Arroyo Valle 

Valpe Creek 

Alameda Creek 


Santa Clara County 

R 

\\Ca49srv1\epi-k\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig 2-1 StudyArea.mxd MF (09-13-10) 

San Joaquin County 

Altamont Landfill & 

Resource Recovery 

Vasco Road 

Sanitary Landfill 

Contra Costa County 



Union 


Sunol 

Figure 2-1 


Simplified Land Use 

Planning Designations 

from Local General Plans 

October 2010 

Urban Growth 

Boundary 

County Line 

Highways 

Streams 

Lakes 

Land Use Planning 

Designations 

Public Land 

Agriculture 

Urban 

Land Use Designations 

County Resource 

Management 

Livermore Resource 

Management 

Pleasanton Wildland 

Wind Resource Area 

Solid Waste Facilities 

!. Active 

!. Closed 

Future Solid Waste 

Permit Area 

Miles 

I 0 1 2 4 

Sources: 

City of Livermore General Plan, 2003 

City of Dublin Land Use, 2007 

City of Pleasanton General Plan, 1996 

Alameda County East County Area Plan, 2000 


Alameda County Community 

Development Agency, 2002 

*The "Public Lands" classification is based on 

local government land use designations. Public 

open space is represented on a separate, 

open space map (Figure 3).

Is the primary 

management goal 

related to ecological 

protection? 

YES 

NO 

Is the land subject to 

irrevocable protection 

against a change in 

primary land use through 

local, state or federal 

authority? 

Is the land managed as 

open space and does it 

provide some ecological 

value? 

YES 

NO 

YES 

NO 

Type 1 Open Space 




Criteria 

Type 1: Permanently protected public or private lands subject to conservation easement or 

deed restriction, where the primary purpose and management goal of the land is for 

ecological protection For example, Type 1 Open Space includes conservation 

easements at Brushy Peak Preserve and Byron Airport. 

Type 2: Public lands where the primary purpose of the land is for ecological protection but 

the land is not subject to irrevocable protection such as a conservation easement or 

deed restriction. Examples include Brushy Peak Preserve not under conservation 

easement and Morgan Territory Regional Preserve. 

Type 3: Public lands that may contain some land uses other than ecological protection. 

These lands would include parklands classified as parks, open space or special 

protection units where something other than ecological protection is designated as 

the primary use (e.g., recreation, watershed protection). Type 3 could also include 

private lands under agricultural easement to preserve livestock grazing or dry land 

farming. Also included would be the undeveloped portions of drinking watersheds 

under ownership or management by a public agency. Examples include Los Vaqueros 

Watershed and Carnegie State Recreational Vehicle Area. 

Type 4: This would consist of developed portions of public lands that retain some ecological 

value. It would also include public golf courses, some landscaped areas, and developed 

neighborhood parks. Type 4 would also include private lands under agricultural 

easements to preserve vineyards, orchards, or other cultivated agriculture. Examples 

include the South Bay Aqueduct and small lands around Clifton Court Forebay. 

00906.08 Strategy (8-09) 

Note: 

1 

Private Easements include private lands that are protect through permanent 

easement or deed restriction for conservation or agricultural purposes. 

Figure 2-2 

Criteria for Open Space Types


Bethany 

Reservoir 


§¨¦ 680 Dublin 

§¨¦ 580 


Camp Parks 

Military 

Reservation 

Springtown Alkali Sink 

Ecological Preserve 

Brushy Peak 

Regional Preserve 

Hayward 

Pleasanton 

Livermore 

Sycamore Grove 

Park 

Carnegie State 

Vehicular Recreation 

Area 

§¨¦ 680 

·|}þ84 

Union 


Sunol 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

Del Valle 

Regional Park 

Ohlone Conservation 

Bank 

Sunol Regional 

Wilderness 

Ohlone Regional 

Wilderness 

San Francisco Public 

Utilities Commission 

Alameda Watershed 



Figure 2-3 


Open Space 

(Public Lands and 

Private Easements) 

October 2010 

County Line 

City Limits 

Highways 

Streams 

Lakes 

Open Space Category 

(See Fig. 2-4 

for category explanation) 

Type 1 

Type 2 

Type 3 

Type 4 

Proposed as Type 1- 

Pending Mitigation 

Banks 

Sources: 

Bay Area Open Space Council 

California Legacy Project - 

California Resources Agency 


Council of Governemnts - 

HCP Report 


I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig 2-3 OpenSpace.mxd MF (09-10-10)

Bethany 

Reservoir 

Brushy Creek 

§¨¦ 680 §¨¦ 580 




Patterson Run 

Arroyo Mocho 

§¨¦ 680 

·|}þ84 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

Altamont 

Hills 

Livermore 

Uplift 

Gold Creek 


Arroyo Seco 

Arroyo Valle 

Dry Creek 

Sinbad Creek 

Alameda Creek 

Arroyo Mocho 



Wauhab Ridge 

Man Ridge 

Shafer Creek 

Valpe Ridge 

Leyden Creek 

Valpe Creek 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig 2-4 Topography.mxd MF (09-13-10) 


Hayward 

Union 



Pleasanton 

Sunol 

Livermore 

Livermore Valley 

Sunol Valley 

Cedar 

Mountain 

East Bay Hills 

Cedar Ridge 

Indian Creek 

Arroyo Valle 

Alameda Creek 


Figure 2-4 


Topography 

October 2010 

Study Area 

Boundary 


Highways 

Streams 

Reservoirs 

Elevation (ft) 

High : 3842.7 

Low : 4.68213 

Source: 

United States Geological 

Survey (USGS) 

National Elevation Dataset 

Downloaded October 2008 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles 


Northern Diablo Range

Bethany 

Reservoir 



Lake 

Del 

Valle 

§¨¦ 680 §¨¦ 580 

·|}þ84 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

§¨¦ 680 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig 2-5 Soils_All.mxd MF (09-13-10) 





Livermore 

Hayward 

Pleasanton 

Union 


Sunol 

Figure 2-5 


Soils 

October 2010 

Study Area Boundary 

Highways 

Streams 

Reservoirs 

Soil Type 

Clay 

Clay Loam 

Gravelly Loam 

Gravelly Sandy Loam 

Loam 

Riverwash 

Rock Land 

Rocky Clay 

Rocky Loam 

Rocky Sandy Loam 

Sandy Loam 

Shaly Loam 

Silt Loam 

Silty Clay 

Silty Clay Loam 

Water and other 

non-soil material 

Source: 

United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) 

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) 2006. 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles

Bethany 

Reservoir 

Brushy Creek 

§¨¦ 680 §¨¦ 580 




Patterson Run 

Gold Creek 


Arroyo Seco 

Arroyo Mocho 

Arroyo Valle 

Dry Creek 

§¨¦ 680 

·|}þ84 

Sinbad Creek 

Alameda Creek 

Arroyo Mocho 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

Altamont 

Hills 

Livermore 

Uplift 



Wauhab Ridge 

Valpe Ridge 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig 2-6 Soils_Unique.mxd MF (09-13-10) 



Pleasanton 

Livermore 


Hayward 

Union 


Sunol 

Sunol Valley 

Cedar 

Mountain 


Cedar Ridge 

Man Ridge 

Shafer Creek 

Indian Creek 

Leyden Creek 

Arroyo Valle 

Valpe Creek 

Alameda Creek 


Figure 2-6 


Unique Soil Resources 

October 2010 

Study Area 

Boundary 


Highways 

Streams 

Reservoirs 

Alkali Soils 

Serpentine Soils 

Source: 

United States Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) 

Natural Resources 

Conservation Service 

(NRCS). Soil Survey 

Geographic (SSURGO) 

Database. Published 2006. 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles 


Northern Diablo Range

Upper 

Kellogg 

Creek 

Brushy 

Creek 

San 

Joaquin 

Delta 



Big 

Canyon 

§¨¦ 680 Daugherty 

Hills 

Cottonwood 

Creek 

City of 


§¨¦ 580 

§¨¦ 680 

·|}þ84 



K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig 2-7 Watersheds.mxd MF (09-10-10) 


Polomares 

Creek 

Oakland 

Gold 

Creek 

Sinbad 

Creek 

Stoneybrook 

Canyon 

Mission 

Creek 


Pleasanton 

Sunol 

Lower 

Tassajara 

Creek 

Sheridan 

Creek 

Vern 

Vallecitos 

Creek 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Cayetano 

Creek 


Livermore 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Livermore 

Dry 

Creek 

La Costa 

Creek 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

Brushy 

Peak 

Lake Del 

Valle 

Altamont 

Creek 

Patterson 

Pass 

Lower 

Arroyo 

Mocho 

Arroyo 

Seco 

Bethany 

Reservoir 

Mountain 

House 

Creek 

Lang 

Canyon 

Tunnel 

Creek 

Mountain 

House 

Patterson 

Run 

Carnegie 

Mitchell 

Ravine 

Carbona 

SE of 

Midway 

Upper Elk 

Ravine 

Upper Corral 

Hollow Creek 

Toroges 

Creek 

Berryessa 

Creek 

Leyden 

Creek 

Calaveras 

Reservoir 

Whitlock 

Creek 

Indian 

Creek 

Baby 

Peak 

Valpe 

Creek 

Trout 

Creek 

Coffee 

Mill 

Creek 

Upper 

Arroyo 

Mocho 

Figure 2-7 

Watersheds 

October 2010 


Watershed Boundary 

Highway 

Stream 

Reservoirs 

Source: California Department of 

Forestry and Fire Protection (1999) 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles

§¨¦ 205 

§¨¦ 680 §¨¦ 580 


Livermore 

Pleasanton 

·|}þ84 

Sunol 

§¨¦ 680 

Union City 

Fremont 

Figure 2-8 

East Alameda County Land Cover 

October 2010 

Land Cover 

Grasslands 

California Annual Grassland 

Wetland 


Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland 

Seasonal Wetland 

Alkali Meadow and Scalds 

Rock Outcrop 


Chaparral & Coastal Scrub 

Northern Mixed Chaparral / Chamise Chaparral 

Open Water 

Pond 

Alkalli Wetland 

Quarry Pond 

Reservoir 


Riverine (unvegetated) 

Northern Coastal Scrub / Diablan Sage Scrub 

Oak Woodland 

Mixed Evergreen Forest / Oak Woodland 

Canal / Aqueduct 

Agricultural 

Developed Agriculture 


Cropland 

Coast Live Oak Forest and Woodland 

Riparian Forest & Scrub 

Mixed Willow Riparian Scrub 


Mixed Riparian Forest and Woodland 

Conifer Woodland 

Foothill Pine-Oak Woodland 



Developed 

Ruderal 

Vineyard 

Orchard 


Urban - Suburban 

Rural - Residential (

Corral Hollow Creek 

Old River 


§¨¦ 580 



§¨¦ 680 

·|}þ84 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig 2-9 PondDensity.mxd MF (09-10-10) 


Arroyo Mocho 

Brushy Creek 

Patterson Run 



Sycamore Creek 

Alamo Creek 

Cayetano Creek 

Cottonwood Creek 

Arroyo Seco 

Tassajara Creek 

Pleasanton 

Livermore 

Arroyo Mocho 

Arroyo Mocho 

Arroyo Valle 

Sinbad Creek 

Dry Creek 

Vallecitos Creek 

Sunol 

Alameda Creek 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

Bethany 

Reservoir 


Figure 2-9 

Pond Density 

October 2010 


City Limit 

Pond 

Stream 

Wetlands 


Value 

Perennial Freshwater 

Marsh 

Alkalli Wetland 

High : 9.85961 

Low : 0 

Note: Pond density = 

Number of Ponds/Acre as calculated using 

a moving circular window. In this analysis, 

the moving circular window has a radius of 

1 mile and an area of 3.14 square miles. 

The radius of 1 mile was determined based on 

the natural histories of California Tiger 

Salamander and California Red-legged Frog. 

Sources: ESRI 2008 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles 

Arroyo Valle 

Arroyo de la 

Laguna 


San Antonio Creek 

Sheridan Creek 


Indian Creek 

Alameda Creek 

COYOTE CR

Chapter 3 

Conservation Strategy 


3.1 Overview ................................................................................................ 3-1 

3.2 Project-Level Use of the Strategy .......................................................... 3-3 

3.2.1 Standardized Mitigation .................................................................. 3-4 

3.2.2 Impact/Mitigation Scoring of Focal Species Habitat ....................... 3-5 

3.3 Independent Conservation Actions ....................................................... 3-6 

3.4 Methods and Sources ............................................................................ 3-6 

3.4.1 Conservation Gap Analysis .............................................................. 3-7 

3.4.2 Geographic Units of Conservation .................................................. 3-8 

3.5 Conservation Goals and Objectives ....................................................... 3-9 

3.5.1 Landscape-Level Goals and Objectives ......................................... 3-10 

3.5.2 Natural Community–Level Goals and Objectives .......................... 3-12 

3.5.3 Focal Species Goals and Objectives ............................................... 3-40 

3.1 Overview 

This Conservation Strategy has two purposes. First, it is designed to convey the 

project-level permitting and environmental compliance requirements of ESA, 

CESA, CEQA, NEPA, and other applicable laws (see discussion in Chapter 1) for 

all projects within the study area with impacts on biological resources. Second, 

it is intended to create a vision for how biological resources in the study area 

should be conserved through the project permitting process and through nonregulatory 

conservation actions. 

To support the project permitting process, the Conservation Strategy identifies a 

set of mitigation standards. These standards include avoidance and 

minimization measures and a compensation program to offset impacts expected 

from projects in the study area. They also include a set of specific management 

prescriptions to benefit natural communities and focal species. To address the 

needs of conservation actions that occur independently of project mitigation 

(e.g., by nonprofit organizations, land trusts, local agencies, or voluntary actions 

by private landowners), the Conservation Strategy sets long-range conservation 


ICF 00906.08

Chapter 3 Conservation Strategy 

goals for preservation of all natural communities in the study area. The 

Conservation Strategy is designed to contribute to species recovery to help to 

delist the listed focal species and prevent the listing of non-listed focal species 

through the protection, restoration, and enhancement of natural communities 

and species habitat. By focusing on conservation at the natural community level 

as well as at the focal species level, the Conservation Strategy will also ensure 

that common habitats and common species continue to be common in the 

study area. 

The Conservation Strategy is based on the best scientific data available at the 

time of its preparation and takes into account the limitations of the baseline 

data available for the study area (see Chapter 2). The strategy was developed to 

be flexible, with the assumption that it would be consistently updated as lessons 

are learned through implementation. 

The Conservation Strategy is based on the conservation goals and objectives 

described below. To achieve these goals and objectives, a series of conservation 

actions have been developed that often meet multiple objectives or goals. The 

chapter is focused on conservation actions that will accomplish the conservation 

goals and objectives through the following general concepts. 

• Coordinate the protection of remaining natural communities where they 

occur to allow them and the species that depend on them to persist in the 

study area (Table 3-1). 

• Avoid and minimize project-level impacts on species and their habitats 

through avoidance and minimization measures that are consistently applied 

throughout the study area (Tables 3-2 and 3-3). 

• Preserve major local and regional connections between key habitat areas 

and among existing protected areas. 

• Restore natural communities that have been degraded or lost over time 

where possible. 

The Conservation Strategy was designed using a multi-scale approach in 

accordance with principles of conservation biology. At the largest scale, 

conservation goals and objectives were developed to encompass ecological 

processes, environmental gradients, biological diversity, and regional wildlife 

linkages. Conservation actions were developed to implement these goals and 

objectives. These conservation actions occur at the landscape scale or 

landscape level—generally at the scale of miles or tens of miles. At the middle 

scale, conservation actions were developed to address natural communities 

primarily through the enhancement, restoration, and management of 

vegetation types (i.e., land cover types). This medium scale is called the natural 

community level. The final scale addresses the specific needs of focal species for 

protection and enhancement of individuals, populations, and groups of 

populations. Species-level conservation actions were developed to supplement 


ICF 00906.08


and focus actions developed at the broader scales and to ensure that all the 

needs of particular species are addressed. 

The conservation actions are described below at the landscape, natural 

community, and species levels. All conservation actions are designed to have 

enough detail and specificity to allow implementation. Because of the regional 

scale of this Conservation Strategy, actions are also designed to be flexible. For 

example, natural community–level actions provide broad management 

guidelines and principles such that future land managers can implement specific 

techniques on the ground that are best suited to site conditions. 

Implementation of many actions will require the preparation of site-specific 

implementation documents (e.g., reserve management plans, restoration 

plans), particularly if a site is intended to serve as mitigation for impacts from a 

project. These documents will be prepared during planning at the project level 

after land is acquired and specific restoration and management needs are 

determined. Management plans are intended to guide activities on 

conservation or mitigation parcels. In some cases, management documents will 

rely on existing agreements or regional initiatives provided by existing land 

management organizations (e.g., EBRPD, Tri-Valley Conservancy). Management 

plans for individual parcels or groups of parcels intended to provide mitigation 

for individual projects will be completed prior to project implementation and 

within 1 year of the first acquisition of the land, unless otherwise specified by 

federal and state resource agencies. 

3.2 Project-Level Use of the Strategy 

At the project level, information contained in this Conservation Strategy is 

meant to provide context and guidance to project applicants, local jurisdictions 

with permit authority, and resource agencies in determining the potential 

impacts of a project and the level and type of mitigation necessary to offset 

those impacts. The conservation gap analysis, described in detail in Section 

3.4.1, provides information on where natural communities occur in the study 

area, how many acres are currently protected, and how many should be 

protected for the natural community to persist. This information is presented in 

a spatially explicit (i.e., conservation zones, Section 3.4.2) manner to inform 

project-level decisions at a manageable, regional scale. 

The conservation goals and objectives provide a long-term vision of how 

conservation of resources should be implemented in the study area. Focal 

species habitat assessment scoresheets provide project applicants, local 

jurisdictions, and resource agencies with a consistent method to evaluate 

potential impacts and sources of mitigation. The quality of the habitat on a 

project site should be assessed, excluding the influence of current land 

management practices or other anthropogenic sources of disturbance 

(discussed in greater detail in Section 3.2.2). Once the quality of habitat is 


ICF 00906.08


determined for the focal species, standardized mitigation ratios can be applied, 

and in some cases adjusted, to determine the level of mitigation necessary for 

the project. 

Once in place, all these components of the Conservation Strategy will streamline 

and increase the predictability of the permit process for both the project 

applicant and the local and resource agencies. Because the Conservation 

Strategy focuses on project-level conservation of natural communities and 

species, there may be areas within the Conservation Strategy project area that, 

due to the regional significance and presence of rare and unique natural 

communities and species, will require additional considerations that are beyond 

the scope of this Conservation Strategy. 

This Conservation Strategy should be used during the entire project-level 

analysis, starting at project inception and ending at regulatory permits. In short, 

when project applicants and resource agencies are reviewing project impacts 

and making decisions about mitigation, they should apply the mitigation 

standards of the Conservation Strategy and determine if the mitigation supports 

its conservation goals and objectives. Further, they should determine whether 

the mitigation contributes to closing one or more conservation gaps for the 

focal species or natural communities in question within a given conservation 

zone, and ultimately within the study area. Additionally, the mitigation 

standards and analysis should not apply to projects that do not incorporate the 

conservation goals, objectives, and priorities of the strategy. Those projects will 

require additional analysis and most likely increased mitigation. 

3.2.1 Standardized Mitigation 

Mitigation requirements are typically outlined at the species level when it is 

determined that focal species utilize affected land cover types for all or part of 

their life cycle. In cases where no focal or other native species are present but 

natural communities would be affected by a project, mitigation should be 

outlined for each land cover type in the CEQA document. As a general guideline, 

mitigation should include a provision for the protection of the same land cover 

type at a 3:1 ratio. The mitigation ratio may vary depending on the quality of 

habitat being lost. This ratio could vary further depending on the total acreage 

and quality of the natural community in that particular Conservation Zone. In 

other words, if the project will affect a rare natural community in the 

Conservation Zone, the ratio could be higher. If the community is fairly 

common, the ratio could be lower. Changes in the ratio would need to be 

justified through the CEQA process and in coordination with the Resource 

Agencies. 

As mentioned above, most mitigation is assigned at the species level for impacts 

on species’ habitat. Under this Conservation Strategy, standardized mitigation 

ratios have been determined for each focal species. Standardized mitigation 


ICF 00906.08


ratios were developed for each federally listed wildlife species; more general 

ratios were developed for plant species and non-listed wildlife species. The 

variations in how mitigation ratios are applied under this strategy depend on 

the amount of information available for the species in the study area and the 

degree to which that information can be systematically applied. The 

standardized mitigation ratios are shown in Tables 3-4 through 3-12. Figures 3-6 

through 3-14 show spatially explicit information about how the ratios are 

applied. It is imperative that when determining the mitigation ratio for a focal 

species both the species’ standardized mitigation ratio table and figure are 

consulted. Like mitigation ratios for natural communities, these species ratios 

provide guidance for project applicants and agency personnel. If the project 

area is more sensitive or if proposed mitigation sites have a higher habitat 

value, then ratios should be adjusted accordingly. In order to meet CDFG’s 

standard of full mitigation for state listed species under CESA, project applicants 

will have to demonstrate habitat enhancement, not just permanent protection, 

on properties used for mitigation. 

Mitigation is assigned through the permitting process and either written into a 

permit as a permit condition or included in a CEQA document as a mitigation 

measure. The standardized mitigation ratios presented in the Conservation 

Strategy are only valid if a project application is in compliance with all other 

parts of the Conservation Strategy (i.e., avoidance and minimization measures). 

3.2.2 Impact/Mitigation Scoring of Focal Species Habitat 

In addition to mitigating the loss of focal species habitat on the basis of acreage, 

it is the intent of the Conservation Strategy to ensure that species’ habitat 

quality is preserved. The Conservation Strategy includes some general 

guidelines on how to quantify the quality of species habitat both on project sites 

where impacts might occur and on proposed mitigation sites, where those 

impacts are supposed to be offset. A scoresheet has been developed for each 

focal species using the key life history characteristics that make habitat suitable 

for that species (Appendix E). The intent of the scoresheets is to allow for a 

project site to be assessed by a qualified biologist/botanist, determining if it is 

habitat for a focal species, and then to use the same criteria to assess any 

proposed mitigation sites. It is important that project sites and mitigation 

locations are assessed on the basis of their basic habitat values, disregarding 

current land uses and management activities. For example, if a parcel supports 

upland habitat for California tiger salamander because it is within the typical 

dispersal distance from a known breeding site, it would be scored as such even 

if it was currently disked by the landowner. In other words, the maximum 

potential habitat quality of a site will be used when judging habitat quality. 

By using this approach, project applicants, local jurisdictions, and resource 

agencies can make consistent determinations about habitat quality for species 

and can more easily achieve consensus on whether a mitigation site 


ICF 00906.08


appropriately compensates for the impacts that will occur on the project site. 

Using the outcomes of the scoring effort, project applicants and resource 

agencies can determine if the standardized mitigation ratios presented for focal 

species in Tables 3-4 through 3-12 are appropriate or if adjustments need to be 

made. 

3.3 Independent Conservation Actions 

While much of this Conservation Strategy is focused on how mitigation should 

be implemented for development or infrastructure projects, an additional 

benefit of a long-range Conservation Strategy is to bring focus and purpose to 

independent conservation actions inside the study area. By outlining 

conservation goals and objectives for the study area and completing a 

conservation gap analysis, this Conservation Strategy creates a framework for 

future conservation efforts in the study area. For example, as new land 

acquisitions occur, the level of protection of various natural communities can be 

tracked against the current gaps in protection. This Conservation Strategy 

provides a “roadmap” for land acquisition organizations and informs future land 

acquisition decisions. This strategy also allows private landowners to better 

understand the conservation value of their lands in a regional context. The 

strategy could be used to justify financial assistance to landowners for voluntary 

conservation projects on land with high conservation values. 

3.4 Methods and Sources 

The primary data sources for the Conservation Strategy were scientific 

literature, recovery plans, species accounts from adjacent conservation plans, 

and occurrences documented in the California Natural Diversity Database. That 

information is summarized in the ecological accounts of focal species (Appendix 

D), the species distribution models (Appendix D), and the inventory of existing 

conditions summarized in Chapter 2. Other sources consulted to develop the 

Conservation Strategy are cited throughout the chapters. Additional general 

sources are listed below. 

• Various accounts of focal species biology and natural community function in 

the scientific literature (cited as referenced). 

• Species recovery plans, if available: 

 

 

 

California Red-Legged Frog (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002a). 

Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1998a). 

Draft Recovery Plan for Chaparral and Scrub Communities Species East 

of San Francisco Bay, California (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002b). 


ICF 00906.08


 

Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2005). 

• Species and natural community experts, including USFWS and CDFG agency 

personnel. 

• Approved or in-process conservation plans for adjacent or nearby areas with 

similar natural communities and focal species: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Alameda Watershed HCP (in 

process). 

Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area NCCP/HCP (in process). 

Pacific Gas & Electric Company Bay Area Operations and Maintenance 

HCP (in process). 

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP (approved). 

Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP (in process). 

San Joaquin County HCP (approved). 

East Bay Regional Park District HCP (in process) 

3.4.1 Conservation Gap Analysis 

A key step in the development of a regional Conservation Strategy is to 

determine the existing level of protection for natural communities and focal 

species. Species or natural communities with low levels of existing protection 

may require greater emphasis in the strategy to ensure that their conservation 

in the study area is assured. In contrast, species or natural communities that are 

well protected may need little or no additional focus from the strategy. For 

these species, the conservation goals and objectives may instead focus on 

habitat restoration or improved habitat management in existing protected 

areas. 

The analysis conducted to determine the levels of existing protection of species 

and natural communities is called a conservation gap analysis. The methods 

used were based on similar approaches applied at the national, state, and local 

levels (Scott et al. 1993, 2001; Wild 2002). 

Conservation biology theory holds that by protecting a wide variety of 

ecosystems and natural communities or land cover types at a broad scale, the 

majority of the biological diversity contained within these natural communities 

will also be protected (Noss 1987; Hunter 2005). This approach is 

complemented by then focusing on finer scale resources such as species 

occurrences, species habitat, or unique physical features to conserve biological 

diversity not protected by the broader scale approaches. That additional focus is 

incorporated through species-level conservation goals and objectives. 


ICF 00906.08


3.4.1.1 Conservation Gaps in the Study Area 

To determine the gaps in protection in the study area, the following GIS data 

layers were overlaid with the open space Types 1, 2, and 3 layer (Figure 2-3). 

• Land cover (see Chapter 2 and Figure 2-8). 

• Species habitat distribution models (see Chapter 2 for a general description 

of these models and Appendix D for the model parameters for each 

species). 

The results of the conservation gap analyses are presented in Table 3-1 for land 

cover types. Data are presented by open space Types 1 and 2 (see Chapter 2 for 

a definition of open space types). Together, these results lay the groundwork for 

land preservation goals in the study area. Understanding the quantity and 

location of resources in the study area will inform regulatory decisions and 

mitigation concepts at the project level under the guidance of the Conservation 

Strategy. 

Many natural land cover types have greater than 25% of their extent in open 

space Types 1 or 2 (Table 3-1). Types 1 and 2 have sufficient protections and 

management strategies in place for this strategy to consider them “protected.” 

These protected areas can be leveraged when protecting new areas to gain a 

larger conservation benefit for natural communities and species. Natural land 

cover types that have a high percentage protected relative to the total acres of 

the land cover that occur in the study area (>40%) are coulter pine woodland 

(81%), serpentine bunchgrass grassland (65%), sycamore alluvial woodland 

(50%), and rock outcrop (46%). While these natural communities are 

considered protected under this strategy, they are considered rare and will be 

conserved to the maximum extent possible. Natural land cover types with the 

lowest proportion in open space overall and where the conservation gaps are 

greatest are northern mixed chaparral–chamise chaparral (0%), Sargent cypress 

woodland (0%), perennial freshwater marsh (0%), and mixed willow riparian 

forest and woodland (


the conservation objectives. The arrangement of the zones also provides a 

mechanism to apply conservation actions at several spatial scales using 

consistent units (e.g., within a watershed, within a combination of zones, or 

within a single zone). 

The conservation zones were developed using subwatershed boundaries from 

the California Department of Water Resources (Figure 2-7). Other adjustments 

were made to the zone boundaries to facilitate the Conservation Strategy; for 

example, the large Livermore subwatershed that crosses I-580 was split into two 

subwatersheds for planning purposes 1 , and subwatersheds that were partially 

outside the study area were combined with others that were completely inside. 

To ensure that habitat protection occurs in locations that will maximize the 

benefits to natural communities and focal species, protection recommendations 

are defined by conservation zone. A discussion of the conservation value and 

conservation acreage goals for each CZ is outlined in Chapter 4. 

Recommendations by CZ were calculated by applying the percentage of a land 

cover type that needs to be protected throughout the study area to the fraction 

of each land cover type in each zone. This approach will allow for a more 

relevant assessment of the importance of resources in each zone during project 

review and determine where the conservation focus should be for each part of 

the study area. 

Land cover types are grouped by natural community and shown in Figures 3-2 

through 3-5. The conservation priorities in each CZ were determined by (1) the 

rarity of the resource in the zone and in the study area, (2) the current and 

future threats on the persistence of the resource in the zone and in the study 

area, and (3) the acreage of the land cover type under protection in each zone 

relative to its distribution in the study area. 

3.5 Conservation Goals and Objectives 

Most of the conservation goals and objectives are designed at least to maintain 

current populations of focal and other native species in the study area. In some 

cases, populations of focal species are expected to increase as a result of land 

preservation, management, habitat enhancement, habitat restoration, and 

habitat creation. Each conservation goal is supported by several conservation 

objectives, presented below. All conservation goals and objectives will be 

achieved through the implementation of conservation actions at the project 

level. 

1 In addition, major roadways such as I-580 create barriers for many of the focal species (e.g., California red-legged 

frog) making it more realistic to split such subwatersheds into separate conservation zones. 


ICF 00906.08


3.5.1 Landscape-Level Goals and Objectives 

3.5.1.1 Landscape Goals and Objectives 

Goal 1 

Goal 2 

Protect and enhance natural and semi-natural landscapes that are large enough 

to accommodate natural processes beneficial to populations of native species. 

Objective 1.1. Protect a range of environmental gradients (such as slope, 

elevation, aspect) across a diversity of natural communities within the 

conservation zones. 

Objective 1.2. Protect riverine systems and hydrologic function within the study 

area through protection and management of terrestrial land covers, streams, 

ponds, and wetlands across all watersheds of the study area. 

Objective 1.3. Allow natural disturbance regimes required for natural 

community regeneration and structural diversity and native species germination 

and recruitment to occur on protected lands within the study area or implement 

management actions that mimic those natural disturbances. 

Objective 1.4. Eradicate or reduce the cover, biomass, and distribution of 

targeted nonnative invasive plants and reduce the number and distribution of 

nonnative invasive animals using IPM principles to enhance natural 

communities and native species habitat on protected lands within the study 

area. 

Objective 1.5. Reduce edge effects of development on natural and semi-natural 

landscapes. 

Maintain and enhance the effective movement and genetic exchange of native 

organisms within and between natural communities inside and outside the 

study area. 

Objective 2.1. Maintain connectivity for wildlife populations inside the study 

area through protection and enhancement of functional linkages across I-580 

and I-680 to allow for movement of focal and other native species. 

• Conservation Action LAN-1. Identify important linkages and pinch-points for 

wildlife connectivity along major roadways and prioritize them for 

protection and/or enhancement. 

• Conservation Action LAN-2. Protect and enhance important linkages and 

pinch-points to encourage wildlife passage through the use of strategically 


ICF 00906.08


placed fencing and vegetation, especially along riparian corridors and at 

roadway underpasses. 

• Conservation Action LAN-3. Where biologically appropriate, resize or 

redesign culverts to better accommodate wildlife passage under major 

roadway barriers. 

• Conservation Action LAN-4. Fund and implement a monitoring program both 

to identify important linkages along major barriers and to determine the 

effectiveness of enhancement actions at protected undercrossing points 

Objective 2.2. Protect and enhance habitat linkages between the study area and 

lands outside of the study area to enhance regional connectivity. 

• Conservation Action LAN-5. Coordinate acquisitions related to mitigation or 

other conservation in eastern Alameda County with conservation programs 

in adjacent counties. 

Objective 2.3. Retain, and if possible, increase the functionality of movement 

corridors across Vasco Road, the South Bay Aqueduct, SR 84, I-580, and I-680 for 

a range of species to move safely within and through the study area. 

• Conservation Action LAN-6. Identify known crossings and potential 

crossings for San Joaquin kit fox, American badger, and other highly mobile 

mammalian species. 

• Conservation Action LAN-7. Identify existing crossings with suitable habitat 

for focal species on both sides of the roadway (e.g., crossings with California 

tiger salamander breeding habitat on both sides of the underpass). 

Goal 3 

Maintain a coordinated “Protected Lands” database that tracks the total 

acreage of each natural community as well as documented occurrences of focal 

species on current and newly acquired parcels in the study area. 

Objective 3.1. Develop, maintain, and administer a protected lands database. 

3.5.1.2 Regional Connectivity and Habitat Linkages 

Landscape-level goals are intended to maintain and enhance the effective 

movement and genetic exchange of native organisms within and between 

natural communities inside and outside the study area (Goal 2). In order to 

maintain connectivity for wildlife populations within the study area, projectdriven 

mitigation and independent conservation actions would need to protect 

and enhance functional linkages across major highways (e.g., I-580 and I-680) to 

allow for movement of species (Objective 2.1). Initially, the Implementation 

Committee could identify important linkages and “pinch-points” (migration 

areas with restricted or disturbed corridors) to prioritize for protection or 


ICF 00906.08


enhancement (LAN-1). The functionality of movement corridors across Vasco 

Road, SR 84, I-580, and I-680 have already been identified as important 

movement corridors within the study area that should be enhanced (Objective 

2.3). Wildlife passage through important corridors could be encouraged by 

using strategically placed fencing and vegetation, especially along riparian 

corridors and at roadway underpasses (LAN-2), and by resizing or redesigning 

culverts (LAN-3). A monitoring program could help identify linkages and 

determine the effectiveness of enhancement actions (LAN-4). This could be a 

grant-funded initiative that is conducted across the study area. Known and 

potential crossings should be identified for San Joaquin kit fox, American 

badger, and other highly mobile mammalian species (LAN-6). Crossings on 

either side of roadways should also be identified for focal species, such as 

California tiger salamander, which may have breeding habitat on both sides of 

an underpass (LAN-7). 

To enhance regional connectivity, the coordinated mitigation and independent 

conservation actions would also need to protect and enhance habitat linkages 

between the study area and lands outside the study area (Objective 2.2). Land 

acquisitions related to mitigation or other conservation in eastern Alameda 

County could be coordinated with conservation programs in neighboring 

counties (LAN-5). A “Protected Lands” database should be developed to track 

the total acreage of each natural community and to document occurrences of 

focal species on current parcels in the study area as well as on newly acquired 

parcels (Goal 3). The Implementation Committee would identify the entity that 

would develop, maintain, and administer this database (LAN-8). 

3.5.2 Natural Community–Level Goals and Objectives 

Conservation goals developed at the community level aim to protect and 

enhance the functionality and ecological value of each natural community. 

Goals and objectives were developed for four terrestrial communities in the 

study area: grassland, chaparral and scrub, oak woodland, and conifer 

woodland. For aquatic communities, the conservation goals mainly strive to 

improve the overall quality of aquatic and riparian communities as well as the 

hydrologic and geomorphic processes that support them to maintain functional 

aquatic communities. Conservation goals and objectives were developed for 

three aquatic communities: riparian forest and scrub, wetland and pond, and 

streams. By focusing protection goals and management objectives at the natural 

community level, the strategy would benefit focal species and native 

biodiversity would not decrease. Goals and objectives for each natural 

community are described below. 

To determine the best use of a conservation site, Conservation Strategy users 

will have to determine the most immediate conservation need on that site and 

manage it accordingly. Where conflicts arise between common communities, 

such as oak woodland and annual grassland, this management decision could 


ICF 00906.08


favor either type; for instance, restoration of oak woodland would necessarily 

supplant annual grassland. However, for rare natural communities, where 

protection opportunities are more limited, achieving the goals and objectives 

for those communities would likely supersede goals and objectives for common 

natural communities. 

To ensure the effective management of natural communities and the 

management rights of parcels that support them, parcels need to be acquired, 

either through fee title purchase or by placement of conservation easements. In 

most cases, protection of additional land will result from mitigation 

requirements related to project-level impacts. In some cases, land acquisition 

could be achieved through conservation efforts by local conservation groups or 

local agencies, or through expansion of the ownership of East Bay Regional Park 

District or other land managing organizations. In cases where the parcel is not 

sought for mitigation credit, management could be guaranteed through other 

written assurances (e.g., management plans with long-term endowments, deed 

restrictions) with private landowners. 

3.5.2.1 Grassland 

Conservation Goals and Objectives 

Goal 4 

Protect and enhance functional grassland communities (alkali meadow and 

scald, California annual grassland, non-serpentine native bunchgrass grassland, 

serpentine bunchgrass grassland, rock outcrop, valley sink scrub) that benefit 

focal species and promote native biodiversity. 

Objective 4.1. Field verify the Conservation Strategy land cover map of native 

grasslands and create a refined map that better accounts for mapped stands. 

• Conservation Action GRA-1. During project-level analysis of parcels with 

proposed impacts, applicants will provide information on grassland stand 

size and species composition to the authorizing land use jurisdiction as part 

of the permit process for inclusion into the Conservation Strategy database. 

• Conservation Action GRA-2. During assessment of lands for mitigation, the 

entity fulfilling mitigation requirements will provide information on 

grassland stand size and species composition to the authorizing land use 

jurisdiction for inclusion into the Conservation Strategy database. All stands 

of grassland composed of >10% native species will be spatially mapped to 

the extent possible. 

Objective 4.2. Avoid or minimize direct impacts on grassland communities 

during project construction and indirect impacts that result from postproject 

activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3-2 and 3-3. 


ICF 00906.08


Objective 4.3. To ensure that the full range of grassland community 

associations persist in the study area at a level that will sustain the natural 

processes and native species diversity typically found in this natural community, 

guarantee the management (through permanent protection or written 

assurances) on 75% (~75,542 acres) of California annual grassland, 90% (~60 

acres) of serpentine bunchgrass grasslands, 90% (~43 acres) of rock outcrops, 

90% (773 acres) of alkali meadow and scald, and 90% (114 acres) of valley sink 

scrub for ecosystem function expected within the study area. 

• Conservation Action GRA-3. Mitigate the loss of grassland natural 

communities. For impacts on grassland communities that do not provide 

habitat for focal species, impacts will be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 through 

the appropriate CEQA process. Mitigation for the loss of annual grasslands 

that provide focal species habitat will be consistent with focal species 

standardized mitigation tables. 

• Conservation Action GRA-4. Acquire and manage, through fee title purchase 

or conservation easement, parcels with grassland communities that benefit 

focal species or otherwise meet the conservation goals and objectives of 

this strategy. 

• Conservation Action GRA-5. Establish an incentive program for private 

landowners for the management of grassland communities on private lands 

that will support native vegetation by promoting regeneration and 

recruitment of native species while supporting the natural processes that 

are typically found in grassland communities. 

Objective 4.4. Enhance appropriate grasslands in the study area (i.e., grasslands 

that retain native seed stock) by promoting regeneration and recruitment of 

native species and, when necessary, mimicking natural processes that typically 

characterize these natural communities in eastern Alameda County. 

• Conservation Action GRA-6. Continue or introduce livestock grazing in a 

variety of grazing regimes by enhancing the ability of rancher stewardship 

and managed livestock grazing to occur consistent with Objectives 1.2, 1.3 

and 1.4. 

• Conservation Action GRA-7. Conduct prescribed burns. Use targeted studies 

to inform location and frequency. 

• Conservation Action GRA-8. Conduct mowing in small-scale, select areas to 

reduce plant height and biomass cover where use of livestock is impractical. 

• Conservation Action GRA-9. Identify areas in the study area where shrub- or 

tree-dominated plant communities are encroaching on native grasslands 

due to lack of natural disturbance regimes (e.g., fire) and, if appropriate, 

work to reduce the encroachment in order to restore the function of native 

grasslands. 

Conservation Action GRA-10. When rodent management is needed to protect 

the integrity of structures such as levees or stock pond dams or to prevent 


ICF 00906.08


nuisance populations on adjacent private lands, encourage land managers to 

use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) principles. Cease using rodenticides in 

protected areas; if they are necessary, use rodenticides consistent with IPM 

principles. 

Objective 4.5. Work with private landowners to develop an incentive program 

that would enable conservation to occur on private lands that would meet the 

conservation goals and objectives of this strategy. 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation 

Direct impacts on grasslands resulting from project construction and indirect 

impacts resulting from postproject activities should be avoided or minimized 

(Objective 4.2). Avoidance measures outlined in Table 3-2 and 3-3 should be 

implemented to avoid these direct and indirect impacts. Any impacts that 

cannot be avoided will be mitigated. Most mitigation in grassland communities 

will be determined at the focal species level. Impacts on grassland communities 

that do not provide habitat for focal species will be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 

through the appropriate CEQA process. When focal species or their habitat are 

present, measures would be outlined in the Section 7 consultation (federal 

projects), consistent with USFWS’s programmatic biological opinion or an 

individual section 7 biological opinion. If state-listed species are present, then a 

permit under CESA is required if there will be take. Provisions in that permit 

would call for the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of grassland 

communities. 

Management 

Management could enhance grassland communities in several ways. Effective 

grassland management should support native vegetation by promoting 

regeneration and recruitment of native species and fostering the natural 

processes of grassland communities (GRA-5). When necessary, this could 

include mimicking natural processes that typically occur in these communities in 

eastern Alameda County (Objective 4.4). Most grasslands in the study area 

occur on private lands, many of which are actively grazed rangelands. In order 

to manage this natural community at a regional scale, an incentive program for 

private landowners should be established to guide and support private 

stewardship of these lands (GRA-5). Other management tools that could be 

continued or established include livestock grazing, using a variety of grazing 

regimes (GRA-6), mowing techniques to reduce plant height and biomass cover 

where use of livestock is impractical (GRA-8), and prescribed burns in targeted 

areas (GRA-7). This would require a grazing management plan and should be 

standardized on the basis of scientific evidence and onsite conditions. 

Incentives could include enhanced water stations for cattle to evenly distribute 

animals, compensation for loss of grazing time when seasonal grazing is 


ICF 00906.08


required, and funding for infrastructure (cross fences) to better manage animal 

movement and distribution. Species experts, vegetation ecologists, and 

rangeland managers would need to provide advice on the location and 

frequency of these management techniques because site-specific conditions 

typically determine the best regime. Many other grassland-specific conservation 

actions are discussed below for individual focal species. 

Protection 

In addition to enhancing grasslands, it is important that a full range of grassland 

associations persist in the study area to sustain natural processes and native 

species diversity. The best way to ensure the continued persistence of 

grassland communities in the study area is to increase the extent of protected 

grassland communities. To accomplish this, parcels with grassland land cover 

types that would benefit focal species or otherwise meet the conservation goals 

and objectives for this strategy should be acquired through fee title purchase or 

conservation easement (GRA-4). Permanent protection or written assurances 

with private landowners should be placed on at least 75% (approximately 

75,542 acres) of California annual grassland, 90% (approximately 60 acres) of 

serpentine bunchgrass grasslands, 90% (approximately 43 acres) of rock 

outcrops, 90% (approximately 773 acres) of alkali meadow and scald, and 90% 

(114 acres) of valley sink scrub within the study area (Objective 4.3). 

Specific Conservation Opportunities 

In all Conservation Zones, protection of annual grassland should be prioritized 

to favor areas surrounding ponds that support breeding California red-legged 

frog, California tiger salamander, or tricolored blackbird, particularly those areas 

within 1 mile of known breeding sites for these species; or areas that provide 

denning, foraging, and dispersal habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. 

• CZ-4. This CZ contains 742 acres of alkali meadow and scald. Protection and 

management of at least 388 acres of this land cover is a high priority, 

particularly in areas of designated critical habitat for vernal pool fairy 

shrimp (Table 4-4 and Table 4-19a). 

• CZ-6. This CZ contains 71 acres of rock outcrop (72% of the study area’s total 

unprotected acreage). Protection of at least 24 acres of this land cover is a 

high priority; particularly in areas of designated critical habitat for longhorn 

fairy shrimp (see Chapter 4 and Table 4-4 for more details). 


ICF 00906.08


3.5.2.2 Chaparral and Coastal Scrub 


Goal 5 

Protect and enhance functional chaparral and coastal scrub communities 

(northern mixed chaparral/chamise chaparral, mixed serpentine chaparral, 

northern coastal scrub/Diablan sage scrub) that benefit focal species and 

promote native biodiversity. 

Objective 5.1. Avoid or minimize direct impacts on chaparral and scrub 

communities during project construction and indirect impacts that result from 

postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Tables 

3-2 and 3-3. 

Objective 5.2. To ensure that the full range of chaparral and coastal scrub 

community associations persist in the study area at a level that will sustain the 

natural processes and native species diversity typically found in this natural 

community, guarantee the management (through permanent protection) on 

75% (~2,013 acres) of northern mixed chaparral/chamise chaparral stands, 75% 

(~1,251 acres) of northern coastal scrub/Diablan sage scrub stands, 90% (~3,361 

acres) of mixed serpentine chaparral stands for ecosystem function expected 

within the study area. 

• Conservation Action CCS-1. Mitigate the loss of chaparral and coastal scrub 

natural communities by protecting existing stands through fee title 

purchase or conservation easement. Impacts on chaparral and coastal scrub 

communities that do not provide habitat for focal species will be mitigated 

at a ratio of 3:1 through the appropriate CEQA process. The loss of chaparral 

and coastal scrub that provide focal species habitat will be mitigated 

consistent with focal species standardized mitigation tables. 

• Conservation Action CCS-2. Acquire parcels, with stands of chaparral and 

coastal scrub, through fee title purchase or conservation easement 

• Conservation Action CCS-3. Establish an incentive program for private 

landowners to guarantee the management of chaparral and coastal scrub 

land cover types on private lands which will promote regeneration and 

recruitment of native species and support the natural processes which are 

typically found in this natural community. 

Objective 5.3. Enhance all stands of chaparral and coastal scrub in the study 

area that are being managed for ecosystem function by promoting regeneration 

and recruitment of native species and, when necessary, mimicking natural 

processes (e.g., fire) that are typically found in these natural communities in 

eastern Alameda County but are currently being suppressed. 


ICF 00906.08


• Conservation Action CCS-4. Conduct prescribed burns in chaparral and 

coastal scrub communities to maintain canopy gaps and promote 

regeneration. This would require active participation and permitting from 

Cal Fire and the Air Quality Control District. Use targeted studies to choose 

locations and frequency [Targeted studies would require grant funding]. 

• Conservation Action CCS-5. Mechanically thin chaparral and coastal scrub to 

promote structural diversity. Use targeted studies to inform location and 

frequency and compare results between mechanically thinned only stands, 

burned only stands, and mechanically thinned and burned stands to. Over 

the long-term utilize management practice that demonstrates best results. 

• Conservation Action CCS-6. Identify areas in the study area where treedominated 

plant communities (e.g. foothill pine-oak woodland) are 

encroaching on chaparral and scrub communities due to the suppression of 

natural disturbance (e.g., fire). In areas where this encroachment is affecting 

rare plant communities, work to reduce the encroachment through 

mechanical means if natural disturbance is being suppressed. 


The location of these land cover types and opportunities for conservation are 

discussed in Chapter 4 for each Conservation Zone and below under Specific 

Conservation Opportunities in this section. 

Since this land cover type is slow growing and difficult to restore, chaparral and 

coast scrub communities would benefit most from avoidance at the project 

level. This approach would be most successful if measures were incorporated 

into project design to address effects that could occur both during and after 

construction. In addition, the amount of chaparral and coastal scrub that is 

protected and managed for ecosystem function should be increased. To ensure 

that conservation goals are met for the entire study area and not just on 

protected lands, an incentive program could be established for private 

landowners to facilitate and guide the management of chaparral and coastal 

scrub communities on their lands (CCS-3). See Chapter 5, Section 5.7, 

Conservation Actions Unrelated to Mitigation – Voluntary Conservation Actions, 

for suggested incentive programs. 

Chaparral and coastal scrub communities should be avoided during project 

construction and during postproject activities, if possible (Objective 5.1). If 

impacts do occur, the project proponent would mitigate any loss of chaparral 

and coastal scrub natural communities (CCS-1). If no state or federally listed 

species occur on the project site then the avoidance, minimization, and 

mitigation requirements would need to be outlined in the CEQA document. 

Most mitigation in chaparral and scrub communities will be determined at the 

focal species level. Impacts on chaparral and scrub communities that do not 

provide habitat for focal species will be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1. When focal 


ICF 00906.08


species or their habitat are present, measures would be outlined in the Section 

7 consultation, consistent with USFWS’s programmatic biological opinion or an 

individual section 7 biological opinion. If state-listed species are present, a 

permit under CESA should be obtained if there will be take. Provisions in that 

permit would call for the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts on 

chaparral and scrub communities. 

Management 

All chaparral and coastal scrub stands in the study area that are currently being 

managed for ecosystem function should be enhanced where needed and where 

possible (Objective 5.3). Current management practices are restricted to grazing 

pressure. While grazing helps new chaparral and coastal scrub communities 

form establishing it does little to promote structural diversity and habitat 

enhancement for the ecosystem. Most enhancements could be accomplished 

through promoting regeneration or recruitment of chaparral and scrub stands 

and, when necessary, by mimicking natural processes (e.g., fire) typically found 

in these natural communities but that are currently being suppressed. To meet 

these conservation goals, local agencies or project proponents could coordinate 

or conduct prescribed burns in chaparral and coastal scrub communities to 

maintain canopy gaps and promote regeneration, using targeted studies to 

inform locations and frequency (CCS-4). Any implementation of prescribed 

burning would be carried out through coordination with Cal Fire and other local 

jurisdictions, and would adhere to regional air quality constraints. 

Where fire is not feasible, chaparral and coastal scrub communities could also 

be mechanically thinned to promote structural diversity (CCS-5). In areas where 

tree-dominated plant communities (e.g., foothill pine-oak woodland) are 

encroaching on chaparral and scrub land cover due to suppression of natural 

disturbance (e.g., fire), the land managers should work to reduce the 

encroachment if it is determined that this encroachment is affecting rare plant 

communities, degrading habitat quality for wildlife, or otherwise compromising 

the functions of the natural community. If natural disturbance is being 

suppressed and it is not feasible to reintroduce that disturbance onto the 

landscape, mechanical means may be necessary to reduce the encroachment 

(CCS-6). 

Protection 

In addition to enhancing chaparral and scrub habitats that are currently 

protected, it is also important that a full range of chaparral and scrub habitat 

associations persist in the study area to sustain natural processes and native 

species diversity. The best way to ensure the continued persistence of 

chaparral and scrub communities in the study area is to increase the amount 

that is protected. To accomplish this, parcels with chaparral and scrub 


ICF 00906.08


communities that would benefit focal species or otherwise meet the 

conservation goals and objectives of this strategy should be acquired through 

fee title purchase or conservation easement (CCS-2). Permanent protection 

with private landowners should be placed on at least 75% (~2,013 acres) of 

northern mixed chaparral/chamise chaparral stands, 75% (~1,251 acres) of 

northern coastal scrub/Diablan sage scrub stands, 90% (~3,361 acres) of mixed 

serpentine chaparral stands within the study area. 


• In all Conservation Zones, protection and management of chaparral and 

scrub stands should be prioritized in favor of stands that support known 

occurrences of, suitable habitat for, or critical habitat for Alameda 

whipsnake. 

• In many Conservation Zones there are stands of chaparral/scrub that are 

only partially protected. Protecting the full extent of those stands should be 

the priority in all cases. 

• CZ-17. There is currently only 1 acre of mixed serpentine chaparral habitat 

in this CZ. Verification of that stand and its protection should be a priority. 

• CZ-18. This CZ supports the largest stand of mixed serpentine chaparral 

habitat in the study area. Protection and management of at least 559 acres 

of northern mixed chaparral/chamise chaparral and 2,588 acres of mixed 

serpentine chaparral should be a priority. Though there is little threat to loss 

of these stands, the most diverse stand(s) could be located in this CZ. 

3.5.2.3 Oak Woodland 


Goal 6 

Protect and enhance functional oak woodland communities (blue oak 

woodland, valley oak woodland, coast live oak forest and woodland, mixed 

evergreen forest/oak woodland) to benefit focal species and promote the level 

of native biodiversity expected to occur within this natural community in the 

study area. 

Objective 6.1. Field verify the Conservation Strategy land cover map of oak 

woodland stands and create a refined map that reflects oak species 

composition. 

• Conservation Action OAK-1. During project-level analysis of parcels with 

proposed impacts, applicants will provide information on oak woodland 

stand size and species composition to the authorizing land use jurisdiction 


ICF 00906.08


as part of the permit process for inclusion in the Conservation Strategy 

database. 

• Conservation Action OAK-2. During assessment of lands for mitigation the 

entity fulfilling mitigation requirements will provide information on oak 

woodland stand size and species composition to the authorizing land use 

jurisdiction for inclusion in the Conservation Strategy database. 

Objective 6.2. Avoid or minimize direct impacts on oak woodland communities 



Objective 6.3. To ensure that the full range of oak woodland associations 

persist in the study area at levels that will sustain the natural processes and 

native species diversity typically found in this natural community, guarantee the 

management (through permanent protection or written assurances) on 75% 

(~15,614 acres) of blue oak woodland stands, 75% (~694 acres) of coast live oak 

forest and woodland stands, 75% (~16,633 acres) of mixed evergreen forest/oak 

woodland stands, 90% (total acreage unknown) of valley oak woodland, and 

90% (total acreage unknown) of black oak woodland stands for ecosystem 

function expected within the study area. 

• Conservation Action OAK-3. Mitigate loss of oak woodland habitats. Impacts 

on oak woodland communities that do not provide habitat for focal species 

will be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 through the appropriate CEQA process. 

The loss of oak woodlands that provide focal species habitat will be 

mitigated consistent with focal species standardized mitigation tables. 

• Conservation Action OAK-4. Acquire parcels with stands of oak woodland 

that meet the conservation goals and objectives of this strategy through fee 

title purchase or conservation easement. 

• Conservation Action OAK-5. Establish an incentive program for private 

landowners to guarantee the management of oak woodland communities 

on private lands that will promote regeneration and recruitment of native 

species and support the natural processes typically found in this natural 

community. 

Objective 6.4. Enhance all stands of oak woodland in the study area that are 

being managed for ecosystem function by promoting regeneration and 

recruitment of oak trees and, when necessary, by mimicking natural processes 

typically found in oak woodlands in eastern Alameda County. 

• Conservation Action OAK-6. Increase natural community function in oak 

woodland communities, including the likelihood that they will support focal 

species, by reducing percent cover and total biomass of nonnative invasive 

plants listed by Cal-IPC in protected oak woodland stands in the study area. 

• Conservation Action OAK-7. Identify areas of oak woodlands where 

recruitment has been suppressed or is not occurring. Assess why 


ICF 00906.08


recruitment of oaks is not occurring and where supplemental plantings 

could be used to increase the recruitment of oak species. 

• Conservation Action OAK-8. Reduce the feral pig population in protected 

areas to reduce impacts on oak woodland communities through targeted 

hunting programs or incentivized hunting on private lands in coordination 

with CDFG. 


Initially, the oak woodland communities in the study area should be field 

verified by comparing field analysis to the Conservation Strategy land cover map 

of oak woodland stands. Any updates to the existing data should result in the 

creation of a refined map that reflects oak species composition (Objective 6.1). 

This would occur during project-level analysis of parcels with proposed impacts 

or during assessment of lands proposed for mitigation. The entity fulfilling 

mitigation requirements (or the landowner attempting to gain mitigation credit) 

should provide additional information on the size and species composition of 

oak woodland stands on the subject parcel for inclusion into the Conservation 

Strategy database (OAK-1, OAK-2). This information would be provided to the 

authorizing land use jurisdiction(s) as part of the permit process. 

Since restoring oak woodland habitats is difficult, avoiding impacts on existing 

stands is the best form of mitigation in all cases. Direct and indirect impacts on 

oak woodland communities should be avoided or minimized during project 

construction and postproject activities to ensure the continued protection of 

oak woodland communities in the study area through the implementation of 

avoidance and minimization measures outlined in Table 3-2 and 3-3. Additional 

site-specific measures should be considered for all projects with potential 

impacts on oak woodlands. Impacts on oak woodland communities that cannot 

be avoided would be mitigated by project applicants. In some cases, the level of 

mitigation would be related to impacts on focal species; all mitigation would 

defer to focal species habitat requirements if focal species habitat were 

documented on the site. 

If no state- or federally listed species occur on the project site, then the 

avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements would need to be 

outlined in the CEQA document. Most mitigation in oak woodland communities 

will be determined at the focal species level. Impacts on oak woodland 

communities that do not provide habitat for focal species will be mitigated at a 

ratio of 3:1. When federally listed species or their habitat are present, measures 

would be outlined in a Section 7 consultation (federal projects), consistent with 

USFWS’s programmatic biological opinion or an individual section 7 biological 

opinion. If state-listed species are present, a permit under CESA should be 

obtained if there will be take. Provisions in that permit would call for the 

avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts on oak woodland 

communities. 


ICF 00906.08


Management 

Oak woodland stands could be enhanced by promoting oak recruitment 

(mimicking natural processes if necessary), reducing percent cover and biomass 

of nonnative plants, and promoting natural community function (OAK-6). If 

recruitment is not occurring or is suppressed, the cause should be determined. 

If appropriate, supplemental plantings should be used to increase the 

recruitment of oak species in oak woodland stands (OAK-7). These plantings 

would need to be protected against herbivory. If there is a larger-scale issue 

suppressing regeneration then plantings will likely not be a successful approach 

to correcting the problem. An incentive program for private landowners could 

be established to guarantee the management of oak woodland communities on 

private lands. Finally, the feral pig population in protected areas should be 

reduced to lessen impacts on oak woodland communities. Targeted hunting 

programs or incentivized hunting on private lands are possible methods that 

could be used to effectively manage the feral pig population in these areas 

(OAK-8). 

Protection 

In addition to enhancing oak woodland communities, it is important that a full 

range of oak woodland associations persist in the study area to sustain natural 

processes and native species diversity (Objective 6.3). The best way to ensure 

the continued persistence of oak woodland communities in the study area is to 

increase the amount of protected oak woodland communities. To accomplish 

this, parcels with stands of oak woodland would need to be acquired through 

fee title purchase or conservation easement (OAK-4). Some of this would occur 

as the result of mitigation for impacts on oak woodland stands or through 

purchase for open space or other conservation purpose. Similar management 

assurances could occur through guaranteed management plans. For example, 

private landowners could enter into contracts with the Implementation 

Committee with a commitment to manage their oak woodlands according to an 

approved management plan. Through permanent protection, the 

Implementation Committee could strive for the guarantee of effectively 

managing ecosystem function on 75% (approximately 15,614 acres) of blue oak 

woodland stands, 75% (approximately 694 acres) of coast live oak forest and 

woodland stands, 75% (approximately 16,633 acres) of mixed evergreen 

forest/oak woodland stands, 90% (total acreage unknown) of valley oak 

woodland stands, and 90% (total acreage unknown) of black oak woodland 

stands (Objective 6.3). 


ICF 00906.08



• The protection goals for oak woodland communities in each conservation 

zone are shown in Chapter 4. Below is a list of specific opportunities for this 

natural community. 

• CZ-2, CZ-3, CZ-5, and CZ-6. There is minimal oak woodland acreage in these 

Conservation Zones. Avoiding impacts on all stands of oak woodland is 

preferred. 

• The greatest opportunities to protect large extents of oak woodland are in 

CZ-8, CZ-13, CZ-16, and CZ-18. However, with the exception of CZ-8, most of 

these areas are under little threat. Smaller stands of oak woodland in CZ-9, 

CZ-11, CZ-12, CZ-13, CZ-14, and CZ-15 are a higher conservation priority 

because they are more likely threatened by land use changes and because 

they represent the edges, or ecotones, of this community in the study area. 

3.5.2.4 Conifer Woodland 


Goal 7 

Protect and enhance functional conifer woodland communities (foothill pineoak 

woodland, Sargent cypress woodland) that benefit focal species and 

promote native biodiversity. 

Objective 7.1. Avoid or minimize direct impacts on conifer woodland 


postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Tables 

3-2 and 3-3. 

Objective 7.2. To ensure the full range of conifer woodland associations persist 

in the study area at levels that will sustain the natural processes and native 

species diversity typically found in this natural community, guarantee the 

management (through permanent protection or written assurances) of 75% 

(~15,077 acres) of foothill pine-oak woodland stands and 90% (~588 acres) of 

Sargent cypress woodland stands for ecosystem function expected within the 

study area. 

• Conservation Action CON-1. Mitigate loss of conifer woodland habitats. 

Impacts on conifer woodland communities that do not provide habitat for 

focal species will be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1. The loss of conifer 

woodlands that provide focal species habitat will be mitigated consistent 

with focal species standardized mitigation tables. 


ICF 00906.08


• Conservation Action CON-2. Acquire parcels with stands of conifer woodland 


title purchase or conservation easement. 

• Conservation Action CON-3. Establish an incentive program for private 

landowners to guarantee the management of conifer woodland land cover 

types on their properties that will promote regeneration and recruitment of 

native species and support the natural processes typically found in this 

natural community. 

Objective 7.3. Enhance stands of conifer woodland in the study area that are 

being managed for ecosystem function to maintain a mosaic of stands in 

numerous successional stages that ensure sustainability and maximize native 

species diversity a by allowing for succession and regeneration of native species 

and, when necessary, by mimicking natural processes typically found in conifer 

woodlands in eastern Alameda County. 

• Conservation Action CON-4. To increase natural community function in 

conifer woodland communities, including the likelihood that they will 

support focal species, reduce the percent cover and total biomass of 

nonnative invasive plants in protected conifer woodland stands in the study 

area. 

• Conservation Action CON-5. Diagnose loss of recruitment and if appropriate 

use supplemental plantings to increase the recruitment of conifer species in 

stands of conifer woodland where recruitment has been suppressed or is 

not occurring. 

• Conservation Action CON-6. Experimentally introduce management 

practices (e.g., selective thinning, prescribed burning) to help identify 

significant factors in conifer woodland functionality [this would likely be a 

grant-funded initiative and not mitigation related]. 

• Conservation Action CON-7. In coordination with Cal Fire and Alameda 

County, establish “let-burn” zones in portions of Alameda County where 

fires would be allowed to burn to encourage the role that fire plays in 

management of this natural community. 

Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation 

Direct and indirect impacts on conifer woodland communities should be 

avoided or minimized during project construction and postproject activities 

(Objective 7.1). Avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3-2 and 3-3 should be 

implemented to decrease the likelihood that impacts will occur. Impacts on 

conifer woodland communities that cannot be avoided would be mitigated by 

project applicants. In some cases the level of mitigation would be related to 

focal species impacts; all mitigation would defer to focal species habitat 

requirements if focal species habitat were documented on the site. 


ICF 00906.08


If no state- or federally listed species occur within the project site, the 

avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements would need to be 

outlined in the CEQA document. Most mitigation in conifer woodland 

communities will be determined at the focal species level. When federally listed 

species or their habitat are present, measures would be outlined in a Section 7 

consultation (federal projects), consistent with USFWS’s programmatic 

biological opinion or an individual section 7 biological opinion. In either case, if 

state-listed species are present, a permit under CESA should be obtained if 

there will be take. Provisions in that permit would call for the avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation of impacts on conifer woodland communities. 

Management 

Conifer woodlands and conifer woodland associations should be enhanced in 

the study area through management that promotes ecosystem function, natural 

processes, and native species diversity typically found in this community 

(Objective 7.2, Objective 7.3). Stands could be enhanced by promoting 

ecologically appropriate structure, function, and species composition, 

facilitating succession and regeneration of native species. If necessary, stands 

could be improved by mimicking natural processes that are typically found in 

conifer woodlands in eastern Alameda County (Objective 7.3). Several 

management procedures could be used to increase natural community function 

in conifer woodland communities. Supplemental plantings could increase the 

recruitment of conifer species in areas where recruitment is suppressed or is 

not occurring (CON-5), and introducing experimental management practices, 

such as selective thinning, prescribed burning, or “let-burn” zones, could help 

identify significant factors in conifer woodland functionality (CON-6, CON-7). 

The Implementation Committee would coordinate with Cal Fire and Alameda 

County to establish “let-burn” zones in portions of Alameda County where fires 

would be allowed to burn if minimal structural damage would be incurred, 

damage could be offset through compensation, and no homes or life would be 

endangered (CON-7). The “let-burn” zones would encourage the role that fire 

plays in management of this natural community (CON-7). In turn, these 

management practices would support focal species while reducing the percent 

cover and biomass of nonnative invasive plants in protected conifer woodland 

stands in the study area (CON-4). 

Protection 

In order to increase the number of protected conifer woodland communities in 

the study area, the Implementation Committee should acquire parcels with 

stands of conifer woodland that meet the conservation goals and objectives of 

this strategy through fee title purchase or conservation easement (CON-2). The 

Implementation Committee could also promote the establishment of an 

incentive program for private landowners that guarantees the management of 


ICF 00906.08


conifer woodland communities on their properties. The management program 

would promote regeneration and recruitment of native species and support the 

natural processes typically found in this natural community (CON-3). Through 

permanent protection or written assurances, the Implementation Committee 

should guarantee the management of 75% (approximately 15,077 acres) of 

foothill pine-oak woodland stands and 90% (approximately 588 acres) of 

Sargent cypress woodland stands for ecosystem function (Objective 7.2). 


• CZ-13. This CZ contains the largest expanse of Sargent cypress woodland in 

the study area, estimated at 636 acres. Protection of at least 573 acres of 

this community should be a priority. 

• CZ-12. This CZ contains 90% (13 acres) of the study area’s unprotected 

Coulter pine woodland. Avoidance and protection of all of this land cover 

type is recommended. 

• The greatest opportunities to protect large extents of conifer woodland are 

in CZ-8, CZ-12, CZ-14, CZ-15, CZ-16, and CZ-17. However, with the exception 

of CZ-8 and CZ-12, most of these areas are under little threat. Smaller stands 

of conifer woodland in CZ-9, CZ-10, and CZ-11 are a higher conservation 

priority because they are more likely threatened by land use changes in the 

study area. 

3.5.2.5 Riparian Forest and Scrub 


Goal 8 

Improve the overall quality of riparian communities and the hydrologic and 

geomorphic processes that support them to increase the amount of riparian 

habitat for focal species and promote native biodiversity. 

Objective 8.1. Field verify the Conservation Strategy land cover map of riparian 

forest and scrub stands and create a refined map that reflects species 

composition, key riparian community attributes, and conservation opportunities 

at the stream reach level. 

• Conservation Action RIP-1. During project-level analysis of parcels with 

riparian vegetation, applicants will provide information on riparian forest 

and scrub stand size and species composition to the local authorizing land 

use jurisdiction as part of the permit process for inclusion in the 

Conservation Strategy database. 


ICF 00906.08


• Conservation Action RIP-2. During assessment of lands for mitigation the 

entity fulfilling mitigation requirements or the landowner seeking mitigation 

credit will provide information on riparian forest and scrub stand size and 

species composition to the authorizing land use jurisdiction for inclusion in 

the Conservation Strategy database. 

Objective 8.2. Avoid or minimize direct impacts on riparian forest and scrub 


postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Table 3-2 

and 3-3. 

Objective 8.3. To ensure that the full range of riparian forest and scrub 

associations persist in the study area at levels that will sustain the natural 

processes and native species diversity typically found in this natural community, 

guarantee the management (through permanent protection) of 90% (~238 

acres) of sycamore alluvial woodland stands, 75% (~1,529 acres) of mixed 

riparian forest and woodland stands, and 75% (~498 acres) of mixed willow 

riparian scrub stands that benefit focal species and promote native biodiversity. 

• Conservation Action RIP-3. Mitigate the loss of riparian forest and scrub 

communities. For impacts on riparian communities that do not provide 

habitat for focal species, mitigation will be determined based on the 

functions and values of the watercourse on that particular project site as 

well as the project’s impacts on channel form and geomorphic stability 

within and downstream of the project footprint. Mitigation for the loss of 

riparian forest and scrub that provides focal species habitat will be 

mitigated consistent with focal species standardized mitigation tables. 

• Conservation Action RIP-4. Acquire parcels with stands of riparian forest and 

scrub communities that meet the conservation goals and objectives of this 

strategy through fee title purchase or conservation easement. 

• Conservation Action RIP-5. Establish an incentive program (e.g., a riparian 

corridor easement program) for private landowners to guarantee the 

management and restoration of riparian forest and scrub communities on 

their lands to promote regeneration and recruitment of native species and 

support the natural processes typically found in this natural community and 

that ultimately contribute to the conservation objectives for this 

community. 

Objective 8.4. Increase riparian forest and scrub communities in the study area 

through restoration projects that will promote natural function, including the 

regeneration and recruitment of native species and, when necessary and 

approved, that mimic natural processes typically found in riparian communities 


• Conservation Action RIP-6. Create an incentive program (e.g., ecosystem 

services marketplace) that would encourage private and public landowners 


ICF 00906.08


to implement appropriate riparian forest and scrub restoration projects on 

their property. 

Objective 8.5. Enhance riparian forest and scrub stands that are protected and 

are being managed for ecosystem function by promoting natural function, 

including the regeneration and recruitment of native species, and when 

necessary, by mimicking natural processes (e.g., vegetation succession) typically 

found in riparian communities in the study area. 

• Conservation Action RIP-7. Where geomorphically feasible without causing 

damage to channel stability and habitat values, increase natural community 

function in riparian forest and scrub communities, including the likelihood 

that they will support focal species, by reducing the total percent cover and 

total biomass of nonnative riparian plants in protected riparian areas in the 

study area. 

• Conservation Action RIP-8. Where appropriate to the naturally occurring 

riparian vegetation community that would be present without 

anthropogenic stressors, and under the natural flow regime of the creek, 

plant and/or seed native understory and overstory riparian vegetation 

within an appropriate buffer (30–100 feet) of the edge of the low-flow 

channel to create structural diversity, provide overhead cover, and 

moderate water temperature. 

• Conservation Action RIP-9. Where appropriate to the naturally occurring 

riparian vegetation community that would be present without 

anthropogenic stressors, and under the natural flow regime of the creek, 

plant and/or seed native riparian vegetation in gaps in existing riparian 

corridors to promote continuity and enhance connectivity. 

• Conservation Action RIP-10. Mimic natural disturbance in riparian habitats in 

the absence of scouring flood flows using techniques such as altering the 

channel, when alterations are geomorphically appropriate to prevent or 

correct channel degradation, or removing vegetation to ensure a variety of 

successional stages of riparian forest and scrub communities, when 

vegetation management is coordinated with and permitted by the resource 

agencies. 


Direct and indirect impacts on riparian forest and scrub communities should be 

avoided during construction and during postproject activities, respectively 

(Objective 8.2). Project applicants should implement avoidance measures 

outlined in Table 3-2 and 3-3 to help avoid any impacts on these communities 

(Objective 8.2). Development in these areas could reduce stream function and 

sometimes create perennial watercourses downstream where seasonal water 

courses previously occurred. This type of development can also limit 

opportunities for future stream restoration activities. If impacts do occur, the 


ICF 00906.08


project applicant will mitigate the loss of riparian forest and scrub communities. 

Typically, the mitigation in these communities will be determined based on 

standards set for focal species (Tables 3-4 through 3-12). In situations where no 

focal species or their habitat are present, mitigation will be determined on the 

basis of the functions and values of the watercourse on the project site. In these 

cases, mitigation ratios will be determined by CDFG through the Lake and 

Streambed Alteration Agreement. 

Management 

Restoration projects could be developed to encourage natural function and 

increase riparian forest and scrub communities in the study area. Restoration 

projects should promote the establishment and recruitment of native species 

and, if necessary, mimic natural processes to accomplish native species 

regeneration (Objective 8.4). Several types of restoration projects could be 

implemented in these communities. Native riparian plantings would create 

structural diversity, provide overhead cover, and moderate water temperature. 

Additionally, an incentive program could be created that could include 

streamlined permitting, funding, and a corridor easement program to 

encourage private and public landowners to conduct riparian forest and scrub 

restoration projects on their property (RIP-6). 

Effective management that promotes natural ecosystem function of protected 

riparian forest and scrub stands could also enhance these communities 

(Objective 8.5). Cover and biomass of nonnative riparian plants in protected 

riparian areas in the study area should be decreased. Reduction of nonnative 

species would increase natural community function and support focal species in 

these communities (RIP-7). Native riparian vegetation could also be planted or 

seeded in gaps in existing riparian corridors to promote continuity and enhance 

connectivity where appropriate (RIP-9). In the absence of scouring flood flows, 

techniques such as altering stream geometry or removing vegetation could be 

used to manage physical process and vegetation, but would require appropriate 

studies before implementation. These types of active management could 

ensure that a variety of successional stages of riparian forest and scrub 

communities would be present in the study area (RIP-10). The design and 

success criteria of each restoration project would be determined in 

consideration of site-specific conditions in coordination with the Resource 

Agencies. 

Protection 

The number of protected communities of riparian forest and scrub stands could 

be increased through acquiring parcels through fee title purchase or 

conservation easement. Project applicants could acquire parcels through fee 

title purchase or conservation easements to mitigate project impacts (RIP-3). To 


ICF 00906.08


accomplish conservation goals for this natural community several things will 

have to occur in addition to the mitigation of project impacts. The 

Implementation Committee could establish an incentive program for private 

landowners (RIP-5) to guarantee the management of riparian forest and scrub 

communities on private lands. Management plans for private lands would be 

developed to promote regeneration and recruitment of native species, support 

natural processes, and ultimately contribute to the conservation objectives for 

this natural community (RIP-5). 

The full range of riparian forest and scrub associations should persist in the 

study area at levels that will sustain the natural processes and native species 

diversity typically found in this natural community (Objective 8.3). To this end, 

the Implementation Committee should guarantee the management (through 

permanent protection or written assurances) of functional riparian forest and 

scrub communities in 90% (~238 acres) of sycamore alluvial woodland stands, 

75% (~1,529 acres) of mixed riparian forest and woodland stands, and 75% 

(~498 acres) of mixed willow riparian scrub stands (Objective 8.3). Effective 

management would improve sycamore alluvial woodland, mixed riparian forest 

and woodland, and mixed willow riparian scrub communities, benefitting focal 

species and promoting native biodiversity. 


• The extent of riparian forest and scrub communities is limited within the 

study area, and their conservation should be a priority for all conservation 

zones. 

• Identify and rank restoration opportunities for each conservation zone. 

• CZ-2, CZ-12, CZ-14, and CZ-15. Protect the remaining acreage of sycamore 

alluvial woodland. 

• Protect all remaining mixed riparian forest/woodland and mixed willow 

riparian scrub habitat in the study area. 

• CZ-8, CZ-11, CZ-14, CZ-15. Priority should be given to riparian forest and 

scrub in areas of dispersal habitat and designated critical habitat for 

Alameda whipsnake and California red-legged frog. 

• When restoration or management decision are made for focal fish or 

amphibian species, consideration of the long-term viability of those 

management actions should be considered relative to upstream water 

releases from dams. 

• CZ-10, CZ-13, CZ-17. Priority should be given to riparian forest and scrub 

communities in areas of potential foothill yellow-legged frog and California 

red-legged frog habitat and areas where the CNDDB lists occurrences. 

• CZ-13, CZ-15, CZ-17. Priority should be given to riparian forest and scrub 

communities in areas of future spawning and rearing habitat for central 


ICF 00906.08


coast steelhead, provided downstream barriers to movement are removed 

or passage opportunities are enhanced. 

3.5.2.6 Wetlands and Ponds 


Goal 9 

Improve the overall quality of wetlands (perennial freshwater marsh, seasonal 

wetland, alkali wetland); ponds; and their upland watersheds to maintain 

functional aquatic communities that benefit focal species and promote native 

biodiversity. 

Objective 9.1. Field verify the Conservation Strategy land cover map of seasonal 

and perennial wetlands and create a refined map that reflects habitat quality 

and restoration opportunities. 

• Conservation Action WP-1. During project-level analysis of parcels with 

wetlands or ponds, project applicants will provide information on the size of 

the aquatic feature and a characterization of habitat quality to the local 

authorizing land use jurisdiction as part of the permit process, regardless of 

whether that feature will be affected by the project, for inclusion in the 

Conservation Strategy database. 

• Conservation Action WP-2. During assessment of lands for mitigation the 

project applicant fulfilling mitigation requirements or the landowner seeking 

mitigation credit will provide information on wetland or pond size and a 

characterization of habitat quality to the authorizing land use jurisdiction for 

inclusion in the Conservation Strategy database. 

Objective 9.2. Avoid or minimize direct impacts on wetland or pond 


postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Table 3-2 

and 3-3. 

Objective 9.3. To ensure the full range of wetland and pond communities 

persist in the study area at levels that will sustain the natural processes and 

native species diversity supported by these natural communities, guarantee the 

management (through permanent protection, term protection or other types of 

written assurances) of 90% (~477 acres) of seasonal wetland, 90% (~56 acres) of 

perennial freshwater marsh, 90% (~549 acres) of alkali wetland, and 75% (~256 

acres) of ponds. 

• Conservation Action WP-3. Mitigate the loss of wetland and pond 

communities. Impacts on wetland and pond communities that do not 

provide habitat for focal species will be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 through 


ICF 00906.08


the appropriate CEQA process. The loss of wetlands and ponds that provide 

focal species habitat will be mitigated consistent with focal species 

standardized mitigation tables. 

• Conservation Action WP-4. Acquire parcels with wetland and pond 

communities or wetland restoration potential that meet the conservation 

goals and objectives of this strategy through fee title purchase or 

conservation easement. 

• Conservation Action WP-5. Support new incentive programs for private 

landowners to guarantee the management of wetland and pond 

communities on their lands. This could be completed through the 

implementation of management plans that will promote regeneration and 

recruitment of native species and that support the natural processes 

typically found in these natural communities and ultimately contribute to 

the conservation objectives. 

• Conservation Action WP-6. Facilitate a program to streamline permitting 

and registration of ponds in the study area to enable management activities 

that are necessary to maintaining ponds. Key maintenance activities could 

include periodic dredging; seasonal draining; and repair of dams, inlets, and 

spillways. 

Objective 9.4. Increase wetland and pond communities in the study area where 

possible through wetland restoration or pond creation projects. 

• Conservation Action WP-7. Restore wetlands in areas with proper hydrology, 

soils, and topography to support naturally occurring features without longterm 

human intervention. 

• Conservation Action WP-8. Plant and/or seed native wetland vegetation to 

create structural diversity, provide overhead cover, and moderate water 

temperature. 

• Conservation Action WP-9. Create new ponds in areas where there are gaps 

in connectivity between breeding sites for aquatic amphibians without 

adversely affecting downstream drainage patterns. 

Objective 9.5. Enhance wetlands and ponds that are protected and that are 

managed for ecosystem function by promoting natural function. Pond 

enhancements should be designed so that enhanced ponds dry in August or 

September during dry years to reduce bullfrog, fish, and hybrid California tiger 

salamanders. 

• Conservation Action WP-10. Control livestock grazing pressure in wetlands 

by maximizing animal distribution over the landscape through creation of 

alternative water sources and various types of fencing and seasonal grazing. 

• Conservation Action WP-11. To increase natural community function in 

wetland and pond communities, including the likelihood that they will 

support focal species, reduce the total percent cover and total biomass of 


ICF 00906.08


nonnative or invasive plants listed by California Invasive Plant Council in 

protected wetlands and ponds in the study area. 

• Conservation Action WP-12. Implement a systematic bullfrog and nonnative 

predatory fish removal project in all ponds and wetlands on protected lands 

inside the study area. 

• Conservation Action WP-13. Ensure that all wetland and pond mitigation 

lands include provisions in their management and monitoring programs to 

fund bullfrog and nonnative predatory fish removal and control. 

• Conservation Action WP-14. Create an incentive program that would 

encourage private landowners to maintain their properties free of bullfrogs 

and nonnative predatory fish. 

• Conservation Action WP-15. Remove California tiger salamander hybrid 

paedomorphs when found by a qualified biologist. 


The full range of wetland and pond communities should persist in the study area 

at levels that will sustain the natural processes and native species diversity 

supported by them (Objective 9.3). In order to ensure the persistence of these 

communities, impacts should be avoided or minimized during construction 

(direct) and postconstruction activities (indirect). Project applicants should 

implement avoidance measures outlined in Table 3-2 and 3-3 to reduce the 

likelihood that impacts may occur (Objective 9.2). If impacts do occur, the 

project applicants will mitigate the loss of wetland and pond communities (WP- 

3). In almost every case, the mitigation in these communities will be determined 

in accordance with standards set for focal species aquatic habitat. Mitigation for 

the loss of ponds should be developed in a manner that best represents the lost 

habitat and should not be based solely on net acres. For example, if two ponds 

of 0.5 acre each are destroyed at a construction site, then two or more ponds 

should be developed or protected at an offsite location, rather than a single 

large (1-acre) pond. 

If no focal species or their habitat are present, mitigation will be determined 

based on the functions and values of the specific wetland or pond on the project 

site. In such cases, mitigation ratios will be determined by the Corps, the 

RWQCB, or CDFG, depending upon jurisdiction. 

Management 

Wetland restoration or pond creation projects would increase wetland and 

pond communities in the study area (Objective 9.4). Projects could include 

restoring wetlands with proper hydrology, soils, and topography to support 

naturally occurring features without long-term human intervention (WP-7). 


ICF 00906.08


Native wetland vegetation could be planted or seeded to create structural 

diversity, provide overhead cover, and moderate water temperature (WP-8). 

New ponds could be created without affecting downstream drainage patterns in 

areas where there are gaps in connectivity between breeding sites for aquatic 

amphibians (WP-9). Any new pond construction that is intended as mitigation 

would need to be registered with the State Water Resources Control Board 

Division of Water Rights. An incentive program, including streamlined 

permitting, could be created that would encourage private and public 

landowners to implement wetland restoration projects on their property (WP- 

10). 

Protected wetlands and ponds could be effectively managed by promoting 

ecosystem function (Objective 9.4). Livestock grazing pressure should be 

controlled in wetlands where necessary to benefit focal species. If such control 

entails reducing grazing pressure around wetlands or ponds, alternative water 

sources should be provided in a manner that ensures habitat function of 

surrounding ponds and wetlands (WP-10). The percent cover and biomass of 

nonnative plants in protected wetlands and ponds in the study area should be 

reduced to help increase natural community function and support focal species 

in wetland communities (WP-11). In addition, a systematic bullfrog removal 

project in all ponds and wetlands on protected lands in the study area should be 

implemented (WP-12). This could include the partial filling of ponds (using a 

dozer) to capture bullfrogs in the pond after draining, and thereby reducing 

capacity (at least temporarily) or creating a more seasonal pond to benefit 

native amphibians. This approach would reduce the likelihood of bullfrogs 

dispersing to other nearby aquatic habitats. This could be partially funded using 

mitigation funds generated by projects that have impacts on pond or wetland 

habitats. Similar provisions in management and monitoring programs on 

mitigation lands should be included to fund bullfrog removal and control (WP- 

13, WP-14). Finally, an incentive program, including streamlined permitting, 

could be created to encourage private landowners to maintain a bullfrog-free 

property (WP-15). 

Protection 

The amount of protected land in the study area with these communities could 

be increased. Parcels with wetland and pond communities or wetland 

restoration potential could be acquired through fee title purchase or 

conservation easement (WP-4). In addition, the Implementation Committee 

could establish an incentive program for private landowners to guarantee the 

management of wetland and pond communities on their lands. Management 

plans that promote regeneration and recruitment of native species and support 

natural processes could be implemented throughout private lands in the study 

area. Guaranteed management of these natural communities on private lands 

would ultimately contribute to the conservation objectives (WP-5). 


ICF 00906.08


Through permanent protection or written assurances, the Implementation 

Committee should have as a goal the management of 90% (approximately 477 

acres) of seasonal wetland, 90% (approximately 56 acres) of perennial 

freshwater marsh, 90% (approximately 549 acres) of alkali wetland, and 75% 

(approximately 256 acres) of ponds (Objective 9.3). 

[Note: Due to the scale of air photo interpretation that was used to create the 

land cover map for this Conservation Strategy, many small wetlands and ponds 

may not be represented in land cover calculations. Field verifying this aquatic 

dataset at the parcel level would allow the Implementation Committee to 

greatly refine the long-term protection goals for this natural community.] 


• Prioritize the protection of ponds or wetlands that either support breeding 

California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, or tricolored 

blackbird or have the potential to be enhanced to support species in all CZs. 

Ponds within 1.3 miles of other known red-legged frog or tiger salamander 

breeding sites are the highest priority to retain key linkages for these 

species. 

• CZ-5, CZ-6, CZ-9, CZ-10. These areas support alkali wetland, a relatively rare 

community in the study area, which supports a high diversity of habitatdependent 

species. Protection of this community should be a priority. 

• CZ-4. This conservation zone contains a high percentage of the study area’s 

seasonal wetlands. Protection of at least 44 acres of seasonal wetland 

should be a priority in this conservation zone. 

3.5.2.7 Streams 


Goal 10 

Improve the overall quality of streams and the hydrologic and geomorphic 

processes that support them to maintain functional aquatic communities, 

benefitting focal species and promoting native biodiversity. 

Objective 10.1. Field verify the Conservation Strategy land cover map of streams 

and create a refined map that reflects hydroperiod, riparian species 

composition, and restoration or enhancement opportunities at the stream reach 

level. 

• Conservation Action STM-1. During project-level analysis of parcels with 

streams, applicants will provide information on the size of the aquatic 

feature and a characterization of habitat quality to the local authorizing land 


ICF 00906.08


use jurisdiction as part of the permit process, regardless of whether that 

feature will be affected by the project, for inclusion in the Conservation 

Strategy database. The assessment will include an assessment of channel 

form (e.g., bank-full depth and width, channel slope, channel sinuosity); 

watershed size; watershed land uses (focusing on subwatersheds that may 

impact channel stability at the project site, including the hydroperiod at the 

project site, and the watershed immediately downstream of the project 

site); sediment balance (for larger projects with impacts to the stream 

corridor); stream condition (e.g., stability of banks, presence of bank 

armoring, presence of structures within the stream channel, extent and 

health of vegetation in the stream channel); and surrounding land uses. 

Objective 10.2. Avoid or minimize direct impacts on streams during project 

construction and indirect impacts that result from postproject activities by 

implementing avoidance measures outlined in Table 3-2 and 3-3. 

• Conservation Action STM-2. To avoid additional impacts from development, 

the Steering Committee should encourage jurisdictions with planning 

authority to restrict changes in land use designation within the 100-year 

floodplain that would enable urban development within the floodplain and 

reduce stream function, limit natural migration of the stream over time, or 

limit opportunities for future stream restoration activities. In addition, 

development in the FEMA 100-year floodplain increases the risk of flooding 

downstream communities. Municipalities should also continue to enforce 

creek set-backs as defined by their respective ordinances. The set-back 

distance should be established by the natural channel’s sinuosity plus an 

agreed distance to allow for channel migration. 

Objective 10.3. To ensure that the full range of stream habitats persist in the 

study area at an extent that will sustain the natural processes and native species 

diversity typically found in this natural community, guarantee the management 

(through permanent protection or written assurances) of 90% (~191 miles) of 

stream habitat to benefit focal species and promote native biodiversity . 

• Conservation Action STM-3. Acquire parcels with stream restoration 

potential that meet the conservation goals and objectives of this strategy 

through fee title purchase or conservation easement. 

• Conservation Action STM-4. Establish new incentive programs for public 

and private landowners to guarantee the management of streams on their 

lands. This could be achieved through implementation of management 

plans that will promote regeneration and recruitment of native species and 

support the natural processes typically found in these natural communities. 

Objective 10.4. Increase natural stream habitat in the study area where 

possible through restoration projects. 

• Conservation Action STM-5. Restore streams in areas with proper hydrology, 

soils, and topography to support naturally occurring features that reduce 


ICF 00906.08


the need for long-term human intervention to maintain stream channel 

stability. 

• Conservation Action STM-6. Reconfigure or enhance stream channels to 

mimic natural stream channel systems by supporting the balanced transport 

of sediment and water (e.g. reconnecting the floodplain to the stream 

channel, establishing a low flow channel to efficiently transport sediment, 

and, where geomorphically appropriate, increasing channel complexity 

while increasing floodwater retention and detention capabilities. See 

Appendix G (Proposed new appendix with hydrology/habitat goals) for 

additional information on maintaining stable creek systems. 

• Conservation Action STM-7. Plant and/or seed native understory and 

overstory riparian vegetation within an appropriate buffer along the edge of 

the low-flow channel to create structural diversity, provide overhead cover, 

and moderate water temperature, creating a plant density that is 

appropriate to the naturally occurring vegetation community and stream 

type. Appropriate buffers should be based on the natural channel’s 

sinuosity plus an appropriate distance to allow for channel migration and to 

support viable, site-appropriate riparian plant communities. 

• Conservation Action STM-8. Identify highly erosive stream bank conditions 

and evaluate underlying causes of instability (e.g., roads, culverts, increased 

amounts of impervious surfaces in the watershed, decreased sediment 

load). Attempts should be made to restore an appropriate level of stability 

using biotechnical bank stabilization techniques. 

• Conservation Action STM-9. Where stream bank instability threatens the 

integrity of structures or infrastructure, restore an appropriate level of bank 

stability using biotechnical bank stabilization techniques to the maximum 

extent practicable. The use of hardscape to stabilize creek banks is not 

preferred in this Conservation Action, because hardscape does not provide 

habitat value to the channel and hardscape is not capable of adapting to 

minor changes in channel configuration. 

• Conservation Action STM-10. In areas where it has been determined that 

livestock grazing has decreased stream habitat quality, seasonally control 

livestock grazing pressure on near-stream and in-stream resources using 

exclusion fencing and addition of off-channel water sources. Sufficient 

access points and width of fenced areas should be maintained to allow for 

spot grazing when necessary. 


Direct and indirect impacts on streams should be avoided during construction 

and postproject activities, respectively (Objective 10.2). Project applicants 

should implement avoidance measures outlined in Table 3-2 and 3-3 to help 

avoid any impacts on these communities (Objective 10.2). To avoid additional 

impacts of development, the Implementation Committee could also restrict 


ICF 00906.08


changes in the land use designation that would allow urban development within 

the FEMA 100-year floodplain (STM-2). Development in these areas could 

reduce stream function or limit opportunities for future stream restoration 

activities. If impacts do occur, the project applicant will mitigate the loss of 

stream habitat. Typically, the mitigation in these communities will be based on 

standards set for focal species. In situations where no focal species or their 

habitat are present, mitigation will be determined on the basis of the functions 

and values of the watercourse on the individual project site. In such cases, 

mitigation ratios will be determined by the Corps (if impacts are below the 

ordinary high water mark), the RWQCB, CDFG, or all three. 

Management 

Stream restoration would increase aquatic habitat in the study area (Objective 

10.4). Projects could include restoring streams by fixing hardscaped and incised 

channels and removing riprap and barriers to fish and other aquatic species. 

These activities could result in proper hydrology, soils, and topography to 

support naturally occurring features that reduce the need for long-term human 

intervention (STM-5). Stream channels that have not experienced significant 

incision could be reconfigured to mimic natural channel systems by transporting 

both water and sediment in a proper balance, while supporting natural habitats 

(STM-6). For example, reconnecting streams to floodplains could increase 

channel complexity and return the system to a more natural state, while 

retaining flood retention capabilities. See Appendix G (New Appendix proposed 

by Water Board for hydrology goals) for additional guidance on maintaining 

stable and healthy creek systems. Native understory and overstory riparian 

vegetation could be planted and/or seeded (STM-7). Highly erosive stream 

banks could be identified and restored, ideally using biotechnical approaches 

(STM-8 and STM-9). Livestock grazing pressure near or in streams or stream 

resources could be lessened by using exclusion fencing or seasonal grazing. Offchannel 

water sources could be used to reduce grazing pressure on aquatic 

resources if needed (STM-10). If this method of grazing management is used, 

sufficient access points and width of fenced areas should be maintained to allow 

for spot grazing when necessary. 

Protection 

The amount of protected stream habitat in the study area could be increased. 

Parcels with stream restoration potential could be acquired through fee title 

purchase or conservation easement (STM-3). In addition, the Implementation 

Committee could establish an incentive program for private landowners to 

guarantee the management of stream habitat on their lands. Management 

plans that promote regeneration and recruitment of native species and support 

natural processes could be implemented throughout private lands in the study 


ICF 00906.08


area. Guaranteed management of streams on private lands would ultimately 

contribute to the conservation objectives (STM-4). 


• Prioritize the protection of streams that support focal species or have the 

potential to be enhanced to support focal species in all CZs. 

• Identify and rank stream restoration opportunities for each conservation 

zone. 

• CZ-10, CZ-13, CZ-17. Priority should be given to streams in areas of potential 

foothill yellow-legged frog habitat and CNDDB occurrences. 

• CZ-13, CZ-15, CZ-17. Priority should be given to streams in areas of future 

spawning and rearing habitat for central coast steelhead, provided 

downstream barriers to movement are removed or enhanced. 

3.5.3 Focal Species Goals and Objectives 

Conservation goals developed at the focal species level aim to protect and 

enhance the habitats of focal species that are protected under federal and state 

laws. The focal species evaluated for goals and objectives are listed below. 

• Vernal pool and longhorn fairy shrimp 

• Callippe silverspot butterfly 

• California red-legged frog 

• California tiger salamander 

• Foothill yellow-legged frog 

• Alameda whipsnake 

• Golden eagle 

• Tricolored blackbird 

• Western burrowing owl 

• American badger 

• San Joaquin kit fox 

• Central California coast steelhead 

For focal plant species, the conservation goals mainly strive to protect existing 

populations and maintain habitat. The focal plant species are listed below. 

• San Joaquin spearscale 

• Big tarplant 


ICF 00906.08


• Congdon’s tarplant 

• Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak 

• Livermore Valley tarplant 

• Recurved larkspur 

Focal species would benefit and native biodiversity would increase as a result of 

conservation actions supporting these conservation goals. Goals and objectives 

for each focal species are described below. 

3.5.3.1 Standardized Mitigation Ratios 

The core of the Conservation Strategy for the focal species is the application of 

standardized mitigation ratios for each species (Tables 3-4 through 3-12). These 

ratios would be utilized by local jurisdictions and the Resource Agencies to 

determine the level of mitigation necessary to offset project impacts. The ratios 

were developed in collaboration with the Resource Agencies and based on 

consideration of sites with habitat quality and species occurrence typical of the 

study area. 

Mitigation ratios are applied to the project site based on actual site conditions 

and habitat quality. Project applicants evaluate habitat quality based on a 

scoring system that qualitatively assigns habitat units for each focal species that 

occurs or may occur on the project site. A scoring system was created for all 

focal species except steelhead based on each species’ life history (see Appendix 

E for the scoresheets). Each applicable scoresheet will be completed to reflect 

project site conditions that are directly related to the habitat quality for each 

focal species. As discussed above, the assessment of habitat potential on a site 

will disregard the current land use and management activities that might be 

compromising the maximum potential habitat quality of the site. Sites with 

higher quality habitat will score higher for that particular focal species. 

The habitat unit scores for project impacts reflect the habitat quality on the site 

where impacts will occur. While final determinations are subject to site-specific 

conditions, it is recommended that mitigation generally not be allowed at sites 

supporting lower quality habitat than the site being affected. However, 

exceptions can be made where potential mitigation sites with lower quality 

habitat have the potential to be enhanced or restored to a level of equal or 

higher habitat value. If such a decision is made, it is further recommended that 

the enhancements or restoration actions be completed prior to initiation of 

project impacts to ensure that the mitigation adequately offsets the impacts. 


ICF 00906.08


3.5.3.2 Calculating Mitigation Ratios 

The mitigation need for each species is determined by multiplying the total 

acres of focal species habitat that are affected by the mitigation ratios, 

according to the location of the mitigation site and the mix of mitigation 

provided. Mitigation ratios are determined by using the mitigation reference 

map for the appropriate species and applying the mitigation ratio from the 

mitigation ratio table depending on the location of project impact and the 

location of proposed mitigation. 

Less mitigation may also be required if mitigation habitat is of higher quality 

than affected habitat. For a given species the species score sheets provided in 

Appendix E allow a project applicant and the USFWS and CDFG to calculate a 

habitat score for the area that will be impacted by the proposed project. 

Similarly the species score sheets in Appendix E would be used to calculate a 

habitat score for that species on the proposed mitigation site. For the species in 

question the mitigation site must score equally or higher than the impact site in 

order for it to be considered for mitigation purposes. If the score of the 

mitigation site is higher than the score of the impact site the total mitigation 

required ( as calculated using the Standardized Mitigation Table for that species 

and Mitigation Reference Map) would be reduced using a Mitigation Correction 

Factor. The Mitigation Correction Factor for the species in question is the 

species habitat score for the mitigation site divided by the species habitat score 

for the impact site. The Mitigation Correction Factor is then multiplied times the 

total mitigation acreage required when the Standardized Mitigation Ratios for 

that species are applied. This approach provides incentives for applicants to 

mitigate close to the impact sites. 

For some species, habitat restoration can be used in lieu of some habitat 

preservation. If habitat restoration can be provided, less habitat preservation 

may be required. In all cases, more species habitat will be preserved or restored 

at a mitigation site than will be lost at the impact site. 

3.5.3.3 Vernal Pool and Longhorn Fairy Shrimp 

Species Goals and Objectives 

Goal 11 

Protect and maintain habitat for longhorn fairy shrimp and vernal pool fairy 

shrimp. 

Objective 11.1. Avoid all direct impacts on sandstone rock outcrop vernal pools. 


ICF 00906.08


Objective 11.2. Avoid and minimize direct impacts on longhorn fairy shrimp and 

vernal pool fairy shrimp (mortality of individuals and loss of occupied habitat) 


activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Table 3-2 and 3-3. 

Objective 11.3. Protect 90% of all existing longhorn fairy shrimp and vernal pool 

fairy shrimp populations and suitable habitat that has the potential to be 

occupied in the future. 

• Conservation Action FS-1. Mitigate the loss of suitable longhorn fairy shrimp 

and vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat, including upland habitat within 250- 

feet of known vernal pools, by protecting occupied habitat, or restoring 

suitable habitat, in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in 

Table 3-4, Mitigation Guidelines for Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp in Eastern 

Alameda County and Table 3-5, Mitigation Guidelines for Longhorn Fairy 

Shrimp in Eastern Alameda County. The scoring sheets are shown in 

Appendix E. 

• Conservation Action FS-2. Acquire parcels in the Altamont Hills Core Areas 

(Livermore) identified in the Vernal Pool Recovery Plan that support 

documented longhorn fairy shrimp or vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat and 

meet the conservation goals and objectives through fee title purchase or 


• Conservation Action FS-3. Offer financial or regulatory incentives to public 

and private landowners to guarantee the management and potential 

expansion of vernal pool habitats and vernal pool crustaceans on private 

lands. 

Objective 11.4. Enhance existing habitat and restore additional habitat for 

longhorn fairy shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp that has the potential to be 

occupied in the future. 

• Conservation Action FS-4. Identify sites that have either supported vernal 

pool crustaceans in the past or have the potential, based on habitat 

conditions, to support these species in the future; determine the underlying 

reasons that the habitat is not functional and complete a management plan 

to address those issues. 

• Conservation Action FS-5. Following restoration of a site and a 

determination that the site has all the features necessary to support vernal 

pool crustaceans set a time frame for when species occupancy could be 

expected (e.g., 3 years). 

• Conservation Action FS-6. If suitable habitat is not occupied by vernal pool 

crustaceans within the time frame proposed in the management plan, 

initiate a study in coordination with USFWS to determine the feasibility of 

translocating individuals from nearby stable populations into the newly 

restored suitable habitat to increase the population in the study area. 


ICF 00906.08


Mitigation Guidance 

Direct and indirect (temporary and permanent) impacts on sandstone rock 

outcrop vernal pools should be avoided during construction and postproject 

activities (Objective 11.1 and 11.2). Avoidance of both direct and indirect 

(temporary and permanent) impacts on vernal pool habitats is the most 

important form of conservation that can occur for this species. Project 

applicants should implement avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3-2 and 3-3 

(Objective 11.2). Additional measures could be prescribed if site-specific 

conditions warrant. 

When avoidance and minimization are not possible and loss of habitat occurs, 

the project proponent will mitigate the loss of suitable vernal pool fairy shrimp 

and longhorn fairy shrimp habitat in accordance with the mitigation guidelines 

outlined in Table 3-4 or Table 3-5 depending on the species present (FS-1). 

Mitigation will occur at the level specified in the tables, but a determination of 

the quality of habitat that is being affected would be made using the 

appropriate scoresheet (Appendix E). Mitigation could entail a combination of 

on- and offsite protection and enhancement of occupied habitats depending on 

project impacts. 

The most effective conservation tool for these species is the protection of 

existing vernal pool and longhorn fairy shrimp populations and protection of 

additional suitable habitat near known populations. Development in vernal 

pools areas would destroy populations and habitat. Protection and 

management of habitat should be achieved through fee title purchase or 

conservation easement in the portion of the study area that is located in the 

Altamont Hills Core Area (Livermore) (FS-2). 

Some protection will occur through mitigation for project-level impacts. The 

project applicant could acquire parcels, through fee title purchase or 

conservation easements, where populations have been documented. Such 

acquisition would necessitate a survey to document longhorn fairy shrimp and 

vernal pool fairy shrimp occurrences. Restoration projects in conjunction with 

preservation could be developed as mitigation to restore additional habitat for 

vernal pool fairy shrimp and longhorn fairy shrimp to ensure sustainability of 

future populations. Potential restoration sites would include sites previously 

inhabited and sites with appropriate habitat conditions (FS-4). To ensure that 

these sites are being occupied by fairy shrimp, monitoring would occur after 

restoration at the expense of the project applicant as part of the long-term 

management plan (FS-5). If suitable habitat is not occupied within a predetermined 

time period (e.g., 3 years), the project applicant should coordinate 

with USFWS and CDFG to determine the feasibility of translocating individuals 

from nearby stable populations into the newly restored suitable habitat to 

increase the distribution of the species in the study area (FS-6). If translocation 

is not feasible or if vernal pool crustaceans cannot be established on the site, a 


ICF 00906.08


new mitigation alternative developed in the management plan will need to be 

implemented. 

Aside from protection of new lands and management of public lands, financial 

or regulatory incentives should be extended to landowners to facilitate 

management of vernal pool habitats and vernal pool crustaceans on private 

lands that are not being used as project mitigation (FS-3). Management plans 

could be written for private parcels that contain vernal pool habitats. These 

plans would include provisions for managing nonnative invasive vegetation. 

When grazing is used as a management tool, the management plans would 

outline a monitoring program to determine how vernal pool vegetation 

responds to the grazing regime, and how to adjust the grazing regime if 

necessary. Also, accounting for the water economy on the parcel and both 

upstream and downstream of the parcel is very important. 

Conservation Priorities 

• Nearly all existing vernal pool habitat is restricted to CZ-4 through CZ-7. 

Designing projects to avoid impacts on vernal pool habitat and protecting a 

high percentage of remaining habitats is one of the greatest conservation 

priorities for these Zones. 

• Most vernal pool data are not shown on the Conservation Strategy land 

cover map because the habitat occurs at a finer scale than the mapping 

allowed. Identifying these areas and including them in the Conservation 

Strategy land cover dataset would be an invaluable step toward ensuring 

their preservation. 

• Critical habitat for longhorn fairy shrimp occurs in CZ-5 (133 acres) and CZ-6 

(354 acres). None of the critical habitat in CZ-5 is currently protected, and 

only 219 acres of critical habitat in CZ-6 is protected. Protecting the rest of 

the critical habitat in both CZs is a high priority. 

• Critical habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp occurs in CZ-4 (1,378 acres) and 

CZ-5 (77 acres). In CZ-4, 486 acres are currently protected and in CZ-5, 17 

acres are currently protected. This leaves 892 acres and 60 acres of vernal 

pool fairy shrimp critical habitat unprotected in these CZs, respectively. 

Protecting the rest of the critical habitat in both CZs is a high priority. 


ICF 00906.08


3.5.3.4 Callippe Silverspot Butterfly 


Goal 12 

Protect any remaining populations of callippe silverspot butterfly in the study 

area and increase the understanding of the distribution and ecology of the 

species. 

Objective 12.1. Avoid and minimize direct impacts on callippe silverspot 

butterfly (mortality of individuals and loss of habitat) during project 

construction and indirect impacts that result from postproject activities by 


Objective 12.2. Protect existing callippe silverspot butterfly populations and 

additional suitable habitat that has the potential to be occupied in the future. 

• Conservation Action CSB-1. Mitigate the loss of suitable callippe silverspot 

butterfly habitat in CZ-8, CZ-11, CZ-12, CZ-14, CZ-15, and CZ-16 by 

protecting habitat in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in 

Table 3-6 and the mitigation scoring parameters shown in Appendix E. 

• Conservation Action CSB-2. Acquire, through fee title purchase or 

conservation easement, parcels with documented callippe silverspot 

butterfly populations or suitable habitat in CZ-8, CZ-11, CZ-12, CZ-14, CZ-15, 

and CZ-16 that also meet the conservation goals and objectives of this 

strategy. 

• Conservation Action CSB-3. Offer financial or regulatory incentives to public 

and private landowners to guarantee the management of grasslands, 

especially native grasslands, to support callippe silverspot butterfly. 

Objective 12.3. Determine the distribution of the callippe silverspot butterfly 

and intergrades in the study area and identify core areas that could contribute 

to the species’ recovery. 

• Conservation Action CSB-4. Fund systematic, multi-year surveys for callippe 

silverspot butterfly occupancy on suitable habitat on public and private 

lands in CZ-8, CZ-11, CZ-12, CZ-14, CZ-15, and CZ-16 


The primary goal for this species is to protect any remaining populations of 

callippe silverspot butterfly in the study area and increase knowledge of its 

distribution and ecology (Goal 12). To better account for the distribution of this 

species and its habitat, an important conservation action under this strategy is 

to coordinate multi-year surveys to identify occupancy of callippe silverspot 


ICF 00906.08


butterfly and intergrades on public and private lands (CSB-4). A better 

understanding of the distribution of this species in the study area will allow for 

more effective avoidance, minimization, and mitigation for this species. 

Project applicants must determine if host plants occur within their project area. 

This can be determined by a qualified biologist. If the plants are not present, no 

mitigation would be necessary for this species. If the plants are present, the 

project applicant has two options: (1) assume presence and mitigate in 

accordance with Table 3-6 (the selection of a mitigation site would be informed 

by the mitigation scoresheet shown in Appendix E), or (2) have a qualified 

biologist conduct a species survey, using methodology approved by the USFWS, 

to determine if the species habitat and/or species is present. If it is, the project 

applicant would proceed with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation 

measures. 

Direct and indirect impacts on grasslands that support johnny jump-ups should 

be avoided during construction and postproject activities within the species’ 

range (CZ-8, CZ-11, CZ-12, CZ-14, CZ-15, and CZ-16) (Objectives 12.1 and 12.2). 

Project applicants should implement avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3-2 

and 3-3 to avoid any impacts on occupied habitat (Objective 12.1). Protection 

of existing callippe silverspot butterfly populations and suitable habitat will be 

necessary to contribute to the recovery of this species. The loss of suitable 

callippe silverspot butterfly habitat in CZ-8, CZ-11, CZ-12, CZ-14, CZ-15, and CZ- 

16 should be mitigated as outlined in Table 3-6, (CSB-1). 

Lands should be acquired through fee title purchase or conservation easement 

within the CZs shown above and managed for this species (CSB-2). Preservation 

of habitat in the CZs would allow for the management of callippe silverspot 

butterfly habitat and potentially allow for colonization. Some of this land 

protection will occur as mitigation for projects that affect callippe silverspot 

butterfly habitat. Other suitable habitat might be protected as conservation 

initiatives by local land management entities. To facilitate management of 

callippe silverspot butterfly habitat on private lands, financial or regulatory 

incentives could be offered to landowners to manage their grasslands in a way 

that is beneficial to the host plant (CSB-3). 


• Continue survey efforts in CZ-8, CZ-11, CZ-12, CZ-14, CZ-15, and CZ-16 to 

document observations of callippe silverspot butterflies and map suitable 

habitat. 

• Track both positive and negative survey data in a spatial database that can 

be accessed during the project approval process. Since protocol surveys 

have not been established, all surveys will need to be verified and approved 

by USFWS. [Note: negative survey data would only be useful if the survey 


ICF 00906.08


were conducted during the same growing year due to temporal variability in 

habitat occupancy.] 

3.5.3.5 California Red-Legged Frog 


Goal 13 

Increase the California red-legged frog population in the study area to a level 

that allows for long-term viability without human intervention and is consistent 

with the USFWS Recovery Plan. The USFWS Recovery Plan for California redlegged 

frog is available for review at 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/020528.pdf. 

Objective 13.1. Avoid and minimize direct impacts on California red-legged frog 

(mortality of individuals and loss of occupied aquatic habitat) during 

construction activities associated with projects implemented under the 

Conservation Strategy through implementation of avoidance measures outlined 

in Tables 3-2 and 3-3. 

Objective 13.2. Protect existing California red-legged frog populations and 

allow for expansion of metapopulations. 

• Conservation Action CRLF-1. Mitigate the loss of suitable California redlegged 

frog habitat by protecting occupied habitat, by restoring degraded 

aquatic and upland habitat to increase breeding success and survivorship 

and, where appropriate, by creating suitable aquatic habitat, in accordance 

with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3-7 and the mitigation 

scoring parameters shown in Appendix E. 

• Conservation Action CRLF-2. Acquire parcels that support documented 

California red-legged frog aquatic and/or upland habitat inside the East San 

Francisco Bay core recovery area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002) and 


title purchase or conservation easement 

• Conservation Action CRLF-3. Acquire, through fee title purchase or 

conservation easement, parcels with California red-legged frog upland 

habitat within 2 miles of a documented California red-legged frog breeding 

location (within the previous 3 years). 

• Conservation Action CRLF-4. Establish an incentive program for public and 

private landowners to facilitate restoration of key breeding ponds on 

private lands and guide management of these resources for California redlegged 

frog. 


ICF 00906.08


Objective 13.3. Enhance suitable California red-legged frog habitat on public 

and private lands in the study area through implementation of management 

plans. 

• Conservation Action CRLF-5. Include the removal of exotic species such as 

bullfrogs, mosquitofish, nonnative predatory fish, and nonnative turtles by 

periodically draining ponds as a measure in all management plans that are 

prepared for mitigation or conservation lands in the study area. 

• Conservation Action CRLF-6. Implement grazing management plans to 

increase the suitability for California red-legged frog of both aquatic habitat 

and the upland habitat surrounding it. 

• Conservation Action CRLF-7. Create an incentive program that will 

encourage private landowners to manage ground squirrels on their property 

using IPM principles and work toward a balance between species needs and 

the requirements of a working landscape. 

• Conservation Action CRLF-8. Create an incentive program, including 

streamlined permitting, to encourage public and private landowners to 

maintain their properties free of bullfrogs and nonnative predatory fish. 

• Conservation Action CRLF-9. Offer financial or regulatory incentives to 

private landowners to enhance wetland and stream habitat to suit California 

red-legged frog, and to ensure that activities in upland habitat (e.g., dryland 

farming and ranching activities) support California red-legged frog 

movement and refuge needs. 

• Conservation Action CRLF-10. Provide off-stream water sources for livestock 

to control grazing pressure in and around streams. 

• Conservation Action CRLF-11. Increase the amount of California red-legged 

frog breeding habitat in existing creeks through the creation of more plunge 

pools and slow water habitats through geomorphically appropriate creek 

restoration projects. 


The primary goal for California red-legged frog in the study area is to increase 

the population and enhance suitable habitat on public and private lands (Goal 

13 and Objective 13.3). First and foremost, project applicants must protect 

suitable habitat that currently exists. Avoiding direct and indirect impacts on 

California red-legged frogs and loss of occupied aquatic habitat during 

construction and postproject activities can be accomplished at the project level 

(Objective 13.1 and 13.2). The assessment of impacts on California red-legged 

frogs should include the direct mortality of individuals by construction vehicles 

when the project is in or near occupied breeding habitat. Tables 3-2 and 3-3 

offer initial guidance on avoiding impacts at the project level, though sitespecific 

measures should be considered (Objective 13.1). 


ICF 00906.08


Project applicants must first determine if California red-legged frog or its habitat 

occurs within their project area. This can be determined by a qualified biologist. 

Project applicants are encouraged to use the mitigation scoresheets (Appendix 

E) to determine the quality of habitat for California red-legged frog. If the 

USFWS determines that no habitat is present, then mitigation would not be 

necessary for the project. If habitat is present, the project applicant has two 

options: (1) assume presence and mitigate in accordance with Table 3-7, or (2) 

have a USFWS-approved biologist conduct protocol-level surveys to determine if 

California red-legged frogs are present. If they are present, the project applicant 

would proceed with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. If there 

are no California red-legged frogs present then no mitigation would be 

necessary. However, if there is suitable habitat on the project site and there is 

occupied habitat in adjacent areas (within the typical dispersal distance of 

California red-legged frogs) then the project applicant would need to obtain 

federal and state incidental take permits, implement avoidance and 

minimization measures (Table 3-3), and mitigate accordingly. 

Protection of existing populations of California red-legged frogs would be the 

most affective form of mitigation. Project applicants should mitigate the loss of 

suitable California red-legged frog habitat by protecting and enhancing occupied 

habitat in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3-7 (CRLF- 

1). A mitigation site must have documented species presence and contain both 

an aquatic (breeding) and upland component. If impacts would only affect 

upland habitat (i.e., suitable upland habitat within the typical dispersal distance 

of a known breeding location), the mitigation site must still either contain 

occupied breeding habitat or be within the typical dispersal distance of 

protected occupied breeding habitat. Consideration should be given to the 

potential for the mitigation site to become isolated in the future and the 

potential for the upland mitigation site to become isolated from the breeding 

habitat. Mitigation sites on contiguous protected lands are more likely to 

remain viable over the long term. 

In order to contribute to the recovery goals for California red-legged frog, 

additional conservation including land acquisition (beyond that required for 

project impact mitigation) will have to occur in the study area. The 

Implementation Committee could establish an incentive program for public and 

private landowners (CRLF-4, CRLF-9). The incentive program would guarantee 

the management of California red-legged frog habitat and populations on those 

lands through the implementation of key restoration actions and management 

plans. Guidance could be written for private landowners to inform the 

management of stock ponds to benefit native amphibians. This guidance would 

be included in grazing management plans. This guidance could include 

provisions to enhance suitable California red-legged frog habitat on public and 

private lands, and would include removal and management to prevent 

recurrence of nonnative species such as bullfrogs (CRLF-8), mosquitofish, and 

nonnative turtles (CRLF-5); implement grazing management plans to decrease 

impacts on California red-legged frog habitat (CRLF-6 and CRLF-10); and create 


ICF 00906.08


incentive programs to enhance wetland and stream habitat (CRLF-9) and create 

additional breeding habitat (CRLF-11). Removal of nonnative fish and 

amphibians from pond habitats could include the partial filling of ponds (using a 

dozer) to capture bullfrogs in the pond after draining, and thereby reducing 

capacity (at least temporarily) or creating more of a seasonal pond to benefit 

native amphibians . This will reduce the likelihood that bullfrogs can disperse to 

other nearby aquatic habitats. If management initiatives require manipulating 

habitat that is already occupied by California red-legged frog or any other stateor 

federally listed species, permits would be needed to complete the work. 


• Protecting aquatic and adjacent upland habitat with documented 

populations of California red-legged frog is imperative. 

• Conservation initiatives for this species should focus on enhancement of 

breeding habitat that is currently protected. Mitigation actions (e.g., 

enhancement of existing habitat, restoration of habitat) should be 

implemented on lands that are already protected. 

• Financial incentive programs should be created to facilitate the removal of 

bullfrogs and nonnative fish from ponds on public and private lands. This 

funding could be collected from project applicants as part of their mitigation 

package and used to enhance ponds with documented California red-legged 

frog and bullfrog populations. 

3.5.3.6 California Tiger Salamander 


Goal 14 

Increase the California tiger salamander population in the study area to a level 

that allows for long-term viability of the population without human 

intervention. 

Objective 14.1. Avoid and minimize direct impacts on California tiger 

salamander (mortality of individuals and loss of occupied aquatic or upland 

habitat) during project construction and indirect impacts that result from 

postproject activities by implementing avoidance and minimization measures 

outlined in Table 3-2 and 3-3. 

Objective 14.2. Protect existing California tiger salamander populations and 

allow for expansion of metapopulations. 

• Conservation Action CTS-1. Mitigate the loss of suitable California tiger 

salamander habitat by protecting occupied aquatic or upland habitat, 


ICF 00906.08


restoring breeding and upland habitat, and/or creating new suitable aquatic 

habitat, in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3-8 

and the mitigation scoring parameters shown in Appendix E. 

• Conservation Action CTS-2. Acquire parcels with documented California tiger 

salamander habitat inside the study area that meet the conservation goals 

and objectives of this strategy through fee title purchase or conservation 

easement. 

• Conservation Action CTS-3. Acquire parcels supporting California tiger 

salamander upland habitat within 1.3 miles of a documented California tiger 

salamander breeding location (within the previous 3 years) through fee title 

purchase or conservation easement. Habitat should be contiguous (no 

obstructions such as roads or gradient) and accessible from occupied 

breeding habitat. 

• Conservation Action CTS-4. Establish an incentive program for private 

landowners to guarantee management for California tiger salamanders on 

private lands, including incentivizing pond/wetland enhancement and 

allowing burrowing mammals to persist in uplands habitats. 

Objective 14.3. Enhance suitable California tiger salamander habitat on public 


plans. 

• Conservation Action CTS-5. Remove exotic species such as bullfrogs, 

nonnative crayfish, mosquitofish, nonnative predatory fish, and non-native 

turtles by including periodic draining of ponds or enhancing ponds to 

become seasonal as a measure in all management plans prepared for 

mitigation or conservation lands in the study area. 

• Conservation Action CTS-6. Implement grazing management plans to 

increase the suitability of upland habitat surrounding aquatic California tiger 

salamander habitat. 

• Conservation Action CTS-7. Manage ground squirrels using IPM principles 

and work toward a balance between species needs and the requirements of 

a working landscape. 

• Conservation Action CTS-8. Maintain public and private properties free of 

bullfrogs and nonnative predatory fish. 

• Conservation Action CTS-9. Offer financial or regulatory incentives (e.g., 

pond registration) to private landowners to enhance pond and wetland 

habitat to suit California tiger salamander, and to ensure that activities in 

upland habitat (e.g., dryland farming, ranching activities) support California 

tiger salamander movement and refuge needs. 

• Conservation Action CTS-10. In areas where grazing pressure has reduced 

the quality of pond habitat for tiger salamanders due to reduced water 

quality in breeding habitat, provide alternate water sources that do not 


ICF 00906.08


impact the hydrology or habitat function of the water source to manage 

grazing pressure and increase habitat quality. 

• Conservation Action CTS-11. Remove California tiger salamander hybrid 

paedomorphs from ponds when found by a qualified biologist. 


The primary goal for this species is to increase the population of California tiger 

salamander in the study area and maintain the population without human 

intervention (Goal 14). Project applicants must determine if California tiger 

salamander or its habitat occurs within the project area. This can be determined 

by a qualified biologist, USFWS, and CDFG. Project applicants are encouraged to 

use the mitigation scoresheets (Appendix E) to determine the quality of habitat 

for California tiger salamander in their project area. If USFWS and CDFG 

determine habitat is not present, mitigation would not be necessary. If habitat 

is present, the project applicant has two options: (1) assume presence and 

mitigate in accordance with Table 3-8, or (2) have a USFWS and CDFG-approved 

biologist conduct species surveys using the 2003 Interim Guidance (until an 

update guidance is provided)to determine if California tiger salamanders are 

present. If tiger salamanders are present, the project applicant would proceed 

with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. If no California tiger 

salamanders are present, then no mitigation is necessary; however, if there is 

suitable habitat on the project site and there is occupied habitat in adjacent 

areas (within the typical dispersal distance of California tiger salamander) then 

the project applicant would need to implement avoidance and minimization 

measures (Table 3-2 and 3-3) and mitigate accordingly. 

Direct and indirect impacts on California tiger salamander and loss of occupied 

aquatic and upland habitat should be avoided during construction and 

postproject activities (Objective 14.1). Project applicants should implement 

avoidance measures outlined in Table 3-2 and 3-3 (Objective 14.1). The most 

effective form of mitigation is the protection and enhancement of existing 

populations of California tiger salamander. The project applicant would 

mitigate the loss of suitable California tiger salamander habitat by protecting 

occupied aquatic and upland habitat or by restoring occupied aquatic habitat in 

accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3-8. The selection of 

mitigation sites will be informed by the mitigation scoresheets in Appendix E 

(CTS-1). To complete mitigation requirements, the project applicant could 

acquire parcels, through fee title purchase or conservation easements, to 

increase the amount of California tiger salamander habitat that is protected in 

the study area (CTS-2 and CTS-3). Consideration should be given to the potential 

for the mitigation site to become isolated in the future. Mitigation sites on 

contiguous protected lands are more likely to remain viable over the long term. 

Not all conservation for this species can be accomplished through mitigation 

efforts; land acquisition will also be necessary to conserve habitat for California 


ICF 00906.08


tiger salamander. The Implementation Committee could also establish an 

incentive program for public and private landowners (CTS-4) that preserves 

aquatic and upland habitat for California tiger salamander. The incentive 

program would guarantee the management of California tiger salamander 

habitat and populations on private lands. Restoration and management plans 

for public and private lands would be developed to enhance suitable California 

tiger salamander habitat (Objective 14.3). Management plans would include 

removal of nonnative species such as bullfrogs, mosquitofish, crayfish, and 

nonnative turtles (CTS-5); implementation of grazing management plans to 

manage impacts on California tiger salamander habitat (CTS-6 and CTS-10); and 

creation of incentive programs to enhance upland (CTS-7), pond, wetland, and 

stream habitats (CTS-9). Removal of nonnative fish and amphibians from pond 

habitats could include the partial filling of ponds (using a dozer) to capture 

bullfrogs in the pond after draining, and thereby reducing capacity (at least 

temporarily) or creating more of a seasonal pond to benefit native amphibians 

and reduce habitat suitability for hybrid tiger salamanders. This will reduce the 

likelihood that bullfrogs can disperse to other nearby aquatic habitats. In all 

cases, the response of the California tiger salamander population would need to 

be monitored to determine best management practices for the species in 

various habitat types. 


• A total of 1,177 acres of designated critical habitat for California tiger 

salamander critical habitat are in CZ-3, none of which are currently 

protected. Protection of critical habitat is a high priority for this species. 

• California tiger salamander modeled habitat (aquatic and upland) occurs in 

every conservation zone in the study area. The most acreage is in CZ-2, CZ-4, 

and CZ-6. Most of this habitat is on private land with no existing protections. 

The exception is zone CZ-4, where more than half the modeled habitat is 

currently protected. Expanding protected lands in this zone would greatly 

benefit this species. 

• The focus in the study area should remain on protecting and managing 

breeding habitat and adjacent uplands. 

• Continued monitoring of hybridization with barred tiger salamander should 

be a priority. The prevalence of hybrid tiger salamanders has become more 

apparent in recent years, and research has shown that these hybrids may 

outcompete native California tiger salamanders over time. 


ICF 00906.08


3.5.3.7 Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog 


Goal 15 

Increase the foothill yellow-legged frog population in each watershed where it 

currently occurs to a level that allows for long-term viability in the watershed 

without human intervention. 

Objective 15.1. Avoid and minimize direct impacts on foothill yellow-legged frog 

(mortality of individuals and loss of habitat) during project construction and 

indirect impacts that result from postproject activities by implementing 

avoidance measures outlined in Table 3-2 and 3-3. 

Objective 15.2. Protect existing foothill yellow-legged frog populations and 

allow for expansion of metapopulations by protecting lands in the surrounding 

watershed, especially riverine habitat upstream and downstream of 

documented occurrences. 

• Conservation Action FYF-1. Mitigate the loss of suitable foothill yellowlegged 

frog habitat by protecting occupied habitat in accordance with the 

mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3-9 and the mitigation scoring 

parameters in Appendix E. 

• Conservation Action FYF-2. Acquire parcels in the study area with 

documented foothill yellow-legged frog breeding habitat through fee title 

purchase or conservation easement 

• Conservation Action FYF-3. Time releases from reservoirs to occur before or 

after the peak foothill yellow-legged frog egg-laying period to avoid 

dislodging egg masses downstream. 

Objective 15.3. Enhance suitable foothill yellow-legged frog habitat on public 


plans. 

• Conservation Action FYF-4. Reduce the number of exotic species such as 

bullfrogs, nonnative crayfish, nonnative predatory fish, and nonnative 

turtles to a level that would increase the overall survivorship of foothill 

yellow-legged frogs in stream habitat south of I-580. 

• Conservation Action FYF-5. Consistent with Conservation Action STM-9, 

provide off-stream water sources to control grazing pressure in streams and 

associated riparian habitats. 

• Conservation Action FYF-6. To increase the distribution of foothill yellowlegged 

frog in the study area, initiate a study in coordination with CDFG to 

determine the feasibility of translocating individuals from nearby stable 

populations into unoccupied suitable habitat in the study area. 


ICF 00906.08



The primary goal for this species is to increase the population of foothill yellowlegged 

frogs within the study area and maintain the population without human 

intervention (Goal 15). The most effective way to accomplish this is to protect 

extant populations of the species. Of the six CNDDB occurrences in the study 

area, four were in Alameda Creek, one was in the headwaters of Corral Hollow 

Creek, and one was at Arroyo Mocho (California Natural Diversity Database 

2009). Foothill yellow-legged frogs are also found in Sunol Regional Wilderness 

and Ohlone Regional Wilderness (Bobzien and DiDonato 2007). Protecting all 

documented populations of this species should be a priority in the study area. 

Most extant populations occur in remote areas where typical project impacts 

(e.g., development) will not occur. In-stream maintenance activities and water 

conveyance (for water supply) through natural stream channels have the 

highest potential to affect this species. While changes in the timing of releases 

from reservoirs are dependent on many factors, the habitat needs of this 

species and the timing of releases relative to the egg-laying period should be 

considered. Direct and indirect impacts on foothill yellow-legged frogs and loss 

of individuals must be avoided at the project level (Objective 15.1). This is the 

primary conservation action for this species. 

When in-stream projects are planned in watersheds where this species has been 

documented, species surveys to determine presence should be conducted prior 

to initiation of any activities. Gaining a better understanding of the population 

levels and total distribution of this species in the study area will allow for better 

protection of habitat and avoidance of direct and indirect impacts. When 

projects are conducted where habitat for this species occurs avoidance 

measures outlined in Tables 3-2 and 3-3 should be implemented (Objective 

15.1). 

When avoidance is not possible, project applicants will have to mitigate the loss 

of habitat. Such mitigation is typically quantified in linear feet of stream 

affected. Existing populations of foothill yellow-legged frogs and riverine habitat 

upstream and downstream of those occurrences could be protected as 

mitigation (Objective 15.2). All mitigation will be implemented in accordance 

with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3-9. The selection of a 

mitigation site should be informed by assessing the impact site and mitigation 

site using the scoresheet in Appendix E (FYF-1). 

Management plans for public and private lands could be developed to enhance 

suitable foothill yellow-legged frog habitat and contribute to the overall 

understanding of this species in the study area (Objective 15.3). Management 

plans would include removal of nonnative species such as bullfrogs, 

mosquitofish, crayfish, and nonnative turtles (FYF-4) and grazing management 

plans to decrease impacts on yellow-legged frog habitat (FYF-5). If it is 

determined over time that the foothill yellow-legged frog populations are not 


ICF 00906.08


expanding and face possible extirpation, the Implementation Committee should 

coordinate with CDFG to study the feasibility of translocating individuals from 

stable populations to suitable unoccupied habitat (FYF-6). 


• Protect stream and upland habitats in areas where foothill yellow-legged 

frog are known to currently persist (Alameda Creek, the headwaters of 

Corral Hollow Creek, and Arroyo Mocho). 

• Fund research of the species to better determine habitat use and limiting 

factors for each extant population in the study area. 

3.5.3.8 Alameda Whipsnake 


Goal 16 

Increase the Alameda whipsnake population in the designated recovery units in 

the study area to a level that allows for long-term viability without human 

intervention. 

Objective 16.1. Avoid and minimize direct impacts on Alameda whipsnake 

(mortality of individuals and loss of habitat) during project construction and 


avoidance measures outlined in Table 3-2 and 3-3. 

Objective 16.2. Protect existing Alameda whipsnake populations and allow for 

expansion of metapopulations. 

• Conservation Action AWS-1. Mitigate the loss of suitable Alameda 

whipsnake habitat by protecting occupied habitat in accordance with the 

mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3-9. 

• Conservation Action AWS-2. Acquire parcels with documented Alameda 

whipsnake populations that meet the conservation goals and objectives of 

this strategy through fee title purchase or conservation easement. 

• Conservation Action AWS-3. Conduct targeted presence/absence surveys on 

the approval of CDFG and USFWS on private and public lands on both sides 

of I-580, I-680, and SR 84 to identify linkages between Recovery Unit 3 

(identified in the USFWS Draft Recovery Plan for Chaparral and Scrub 

Species East of San Francisco Bay, California [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2002]) and units to the north and south. 


ICF 00906.08


• Conservation Action AWS-4. Acquire, through fee title purchase or 

conservation easement, parcels that provide linkages between Recovery 

Units 3, 2, 5 and 7. 

Objective 16.3. Enhance suitable Alameda whipsnake habitat on public and 

private lands that are within Alameda Whipsnake recovery units (identified in 

the USFWS Draft Recovery Plan for Chaparral and Scrub Species East of San 

Francisco Bay, California [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002]). 

• Conservation Action AWS-5. Conduct research in known Alameda whipsnake 

population centers that investigates population response to various grazing 

regimes. 

• Conservation Action AWS-6. Implement grazing management plans on all 

protected lands in Alameda whipsnake Recovery Units that are based on the 

most up-to-date research findings on grazing levels and whipsnake 

population response. 

• Conservation Action AWS-7. Using information gathered through targeted 

studies on fire intensity, location, and frequency conduct prescribed burns 

consistent with Conservation Action CCS-4 in documented population 

centers in Recovery Units 3 and 5 to prevent the overgrowth of shrubs and 

woodland to a closed canopy condition. 

• Conservation Action AWS-8. Mechanically thin chaparral and coastal scrub 

consistent with Conservation Action CCS-4 to prevent the overgrowth of 

shrubs and woodland to a closed canopy condition. See Section 3.5.2.2m 

above for guidance on studies that will inform this process. 


The primary goal for this species is to protect a large proportion of remaining 

habitat and increase the overall number of individuals within the study area to 

maintain the population without human intervention (Goal 16)—moving toward 

recovery of this species in the study area. The amount of protected habitat 

could be increased through the acquisition parcels for mitigation purposes or 

through expansion of conservation lands managed in the public interest. 

Alameda whipsnake populations would benefit from avoiding impacts on 

individuals and habitat during and after construction. Use of the mitigation 

scoresheet in Appendix E will inform project proponents of the quality of habitat 

in project areas and the quality of mitigation land needed to offset impacts on 

those sites. Known populations of Alameda whipsnake and areas of suitable 

habitat should be considered during the project design process if the project is 

occurring inside a conservation zone known to support the species (CZ-8 

through CZ-18). If impacts cannot be avoided they will be fully mitigated. The 

project proponent will mitigate the loss of suitable whipsnake habitat in 

accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3-9 (AWS-1). 


ICF 00906.08


Mitigation will occur at the level specified in Table 3-9, but a determination of 

the quality of habitat that is affected and thus requires mitigation would be 

determined using the scoresheet in Appendix E. The project proponent could 

acquire parcels, through fee title purchase and/or conservation easements, 

where known populations occur (AWS-2). This would require a survey approved 

by CDFG and USFWS of the property to document species presence. Similarly, 

protection of parcels that include parts of important linkages as described in the 

Draft Recovery Plan for Chaparral and Scrub Community Species East of San 

Francisco Bay, California, may qualify as mitigation locations for this species 

(AWS-3 and AWS-4). 

Recovery goals for this species cannot be achieved through mitigation alone. 

Land acquisition and protection will be needed to conserve Alameda whipsnake 

habitat. Management plans for public and private lands within Alameda 

whipsnake Recovery Units could be developed to enhance existing habitat to 

contribute to an increase in the total population (Objective 16.3). Management 

plans could include research components to determine current habitat used by 

Alameda whipsnake, particularly in grazed areas (AWS-5). Grazing plans could 

then be tailored toward practices deemed most beneficial to the species in 

protected lands that fall inside Alameda whipsnake Recovery Units (AWS-6). 

Management plans should include provisions that prevent the overgrowth of 

chaparral and scrub habitats to a closed canopy condition—a condition that 

reduces overall habitat quality for Alameda whipsnake. Thinning of chaparral 

and scrub communities to benefit the species would be overseen by species and 

vegetation experts. Thinning would likely be accomplished by conducting 

prescribed burns where feasible (AWS-7) or by mechanically thinning chaparral 

and coastal scrub to mimic those natural processes that are no longer occurring 

(e.g., fire) (AWS-8). If any of these activities are conducted in suitable Alameda 

whipsnake habitat, consultation and an incidental take permit would have to be 

obtained from USFWS and CDFG if effects or take of Alameda Whipsnake is 

possible. 


• Protect all areas where Alameda whipsnake has been documented and 

suitable habitat persists. 

• Conduct Alameda whipsnake surveys on private and public lands on both 

sides of I-580, I-680, and SR 84 to identify linkages between Recovery Unit 3 

and units to the north and south. Linkages are important for breeding and 

genetic diversity among whipsnake populations. 

• Protect suitable habitat, which includes a matrix of chaparral and scrub 

communities, rock outcrops, annual grasslands, and riparian corridors inside 

Recovery Units for Alameda whipsnake. If possible, priority for protection 

should be given to areas that are also designated critical habitat. This will 

help reach the USFWS draft recovery goals for this species. 


ICF 00906.08


• CZ-8, CZ-10, CZ-12, CZ-13, CZ-15, CZ-16, and CZ-17 present the greatest 

opportunities for increased habitat protection. Additional opportunities 

exist in nearly all the CZs south of I-580. 

3.5.3.9 Golden Eagle 


Goal 17 

Maintain the nesting golden eagle population in the study area at a level that 

allows for long-term viability without human intervention. 

Objective 17.1. Avoid direct impacts on golden eagle (mortality of individuals 

and loss of nests) during project construction or postproject activities by 


Objective 17.2. Avoid and minimize direct impacts on golden eagle (loss of 

foraging habitat) during project construction and indirect impacts that result 

from postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in 

Table 3-2 and 3-3. 

Objective 17.3. Protect and monitor all golden eagle nest sites and surrounding 

foraging habitat in the study area. 

• Conservation Action GOEA-1. Acquire, through fee title purchase or 

conservation easement, parcels with documented golden eagle nest sites in 


• Conservation Action GOEA-2. Mitigate the loss of golden eagle foraging 

habitat by protecting and managing habitat in accordance with the 


• Conservation Action GOEA-3. Implement an annual monitoring program for 

all golden eagle nests on protected lands documenting the 

presence/absence of nesting pairs and nest productivity in number of young 

fledged; submit data to the CNDDB and Conservation Strategy database 

based on earlier work done by W. Grainger Hunt. 

Objective 17.4. Enhance suitable golden eagle habitat on public and private 

lands in the study area through implementation of species-specific measures in 

management plans. 

• Conservation Action GOEA-4. Consistent with Conservation Action GRA-10, 

cease using rodenticides in protected areas and, when possible, outside 

protected areas. When rodent management is needed to protect the 

integrity of structures such as levees or stock pond dams or to prevent 


ICF 00906.08


nuisance populations on adjacent private lands, encourage land managers 

to use IPM principles. 


Golden eagles use nearly all terrestrial habitats of the western states except 

densely forested areas. The primary goal for this species is to increase the 

population of golden eagles in the study area and maintain the population 

without human intervention (Goal 17). Most mitigation for this species is 

centered on avoiding impacts at the nest site. Loss of foraging habitat is 

important, but determining the foraging range of specific pairs of golden eagles 

and relating that range to project impacts is problematic. If a golden eagle nest 

site occurs on or near (within 0.5 mile) of a project site, project applicants will 

need to determine if the nest is active. Direct impacts on golden eagles, their 

nests, and foraging habitat must be avoided during construction and postproject 

activities (Objective 17.1 and 17.2). Removal of golden eagle nests would 

require the project applicant to contact CDFG and USFWS’s Migratory Bird 

Program. To ensure that project activities do not disrupt nesting behavior, 

project applicants should implement avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3-2 

and 3-3 (Objective 17.1 and 17.2). Project applicants would be expected to 

mitigate the loss of golden eagle foraging habitat by protecting foraging habitat 

in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3-10 (GOEA-2). 

The quality of foraging habitat on the project site and the selection of an 

adequate mitigation site would be informed by the mitigation scoresheet in 

Appendix E. 

The project applicant could fulfill mitigation obligations by acquiring parcels 

through fee title purchase or conservation easements (GOEA-2). Mitigation 

should focus on protecting land adjacent to other protected lands to protect 

large landscapes that can in turn support nesting and foraging eagles. 

Mitigation should be focused outside the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area 

and would be most effective in CZ-12, CZ-13, CZ-15, CZ-16, CZ-17, and CZ-18). 

Management plans for public and private lands within golden eagle foraging 

habitat could be developed to enhance suitable habitat and contribute to the 

persistence of this species in the study area (Objective 17.3). The 

Implementation Committee could create an incentive program to encourage 

private landowners to retain ground squirrels on their properties and work 

toward a balance between species needs and the requirements of a working 

landscape. This program would preclude using rodenticides in protected areas 

and, when possible, outside protected areas. When rodent management is 

needed to protect the integrity of structures such as levees or stock pond dams 

or to prevent nuisance populations on adjacent private lands, encourage land 

managers to use IPM principles. 


ICF 00906.08



• Implement annual surveys that document presence/absence of nesting 

pairs and nest productivity in number of young fledged and submit findings 

to the CNDDB and Conservation Strategy database. 

• Fund outreach programs for public and private landowners about IPM 

programs. 

• Coordinate conservation efforts with the Altamont Pass Wind Resource 

Area NCCP/HCP. 

3.5.3.10 Tricolored Blackbird 


Goal 18 

Increase the number of tricolored blackbird nest colonies in the study area. 

Objective 18.1. Avoid direct impacts on tricolored blackbirds (mortality of 

individuals and loss of nests) during project construction or postproject 


Objective 18.2. Avoid and minimize direct loss of tricolored blackbird foraging 

habitat during project construction and indirect impacts that result from 

postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3- 

2 and 3-3. 

Objective 18.3. Protect and monitor all tricolored blackbird nest colonies and 

surrounding foraging habitat in the study area. 

• Conservation Action TRBL-1. Acquire, through fee title purchase or 

conservation easement, parcels with documented nest colonies in the study 

area. 

• Conservation Action TRBL-2. Mitigate the loss of tricolored blackbird 

foraging habitat within 2 miles of known nest colonies by protecting habitat 

in accordance with the mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3-10. 

• Conservation Action TRBL-3. Implement an annual monitoring program in 

coordination with local conservation groups, andCalifornia Audubon to 

implement an annual monitoring program on all tricolored blackbird nest 

colonies on protected lands using monitoring protocols established by 

California Audubon; submit results to the Tricolored Blackbird Portal (U.C. 

Davis), CNDDB, and the Conservation Strategy database. 

• Conservation Action TRBL-4. To supplement surveys of known nest colony 

locations, implement a systematic survey effort on a 3-year rotation, 


ICF 00906.08


coordinated with California Audubon, to survey potential nest colony 

locations on public and private lands in the study area. 

Objective 18.4. Enhance suitable tricolored blackbird habitat on public and 

private lands in the study area through implementation of species-specific 

measures in management plans. 

• Conservation Action TRBL-5. Purchase agricultural easements on land 

surrounding tricolored blackbird nest colonies or potential nest sites to 

ensure that the parcel will remain in types of irrigated pasture or dryland 

agriculture that provide foraging habitat for nesting tricolored blackbirds. 

• Conservation Action TRBL-6. Provide alternate water sources to control 

grazing pressure in streams, wetlands, and ponds and during key times of 

the year (e.g., breeding season). 

• Conservation Action TRBL-7. Offer financial or regulatory incentivesto 

private landowners to enhance pond and marsh habitat to suit breeding 

tricolored blackbirds and to ensure that dryland farming and ranching 

activities support breeding tricolored blackbirds. 

Protection 

Tricolored blackbirds have three basic requirements for selecting their breeding 

colony sites: open, accessible water; a protected nesting substrate, including 

either flooded, thorny, or spiny vegetation; or a suitable foraging space 

providing adequate insect prey within a few miles of the nesting colony 

(Hamilton et al. 1995; Beedy and Hamilton 1997, 1999). The primary goal for 

this species is to increase the number of tricolored blackbird nest colonies in the 

study area (Goal 18). Accomplishing this goal is uncertain due to the ephemeral 

behavior of this species and its selection of nest sites. 

Avoiding direct or indirect impacts on nest colonies, if they occur in the study 

area, is imperative (Objective 18.1 and 18.2). Due to the low number of nest 

colonies present each year and the low number of individual birds at each 

colony, conservation of this species cannot occur in the study area if impacts 

occur on recently occupied nest habitat. An annual accounting of where nest 

colonies occur is the best way to ensure avoidance of impacts. To determine if a 

project area has habitat for tricolored blackbirds, project applicants should use 

the mitigation scoresheet (Appendix E). If habitat is present, the project 

applicant should implement avoidance measures as outlined in Table 3-2 and 

Table 3-3 (Objective 18.1 and 18.2). Most impacts will affect foraging habitat. 

Studies have shown that tricolored blackbirds typically forage within 2 miles of 

nest colonies. Mitigation would be required for projects that remove foraging 

habitat (suitable land cover within 2 miles of a recently active nest site). 

Mitigation could be accomplished through acquisition of habitat through fee 

title purchase or conservation easement (TRBL-1). The selection of a mitigation 


ICF 00906.08


site that will adequately offset project impacts should be informed by the 

mitigation scoresheet for this species (Appendix E). 

Additionally, project applicants could work with the Implementation Committee 

to fund an entity to perform annual surveys to document tricolored blackbird 

nest colonies on protected lands using monitoring protocols established by 

California Audubon. Results should be submitted to the Tricolored Blackbird 

Portal (U.C. Davis), CNDDB, and the Conservation Strategy database (TRBL-3). 

Additional nest colony surveys of known locations, coordinated with California 

Audubon on a 3-year rotation, would inform the Implementation Committee of 

additional colonies in the study area (TRBL-4). 

In addition to protecting new lands, many improvements can be made on public 

and private lands that would benefit this species. Specific measures for 

tricolored blackbird in management plans would include purchasing agricultural 

easements on land surrounding tricolored blackbird nest colonies or potential 

nest sites as foraging habitat (TRBL-5). Another beneficial measure would be to 

provide alternate water sources to control grazing pressure in streams, 

wetlands, and ponds during key times of the year (e.g., breeding season) (TRBL- 

6). Private landowners could be offered financial or regulatory incentives to 

enhance pond and marsh habitat to suit breeding tricolored blackbirds 

(including planting vegetation that could support nest colonies), and to ensure 

that dryland farming and ranching activities support foraging tricolored 

blackbirds (TRBL-7). 


• Protect all consistently occupied nest colonies and surrounding foraging 

habitat in the study area. 

• Fund surveys of all historically documented tricolored blackbird colonies to 

gain an understanding of the annual presence of this species in the study 

area. 

[Note: A 2008 census documented only one active colony in Alameda County, at 

Ames and Doolan roads near Livermore (April 27, 2008, 27 nesting pairs) (Kelsey 

2008). In 2009, a colony was observed off Andrade Road in the Sunol Area in 

quarry ponds near Alameda Creek (T. Rahmig and H. Peeters pers. obs.). In early 

2010 a colony was observed north of Bethany Reservoir in C-Z7 (DiDonato pers. 

obs.). Other historic colony sites have been documented at Altamont Creek, 

Broadmoor Pond, Dagnino Road, Dyer Road, Laughlin Road, North Flynn Road, 

and Vallecitos Lane (Kelsey 2008).] 


ICF 00906.08


3.5.3.11 Burrowing Owl 


Goal 19 

Increase the burrowing owl nesting population (number of nesting pairs) and 

number of nesting locations in the study area. 

Objective 19.1. Avoid direct impacts on burrowing owls (mortality of individuals 

and loss of nests) during project construction or postproject activities by 


Objective 19.2. Avoid and minimize direct loss of burrowing owl habitat (loss of 

breeding and non-breeding habitat) during project construction and indirect 

impacts that result from postproject activities by implementing avoidance 

measures outlined in Table 3-2 and 3-3. 

Objective 19.3. Protect and monitor all burrowing owl nest sites, including 

surrounding foraging habitat, in the study area. 

• Conservation Action BUOW-1. Acquire, through fee title purchase or 

conservation easement, parcels with documented burrowing owl nests in 


• Conservation Action BUOW-2. Acquire, through fee title purchase or 

conservation easement, parcels inside the study area with a history of 

burrowing owl occupation and/or nesting activity during the previous three 

breeding seasons. 

• Conservation Action BUOW-3. Mitigate the loss of burrowing owl nesting 

habitat (suitable habitat within 0.5 mile of documented nest occurrence 

during previous 3 years), by protecting habitat in accordance with the 


• Conservation Action BUOW-4. Implement an annual monitoring program in 

coordination with local conservation groups, Institute for Bird Populations, 

and California Audubon of all burrowing owl nest colonies on protected 

lands using monitoring protocols established by the California Burrowing 

Owl Consortium; submit results to the CNDDB and the Conservation 

Strategy database. 

• Conservation Action BUOW-5. To supplement surveys of known nest 

colonies, implement a systematic survey effort consistent with 

methodologies used by the Institute for Bird Populations to survey potential 

nest colony locations on public and private lands in the study area. 


ICF 00906.08


Objective 19.4. Enhance suitable burrowing owl habitat on public and private 



• Conservation Action BUOW-6. Purchase easements on land surrounding 

burrowing owl nest colonies or potential nest sites to ensure that the parcel 

will remain in types of grazing land, irrigated pasture, or dryland agriculture 

that provide foraging habitat for nesting burrowing owls. 

• Conservation Action BUOW-7. Create an incentive program that will 




• Conservation Action BUOW-8. Consistent with GRA-10, cease using 

rodenticides in protected areas and, when possible, outside protected 

areas. When rodent management is needed to protect the integrity of 

structures such as levees and stock pond dams or to prevent nuisance 

populations on adjacent private lands, encourage land managers to use IPM 

principles. 


Throughout their range, burrowing owls require habitats with three basic 

attributes: open, well-drained terrain; short, sparse vegetation; and 

underground burrows or burrow facsimiles (Klute et al. 2003). There are 52 

known occurrences of burrowing owls in the study area (California Natural 

Diversity Database 2009). Of those, 36 are occurrence records from the 

breeding season (February 1–August 30). All occurrences are in the northern 

portion of the study area in open fields, annual grassland, alkali sinks, and near 

business developments (California Natural Diversity Database 2009). The 

primary goal for this species is to increase the number of nesting pairs of 

burrowing owls and the number of nest locations in the study area (Goal 19). 

Two factors that affect burrowing owls are direct effects on nesting habitat and 

loss of foraging habitat around nest sites. Project applicants should use the 

mitigation scoresheet (Appendix E) to determine if the project site supports 

habitat for burrowing owl. In general, if the project site is supports grassland or 

ruderal vegetation and has ground squirrel burrows it has the potential to 

support burrowing owls. If habitat is present, the project applicant should have 

a qualified burrowing owl biologist conduct protocol-level surveys (California 

Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993). If the species is present, direct impacts on 

burrowing owls, their nests, and foraging habitat should be avoided during 

construction and postproject activities (Objectives 19.1 and 19.2). The project 

applicant should implement avoidance measures as outlined in Table 3-2 and 3- 

3 (Objective 19.1 and 19.2). Existing burrowing owl nest sites and foraging 

habitat should be protected and monitored (Objective 19.3). 


ICF 00906.08


If avoidance of burrowing owl habitat is not possible, the project applicant 

should mitigate the loss of habitat by protecting habitat in accordance with the 

mitigation guidelines outlined in Table 3-10 (BUOW-3). The project applicant 

could acquire parcels, through fee title purchase or conservation easement, 

where known nesting sites occur or where nesting sites have occurred in the 

previous three nesting seasons (BUOW-1 and BUOW-2). Additionally, the 

project applicant could work with the Implementation Committee to fund the 

implementation of an annual monitoring program in coordination with local 

conservation groups on all burrowing owl nest colonies on protected lands using 

monitoring protocols established by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium 

(1993). The results of these surveys would be submitted to the CNDDB and the 

Conservation Strategy database (BUOW-4 and BUOW-5). This would allow for 

informed avoidance of impacts in the future. 

To adequately conserve this species, management of burrowing owl habitat on 

public and private land also needs to occur (Objective 19.4). Specific measures 

for burrowing owls in management plans would include purchasing agricultural 

easements on land surrounding burrowing owl nest colonies or potential nest 

sites (BUOW-6). The Implementation Committee could create an incentive 

program to encourage private landowners to manage ground squirrels on their 

property using IPM principles and work toward a balance between species 

needs and the requirements of a working landscape. This would preclude using 

rodenticides in protected areas and, when possible, outside protected areas. 

When rodent management is needed to protect the integrity of structures such 

as levees and stock pond dams or to prevent nuisance populations on adjacent 

private lands, encourage land managers to use IPM principles. 


• Protect all known nest locations with priority given to those that are at risk 

of being lost to development. 

• Fund an annual monitoring program to track occupied burrowing owl nest 

sites and to estimate the number of nesting pairs. 

• Coordinate conservation actions with the Altamont Pass Wind Resource 

Area NCCP/HCP. 


programs. 


ICF 00906.08


3.5.3.12 American Badger 


Goal 20 

Maintain the American badger population while protecting and enhancing 

important regional linkages for the species in the study area. 

Objective 20.1. Avoid and minimize direct impacts on American badger 

(mortality of individuals and loss of den sites) during project construction and 


avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3-2 and 3-3. 

Objective 20.2. Maintain the American badger population in the study area at a 

level that allows for long-term viability of the population. 

• Conservation Action AMB-1. Mitigate the loss of suitable American badger 

habitat by protecting habitat in accordance with the mitigation guidelines 

outlined in Table 3-10. 

• Conservation Action AMB-2. Acquire parcels in the study area with 

documented American badger populations through fee title purchase or 


• Conservation Action AMB-3. Conduct targeted presence/absence surveys on 

private and public lands on both sides of I-580 and I-680 to identify linkages 

across these barriers. 

• Conservation Action AMB-4. Acquire parcels that protect linkages across I- 

580 and I-680 through fee title purchase, conservation easement, or 

agricultural easement. 

Objective 20.3. Enhance suitable American badger habitat on public and private 



• Conservation Action AMB-5. Create an incentive program that will 




• Conservation Action AMB-6. Allow the expansion of California ground 

squirrel colonies on all protected lands except when needed to protect the 


nuisance populations on adjacent private lands 

• Conservation Action AMB-7. Consistent with GRA-10 and BUOW-8, cease 

using rodenticides in protected areas and, when possible, outside protected 



ICF 00906.08


structures such as levees or stock pond dams or to prevent nuisance 


principles. 


The primary goal for this species is to maintain the population level and protect 

and enhance linkages in the study area (Goal 20). Mitigation is not generally 

required for this species. Under this Conservation Strategy, the species was used 

as an umbrella species to better understand habitat linkages, particularly in 

grassland habitats in the eastern part of the study area. To determine if 

mitigation would be required for this species, project applicants should assess 

their project area using the mitigation scoresheet (Appendix E). 

Mitigation would only be required if an American badger den were documented 

on the project site. If a den is documented on a project site, direct and indirect 

impacts on the den should be avoided during construction and postproject 

activities (Objective 20.1). Project applicants would implement avoidance 

measures outlined in Table 3-2 and 3-3 to help avoid any impacts on potential 

den sites (Objective 20.1 and AMB-1). Removal of the den would only occur 

following coordination with CDFG. 

If the den site cannot be avoided, the project applicant will be required to 

mitigate the habitat loss. Habitat mitigation would be consistent with mitigation 

ratios in Table 3-10. The selection of an adequate mitigation site would be 

informed by the mitigation scoresheet (Appendix E). Existing habitat in the study 

area could be protected by acquiring parcels that support it. The project 

applicant could acquire parcels, through fee title purchase or conservation 

easements, where known badger dens occur or where habitat linkages have 

been identified across I-580 and I-680 (AMB-2 and AMB-4). Alternatively, the 

project applicant could work with the Implementation Committee to fund 

presence/absence surveys in the study area to identify existing linkages on both 

sides of I-580 and I-680 and between other protected areas (AMB-3). 

Most conservation for this species will not result from mitigation. The most 

effective conservation will occur on public or private lands. Management plans 

on public and private lands in American badger habitat could be developed to 

enhance suitable habitat and ultimately prevent decline of the population 

(Objective 20.3). Specific measures for American badger in management plans 

would create incentive plans for private landowners that include allowing 

expansion of ground squirrel populations and managing populations of 

California ground squirrels using IPM practices rather than rodenticides, which 

are harmful to badgers (AMB-5, AMB-6 and AMB-7). Ground squirrels provide 

prey for American badgers and are important for their survival. 


ICF 00906.08



• Fund surveys in public lands to document occupied badger burrows. 

• Fund surveys that will document American badger movement through the 

study area to help identify important habitat linkages and potential 

passages across key barriers (e.g., freeways, aqueducts). 


programs. 

3.5.3.13 San Joaquin Kit Fox 


Goal 21 

Increase the San Joaquin kit fox population while protecting and enhancing 

suitable habitat and important regional linkages for the species in the study 

area. 

Objective 21.1. Avoid and minimize direct impacts on San Joaquin kit fox 

(mortality of individuals and loss of den sites) during project construction and 


avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3-2 and 3-3. 

Objective 21.2. Increase the San Joaquin kit fox breeding population in the 

study area. 

• Conservation Action SJKF-1. Mitigate the loss of suitable San Joaquin kit fox 

habitat by protecting habitat in accordance with the mitigation guidelines 

outlined in Table 3-11. 

• Conservation Action SJKF-2. Acquire parcels with documented San Joaquin 

kit fox den sites in the study area that meet the conservation goals and 

objectives of this strategy through fee title purchase and/ or conservation 

easement and using funding that comes from non-mitigation sources (e.g., 

grant funding, local fundraising efforts). 

Objective 21.3. Increase connectivity of suitable habitat across major 

infrastructure barriers in the study area. 

• Conservation Action SJKF-3. Conduct targeted presence/absence surveys, 

including scat scent surveys with dogs, on private and public lands on both 

sides of I-580 and along the California Aqueduct to identify linkages 

between and across these barriers. 

• Conservation Action SJKF-4. Acquire parcels and manage vegetation in aras 

that protect linkages across infrastructure barriers and that meet the 


ICF 00906.08


conservation goals and objectives of this strategy through fee title purchase 

or conservation easement. 

• Conservation Action SJKF-5. Create new passages (undercrossings or 

overcrossings) across I-580 between Livermore and the Alameda/San 

Joaquin County Line and overcrossings at key locations along the California 

Aqueduct that are large enough to accommodate movement of terrestrial 

mammals, including San Joaquin kit fox. 

Objective 21.3. Enhance suitable San Joaquin kit fox habitat on public and 

private lands in the study area through implementation of species-specific 

measures in management plans. 

• Conservation Action SJKF-5. Create an incentive program that will encourage 

private landowners to manage ground squirrels on their property using IPM 

principles and work toward a balance between species needs and the 

requirements of a working landscape. 

• Conservation Action SFJK-6. Allow the expansion of California ground 

squirrel colonies on all protected lands except when needed to protect the 


nuisance populations on adjacent private lands. 

• Conservation Action SFJK-7. Consistent with GRA-10, cease using 

rodenticides in protected areas and, when possible, outside protected 


structures such as levees or stock pond dams or to prevent nuisance 


principles. 


The primary goal for this species is to maintain the population and protect and 

enhance linkages in the study area (Goal 21). To determine if a project area 

supports San Joaquin kit fox habitat, project applicants should assess the area 

using the mitigation scoresheet (Appendix E). If foraging or dispersal habitat or a 

potential den site is located, the project applicant would have two options: (1) 

assume presence, avoid impacts on the den site through coordination with 

CDFG and USFWS, and mitigate the loss of any habitat that cannot be avoided; 

or (2) conduct approved protocol-level surveys for kit fox. Those surveys would 

have to be conducted by a USFWS- and CDFG-approved biologist. [Note: it is 

difficult to prove absence of San Joaquin kit fox on a parcel in this part of its 

range because population densities are so low]. 

If a potential den site is identified on the project site, direct and indirect impacts 

should be avoided during construction and postproject activities (Objective 

21.1). The project applicant can accomplish this by implementing avoidance 

measures outlined in Tables 3-2 and 3-3 (Objective 21.1 and SJKF-1). If suitable 


ICF 00906.08


habitat is present, then the project site should be scored using the mitigation 

scoresheet (Appendix E). Mitigation for the loss of habitat would be consistent 

with the mitigation ratios for this species in Table 3-11. The selection of an 

adequate mitigation site would be informed by using the mitigation scoresheet 

in Appendix E. 

In addition to standard project-level mitigation, additional study of kit fox in the 

study area would allow for more effective conservation. Project applicants in 

need of mitigation could work with the Implementation Committee to identify 

key linkages for kit fox in the study area (Objective 21.3). Surveys could be 

conducted in the study area to identify existing linkages on both sides of I-580, I- 

680, and the California Aqueduct (SJFK-3). Parcels in the linkage areas could be 

acquired through fee title purchase and/or conservation easement. Those 

acquisitions could be brokered with mitigation funds if the timing is appropriate, 

but they would more likely be acquired with kit fox recovery funds or funding 

from other conservation groups in Alameda County. If it is determined that 

linkages are compromised or if evidence suggests that new crossings would be 

beneficial to the species, additional overcrossings or undercrossings could be 

constructed to allow passage over I-580 and the California Aqueduct. These 

crossings would allow for safe passage between habitats. 

In addition to new land acquisition, management of lands that are already 

protected would also benefit this species. Management plans for public and 

private lands in San Joaquin kit fox habitat could be developed to enhance 

suitable habitat and contribute to the recovery of this species (Objective 21.3). 

Specific measures for kit fox in management plans would create incentive plans 

for private landowners that include allowing expansion of ground squirrel 

populations and managing populations of California ground squirrels using IPM 

practices rather than rodenticides, which are harmful to San Joaquin kit fox, and 

to reduce their control of coyotes on their lands. Coyote control can easily lead 

to non-targeted take of San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF-5, SJKF -6 and SJKF -7). Ground 

squirrels provide prey and burrowing sites for San Joaquin kit foxes and are 

important for their continued survival. 


• Preserve suitable habitat within the range of San Joaquin kit fox. 

• Identify key linkages (corridors) for San Joaquin kit fox in the study area. 

• Protect land on both sides of infrastructure barriers (i.e., roadways, canals) 

where passage currently occurs. Enhance those passages to facilitate kit fox 

movement. 


programs. 


ICF 00906.08


3.5.3.14 Central California Coast Steelhead 


Goal 22 

Increase the central California coast (CCC) steelhead distinct population 

segment by enhancing and providing access to habitat in the study area. 

Objective 22.1. Avoid and minimize direct impacts on potential CCC steelhead 

habitat during project construction and indirect impacts that result from 

postproject activities by implementing avoidance measures in Tables 3-2 and 

3-3. 

Objective 22.2. Increase the CCC steelhead population in the study area. 

Objective 22.3. Support existing efforts to remove/modify fish barriers in the 

Alameda Creek watershed to enable access to a wide variety of streams and 

habitats in the study area. 

Objective 22.4. Ensure that all new road crossings and crossing upgrades in 

areas of potential CCC steelhead habitat are designed to facilitate passage of 

adult and juvenile steelhead. 

Objective 22.5. Work with local flood control agencies to develop and 

implement fish-friendly flood control practices (e.g., Zone 7’s Stream 

Maintenance Program). 

Objective 22.6. Increase complexity of stream resources (e.g., woody debris) 

within the Conservation Strategy study area. 

• Conservation Action CCCS-1. Provide education for local jurisdictions with 

stream maintenance initiatives and landowners regarding removal of large 

woody material from streams. 

• Conservation Action CCCS-2. Use biotechnical techniques and applications 

for bank stabilization. 

• Conservation Action CCCS-3. Purchase floodplain properties that will allow 

stream channels to meander. 

• Conservation Action CCCS-4. Consistent with Conservation Actions RIP-1 to 

RIP-10 and STM-1 to STM-9, protect, restore, and enhance riparian 

vegetation in the study area. 

Objective 22.3. Increase access to CCC steelhead spawning and rearing habitat 



ICF 00906.08


• Conservation Action CCCS-6. Where possible, remove or modify existing 

barriers in the Alameda Creek watershed to allow passage to spawning and 

rearing habitat in the upper watershed. 

• Conservation Action CCCS-7. Increase instream flows by releasing water 

from existing reservoirs in the Alameda Creek watershed to allow adult 

steelhead passage to spawning and rearing habitat in the upper watershed. 

• Conservation Action CCCS-8. Increase stream flows to provide better 

juvenile rearing conditions by decreasing water temperatures, providing 

ample food, providing more habitat, and facilitating downstream juvenile 

migration. 


Currently, CCC steelhead is not present in the study area. Should the species 

return to the study area through the removal of barriers or by other means, 

mitigation guidance will be created for the species and included in this 

Conservation Strategy. In the interim, project applicants should rely on the 

mitigation guidance offered above for riparian forest and scrub habitat while 

considering the conservation goals and objectives outlined for this species. 

3.5.3.15 Focal Plant Species 


Goal 23 

Protect existing populations and maintain habitat for focal plant species (San 

Joaquin spearscale, big tarplant, Congdon’s tarplant, palmate-bracted bird’sbeak, 

Livermore Valley tarplant, and recurved larkspur). 

Objective 23.1. Avoid and minimize direct impacts on focal plant populations 



Objective 23.2. Protect existing focal plant populations. 

• Conservation Action PLA-1. Mitigate the loss of focal plant populations and 

suitable habitat for those species by protecting occupied habitat or by 

creating or restoring suitable habitat in accordance with the mitigation 

guidelines outlined in Table 3-12. 

• Conservation Action PLA-2. Acquire parcels with known occurrences of focal 

plant populations and suitable habitat in areas near known populations 

through fee title purchase or conservation easement. 


ICF 00906.08


• Conservation Action PLA-3. Establish an incentive program for private 

landowners to allow for botanical surveys on their property and to 

guarantee the management of habitats with focal plant populations to 

suppress nonnative invasive vegetation and promote regeneration and 

recruitment of native species while supporting the natural processes 

typically found in the communities that support the focal plant species. 

• Conservation Action PLA-4. Identify source populations for potential banking 

of seeds for use in future reintroduction of focal plant species into suitable 

habitat. 

Objective 23.3. Enhance suitable habitat for focal plant species on public and 

private lands in the study area through implementation of management plans 

that include beneficial management actions, seed banking, and reintroduction 

to suitable habitat. 

• Conservation Action PLA-5. Continue or introduce livestock grazing in a 

variety of grazing regimes with the appropriate timing and intensity for 

native plant species in grassland and scrub habitats. 

• Conservation Action PLA-6. Conduct prescribed burns. Use targeted studies 

to inform location and frequency. 

• Conservation Action PLA-7. Conduct mowing in selected areas to reduce 

plant height and biomass cover where use of livestock is impractical. 

• Conservation Action PLA-8. Identify locations in the study area where shrubor 

tree-dominated plant communities are encroaching on grassland 

communities (including alkali meadow and scald, California annual 

grassland, and non-serpentine bunchgrass grassland) and, if appropriate, 

work to reduce the encroachment through mechanical removal. 

Mitigation Standards 

The focal plant species in the study area are San Joaquin spearscale, big 

tarplant, Congdon’s tarplant, palmate-bracted bird’s-beak, Livermore Valley 

tarplant, and recurved larkspur (Goal 23). The primary goal for focal plant 

species is to protect existing populations and maintain their habitats. Though 

protecting extant populations should be a priority, there is also conservation 

value in conducting additional surveys for new occurrences in suitable habitat. 

The conservation zones where those surveys would be most beneficial are 

discussed below in Specific Conservation Priorities. 

• San Joaquin spearscale typically occurs in alkali grassland and alkali meadow 

or on the margins of alkali scrub. 

• Big tarplant occurs in annual grassland on clay to clay-loam soils, usually on 

slopes and often in burned areas, below 1,500 feet (California Natural 

Diversity Database 2009). 


ICF 00906.08


• Congdon’s tarplant occurs in annual grassland on lower slopes, flats, and 

swales below 800 feet. This species can be associated with alkaline or saline 

soils. A new population was discovered on private lands in CZ-6 in 2010 

(Didonato pers. obs.). 

• Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak is associated with alkaline sites in grassland 

and chenopod scrub at elevations of 10–500 feet. Seeds are dispersed by 

water, making the local hydrology very important to the extent of a 

population. 

• Livermore Valley tarplant occurs in seeps and meadows, often associated 

with alkali meadows at elevations of 500–600 feet. 

• Recurved larkspur occurs on sandy or clay alkaline soils, generally in annual 

grasslands or in association with saltbush scrub or valley sink scrub habitats, 

format elevations of 100–2,000 feet (California Natural Diversity Database 

2009). 

Direct and indirect impacts on focal plant species should be avoided during 

construction and postproject activities (Objective 23.1). Project applicants 

should implement avoidance measures outlined in Tables 3-2 and 3-3 to avoid 

any impacts and should mitigate any loss of habitat (Objective 23.1 and PLA-1). 

Mitigation will be required for impacts that cannot be avoided. An assessment 

of how the project and construction activities will affect the focal plant 

population must be completed. The methodology for this will vary by species 

and site-specific conditions. Impact assessment methodologies will need to be 

approved by USFWS (federally listed species) and CDFG. In all cases, an 

adequate floristic survey of the site must have been completed within the 

preceding 3 years (under normal rainfall conditions), and spatially explicit data 

on the extent of the focal plant population must be available. To mitigate 

impacts on a plant population, a parcel where the focal plant species occurs 

could be acquired through fee title purchase or conservation easement (PLA-2). 

An assessment of the plant population on both the impact site and the 

proposed mitigation site must be conducted by a qualified botanist. The 

mitigation population must be the same or better in terms of population size 

and vigor than the population affected at the project site. 

Enhancement plans for public and private lands that provide suitable habitat for 

focal plant species could be developed to enhance suitable habitat and 

contribute to meeting the conservation objectives (Objective 23.3). Specific 

measures for focal plant species in management plans would promote livestock 

grazing in grassland and scrub habitat (PLA-5), conducting prescribed burns 

(PLA-6), conducting mowing (PLA-7), and identifying locations in the study area 

where shrub- or tree-dominated plant communities are encroaching on 

grasslands communities (alkali meadow and scald, California annual grassland, 

and non-serpentine bunchgrass grassland) (PLA-8). 


ICF 00906.08



Big Tarplant 

• CZ-5, CZ-6. Survey for new occurrences in suitable habitat. 

• CZ-9. Protect extant populations (one CNDDB record) and survey for new 

occurrences. 

• CZ-10. This CZ contains five of six documented CNDDB occurrences in the 

study area. Protection of those occurrences and surveys for additional 

occurrences in suitable habitat are the conservation priority. 

Congdon’s Tarplant 

• CZ-2. Protect existing populations (three CNDDB records) and survey for 

new occurrences. 

• CZ-3. Protect existing populations (three CNDDB records) and survey for 

new occurrences. This CZ contains nearly half of all modeled suitable habitat 

for this species in the study area. 

• CZ-4. Protect existing populations (one CNDDB record) and survey for new 

occurrences. 

• CZ-6. Protect newly discovered population on private lands and survey for 

new occurrences. 

• CZ-5, CZ-11, and CZ-16. Conduct surveys for new occurrences in suitable 

habitat. 

Livermore Valley Tarplant 

• CZ-7. Protect existing populations and survey for new occurrences. 

Palmate-Bracted Bird’s Beak 

• CZ-4. Protect only known extant population of this species and conduct 

annual surveys to better document contraction and expansion of the 

population. 

Recurved Larkspur 

• CZ-7. Protect the only known occurrences of this species in the study area 

and survey for new occurrences. 

San Joaquin Spearscale 

• CZ-2. Protect existing populations (two CNDDB records) and survey for new 

occurrences. 

• CZ-3. Protect existing populations (five CNDDB records) and survey for new 

occurrences. 


ICF 00906.08



occurrences. 


occurrences. 


occurrences. 


occurrences. 

• CZ-10. Survey for new occurrences in suitable habitat. 


ICF 00906.08

Table 3-1. Conservation Goals for Land Cover within the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy Study Area. 

Land Cover 

Tota 

Are 

l in Study 

a (acres) 

Open 

Typ 

Space 

e 1 

Open Spac 

Type 2 

e Open Space 

Type 3 

Open Space 

Type 4 

Not in Open 

Space (acres) 

Protection Goal: 

percent of total in 

study area 

Acres Already 

Protected: Type 1 

or 2 Open Space 

Acres Not Protected 

(Not in Type 1 or 2 

Open Space) 

Northern Coastal Scrub / Diablan Sage Scrub 2 , 700 

280 494 752 130 1044 , 75% 774 1926 , 1251 , 

Northern Mixed Chaparral / Chamise Chaparral 2,684 0 0 129 233 2,322 75% 0 2,684 2,013 

Oak Woodland 

Blue Oak Woodland 26,321 273 3,854 3,656 206 18,332 75% 4,127 22,194 15,614 

Coast Live Oak Forest and Woodland 1,221 38 184 209 1 788 75% 222 999 694 

Mixed Evergreen Forest / Oak Woodland 32,497 635 7,105 5,217 1,022 18,518 75% 7,740 24,757 16,633 


Coulter Pine Woodland 74 0 60 13 0 0 75% 60 14 0 

Foothill Pine-Oak Woodland 22,695 0 1,944 260 128 20,363 75% 1,944 20,751 15,077 

Sargent Cypress Woodland 653 0 0 0 0 653 90% 0 653 588 

Riparian Forest and Scrub 

Mixed Riparian Forest and Woodland 2,323 37 176 412 220 1,477 75% 214 2,110 1,529 

Mixed Willow Riparian Scrub 664 0 0 11 120 533 75% 0 664 498 

Sycamore Alluvial Woodland 597 0 299 239 26 33 90% 299 298 238 

Wetlands 

Alkali Wetland 717 16 80 7 1 613 90% 96 621 549 

Perennial Freshwater Marsh 62 0 0 31 22 9 90% 0 62 56 

Seasonal Wetland 547 3 12 4 27 501 90% 15 532 477 

Open Water 

Pond 413 30 24 51 23 285 75% 54 359 256 

Ornamental Woodland 40 0 10 14 4 11 0% 

10 30 

Subtotal All Agricultural Land Cover Types 11,376 7 44 1,389 2,691 7,245 

Urban - Suburban 28,973 11 33 977 668 27,283 0% 44 28,929 

Rural Residential (

Table32.G 

 

e 

MeasurestoReduceEffectsonFocalSpecies 

neralAvoidanceandMinimization

Table33.SpeciesSpecificAMMs Page1of5 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• 

 

• 

 

 

 

 

 

• 

 

• 

 

 

• 

 

 

 

• 

 

 

• 

 

• Violapedunculata 

• 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• 

 

 

 

• 

 

 

•


 

 

 

 

 

• 

• 

 

• 

 

 

• 

 

 

 

• 

• 

 

• 

 

• 

• 

 

• 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• 

 

• 

 

 

 

•


 

 

 

• 

 

• 

 

 

 

• 

 

• 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• 

 

 

 

 

 

• 

• 

 

 

 

 

• 

 

 

 

 

• 

 

 

 

 

• 

 

 

 

•


 

• 

 

 

 

• 

 

 

 

• 

 

 

• 

 

• 

 

 

• 

 

• 

 

 

 

• 

 

 

• 

 

• 

 

 

 

• 

 

• 

• 

 

 

•


 

 

 

 

 

 

• 

 

 

 

 

•

Table 3-4. Standardized Mitigation Ratios for Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp in the EACCS Study Area 

Location of Mitigation 1,2 

Location of Impact 1 

Inside Critical Habitat in 


Outside Critical Habitat 

and Inside Vernal Pool 

Recovery Unit 


and Outside Vernal Pool 

Recovery Unit 

Outside EACCS Study 

Area 

Notes 

Inside Critical Habitat 

in EACCS study area 

9:1—(6 acres 

preservation; 3 acres 

restoration) 

*requires site-specific 

USFWS approval 

10:1—(6.5 acres 

preservation; 3.5 acres 

restoration) 



11:1—(7 acres 


restoration) 



Requires site-specific 

agency approval 

In order to preserve 

90% of vernal pool fairy 

shrimp habitat, 

consistent with the goals 

and objectives of the 

EACCS, a high ratio is 

required due to the 

rarity of this habitat 

type. 



Recovery Unit 

9:1—(6 acres 


restoration) 

9:1—(6 acres 


restoration) 

10:1—(6.5 acres 


restoration) 




and Outside Vernal 

Pool Recovery Unit 

9:1—(6 acres 


restoration) 

10:1—(6.5 acres 


restoration) 

11:1—(7 acres 


restoration) 



1 Reference Figure 3-6 for the location of key mitigation features for vernal pool fairy shrimp. 

2 In order to meet CDFG’s standard of full mitigation for state listed species under CESA, project applicants will have to demonstrate habitat enhancement, not just 

permanent protection, on properties used for mitigation. If credits are purchased at a CDFG approved mitigation bank, this enhancement is assumed, therefore the full 

mitigation standard would be met upon purchase of the credits.

Table 3-5. Standardized Mitigation Ratios for Longhorn Fairy Shrimp in the EACCS Study Area 

Location of Mitigation 1, 2 


Inside Critical Habitat in 




Recovery Unit 


and Outside Vernal Pool 

Recovery Unit 


Area 

Notes 



9:1—(6 acres 


restoration) 



10:1—(6.5 acres 


restoration) 



11:1—(7 acres 


restoration) 





In order to preserve 

90% of longhorn fairy 

shrimp habitat, 

consistent with the goals 

and objectives of the 

EACCS, a high ratio is 

required due to the 

rarity of this habitat 

type. 



Recovery Unit 

9:1—(6 acres 


restoration) 

9:1—(6 acres 


restoration) 

10:1—(6.5 acres 


restoration) 




and Outside Vernal 

Pool Recovery Unit 

9:1—(6 acres 


restoration) 

10:1—(6.5 acres 


restoration) 

11:1—(7 acres 


restoration) 



1 Reference Figure 3-7 for the location of key mitigation features for longhorn fairy shrimp. 




Table 3-6. Standardized Mitigation Ratios for Callippe Silverspot Butterfly in the EACCS Study Area 


Location of Impact 

Within CZ where impact 

occurred 

Adjacent to CZ where 

impact occurred and 

inside mitigation area 

shown in Figure 3-8 

In CZ Not Adjacent to CZ 

where impact occurred 

but inside mitigation area 


Outside mitigation area 


including an area outside 

EACCS Study Area 

Notes 

Inside Conservation 

Zones CZ1, CZ8, CZ11, 

CZ12, CZ14, CZ15, 

CZ16 

3:1 3.5:1 4:1 Requires site-specific 


1 Reference Figure 3-8 for the location of key mitigation features for callippe silverspot butterfly. 




Table 3-7. Standardized Mitigation Ratios for California Red-Legged Frog in the EACCS Study Area 




in EACCS study area in 

same CRLF Mitigation 

Area based on Figure 

3-9 


in EACCS study area in 

different CRLF 

Mitigation Area based 

on Figure 3-9 

Outside Critical 

Habitat but inside 

same CRLF Mitigation 

Area based on Figure 

3-9 


Habitat in EACCS 

study area in different 

CRLF Mitigation Area 

based on Figure 3-9 


Area 

Notes 



3:1 Requires site specific 










2.5:1 3:1 3:1 3.5:1 Requires site-specific 


1 Reference Figure 3-9 for the location of key mitigation features for California red-legged frog. 


permanent protection, on properties used for mitigation. If credits are purchased at a CDFG approved mitigation bank, this enhancement is assumed, therefore the 

full mitigation standard would be met upon purchase of the credits.

Table 3-8. Standardized Mitigation Ratios for California Tiger Salamander in the EACCS Study Area 



Inside Critical 

Habitat in 

EACCS study 

area 


Habitat but 

inside CTS North 

Mitigation Area, 

north of I-580 


Habitat but 

inside CTS North 


south of I-580 


Habitat but 

inside CTS South 


west of I-680 


Habitat but 

inside CTS South 


east of I-680 

Outside of EACCS 

Study Area 

Notes 


Habitat in EACCS 

study area 

3:1 Requires site 

specific agency 

approval 

Requires sitespecific 

agency 

approval 


agency 

approval 


agency 

approval 


agency 

approval 



CTS North Mitigation 

Area, north of I-580 

2.5:1 3:1 3.5:1 4:1 4:1 Requires sitespecific 

agency 

approval 

Shaffer et al. 2004 found 

that there is some genetic 

distinction between CTS 

in the Central Valley 

Ecological Zone and the 

Western California 

Ecological Zone. Those 

zones were used to create 

CTS North and South 

Mitigation Areas. 



CTS North Mitigation 

Area, south of I-580 

3:1 3.5:1 3:1 4:1 4:1 Requires sitespecific 

agency 

approval 



CTS South Mitigation 

Area, west of I-680 

3:1 4:1 4:1 3:1 3.5:1 Requires sitespecific 

agency 

approval 



CTS South Mitigation 

Zone, east of I-680 

3:1 4:1 4:1 3.5:1 3:1 Requires sitespecific 

agency 

approval 

1 Reference Figure 3-10 for the location of key mitigation features for California tiger salamander. 

2 In order to meet CDFG’s standard of full mitigation for state listed species under CESA, project applicants will have to demonstrate habitat enhancement, not 

just permanent protection, on properties used for mitigation. If credits are purchased at a CDFG approved mitigation bank, this enhancement is assumed, 

therefore the full mitigation standard would be met upon purchase of the credits.

Table 3-9. Standardized Mitigation Ratios for Alameda Whipsnake in the EACCS Study Area 

Location of Mitigation 1 



Habitat Unit in same 

recovery unit 2 


Habitat Unit in 

different recovery 

unit 


Habitat but Inside 

Same Recovery Unit 


Habitat and Inside 

Different Recovery 

Unit 


Habitat and Outside 

Recovery Unit 


Area 

Inside Critical Habitat 3:1 Requires sitespecific 

agency 

approval 


agency 

approval 


agency 

approval 


agency 

approval 




but Inside Recovery 

Unit 

2.5:1 3:1 3:1 3.5:1 4:1 Requires site-specific 



and Outside Recovery 

Unit 

2.5:1 2.5:1 3:1 3:1 3:1 Requires site-specific 


1 Reference Figure 3-12 for the location of key mitigation features for Alameda whipsnake. 

2 Agency approval will be required to mitigate impacts that occur inside Critical Habitat Unit 5a in Critical Habitat Unit 5b and vice versa, even though they are inside 

the same recovery unit.

Table 3-10. Standardized Mitigation Ratios for Non-Listed Species in the EACCS Study Area 



Within East Bay Hills 

Mitigation Area 

Within Livermore 

Valley Mitigation Area 

Within Altamont Hills 


Within Northern 

Diablo Range 



Area 

Notes 



3:1 3.5:1 4:1 3.5:1 Requires site-specific 




3.5:1 3:1 3.5:1 3.5:1 Requires site-specific 




4:1 3.5:1 3:1 3.5:1 Requires site-specific 



Diablo Range 


3.5:1 3.5:1 3.5:1 3:1 Requires site-specific 


1 Reference Figure 3-11 for the location of key mitigation features for non-listed species in the EACCS study area. 




Table 3-11. Standardized Mitigation Ratios for San Joaquin Kit Fox in the EACCS Study Area 



Inside SJKF North 

Mitigation Area as 


Inside SJKF East 



Inside SJKF South 



Inside SJKF Central- 

West Mitigation Area as 


Outside of EACCS 

Study Area 

Notes 

Inside SJKF North 



3:1 3:1 3:1 N/A Requires sitespecific 

agency 

approval 

Inside SJKF East 



3.5:1 3:1 3.5:1 N/A Requires sitespecific 

agency 

approval 

Ratios may 

rise in areas of 

documented 

high 

occurrence or 

movement 

corridors. 

Inside SJKF South 



3.5:1 3:1 3:1 N/A Requires sitespecific 

agency 

approval 

Inside SJKF Central- 

West Mitigation Area 

as shown in Figure 3- 

13 

N/A N/A N/A N/A Requires sitespecific 

agency 

approval 

1 Reference Figure 3-13 for the location of mitigation areas for San Joaquin kit fox. 




Table 3-12. Standardized Mitigation Ratios for Focal Plant Species in the EACCS Study Area 1 










Diablo Range 



Area 

Notes 



5:1 With agency approval With agency approval With agency approval With agency approval 



With agency approval 5:1 With agency approval With agency approval With agency approval 



With agency approval With agency approval 5:1 With agency approval With agency approval 


Diablo Range 


With agency approval With agency approval With agency approval 5:1 With agency approval 

1 Mitigation ratios for focal plant species refer to the size of the population that is effected or protected. Restoration ratio refers to reestablishing or increasing the size 

of an existing population. The quality/vigor of a population would need to be considered when making final determinations. 

2 Reference Figure 3-11 for the location of key mitigation features for plants and non-listed species in the EACCS study area. 




Gold Creek 

Alameda Creek 

Pe 

Bethany 

Reservoir 

Brushy Creek 




Patterson Run 

§¨¦ 680 15 


§¨¦ 580 


Arroyo Seco 

Arroyo Mocho 

Arroyo Valle 

Dry Creek 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

Sinbad Creek 

Arroyo Mocho 


§¨¦ 680 

·|}þ84 


Shafer Creek 

Indian Creek 

Arroyo Valle 

Leyden Creek 

Valpe Creek 

Alameda Creek 



K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig 3-1 ConservationZones.mxd MF (09-13-10) 


33 

23 

Pleasanton 

25 

6 14 

CZ1 

17 

CZ8 

38 

49 

12 

CZ3 CZ4 

CZ11 

CZ2 

Livermore 

46 

16 

8 

CZ5 

7 

1 

31 

2 

5 

CZ9 

29 

CZ6 

CZ7 

32 

28 

CZ10 

11 

30 

39 

CZ14 

26 

Sunol 

37 

40 

47 

CZ15 

4 

22 

9 

50 

34 

CZ16 

CZ17 

CZ12 

18 

19 

3 

20 

24 

48 

41 

21 

CZ18 

CZ13 

42 

13 

27 

35 

36 

45 

44 

10 

43 

Figure 3-1 

Conservation Zones 

October 2010 


Watershed Boundary 

Streams 

Highways 

Reservoirs 

Conservation 

Zones (CZ) 

Watershed Key 

1. Altamont Creek 

2. Arroyo Seco 

3. Baby Peak 

4. Berryessa Creek 

5. Bethany Reservoir 

6. Big Canyon 

7. Brushy Creek 

8. Brushy Peak 

9. Calaveras Reservoir 

10. Carbona 

11. Carnegie 

12. Cayetano Creek 

13. Coffee Mill Creek 

14. Cottonwood Creek 

15. Daugherty Hills 

16. Dry Creek 

17. Gold Creek 

18. Indian Creek 

19. La Costa Creek 

20. Lake Del Valle 

21. Lang Canyon 

22. Leyden Creek 

23. Livermore 

24. Lower Arroyo Mocho 

25. Lower Tassajara Ck. 

26. Mission Creek 

27. Mitchell Ravine 

28. Mountain House 

29. Mtn. House Ck. 

30. Oakland 

31. Patterson Pass 

32. Patterson Run 

33. Polomares Creek 

34. San Antonio Res. 

35. San Joaquin Delta 

36. SE of Midway 

37. Sheridan Creek 

38. Sinbad Creek 

39. Stoneybrook Canyon 

40. Toroges Creek 

41. Trout Creek 

42. Tunnel Creek 

43. Upper Arroyo Mocho 

44. Upr. Corral Hollow Ck. 

45. Upper Elk Ravine 

46. Upper Kellogg Creek 

47. Vallecitos Creek 

48. Valpe Creek 

49. Vern 

50. Whitlock Creek 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles

Gold Creek 

Alameda Creek 

Pe 

Patterson Run 

Arroyo Mocho 

Bethany 

Reservoir 

Brushy Creek 



§¨¦ 580 


Arroyo Seco 

Arroyo Mocho 

Arroyo Valle 

Dry Creek 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

Sinbad Creek 


§¨¦ 680 

·|}þ84 


Shafer Creek 

Indian Creek 

Arroyo Valle 

Leyden Creek 

Valpe Creek 

Alameda Creek 



CR 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig 3-2 Grassland.mxd MF (09-13-10) 




CZ-1 

Pleasanton 

CZ-2 

CZ-3 CZ-4 

Livermore 

CZ-5 

CZ-9 

CZ-6 

CZ-8 

CZ-11 

CZ-14 

Sunol 

CZ-15 

CZ-16 

CZ-12 

CZ-13 

CZ-17 

CZ-18 

CZ-7 

CZ-10 

Figure 3-2 

Grassland Land Cover 

October 2010 




Highways 

Streams 

Reservoirs 

Grassland Landcover 

Alkali Meadow 

and Scalds 


California Annual 

Grassland 

Rock Outcrop 

Serpentine Bunchgrass 

Grassland 

Open Space 

Type 1 

Type 2 

Type 3 

Type 4 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles

Gold Creek 

Alameda Creek 

Pe 

Patterson Run 

Arroyo Mocho 

Bethany 

Reservoir 

Brushy Creek 


§¨¦ 680 CZ3 


§¨¦ 580 


Arroyo Seco 

Arroyo Mocho 

Arroyo Valle 

Dry Creek 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

Sinbad Creek 


§¨¦ 680 

·|}þ84 


Shafer Creek 

Indian Creek 

Arroyo Valle 

Leyden Creek 

Valpe Creek 

Alameda Creek 



R 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig 3-3 ChaparralCoastalScrub.mxd MF (09-14-10) 




CZ1 

CZ2 

Pleasanton 

CZ4 

Livermore 

CZ5 

CZ6 

CZ9 

CZ8 

CZ11 

CZ14 

Sunol 

CZ15 

CZ16 

CZ12 

CZ13 

CZ17 

CZ18 

CZ7 

CZ10 

Figure 3-3 

Chaparral and Coastal 

Scrub Land Cover 

October 2010 




Highways 

Streams 

Reservoirs 

Chaparral Coastal Scrub Landcover 


Northern Coastal Scrub / 

Diablan Sage Scrub 

Northern Mixed Chaparral / 

Chamise Chaparral 

Open Space 

Type 1 

Type 2 

Type 3 

Type 4 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles

Gold Creek 

Alameda Creek 

Patterson Run 

Arroyo Mocho 

Bethany 

Reservoir 

Brushy Creek 



§¨¦ 580 


Arroyo Seco 

Arroyo Mocho 

Arroyo Valle 

Dry Creek 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

Sinbad Creek 



§¨¦ 680 

·|}þ84 

Shafer Creek 

Indian Creek 

Arroyo Valle 

Leyden Creek 

Valpe Creek 

Alameda Creek 



K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig 3-4 ConiferWoodld_OakWoodld.mxd MF (09-13-10) 




CZ-1 

Pleasanton 

CZ-2 

CZ-3 CZ-4 

Livermore 

CZ-5 

CZ-9 

CZ-6 

CZ-8 

CZ-11 

CZ-14 

Sunol 

CZ-15 

CZ-16 

CZ-12 

CZ-13 

CZ-17 

CZ-18 

CZ-7 

CZ-10 

Figure 3-4 

Conifer Woodland and 

Oak Woodland 

October 2010 



Streams 

Highways 

Reservoirs 



Sargent Cypress 

Woodland 

Open Space 

Mixed Evergreen 

Forest / Oak Woodland 

Type 1 

Type 2 

Type 3 

Type 4 

Oak Woodland 


Foothill Pine- 

Oak Woodland 

Coast Live Oak Forest and 

Woodland 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles

Gold Creek 

Alameda Creek 

P 

Patterson Run 

Arroyo Mocho 

Bethany 

Reservoir 

Brushy Creek 



§¨¦ 580 


Arroyo Seco 

Arroyo Mocho 

Arroyo Valle 

Dry Creek 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

Sinbad Creek 


§¨¦ 680 

·|}þ84 


Shafer Creek 

Indian Creek 

Arroyo Valle 

Leyden Creek 

Valpe Creek 

Alameda Creek 



R 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig 3-5 AquaticLandcover.mxd MF (09-13-10) 




CZ-1 

Pleasanton 

CZ-2 

CZ-3 CZ-4 

Livermore 

CZ-5 

CZ-9 

CZ-6 

CZ-8 

CZ-11 

CZ-14 

Sunol 

CZ-15 

CZ-16 

CZ-12 

CZ-13 

CZ-17 

CZ-18 

CZ-7 

CZ-10 

Figure 3-5 

Aquatic Landcover 

October 2010 



Highways 

Streams 

Reservoirs 

Ponds 


Open Space 

Type 1 

Type 2 

Mixed Riparian 

Forest/Woodland 

Mixed Willow 

Riparian Scrub 

Sycamore Alluvial 

Woodland 

Type 3 

Type 4 

Wetland Landcover 

Alkali Wetland 


Perennial Freshwater 

Marsh 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles

i 

OLD RIVER 

§¨¦ 680 CZ3 


CZ1 

§¨¦ 580 

§¨¦ 680 

·|}þ 84 Santa Clara County 


K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig 3-6 VPFSMitigation.mxd MF (09-13-10) 


Arroyo Mocho 

CH Unit 

CH Unit 

CZ6 



CZ4 

VERFS 

19C 

VERFS 

19B 

CZ5 

CZ10 

CZ2 

Pleasanton 

Livermore 

CZ9 

CZ8 

CZ11 

CZ14 

Sunol 

CZ15 

CZ17 

CZ12 

CZ16 

CZ18 

CZ13 

CZ7 

C re ek 

Br ushy 

Syc amore 

Alamo Cr eek 

C ree k 

Cay etano 

Creek 

Arroyo 

tas 

LasP os 

Arroyo 

Se co 

Mocho 

Arroyo 

Arroyo 

de 

la 

L aguna 

Dry 

Creek 

Sin bad 

Cre ek 

San 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

Figure 3-6 

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp 

Standardized Mitigation 

Reference Map 



Critical Habitat 

Highways 

Streams 

Reservoirs 

Vernal Pool Recovery 

Unit: Altamont Hills 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles 


Anto nio Cre ek 

La 

C osta Creek 

Creek 

Indian 

Alamed a 

Cr eek 

Calaveras 

Reservoir 

October 2010 

Source: California Spatial Information Library; 

FR listing and critical habitat documents.

i 

OLD RIVER 

§¨¦ 680 CZ3 


CZ1 

§¨¦ 580 

§¨¦ 680 



K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig 3-7 LFSMitigation.mxd MF (09-13-10) 


Arroyo Mocho 

CH Unit 

LONFS 1A 

CZ6 

CH Unit 

LONFS 1B 

CZ5 

CZ4 



CZ10 

CZ2 

Pleasanton 

Livermore 

CZ9 

CZ8 

CZ11 

CZ14 

Sunol 

CZ15 

CZ17 

CZ12 

CZ16 

CZ18 

CZ13 

CZ7 

C re ek 

ushy 

Br 

Syc amore 

Alamo Cr eek 

C ree k 

Cay etano 

Creek 

Arroyo 

tas 

LasP os 

Arroyo 

Se co 

Mocho 

Arroyo 

Arroyo 

de 

la 

L aguna 

Dry 

Creek 

Sin bad 

e 

k 

Cre ek 

Cre 

Vallecito s 

San 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

Figure 3-7 

Longhorn Fairy Shrimp 


Reference Map 




Highways 

Streams 

Vernal Pool Recovery 

Unit: Altamont Hills 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles 



La 

C osta Creek 

Indian Creek 

Alamed a 

Cr eek 

Calaveras 

Reservoir 

October 2010 


FR listing and critical habitat documents.

R 

i 

OLD 



§¨¦ 680 

·|}þ84 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig 3-8 CSSBMitigation.mxd MF (09-13-10) 


Arroyo Mocho 

C re ek 

Br ushy 

SycamoreC 

Ala mo Cr eek 

ree k 

Cayetano 

Creek 



Arroyo 

Cot 

tas 

LasP os 

§¨¦ 680 CZ3 


CZ1 

§¨¦ 580 

CZ4 

CZ5 

tonwood 

Creek 

Arroyo 

Seco 

Pleasanton 

CZ11 

Livermore 

CZ2 

Mocho 

Arroyo 

Arroyo 

de 

la 

Laguna 

Dry 

CZ8 

Creek 

Sin bad 

Cre ek 

CZ14 

Sunol 

CZ12 

CZ6 

CZ10 

CZ9 

CZ18 

San 


CZ16 

Anto nio Creek 

CZ15 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

CZ13 

CZ7 

La 

C osta Creek 

Creek 

Indian 

Alameda 

CZ17 

Figure 3-8 

Callippe Silverspot 

Butterfly Standardized 

Mitigation Reference Map 

October 2010 



Highways 

Streams 

Reservoirs 

Callippe Silverspot 

Butterfly Mitigation 

Zones 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles 

Creek

R 

OLD 

d River 

Ol 

§¨¦ 680 CZ3 


§¨¦ 580 



§¨¦ 680 

·|}þ84 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig 3-9 CRLFMitigation.mxd MF (09-13-10) 


Arroyo Mocho 

Creek 

Br ushy 

CH Unit 

CCS-2B 



CH Unit 

ALA-1A 

CH Unit 

ALA-1B 

Pleasanton 

Livermore 

Sunol 

CH Unit 

ALA-2 

itas 

Sycamore Cree k 

Alamo Cr eek 

LasPos 

Arroyo 

C a yetano Cre ek 

CZ1 

Arroyo 

Seco 

Mocho 

Arroyo 

Arroyo 

de 

la 

Laguna 

Dry 

CZ8 

Creek 

CZ2 

CZ11 

CZ5 

CZ4 

CZ6 

CZ10 

CZ9 

CZ18 

Si nbad 

Cr eek 

CZ12 

San 

CZ14 

Williams Gulc h 

Antonio 

Creek 

CZ16 

Costa 

L a 

CZ15 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

CZ7 

CZ13 

Creek 

Creek 

Indian 

Alameda 

CZ17 

Figure 3-9 

California Red-Legged 

Frog Standardized 


October 2010 




Highways 

Streams 

Reservoirs 

Mitigation Areas 

CRLF Northwest 

CRLF North 

CRLF West 

CRLF South 

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles 

Creek 

CR 

SA N 

RA MON CR 

COYOTE

i 

OLD RIVER 

§¨¦ 680 CZ3 

CH Unit CV-18 


CZ1 

§¨¦ 580 



·|}þ84 

§¨¦ 680 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig 3-10 CTSMitigation.mxd MF (09-13-10) 


Arroyo 

Mocho 

CZ5 



CZ4 

CZ2 

Pleasanton 

Livermore 

CZ8 

CZ11 

Sunol 

CZ12 

CZ14 

CZ15 

CZ16 

CZ17 

CZ6 

CZ10 

CZ9 

CZ13 

CZ18 

CZ7 

C re ek 

Br ushy 

tas 

ree k 

SycamoreC 

Alamo Cr eek 

Cayetano 

Creek 

LasP os 

Arroyo 

Arroyo 

Se co 

Mocho 

Arroyo 

Arroyo 

de 

la 

L aguna 

Dry 

Creek 

Sin bad 

Creek 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

San 


San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Figure 3-10 

California Tiger 

Salamander Standardized 


October 2010 




Highways 

Streams 

Reservoirs 


CTS South 

CTS North 


FR listing and critical habitat documents; 

California Gap Analysis, University of California 

Santa Barbara 1998. 

Note: See Chapter 3 for explanation of 

Mitigation Areas. 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles 


La 

C osta Creek 

Indian Creek 

Alameda Creek

R 

i 

OLD 

ldRiver 

O 



§¨¦ 680 

·|}þ84 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig 3-11 NonListedMitigation.mxd MF (09-13-10) 


Arroyo M ocho 

C re ek 

Br ushy 

k 

SycamoreC 

Alamo Cr eek 

ree 

Cayetano 

Creek 



Arroyo 

Cot 

tas 

LasP os 

§¨¦ 680 CZ3 


CZ1 

§¨¦ 580 

CZ4 

CZ5 

tonwood 

Creek 

Arroyo 

Se co 

Mocho 

Arroyo 

Pleasanton 

Livermore 

CZ2 

Arroyo 

de 

la 

L aguna 

Dry 

CZ8 

Creek 

CZ11 

Sin bad 

e 

k 

Creek 

Cre 

Vallecito s 

CZ14 

Sunol 

CZ12 

CZ6 

CZ10 

CZ9 

CZ18 


San 

Anto 

nio Cre ek 

CZ15 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

CZ16 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

CZ13 

CZ7 

La 

C osta Creek 

Indian Creek 

Alameda 

CZ17 

Figure 3-11 

Plants and Non-listed 

Wildlife Species 


Reference Map 


Highways 

Streams 

Reservoirs 


Non-listed Species 




Altamont Hills 

Northern Diablo 

Range 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles 

Cre ek 

Calaveras 

Reservoir 

October 2010

R 

i 

OLD 



§¨¦ 680 

·|}þ84 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig 3-12 AlamedaWhipsnakeMitigation.mxd MF (09-13-10) 


Arroyo Mocho 

C re ek 

Br ushy 



CH 

Unit 3 

Pleasanton 

Livermore 

Sunol 

CH Unit 5B 

CH 

Unit 5A 

k 

Syc amore 

Ala mo Cr eek 

C ree 

Cayetano 

Creek 

Arroyo 

Cot 

tas 

LasP os 

§¨¦ 680 CZ3 


CZ1 

§¨¦ 580 

CZ4 

CZ5 

tonwood 

Creek 

Arroyo 

Seco 

Mocho 

Arroyo 

Arroyo 

de 

la 

Laguna 

Dry 

CZ8 

CZ6 

CZ10 

CZ18 

Creek 

CZ11 

CZ2 

CZ9 

Sin bad 

Creek 

CZ14 

CZ12 

San 


CZ16 


CZ15 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

CZ7 

CZ13 

La 

C osta Creek 

Creek 

Indian 

Alameda 

CZ17 

Figure 3-12 

Alameda Whipsnake 


Reference Map 




Highways 

Streams 

USFWS Recovery Units 

Unit 2 

Unit 3 

Unit 4 

Unit 5 

Unit 7 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles 

Cre ek 

Calaveras 

Reservoir 

October 2010 

Source: 

California Spatial Information Library. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002. 

USFWS Recovery Plan

R 

i 

OLD 



§¨¦ 680 

·|}þ84 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig 3-13 SJKitFoxMitigation.mxd MF (09-13-10) 


Arroyo Mocho 

CZ5 


§¨¦ 680 CZ3 


CZ1 

§¨¦ 580 


CZ4 

CZ8 

Pleasanton 

CZ11 

Livermore 

CZ2 

CZ14 

Sunol 

CZ15 

CZ16 

CZ12 

CZ17 

CZ6 

CZ10 

CZ9 

CZ13 

CZ18 

CZ7 

C re ek 

Br ushy 

k 

C ree 

Syc amore 

Alamo Cr eek 

Cayetano 

Creek 

Arroyo 

Cot 

tas 

LasP os 

tonwood 

Creek 

Arroyo 

Seco 

Mocho 

Arroyo 

Arroyo 

de 

la 

Laguna 

Dry 

Creek 

Sin bad 

Creek 

San 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

Figure 3-13 

San Joaquin Kit Fox 


Reference Map 


Highways 

Streams 



SJKF North 

SJKF East 

SJKF South 

SJKF Central-West 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles 



La 

C osta Creek 

Creek 

Indian 

Alameda 

Cre ek 

Calaveras 

Reservoir 

October 2010

R 

OLD 

Ri ver 

ld 

O 

Arroyo Mocho 

Cree k 

Br ushy 

§¨¦ 680 East Dublin - Lower 

Tassajara Valley 

§¨¦ 580 

East Dublin - 

Lower Tassajara 

Valley Core 

Springtown 

Core 

Springtown 

Ohlone/Del Valle 

Core 

Altamont Pass 

Corral 

Hollow 

Cedar Mountain 

·|}þ84 

Ohlone/Del Valle 

Altamont 

Core 

Corral Hollow 

Core - North 

Corral Hollow 

Core - South 

itas 

k 

ree 

SycamoreC 

Alamo Cr eek 

Cayetano 

CR 

Creek 

TASSAJARA 

LasPos 

Arroyo 

Arroyo 

Seco 

Mocho 

Arroyo 

Arroyo de 

la 

L aguna 

Dry 

Creek 

Sin bad 

VALLE 

ROYO 

Creek 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

AR 


San 

Anto 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Figure 3-14 

Eastern Alameda County 

Conservation Strategy 

East Bay California 

Native Plant Society 

Core Botanical Protection 

Areas 


Highway 

Stream 

Lake 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles 

nio Cre ek 

§¨¦ 680 

Costa 

La 

Creek 

Indian 

Alameda 

Creek 

Cre ek 

Calaveras 

Reservoir 

October 2010 

\\icf-hq\epi-k\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\BotanicalProtectionAreas.mxd HW (10-07-10)

Chapter 4 



4.1 Conservation Zone 1 .............................................................................. 4-3 

4.1.1 Background...................................................................................... 4-3 

4.1.2 Conservation Priorities .................................................................... 4-4 

4.1.3 Summary ......................................................................................... 4-4 


4.2.1 Background...................................................................................... 4-4 


4.2.3 Summary ......................................................................................... 4-6 


4.3.1 Background...................................................................................... 4-6 


4.3.3 Summary ......................................................................................... 4-7 


4.4.1 Background...................................................................................... 4-8 


4.4.3 Summary ......................................................................................... 4-9 

4.5 Conservation Zone 5 ............................................................................ 4-10 

4.5.1 Background.................................................................................... 4-10 

4.5.2 Conservation Priorities .................................................................. 4-11 

4.5.3 Summary ....................................................................................... 4-12 


4.6.1 Background.................................................................................... 4-13 


4.6.3 Summary ....................................................................................... 4-15 


4.7.1 Background.................................................................................... 4-15 


4.7.3 Summary ....................................................................................... 4-17 


4.8.1 Background.................................................................................... 4-17 


4.8.3 Summary ....................................................................................... 4-18 


ICF 00906.08

Chapter 4 Conservation Zones 


4.9.1 Background.................................................................................... 4-19 


4.9.3 Summary ....................................................................................... 4-21 

4.10 Conservation Zone 10 .......................................................................... 4-21 

4.10.1 Background ............................................................................. 4-21 

4.10.2 Conservation Priorities ........................................................... 4-22 

4.10.3 Summary ................................................................................. 4-24 


4.11.1 Background ............................................................................. 4-25 


4.11.3 Summary ................................................................................. 4-26 


4.12.1 Background ............................................................................. 4-26 


4.12.3 Summary ................................................................................. 4-28 


4.13.1 Background ............................................................................. 4-28 


4.13.3 Summary ................................................................................. 4-30 


4.14.1 Background ............................................................................. 4-31 


4.14.3 Summary ................................................................................. 4-32 


4.15.1 Background ............................................................................. 4-33 


4.15.3 Summary ................................................................................. 4-35 


4.16.1 Background ............................................................................. 4-35 


4.16.3 Summary ................................................................................. 4-37 


4.17.1 Background ............................................................................. 4-38 


4.17.3 Summary ................................................................................. 4-39 


4.18.1 Background ............................................................................. 4-40 


4.18.3 Summary ................................................................................. 4-41 


ICF 00906.08


Eighteen discrete units, or conservation zones (CZs), were developed for this 

Conservation Strategy to identify locations for conservation actions in areas 

with the same relative ecological function as those areas where impacts occur. 

Designating CZs provides a description of specific areas where conservation 

actions, such as land acquisition, will occur without identifying individual 

parcels. Tables 4-1 through 4-18 illustrate the acreage of each land cover type 

present in each conservation zone. This chapter discusses the conservation 

value and conservation acreage goals for each CZ as described in Section 3.4.2, 

Geographic Units of Conservation, in Chapter 3. In addition, conservation 

priorities were assessed for focal species on the basis of suitable habitat and 

designated critical habitat (when applicable) in each CZ. Tables 4-19a-e show 

the modeled suitable habitat for focal species in each CZ based on Conservation 

Strategy habitat models; Table 4-20 shows the critical habitat designated by 

USFWS in each zone for those federally listed focal species for which such 

habitat has been designated. 

The discussion of each CZ should be reviewed during project development to 

give regional context to the effects of anticipated project-level impacts or the 

benefits of proposed mitigation. Conservation priorities are highlighted for each 

CZ to ensure that the relative importance of each feature is not lost during 

project-level discussion. However, the list of conservation priorities is not 

exhaustive. The conservation value of resources that will be lost to project 

development or gained through mitigation should be considered on a case-bycase 

basis. The conservation zone discussions below merely provide context 

within which those more specific analyses can occur. 

4.1 Conservation Zone 1 


CZ-1 is located in the northwestern corner of the Conservation Strategy study 

area along Pleasanton Ridge. This 1,672-acre CZ is largely comprised of the 

southern portion of Big Canyon watershed and is bordered on the south by I- 

580 and on the north by the Alameda–Contra Costa County line. I-680 is to the 

east and nearly touches the northeast corner of CZ-1. Table 4-1 shows the 

acreage of land cover types in CZ-1, based on Figure 2-8, as well as the 

proportion of each type that is currently under some form of protection. The 

most prevalent natural land cover types found in this CZ are annual grassland 

(780 acres), mixed evergreen forest/oak woodland (204 acres), and mixed 

riparian forest and woodland (140 acres) (Table 4-1). 


ICF 00906.08


4.1.2 Conservation Priorities 

CZ-1 contains 5% (112 acres) of the study area’s unprotected mixed riparian 

forest and woodland (Table 4-1). Mixed riparian forest and woodland occurs in 

three distinct areas in the CZ—along Dublin Creek and two smaller creeks to the 

north, all of which have their headwaters in the East Bay Hills and flow into the 

city of Dublin. This is a relatively rare land cover in the region, with only 2,110 

acres [this is not what Table 4-1 says] total in the study area. 

CZ-1 contains 543 acres of unprotected critical habitat for California red-legged 

frog, or 0.4% of the total unprotected critical habitat for this species in the study 

area (Table 4-20). The CNDDB lists six occurrences for this species in CZ-1 that 

should be investigated as potential breeding locations (California Natural 

Diversity Database 2009). CZ-1 also contains 885 unprotected acres and 278 

protected acres of Alameda whipsnake Recovery Unit 2 (Table 4-19b). 

4.1.3 Summary 

Conservation priorities are based on the rarity of the feature in the CZ or the 

Conservation Strategy study area, or the risk of losing conservation 

opportunities in the future. Conservation priorities for CZ-1 are listed below. 

• Protection of and restoration opportunities within mixed riparian forest 

along Dublin Creek and other small creeks. 

• Protection of California red-legged frog critical habitat, especially occupied 

breeding locations. 

• Protection of habitat within Alameda whipsnake Recovery Unit 2. 

• Surveys for Alameda whipsnake throughout CZ and protection of habitat, 

including stands of mixed evergreen forest/oak woodland and grassland 

between stands that could be used as movement habitat. 

• Protection of annual grassland in this CZ should be focused in areas that 

support focal plant populations and provide non-breeding habitat for focal 

amphibians (uplands around aquatic breeding sites). 



CZ-2 encompasses 37,066 acres of the largely urbanized Livermore Valley in the 

northern portion of the study area. This CZ includes the intersection of I-680 and 

I-580 and the intersection of SR 84 and I-580. The southern and western 

boundaries of this CZ follow the Livermore watershed boundary; the northeast 


ICF 00906.08


boundary is formed by I-580. Table 4-2 shows the acreage of each land cover 

present in CZ-2, based on Figure 2-8, as well as the proportion of each that is 

currently under some form of protection. Though this area is largely urbanized, 

the dominant natural land cover types in this conservation zone are annual 

grassland (3,409 acres) and mixed riparian forest and woodland (410 acres), as 

shown in Table 4-2. 


CZ-2 contains 20% of the study area’s unprotected stream mileage (Table 4-2), 

although most of those pass through urban areas. CZ-2 contains a portion of the 

study area’s streams: Arroyo Seco, Arroyo Las Positas, Arroyo Mocho, Arroyo 

Valle, and Arroyo de la Laguna. Riverine habitat supports California red-legged 

frog and in the future could support central California coast steelhead. This CZ 

contains 11% (323 acres) of the study area’s unprotected modeled California 

red-legged frog breeding habitat (Table 4-19b). Much of this habitat is found in 

the CZ’s ponds, most of which are in urban areas. Assuming downstream 

barriers are removed or modified, Arroyo Mocho could be a migratory stream 

for central California Coast steelhead, according to Gunther et al. (2000). 

CZ-2 contains 51% (341 acres) of the study area’s unprotected mixed willow 

riparian scrub (Table 4-2). Mixed willow riparian scrub in this CZ occurs primarily 

along the Arroyo Valle and Arroyo Mocho streams and provides habitat for 

California red-legged frog, tricolored blackbird, and in some cases foothill 

yellow-legged frog, depending on the stream condition. CZ-2 also contains 23% 

(83 acres) of the study area’s unprotected pond acreage (Table 4-2); however, 

many of these ponds are industrial in nature (e.g., golf course) and provide 

limited habitat value for focal species depending on the adjacent habitat. 

In addition, CZ-2 contains 11% (7,991 acres) of the study area’s unprotected 

potential habitat for burrowing owl (Table 4-19c). The bulk of the potential 

habitat for this species is northeast of the intersection of I-580 and I-680 and 

north of I-580 just west of SR 84 in ruderal and rural residential land covers in 

Dublin. There are additional habitat and known occurrences in eastern 

Livermore. Though most of this CZ is urbanized, small pockets of burrowing owl 

habitat occur throughout. CZ-2 also contains 15% (1,007 acres) of the 

unprotected CZ-2 contain 2% (4,215 acres) of modeled San Joaquin kit fox 

habitat. The highest quality habitat for kit fox is on the eastern edge of this CZ 

on the east side of Livermore, both north and south of I-580. Congdon’s tarplant 

habitat in the study area (Table 4-19e). This habitat is in the far eastern part of 

the CZ in annual grassland just outside the Livermore city limits, and contains 

four CNDDB occurrences for this species. In addition, CZ-2 contains 17% (638 

acres) of the study area’s unprotected modeled San Joaquin spearscale modeled 

habitat (Table 4-19e) in the northwest corner of the CZ near the intersection of 

I-680 and I-580, and in the northeast corner of the CZ just south of I-580. Small, 


ICF 00906.08


disjunct patches of potentially suitable habitat occur along I-580, one of which 

contains two CNDDB records for this species. 

4.2.3 Summary 




• Protection of burrowing owl nesting and foraging habitat. 

• Protection of and restoration opportunities in mixed willow riparian scrub 

along Arroyo Valle and Arroyo Mocho. 

• Protection of and restoration opportunities along Arroyo Seco and Arroyo 

Mocho to support California red-legged frog and future central California 

coast steelhead habitat. 

• Surveys for San Joaquin spearscale and protection of extant populations. 

• Surveys for Congdon’s tarplant and protection of extant populations. 

• Protection of vernal pool habitat. 



CZ-3 is located in the northwestern part of the Conservation Strategy study area 

on the Livermore Uplift. This 9,768-acre CZ is bordered on the south by CZ-2 and 

on the east by CZ-4 and encompasses portions of the Daugherty Hills, Lower 

Tassajara Creek, Cottonwood Creek, and Cayetano Creek watersheds. The most 

prevalent natural land cover types are annual grassland (8,226 acres) and mixed 

riparian forest and woodland (91 acres) (Table 4-3). Other notable land cover 

types that persist in small quantities (less than 20 acres) in CZ-3 are mixed 

willow riparian scrub, pond, and seasonal wetland. Table 4-3 shows the acreage 

of each land cover present in CZ-3, based on Figure 2-8, as well as the 

proportion of each that is currently under some form of protection. 


CZ-3 contains 8% (8,226 acres) of the study area’s unprotected annual 

grassland, 2% (11 acres) of the study area’s unprotected seasonal wetland, and 

5% (19 acres) of the study area’s unprotected pond acreage (Table 4-3). 

Seasonal wetlands are found in the northwest corner of CZ-3 in Tassajara Creek 


ICF 00906.08


Regional Park (designated Type 3/Type 4 open space). There were 38 ponds 

(totaling 19 acres) identified during land cover mapping for this Conservation 

Strategy, mainly east of Cottonwood Creek. Of the 38 ponds, all but two are 

currently unprotected. The relationship between these land cover types and the 

surrounding annual grasslands provide breeding and upland habitat for 

California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander. This is one of the 

most noteworthy features of this CZ. The protection of contiguous annual 

grasslands with known California red-legged frog and California tiger 

salamander breeding sites should be a priority for protection and management 

in this CZ. Protection of annual grasslands around breeding sites for California 

red-legged frog and California tiger salamander would have additional benefits 

for other focal wildlife species such as tricolored blackbird, burrowing owl, San 

Joaquin kit fox, and American badger. 

CZ-3 contains 45% (3,055 acres) of the study area’s unprotected Congdon’s 

tarplant habitat (Table 4-19e), as defined by Conservation Strategy habitat 

models, and three of the study area’s seven CNDDB occurrences for this species 

(California Natural Diversity Database 2009). Protection of these three 

occurrences should be a priority, along with survey efforts in other like habitats. 

In addition, CZ-3 contains 9% (360 acres) of the study area’s total unprotected 

suitable habitat for San Joaquin spearscale (Table 4-19e), as defined by 

Conservation Strategy habitat models. In fact, five of the twelve San Joaquin 

spearscale occurrences in the study area are in CZ-3. Protection of these 

occurrences should be a priority. 

Finally, CZ-3 contains 7,426 acres of unprotected critical habitat for California 

red-legged frog and 1,178 acres of unprotected critical habitat for California 

tiger salamander—the entirety of critical habitat for the latter species in the 

study area (Table 4-20). Protection of California tiger salamander critical habitat 

should be a priority in CZ-3. 

4.3.3 Summary 




• Protection of California tiger salamander critical habitat. 

• Protection of known occurrences of San Joaquin spearscale and surveys of 

other potential habitat. 

• Protection of known occurrences of Congdon’s tarplant and surveys of other 

potential habitat. 

• Protection of known California tiger salamander and California red-legged 

frog breeding habitat, sufficient upland habitat surrounding those sites, and 


ICF 00906.08


connections between breeding and upland habitat Typically this is annual 

grassland. 

• Protection of California red-legged frog critical habitat. 

• Protection and restoration of mixed riparian forest and scrub and mixed 

willow riparian scrub along Tassajara, Cottonwood, and Cayetano Creeks. 



Encompassing 9,409 acres conservation zone, CZ-4 is located in the north 

central part of the Conservation Strategy study area in the Livermore Valley. CZ- 

4 is defined largely by the northeastern portion of the Livermore watershed, 

with the southern boundary of the CZ defined by I-580. Table 4-4 shows the 

acreage of each land cover present in CZ-4, based on Figure 2-8, as well as the 

proportion of each that is currently under some form of protection. As shown in 

Table 4-4, dominant natural land cover types found in this conservation zone 

are annual grassland (4,253 acres), alkali meadow and scald (258 acres), valley 

sink scrub (410 acres), alkali wetland (106 acres), and seasonal wetland (347 

acres). 


CZ-4 contains 22% (189 acres) of the study area’s unprotected acres of alkali 

meadow and scald, 64% (343 acres) of the study area’s unprotected seasonal 

wetland, and 99% (410 acres) of the study area’s valley sink scrub (Table 4-4). 

Alkali meadow and scald is found in the center of this CZ, just north of 

Livermore at the Springtown Alkali Sink. Some, but not all, of this alkali meadow 

and scald is protected in the Springtown Preserve. The Springtown Alkali Sink 

provides potential habitat for a number of Conservation Strategy focal species: 

Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak, San Joaquin spearscale, Congdon’s tarplant, 

longhorn fairy shrimp, and vernal pool fairy shrimp. Protection of the sink as 

well as the watersheds that feed the sink should be a conservation priority in 

this CZ. 

Seasonal wetland is also found in the Springtown Alkali Sink, interspersed with 

the alkali meadow and scalds, extending along the northern edge of Arroyo Las 

Positas to the CZ’s eastern border. The protection of this area of wetland 

provides a unique conservation opportunity because it would provide a linkage 

between Springtown Preserve and its upper watershed, including Brushy Peak 

Regional Preserve in CZ-5. This region also contains 19% (12 acres) of the study 

area’s unprotected perennial freshwater marsh (Table 4-4), extending east 

along Altamont Creek from Springtown Golf Course. Throughout the eastern 


ICF 00906.08


half of this CZ, there are 31 ponds encompassing 11 acres. These ponds provide 

breeding habitat for California tiger salamander and potentially for California 

red-legged frog. Nearly all these ponds are currently protected in a private 

mitigation bank. 

Thirty-eight percent (1,452 acres) of the study area’s unprotected San Joaquin 

spearscale habitat is in this CZ (Table 4-19e), with the vast majority occurring in 

the vicinity of the Springtown Alkali Sink, including two of the 12 CNDDB 

occurrences in the study area (California Natural Diversity Database 2009). In 

addition, CZ-4 contains 15% (1,001 acres) of the study area’s unprotected 

Congdon’s tarplant habitat (Table 4-19e), some of which is in the Springtown 

Alkali Sink. One of the seven CNDDB occurrences is found in this area. 

Protection of that occurrence and surveys for additional occurrences within 

modeled habitat should be a priority in this CZ. Additional Congdon’s tarplant 

modeled habitat occurs southwest of the Springtown Alkali Sink in annual 

grassland along North Livermore Avenue. The only known occurrence of 

palmate-bracted bird’s-beak is located in the Springtown Alkali Sink. This 

population has been surveyed extensively and portions of it are under some 

level of protection. Complete protection of this population and enhancement in 

the Springtown Alkali Sink through management is a high priority in this CZ. 

CZ-4 contains 45% (900 acres) of the study area’s unprotected longhorn fairy 

shrimp habitat and 37% (921 acres) of the study area’s unprotected vernal pool 

fairy shrimp habitat (Table 4-19a). More importantly, this CZ contains 94% (892 

acres) of the study area’s designated critical habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp 

(Table 4-20). The most prominent feature for California tiger salamander in this 

CZ is Frick Lake, located on its eastern edge. This is a regionally important 

breeding site for California tiger salamander and is likely a source population for 

this part of Alameda County. Additionally, the portion of Arroyo Las Positas that 

flows through Springtown Alkali Sink provides potential non-breeding habitat 

for California red-legged frog. Finally, the northern region of the CZ contains a 

small portion (605 acres) of Recovery Unit 4 for Alameda whipsnake (Table 4- 

19b); the preservation of this habitat should be a conservation priority for the 

CZ. 

4.4.3 Summary 




• Protection and management of alkali meadow and scald, valley sink scrub, 

seasonal wetland, and perennial freshwater marsh in the Springtown Alkali 

Sink and surrounding watershed. 

• Protection of the palmate-bracted bird’s beak population. 


ICF 00906.08


• Protection of Frick Lake and surrounding uplands for California tiger 

salamander. 

• Protection within vernal pool species recovery units. 

• Protection of vernal pool and longhorn fairy shrimp habitat. 

• Protection of designated critical habitat for vernal pool and longhorn fairy 

shrimp. 

• Surveys for vernal pool and longhorn fairy shrimp and protection of 

documented occurrences. 





• Protection of designated critical habitat for California red-legged frog. 

• Protection and restoration of Cayetano Creek, Arroyo Los Positas, and 

Altamont Creek. 

• Protection of suitable habitat for Alameda whipsnake. 

• Protection and enhancement of linkages across I-580 and Vasco Road for 

San Joaquin kit fox and American badger, including protection of lands on 

both sides of the roadways. 



CZ-5 is located in the northeastern section of the Conservation Strategy study 

area in the Altamont Hills. This 8,702-acre CZ is made up of a majority of the 

Altamont Creek and Brushy Peak watersheds, with its southern boundary 

formed by I-580. Table 4-5 shows the acreage of each land cover present in CZ- 

5, based on Figure 2-8, as well as the proportion of each that is currently under 

some form of protection. As shown in Table 4-5, natural land cover types found 

in this conservation zone include annual grassland (7,528 acres), alkali meadow 

and scald (230 acres), coast live oak forest and woodland (146 acres), and alkali 

wetland (127 acres) (Table 4-5). An additional notable land cover in this CZ is 

blue oak woodland, at 42 acres (Table 4-5). This is the only stand of blue oak 

woodland mapped north of I-580 in the study area. 


ICF 00906.08



CZ-5 contains 26% (230 acres) of the study area’s unprotected alkali meadow 

and scalds (Table 4-5); these occur in the eastern portion of the CZ in valleys and 

swales and along creeks, such as Arroyo Las Positas. This CZ also has 15% (127 

acres) of the study area’s unprotected alkali wetland (Table 4-5), also along 

Arroyo Las Positas in the southern part of the CZ. These areas along Arroyo Las 

Positas also support seasonal wetland, which also occurs near the western 

border of the CZ just north of Springtown Alkali Sink. CZ-5 contains 2% (8 acres) 

of the study area’s unprotected seasonal wetlands (Table 4-5). Protection of 

Arroyo Las Positas should be a priority for this CZ, as should identification of 

potential restoration opportunities that will enhance this stream. This CZ 

contains 25 ponds (9 acres), five of which are already protected. Of these 25 

ponds, those that support breeding habitat for California red-legged frog, 

California tiger salamander, or tricolored blackbird should be a high 

conservation priority, as should ponds with the potential to be enhanced to 

support species. Ponds within 1.3 miles of other known California red-legged 

frog or California tiger salamander breeding sites are the highest priority. 

Protection of annual grassland in this CZ should be focused in areas where it 

supports focal plant populations, provides non-breeding habitat for focal 

amphibians (uplands around aquatic breeding sites), and movement and 

foraging habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. 

CZ-5 also supports a small island of oak woodland (identified as blue oak 

woodland during land cover mapping for this strategy) in the western part of 

the CZ north of Livermore (Figures 3-2 through 3-5). While these 42 acres are a 

small portion (0.2%) of the unprotected blue oak woodland in the study area 

(Table 4-5), the stand is significantly isolated from other blue oak woodland 

communities and may, therefore, support a high level of genetic uniqueness. 

This area should be protected and surveyed to more accurately identify the type 

of oak woodland that is there. 

This CZ contains 9% (357 acres) of the study area’s unprotected San Joaquin 

spearscale modeled habitat (Table 4-19e), including two of the 12 CNDDB 

occurrences for this species in the study area (California Natural Diversity 

Database 2009). CZ-5 also contains 14% (3,363 acres) of the study area’s 

unprotected big tarplant modeled habitat in annual grassland in the higher 

elevations of the CZ (Table 4-19e), and 8% (505 acres) of the study area’s 

unprotected Congdon’s tarplant modeled habitat (Table 4-19e) in annual 

grassland along the western border of the CZ. Surveys in these habitats for 

undiscovered focal plant occurrences should be a priority in this CZ, along with 

protection of any identified focal plant populations. 

In addition, CZ-5 supports 7% (180 acres) of the study area’s unprotected vernal 

pool fairy shrimp habitat (Table 4-19a) in the northern part of the CZ, near 

Brushy Peak. This CZ also supports 133 acres of unprotected longhorn fairy 

shrimp critical habitat (Table 4-20). This constitutes 50% of all unprotected 


ICF 00906.08


critical habitat for this species found in the study area and includes the single 

CNDDB occurrence (California Natural Diversity Database 2009). 

Finally, much of CZ-5 provides suitable habitat for San Joaquin kit fox and golden 

eagle. This area likely supports connectivity through the Altamont Hills for San 

Joaquin kit fox. Connectivity across I-580 has been compromised by 

construction of infrastructure. Further degradation of this westernmost linkage 

for kit fox should be disallowed, and opportunities to enhance that linkage (i.e., 

removal of movement barriers) should be explored as conservation/mitigation 

actions in this CZ. This area has also been identified as an important foraging 

area for golden eagles and nesting area for burrowing owls. Unfortunately, due 

to the presence of wind power facilities, there are limited mitigation 

opportunities for golden eagle in this CZ. 

4.5.3 Summary 




• Protection of designated critical habitat for longhorn fairy shrimp, which will 

also provide protection to vernal pool fairy shrimp. 

• Protection of the isolated blue oak woodland community. 

• Enhancement of linkages across I-580 for San Joaquin kit fox and protection 

of lands on the north side of the roadway. 

• Protection of alkali meadow and scalds, which will also provide protection 

for San Joaquin spearscale habitat. 





• Protection of seasonal wetlands along Arroyo Las Positas. 

• Protection of annual grassland in this CZ should be focused in areas where it 

supports focal plant populations, provides upland and refugia habitat for 

focal amphibians, and movement and foraging habitat for San Joaquin kit 

fox. 

• Protection of foraging habitat for golden eagle and nesting habitat for 

burrowing owl. 


ICF 00906.08




CZ-6 is located near the northeast corner of the Conservation Strategy study 

area in the Altamont Hills. This 14,475-acre CZ contains Bethany Reservoir and is 

made up of portions of the Upper Kellogg Creek, Brushy Creek, Bethany 

Reservoir, Mountain House, and Mountain House Creek watersheds. The 

southern boundary of CZ-6 is formed by I-580. Table 4-6 shows the acreage of 

each land cover present in CZ-6, based on Figure 2-8, as well as the proportion 

of each that is currently under some form of protection. As shown in Table 4-6, 

the dominant natural land cover types in this CZ are annual grassland (12,888 

acres), alkali wetland (380 acres), and reservoir (177 acres). 


CZ-6 contains 61% (380 acres) of the study area’s unprotected alkali wetland, 

scattered throughout the conservation zone (Table 4-6). Protection of this land 

cover should be pursued in the CZ. Protection of areas that support focal species 

should be given priority. CZ-6 also contains 50% (27 acres) of the study area’s 

unprotected rock outcrop (Table 4-6), located in the northwest portion of the CZ 

near Brushy Peak. This area provides habitat for longhorn fairy shrimp. 

Protection of these rock outcrop features should be a priority for this CZ. 

Additionally, CZ-6 contains 9% (57 acres) of the unprotected seasonal wetland in 

the study area (Table 4-6). Seasonal wetland is scattered throughout the 

western side of the CZ, interspersed with alkali wetland. While a small portion 

of it is protected in Type 2 open space (9 acres), the majority of the seasonal 

wetland in this CZ is unprotected (Table 4-6). Seasonal wetland provides 

breeding habitat for California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog 

and potentially for vernal pool fairy shrimp and longhorn fairy shrimp. 

Additional habitat for these species occurs in the CZ’s 53 ponds, of which only 

two are currently protected. The existence of these seasonal wetlands and 

ponds in a matrix of annual grassland provides a valuable conservation 

opportunity for California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog, as 

this type of habitat composition provides upland habitat and breeding habitat in 

close proximity to one another. With proper management, some of these ponds 

can also provide habitat for tricolored blackbird. 

CZ-6 contains 12% (12,345 acres) of the unprotected annual grassland in the 

study area (Table 4-6). Annual grassland provides habitat for big tarplant, 

burrowing owl, American badger, and San Joaquin kit fox, as well as nonbreeding 

upland habitat for California red-legged frog and California tiger 

salamander. Annual grassland in this CZ also supports 12% (8,642 acres) of the 

study area’s unprotected modeled burrowing owl habitat (Table 4-19c) as well 


ICF 00906.08


as 9% (12,517 acres) of the study area’s unprotected modeled American badger 

habitat (Table 4-19d). Additionally, much of the annual grassland in CZ-6 

provides suitable habitat for San Joaquin kit fox; this area potentially supports 

connectivity across the Altamont Hills. Connectivity across I-580 has been 

compromised by construction of infrastructure; further degradation of this 

linkage for kit fox should be disallowed, and opportunities to enhance that 

linkage (i.e., removal of movement barriers) should be explored as high priority 

conservation/mitigation actions in this CZ. 

Finally, CZ-6 supports a few scattered patches of mixed evergreen forest/oak 

woodland along Brushy Creek in the northwest corner of the CZ. While it is only 

a small portion (0.8 acre) of the unprotected mixed evergreen forest/oak 

woodland in the study area, it is isolated from other mixed evergreen forest/oak 

woodland communities and may, therefore, support a high level of genetic 

uniqueness. If it is determine that retaining the stand of mixed evergreen 

forest/oak woodland is important then protection of this 0.8 acre should be a 

priority in this CZ. 

Eleven percent (417 acres) of the study area’s unprotected San Joaquin 

spearscale habitat (Table 4-19e), along with 1 CNDDB occurrence, is found in 

scattered pockets of alkali wetland across the CZ (California Natural Diversity 

Database 2009). Protection of that occurrence and surveys for undocumented 

occurrences in modeled habitat should be a priority for this CZ. Twenty-six 

percent (6,078 acres) of the study area’s unprotected big tarplant habitat is 

scattered across this CZ (Table 4-19e) in the higher elevations. Surveys for 

undocumented occurrences of big tarplant should also be a priority in modeled 

habitat in this CZ. 

The part of the CZ near Brushy Peak supports 50% (134 acres) of the study 

area’s unprotected longhorn fairy shrimp critical habitat (Table 4-20), 

encompassing much of the aforementioned rock outcrop habitat. Protection of 

all critical habitat for longhorn fairy shrimp should be a priority in this CZ. CZ-6 

also contains 9% (223 acres) of the study area’s unprotected vernal pool fairy 

shrimp habitat (Table 4-19a). CZ-6 contains 15% (99 acres) of the study area’s 

unprotected modeled breeding habitat for California tiger salamander and 11% 

(330 acres) of the study area’s unprotected modeled breeding habitat for 

California red-legged frog (Table 4-19b). Much of the pond and seasonal 

wetland habitats as well as the surrounding annual grassland are designated as 

critical habitat for California red-legged frog. This CZ contains 10% (12,489 

acres) of all critical habitat for California red-legged frog in the study area (Table 

4-20). Protection of this critical habitat should be a priority in this CZ. 

The eastern edge of this CZ contains the “shoulder” of the Altamont Hills as they 

give way to the Central Valley. This area is an important movement corridor for 

San Joaquin kit fox, including a potentially important linkage to the 

northernmost portion of the species’ range. Connectivity through the area is 

compromised by roadways and water conveyance infrastructure (Bethany 


ICF 00906.08


Reservoir, canals, and aqueducts), though movement through the area is still 

possible. Retaining as much connectivity through this part of the study area as 

possible should be a high priority for this CZ. Additional degradation of the 

linkage as it exists should be disallowed. Improving movement corridors across 

existing infrastructure (e.g., passage under roadways, bridges over canals) 

should be pursued as mitigation/conservation actions in this CZ. 

4.6.3 Summary 




• Protection of rock outcrops, including all critical habitat for longhorn fairy 

shrimp. 

• Protection of 0.8 acre of mixed evergreen forest/oak woodland. 

• Enhancement of linkages across I-580 and existing water conveyance 

infrastructure for San Joaquin kit fox and protection of lands on the north 

side of I-580. 

• Protection of alkali wetland, which will also provide protection for San 

Joaquin spearscale habitat. 



• Surveys for undocumented big tarplant occurrences in modeled habitat and 

protection of all new occurrences. 

• Protection and restoration of seasonal wetland and ponds to provide 

protected dispersal corridors between ponds and to increase habitat for 

California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander. 




foraging habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. 

• Protection of nesting and foraging habitat for burrowing owl. 


4.7.1 Background 

CZ-7 is located in the extreme northeast corner of the Conservation Strategy 

study area and extends slightly into the Central Valley. This 5,568-acre CZ is 


ICF 00906.08


made up of small portions of the San Joaquin Delta and Carbona watersheds, 

with I-580 forming its southern boundary. This is the only CZ in the study area 

that drains east toward the Central Valley. Table 4-7 shows the acreage of each 

land cover present in CZ-7, based on Figure 2-8, as well as the proportion of 

each that is currently under some form of protection. As shown in Table 4-7, 

dominant natural land cover types in this conservation zone are annual 

grassland (1,515 acres), alkali meadow and scald (182 acres), and pond (17 

acres). Tables 4-19a-e show the modeled suitable habitat for focal species and 

Table 4-20 shows the critical habitat designated in each conservation zone. 


CZ-7 contains 19% (165 acres) of the study area’s unprotected alkali meadow 

and scalds (Table 4-7), all of which are in the northern part of this CZ near Byron 

Conservation Bank, a Type 1 open space. There may be the opportunity for 

expansion of Byron Conservation Bank to encompass this area of alkali meadow 

and scalds. These land covers provide habitat for San Joaquin spearscale, 

recurved larkspur, longhorn fairy shrimp, and vernal pool fairy shrimp. 

CZ-7 encompasses 8% (293 acres) of the study area’s unprotected San Joaquin 

spearscale habitat (Table 4-19e), focused mainly in the northern portion of the 

CZ and including one CNDDB occurrence (California Natural Diversity Database 

2009). Protection of that occurrence should be a priority in this CZ. Additionally, 

CZ-7 contains 16% (312 acres) of the study area’s unprotected modeled 

longhorn fairy shrimp habitat and 13% (319 acres) of the unprotected modeled 

vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat (Table 4-19a), all of which are in the alkali 

meadow and scald land cover discussed above. This alkali meadow and scald 

supports the only CNDDB occurrence of recurved larkspur in the study area 

(California Natural Diversity Database 2009). Protection of this occurrence 

should be the highest priority in this CZ. The northwestern corner of CZ-7 

contains 701 acres of unprotected critical habitat for California red-legged frog, 

or 1% of all unprotected critical habitat in the study area for this species (Table 

4-20). Because this corner of the study area drains toward the Central Valley, 

there should be an emphasis on protecting this critical habitat. 

The western edge of this CZ contains the “shoulder” of the Altamont Hills as 

they give way to the Central Valley. This area is an important movement 

corridor for San Joaquin kit fox, including a potentially important linkage to the 

northernmost portion of the species’ range. Connectivity through the area is 

compromised by roadways and water conveyance infrastructure (canals and 

aqueducts), though movement through the area is still possible. Retaining as 

much connectivity through this part of the study area should be a high priority 

for conservation in this CZ. Additional degradation of the linkage as it exists 

should be disallowed. Improving movement corridors across existing 

infrastructure (e.g., passage under roadways, bridges over canals) should be 

pursued as mitigation/conservation actions in this CZ. 


ICF 00906.08


4.7.3 Summary 




• Protection of known occurrences of recurved larkspur and surveys of other 


• Enhancement of and creation of additional linkages across existing water 

conveyance infrastructure for San Joaquin kit fox. 

• Protection of alkali meadow and scalds, which will provide protection of 

habitat for San Joaquin spearscale, recurved larkspur, longhorn fairy shrimp, 

and vernal pool fairy shrimp. 



• Protection of critical habitat for California red-legged frog. 



CZ-8 is located in the western portion of the Conservation Strategy study area in 

the East Bay Hills. This 18,016-acre CZ contains all of Sinbad Creek watershed 

along with large portions of the Indian Creek, Stonybrook Canyon, and Vallecitos 

Creek watersheds. The southern boundary of CZ-8 is formed by SR 84, and a 

segment of its eastern border is formed by I-680. Table 4-8 shows the acreage of 



dominant natural land cover types in this CA are mixed evergreen forest/oak 

woodland (9,617 acres), annual grassland (4,778 acres), blue oak woodland (365 

acres), and northern coastal scrub/Diablan sage scrub (363 acres). 


CZ-8 contains 35% (297 acres) of the unprotected coast live oak forest and 

woodland in the study area (Table 4-8), a relatively rare land cover in the study 

area, in the southern portion of CZ-8 north of Alameda Creek. CZ-8 also contains 

26% (6,482 acres) of the study area’s unprotected mixed evergreen forest/oak 

woodland (Table 4-8), which is scattered relatively evenly throughout the CZ. 

Northern coastal scrub/Diablan sage scrub occurs in scattered patches 

throughout the southwest region of the CZ west of Sunol. CZ-8 contains 17% 

(324 acres) of the study area’s unprotected acreage of this land cover (Table 4- 


ICF 00906.08


8). CZ-8 also contains 11% (223 acres) of the study area’s unprotected mixed 

riparian forest and woodland (Table 4-8), mainly along Alameda Creek, Sinbad 

Creek, and Arroyo de la Laguna, as well as a number of smaller creeks and 

swales. 

CZ-8’s creeks are a conservation priority because they provide potential habitat 

for foothill yellow-legged frog, among other species. Modeled breeding and 

movement habitat for foothill yellow-legged frog occurs along most of Sinbad 

Creek within this CZ, as well as along Gold Creek in the northern part of the CZ. 

In the future, assuming that downstream barriers are removed, these creeks will 

also provide habitat for central California coast steelhead. Suitable spawning 

and rearing habitat for central California coast steelhead is present in CZ-8 along 

the southern reaches of Sinbad Creek and Arroyo de la Laguna and along the 

entire section of Stoneybrook Canyon Creek that flows through this CZ (Figure 

D-12). 

Annual grasslands in CZ-8 could provide habitat for Callippe silverspot butterfly, 

provided larval host and adult food plants are present. Surveying for stands of 

larval host/food plants is an important first step toward determining where 

potential habitat could exist. CZ-8 contains 10% (7,192 acres) of unprotected 

modeled golden eagle nesting habitat in the study area (Table 4-19c), located in 

mixed evergreen forest/oak woodland distributed across the CZ. 

This CZ contains 26% (10,134 acres) of the study area’s unprotected critical 

habitat for Alameda whipsnake (Table 4-20) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2006), and the area along Alameda Creek in the south of the CZ supports 

dispersal (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). CZ 8 also contains 9% (11,490 

acres) of modeled suitable habitat in Recovery Unit 3 for Alameda whipsnake 

(Table 4-19b). Additionally, this CZ contains 0.7% (834 acres) of the study area’s 

unprotected critical habitat for California red-legged frog (Table 4-20). 

Protection of documented Alameda whipsnake and California red-legged frog 

breeding sites and important dispersal corridors for Alameda whipsnake should 

be a high priority for protection in this CZ. 

4.8.3 Summary 




• Protection of known and potential Alameda whipsnake breeding habitat. 

• Protection and management of northern coastal scrub/Diablan sage scrub, 

coast live oak forest and woodland, and annual grassland habitat matrix that 

could support all life history requirements of Alameda whipsnake. 


ICF 00906.08


• Protection and restoration of Alameda Creek to improve Alameda 

whipsnake dispersal habitat. 

• Protection of critical habitat for Alameda whipsnake and Recovery Unit 3. 


• Protection of and restoration opportunities in mixed riparian forest and 

woodland along Sinbad Creek, Stoneybrook Canyon, Arroyo de la Laguna, 

and Gold Creek. 

• Conduct surveys in annual grassland habitat for Callippe silverspot butterfly 

larval host/food plants and map occurrences of plant populations. 



CZ-9 is located in the eastern region of the Conservation Strategy study area. 

This 16,135-acre CZ contains Arroyo Seco and Patterson Pass watersheds in 

their entirety and is bounded to the north by I-580. Table 4-9 shows the acreage 

of each land cover present in CZ-9, based on Figure 2-8, as well as the 

proportion of each that is currently under some form of protection. As shown in 

Table 4-9, dominant natural land covers found in this conservation zone are 

annual grassland (11,704 acres), blue oak woodland (1,159 acres), and mixed 

evergreen forest/oak woodland (862 acres). 


CZ-9 contains 7% (40 acres) of the study area’s unprotected seasonal wetland 

(Table 4-9) along Mountain House Creek on the southern edge of I-580. While 

the protection of seasonal wetland is a conservation priority for this 

Conservation Strategy, this wetland area’s proximity to I-580 renders it lowquality 

habitat for California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog 

because I-580 prevents movement of those species north. This CZ also contains 

11% (11,704 acres) of the study area’s unprotected annual grassland (Table 4-9). 

Annual grassland covers most of this CZ, except for small urban patches along 

the western edge of the CZ and areas of higher elevation in its southeast corner. 

This matrix of annual grassland includes a number of ponds. CZ-9 contains 

approximately 39 ponds (two of which are currently protected) totaling 28 

acres, and making up 8% (28 acres) of the unprotected pond land cover in the 

entire study area (Table 4-9). Of these 39 ponds, those that support breeding 

California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, or tricolored blackbird 

should be a high conservation priority, as should ponds with the potential to be 

enhanced to support focal species. Ponds within 1.3 miles of other known redlegged 

frog or tiger salamander breeding sites are the highest priority. 


ICF 00906.08


Protection of annual grassland in this CZ should be focused in areas where it 



foraging habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. Additionally, CZ-9 contains 3% (6 linear 

miles) of the study area’s unprotected stream habitat (Table 4-9) in the 

southern reaches of Arroyo Seco, whose headwaters are in the CZ’s southeast 

corner. Preservation and restoration of the upper reaches of Arroyo Seco should 

be a conservation priority, as this creek has the potential to support breeding 

and movement of foothill yellow-legged frog, according to species modeling. 

The annual grassland in CZ-9 supports a number of this strategy’s focal species, 

including big tarplant, burrowing owl, American badger, and San Joaquin kit fox. 

CZ-9 contains 19% (4,435 acres) of the study area’s unprotected modeled big 

tarplant habitat (as well as one CNDDB occurrence for this species), 11% (7,588 

acres) of the study area’s unprotected modeled burrowing owl habitat, 9% 

(12,365 acres) of the study area’s unprotected modeled American badger 

habitat, and 9% (14,050 acres) of the study area’s unprotected modeled San 

Joaquin kit fox habitat (Tables 4-19c, 4-19d, 4-19e). Potential big tarplant 

habitat, a high conservation priority for this CZ, is found in the eastern part of 

the CZ, at elevations above 1,827 feet. This area likely supports connectivity 

through the Altamont Hills for San Joaquin kit fox and American badger. 

Connectivity across I-580 has been compromised by infrastructure 

development. Further degradation of this westernmost linkage for kit fox should 

be disallowed, and opportunities to enhance this linkage (i.e., removal of 

movement barriers) should be explored as conservation/mitigation actions in 

this CZ. This area has also been identified as an important foraging and nesting 

area for burrowing owls. 

Ponds in CZ-9 provide potential breeding habitat for focal species such as 

California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and tricolored blackbird. 

CZ-9 contains 10% (68 acres) of the study area’s unprotected modeled California 

tiger salamander habitat (Table 4-19b), 9% (268 acres) of the study area’s 

unprotected modeled California red-legged frog breeding habitat (Table 4-19b), 

and 8% (28 acres) of the study area’s unprotected modeled tricolored blackbird 

breeding habitat (Table 4-19c). Additionally, CZ-9 contains 11,966 acres of 

critical habitat for California red-legged frog, or 9% of the study area’s 

unprotected critical habitat for this species (Table 4-20). The protection of 

breeding habitat for California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and 

tricolored blackbird is a conservation priority in this CZ. Much of the breeding 

habitat for these species is in clustered ponds in the southwestern corner of the 

CZ. Additional modeled potential breeding habitat occurs in seasonal wetlands 

along the I-580 corridor; however, due to the seasonal wetlands’ proximity to a 

major interstate, the quality of this habitat is considered low. Consequently, 

conservation actions addressing breeding habitat for these species should be 

focused on pond habitat. The existence of these ponds in a matrix of annual 

grassland provides a notable conservation opportunity for California tiger 

salamander, California red-legged frog, and tricolored blackbird, as this type of 


ICF 00906.08


habitat composition provides upland habitat and breeding habitat in close 

association. 

4.9.3 Summary 




• Protection of known occurrences of big tarplant and surveys of other 


• Protection of critical habitat for California red-legged frog, especially 

occupied breeding locations. 


contains focal plant populations and provides non-breeding habitat for focal 


• Protection and restoration of Arroyo Seco to improve dispersal habitat for 

foothill yellow-legged frog. 

• Protection of ponds and other known California tiger salamander, California 

red-legged frog, and tricolored blackbird breeding habitat and sufficient 

upland habitat surrounding those sites. 

• Protection and enhancement of linkages across I-580 for San Joaquin kit fox 

and protection of lands on the south side of I-580. 



CZ-10 is located along the eastern boundary of the Conservation Strategy study 

area. This 26,144-acre CZ is made up of portions of the Mountain House, 

Mountain House Creek, Patterson Run, Carnegie, Mitchell Ravine, Upper Corral 

Hollow Creek, and Carbona watersheds. The northern boundary of CZ-10 is 

formed by I-580. Table 4-10 shows the acreage of each land cover present in CZ- 

10, based on Figure 2-8, as well as the proportion of each that is currently under 

some form of protection. As shown in Table 4-10, dominant natural land covers 

found in CZ-10 include annual grassland (18,571 acres), blue oak woodland 

(2,685 acres), foothill pine/oak woodland (2,024 acres), and mixed evergreen 

forest/oak woodland (1,575 acres). 


ICF 00906.08



CZ-10 is a very diverse CZ that provides a distinct opportunity to conserve a 

large number of land cover types in close proximity to one another, as well as 

the potentially valuable transition zones between them. Overall, the northern 

portion of the CZ is characterized by grassland, whereas the southern portion of 

the CZ is characterized by a variety of woodland and scrub types. Corral Hollow, 

which bisects the CZ just south of its midway point, seems to delineate the 

general boundary between these diverse land cover types. 

Corral Hollow supports 21% (11 acres) of the study area’s unprotected rock 

outcrop (Table 4-10) near the CZ’s western boundary in the Carnegie State 

Vehicular Recreation Area, a Type 3 open space area. Changing protections on 

this open space—converting it to Type 1 or Type 2 protection—would ensure 

that management goals were in line with the conservation goals of this strategy. 

Covering most of CZ-10 north of Corral Hollow is 17% (18,207 acres) of the study 

area’s unprotected annual grassland (Table 4-10). This northern region of the CZ 

also contains 18% (156 acres) of the study area’s unprotected alkali meadow 

and scalds (Table 4-10) in two main areas north of Patterson Run. A small 

portion of alkali meadow and scald is protected in a private Type 1 open space 

area. The addition to this open space area would provide an opportunity to 

conserve additional acreage of alkali meadow and scald, a relatively rare land 

cover in the study area and a conservation priority for this Conservation 

Strategy. Additionally, the northern area of the CZ supports 12% (72 acres) of 

the study area’s unprotected alkali wetland (Table 4-10) just south of I-580 

along Mountain House Creek. The protection of alkali wetland is a conservation 

priority for this strategy, and protections along this creek would contribute to 

the conservation goals. Two isolated areas of mixed willow riparian scrub occur 

in the northern portion of the CZ near Patterson Run. The isolated character of 

these woodland patches increases the likelihood that they support genetic 

uniqueness; therefore, they should be a conservation priority. 

South of Corral Hollow, this CZ supports 14% (377 acres) of the study area’s 

unprotected northern mixed chaparral/chamise chaparral, interspersed with 

10% (187 acres) of the study area’s unprotected northern coastal scrub/Diablan 

sage scrub (Table 4-10). The majority of these land cover areas are near the CZ’s 

eastern border in the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area. Since protection 

varies with open space type, ensuring long-term protection and management of 

those resources is a conservation priority given their relative scarcity in the 

study area. The majority of the land cover south of Corral Hollow is a mix of oak 

and evergreen woodland areas, containing 12% (2,685 acres) of the study area’s 

unprotected blue oak woodland and 10% (2,024 acres) of the study area’s 

foothill pine/oak woodland (Table 4-10). Additionally, the far southern corner of 

the CZ supports an isolated patch of mixed serpentine chaparral, which, due to 

its isolation, may support genetic uniqueness and should be considered a 

conservation priority. This site presents the only opportunity to protect that 

land cover type in this CZ. 


ICF 00906.08


CZ-10 contains 40% (9,375 acres) of the study area’s unprotected modeled 

habitat for big tarplant (Table 4-19e), as well as five of six total CNDDB 

occurrences in the study area (California Natural Diversity Database 2009). 

Survey work to detect unknown populations would be beneficial for this species, 

as would permanently protecting currently known occurrences. CZ-10 also 

contains 20% (24,659 acres) of the study area’s unprotected critical habitat for 

California red-legged frog (Table 4-20) and 7% (213 acres) of the study area’s 

unprotected modeled breeding habitat for this species (Table 4-19b). 

Approximately 58 ponds that are potential breeding habitat for this species are 

scattered across this CZ, with only one currently protected. Of these 58 ponds, 

determining which of those support breeding California red-legged frog, 

California tiger salamander, or tricolored blackbird is a high priority for the 

strategy, and protecting a substantial portion of those breeding ponds would be 

imperative to the long-term persistence of these species in the eastern part of 

the study area. Additionally, enhancing and protecting ponds that do not 

currently support these species would increase the likelihood of long-term 

persistence of these species. Ponds within 1.3 miles of other known red-legged 

frog or tiger salamander breeding sites are the highest priority. The situation of 

the northern ponds in a matrix of annual grassland provides an important 

conservation opportunity for California red-legged frog and tricolored blackbird, 

as this type of habitat composition provides upland habitat and breeding habitat 

in close association. The annual grassland in the northern half of the CZ supports 

a number of additional focal species’ modeled habitats, including 15% (24,121 

acres) of the study area’s unprotected modeled habitat for San Joaquin kit fox 

and 15% (20,405 acres) of the study area’s unprotected modeled habitat for 

American badger (Table 4-19d). This CZ also accounts for 14% (9,654 acres) of 

the study area’s unprotected modeled habitat for burrowing owl (Table 4-19c), 

along with six breeding CNDDB occurrences for burrowing owl. 

This area likely supports connectivity through the Altamont Hills for San Joaquin 

kit fox. Connectivity across I-580 has been compromised by infrastructure 

development. Further degradation of this westernmost linkage for kit fox should 

be disallowed, and opportunities to enhance that linkage (i.e., removal of 

movement barriers) should be explored as conservation/mitigation actions in 

this CZ. This area has also been identified as an important foraging area for 

golden eagles and nesting area for burrowing owls. Unfortunately, due to the 

presence of wind power facilities, there are limited mitigation opportunities for 

these species in this CZ. 

CZ-10 supports 28% (11,046 acres) of the study area’s unprotected critical 

habitat for Alameda whipsnake (Table 4-20) and 9% (10,971 acres) of the 

southern portion of the CZ is in Recovery Unit 5 for this species (Table 4-20). 

This species is a significant conservation priority for CZ-10, since this area 

represents the easternmost extent of this species’ occurrence in the study area. 

Additionally, CZ-10 contains 9% (405 acres) of the modeled unprotected 

breeding and dispersal habitat for foothill yellow-legged frog (Table 4-19b); in 

Patterson Run in the northern part of the CZ and along Corral Hollow Creek in 


ICF 00906.08


the southern part of the CZ. Corral Hollow Creek also contains a CNDDB 

occurrence for this species (California Natural Diversity Database 2009). A 

determination of the viability of habitat in that area for foothill yellow-legged 

frog should be completed and protection of known breeding locations 

considered. 

The alkali meadow and scalds and alkali wetland land cover types in the 

northern part of this CZ provide 7% (249 acres) of the study area’s unprotected 

modeled habitat for San Joaquin spearscale (Table 4-19e). No CNDDB 

occurrences for this species occur here; however, surveys should be conducted 

to determine presence or absence of this plant in these areas. All newly 

discovered occurrences should be protected. 

4.10.3 Summary 




• Protection of all big tarplant occurrences and surveys for new occurrences. 

• Protection of critical habitat for Alameda whipsnake. 

• Protection of critical habitat for California red-legged frog and all areas that 

support this species in various life stages, including ponds and annual 

grassland near ponds. This will also provide habitat protection for California 

tiger salamander and tricolored blackbird habitat. 

• Protection and restoration of Patterson Run and Corral Hollow Creek to 

protect and manage foothill yellow-legged frog habitat. 

• Protection of alkali meadow and scalds, which will also provide protection 

of San Joaquin spearscale habitat, along with surveys for occurrences of this 

species. 

• Protection of isolated mixed willow riparian scrub and mixed serpentine 

chaparral communities. 

• Protection of rock outcrop, mixed chaparral/chamise chaparral, and 

northern coastal scrub/Diablan sage scrub communities and any unique 

transition zones between these and other natural communities. 

• Upgrade Open Space status on Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area 

form Type 3 to Type 1 or 2. 


ICF 00906.08




CZ-11 is located in the west-central portion of the Conservation Strategy study 

area. This 7,976-acre CZ contains portions of the Vallecitos Creek and Vern 

watersheds and is bounded on the west by I-680 and on the southeast by SR 84. 

Table 4-11 shows the acreage of each land cover present in CZ-11, based on 

Figure 2-8, as well as the proportion of each that is currently under some form 

of protection. As shown in Table 4-11, dominant natural land covers in this CZ 

are annual grassland (4,680 acres), blue oak woodland (1,392 acres), mixed 

riparian forest and woodland (295 acres), and mixed evergreen forest/oak 

woodland (255 acres). 


CZ-11 contains 14% (295 acres) of the study area’s unprotected mixed riparian 

forest and woodland (Table 4-11) scattered throughout the CZ, with larger 

patches in the eastern part of the CZ just outside the city of Pleasanton near the 

CZ’s northeast border. The protection of this land cover type should be a 

conservation priority in this CZ. This region of the CZ also supports a patch of 

mixed willow riparian scrub that constitutes 7% (47 acres) of the unprotected 

acreage of that land cover in the study area (Table 4-11). CZ-11 also contains 6% 

(1,371 acres) of the study area’s unprotected blue oak woodland (Table 4-11) 

scattered throughout the CZ, but concentrated mostly in the northern portion 

of the CZ near the city of Pleasanton. Additionally, CZ-11 supports 4% (13 acres) 

of the study area’s unprotected pond acreage (Table 4-11), comprising 29 

ponds, two of which are currently protected in open space. 

CZ-11 contains 5% (305 acres) of the unprotected modeled habitat for 

Congdon’s tarplant (Table 4-19e), mainly in the eastern part of the CZ. No 

CNDDB occurrences for this species occur here; however, surveys should be 

conducted to determine presence or absence of this plant in these areas. 

Additionally, CZ-11 contains a portion (7,371 acres) of Recovery Unit 5 for 

Alameda Whipsnake (Table 4-19b), along with a small area of dispersal habitat 

for this species along Vallecitos Creek near SR 84 at the CZ’s southern boundary. 

According to Conservation Strategy habitat modeling, the large majority of the 

annual grassland in CZ-11 is potentially suitable for Callippe silverspot butterfly. 

It is unknown whether necessary larval host and adult food plants are present in 

this area. Surveying for stands of larval host/food plants is an important first 

step toward determining where potential habitat could exist. 

This CZ’s ponds support breeding habitat for California red-legged frog, 

California tiger salamander, and tricolored blackbird. CZ-11 provides 114 acres 


ICF 00906.08


of breeding habitat for California red-legged frog (4% of the unprotected 

modeled habitat within the study area), 20 acres of California tiger salamander 

habitat (3% of the unprotected modeled habitat within the study area), and 12 

acres of tricolored blackbird habitat (3% of the unprotected modeled habitat 

within the study area) (Tables 4-19a, 4-19c). Of the CZ’s ponds, those that 

support breeding California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, or 

tricolored blackbird should be a high conservation priority, as should ponds with 

the potential to be enhanced to support these species. Ponds within 1.3 miles of 

other known red-legged frog or tiger salamander breeding sites are the highest 

priority. The existence of many of these ponds in a matrix of annual grassland 

provides an important conservation opportunity for California red-legged frog, 

California tiger salamander, and tricolored blackbird, as this type of habitat 

composition provides upland habitat and breeding habitat in close association. 





• Protection of mixed riparian forest and woodland land cover type. 

• Protection of ponds and sufficient upland habitat to support native 

amphibians. 

• Complete surveys in Congdon’s tarplant habitat and protect any 

occurrences found. 

• Complete surveys in annual grassland habitat for Callippe silverspot 

butterfly larval host/food plants and map occurrences of plant populations. 


supports focal plant populations and provides non-breeding habitat for focal 


• Protection and restoration along small segment of Vallecitos Creek within 

this CZ that provides potential dispersal habitat for Alameda whipsnake. 



CZ-12, located in the central portion of the Conservation Strategy study area, 

contains Lake Del Valle. This 16,438-acre CZ includes the Dry Creek and Lake Del 

Valle watersheds in their entirety, as well as the southeastern section of the 

Vern watershed. The northwest boundary of CZ-12 is formed by SR 84. Table 4- 

12 shows the acreage of each land cover present in CZ-12, based on Figure 2-8, 


ICF 00906.08


as well as the proportion of each that is currently under some form of 

protection. As shown in Figure 4-12, dominant natural land cover types in this 

CZ are annual grassland (6,728 acres), blue oak woodland (3,176 acres), mixed 

evergreen forest/oak woodland (2,530 acres), and foothill pine/oak woodland 

(995 acres). 


CZ-12 contains 90% (13 acres) of the study area’s unprotected acreage of 

Coulter pine woodland (Table 4-12), located west of Lake Del Valle in Del Valle 

Regional Park, a Type 3 open space. This small area of Coulter pine woodland 

constitutes the vast majority of this land cover’s acreage in the study area. For 

this reason, this area is a high conservation priority for CZ-12. CZ-12 also 

contains 36% (22 acres) of the study area’s unprotected perennial freshwater 

marsh (Table 4-12) near the southern tip of Lake Del Valle and in Del Valle 

Regional Park. As a relatively rare land cover in the study area, this patch of 

perennial freshwater marsh is another conservation priority for this CZ. CZ-12 

contains 19% (160 acres) of the study area’s unprotected acreage of coast live 

oak forest and woodland (Table 4-12) along Dry Creek in the northern part of 

the CZ. Given its relative rarity, this land cover is a conservation priority for CZ- 

12. The area near Dry Creek also supports a portion (3,152 acres) of the CZ’s 

blue oak woodland (Table 4-12), most of which is found in the southern part of 

the CZ. Along with 14% of the study area’s unprotected blue oak woodland, CZ- 

12 supports 14% (295 acres) of the study area’s unprotected mixed riparian 

forest and woodland (Table 4-12), primarily along Arroyo Valle north and south 

of Lake Del Valle but also in the western portion of the CZ near the border with 

CZ-16. CZ-12 contains 11% (215 acres) of the study area’s unprotected acreage 

of northern coastal scrub/Diablan sage scrub (Table 4-12), primarily in the 

southern region of the CZ. 

CZ-12 supports 15% (54 acres) of the modeled unprotected breeding habitat for 

tricolored blackbird (Table 4-19c) in 57 ponds scattered throughout the CZ, of 

which two are protected in open space. The southeastern portion of the CZ is 

particularly well suited for potential tricolored blackbird breeding habitat as it 

contains a number of ponds clustered near one another. These ponds also 

provide suitable potential habitat for California tiger salamander (56 acres) and 

California red-legged frog (253 acres). This CZ contains 9% of the study area’s 

unprotected modeled habitat for both of these species (Table 4-19b) as well as 

7% (8,427 acres) of the study area’s unprotected critical habitat for California 

red-legged frog (Table 4-20). Of the 57 ponds, those that support breeding 

habitat for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, or tricolored 

blackbird should be a high conservation priority, as should ponds with the 

potential to be enhanced to support these species. Ponds within 1.3 miles of 

other known red-legged frog or tiger salamander breeding sites are the highest 

priority. CZ-12 also supports 10% (7,071 acres) of the study area’s unprotected 

modeled nesting habitat for golden eagle (Table 4-19c), located mostly 


ICF 00906.08


southwest of Lake Del Valle. This area is in close proximity to modeled suitable 

foraging habitat, which may increase the value of this habitat to this species. 

The areas to the northeast and southwest of Lake Del Valle support potential 

Callippe Silverspot butterfly habitat. It is unknown whether necessary larval 

host/food plants are present in this area. Surveying for stands of larval 

host/food plants is an important first step toward determining where potential 

habitat could exist. The area around Lake Del Valle also supports large 

continuous areas of modeled suitable habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. CZ-12 

contains 8% (13,202 acres) of the study area’s unprotected modeled suitable 

acreage for this species (Table 4-19d). Finally, CZ-12 contains 5% (2,191 acres) of 

the study area’s unprotected critical habitat for Alameda whipsnake (Table 4- 

20), just east of the southern half of Lake Del Valle. Protection of critical habitat 

for this species is a conservation priority for this conservation zone. 





• Protection of Coulter pine woodland land cover type. 

• Protection of perennial freshwater marsh and coast live oak forest and 

woodland land cover types. 

• Protection and enhancement of ponds to protect breeding habitat for 

tricolored blackbird, California tiger salamander, and California red-legged 

frog, with primary focus on currently occupied habitat and secondary focus 

on habitat that can be enhanced to encourage occupation. 






CZ-13 extends from near the center of the Conservation Strategy study area to 

its extreme southeast corner in the northern Diablo Range. This 21,159-acre CZ 

is comprised of the Lower Arroyo Mocho and Tunnel Creek watersheds, as well 

as the northern half of the Upper Arroyo Mocho watershed. Table 4-13 shows 

the acreage of each land cover present in CZ-13, based on Figure 2-8, as well as 

the proportion of each that is currently under some form of protection. As 


ICF 00906.08


shown in Table 4-13, dominant natural land cover types in this conservation 

zone are foothill pine/oak woodland (6,339 acres), blue oak woodland (4,982 

acres), annual grassland (4,358 acres), mixed evergreen forest/oak woodland 

(2,139 acres), and northern mixed chaparral/chamise chaparral (1,380 acres). 


CZ-13 contains 97% of the study area’s unprotected Sargent cypress woodland 

in a 636-acre contiguous patch on Cedar Mountain in the middle section of the 

CZ (Table 4-13). Since this land cover is rare in the study area and is almost 

completely contained within this CZ, protection of this land cover area is the 

highest conservation priority for CZ-13. CZ-13 contains 51% (1,380 acres) of the 

study area’s unprotected northern mixed chaparral/chamise chaparral (Table 4- 

13) in a rugged area of the Northern Diablo Range, in the extreme southeast 

corner of the study area. Due to this land cover’s relative rarity in the study 

area, it is also a conservation priority for this CZ. CZ-13 contains 31% (6,339 

acres) of the study area’s unprotected foothill pine/oak woodland land cover 

and 22% (4,982 acres) of the study area’s unprotected blue oak woodland land 

cover (Table 4-13). These two land covers are interspersed throughout the CZ, 

with foothill pine/oak woodland dominant in the south and blue oak woodland 

dominant in the north. Each of these land covers is a conservation priority for 

CZ-13, with foothill pine/oak woodland a higher priority due to its more limited 

distribution in other CZs. Additionally, CZ-13 contains 21% of the study area’s 

unprotected mixed serpentine chaparral (Table 4-13), located in the southern 

portion of the CZ, west of Arroyo Mocho. These 793 acres of mixed serpentine 

chaparral are part of a larger complex of this land cover that extends into CZ-18. 

The mixed serpentine chaparral community located in these two CZs makes up 

98% of the study area’s total for this land cover type. Accordingly, the 

protection of this land cover is a conservation priority for CZ-13, to ensure 

protection of this rare land cover type in the study area. Finally, CZ-13 contains 

19% (127 acres) of the study area’s unprotected mixed willow riparian scrub 

(Table 4-13), located exclusively in the northern region of the CZ along Arroyo 

Mocho. The protection of this land cover type is a priority due to this stream’s 

potential habitat value for foothill yellow-legged frog and California coast 

steelhead. 

CZ-13 contains 23% (8,913 acres) of the study area’s unprotected critical habitat 

for Alameda whipsnake (Table 4-20) in the middle third of the CZ along Arroyo 

Mocho, and includes one CNDDB occurrence (of a total of three occurrences in 

the study area) for this species. Due to the high percentage of critical habitat 

found in this CZ, its protection is a high conservation priority. CZ-13 contains 

20% (14,104 acres) of the study area’s unprotected modeled nesting habitat for 

golden eagle (Table 4-19c). The largest contiguous patches of nesting habitat for 

this species are found in the southern part of the CZ near Arroyo Mocho. 

According to species modeling, the areas near potential nesting habitat also 

contain suitable foraging habitat, indicating that this might be high-value habitat 


ICF 00906.08


for this species; therefore, protection of golden eagle habitat is a conservation 

priority for this CZ. Additionally, CZ-13 contains 16% (726 acres) of the study 

area’s unprotected modeled habitat for foothill yellow-legged frog (Table 4-19b) 

and one of the study area’s five CNDDB occurrences for this species. Potential 

breeding and movement habitat for this species is found along the entire 

stretch of Arroyo Mocho that occurs within this CZ and should be a conservation 

priority. Protection of Arroyo Mocho would also provide potential habitat 

conservation for central California coast steelhead. The northern reach of 

Arroyo Mocho in CZ-13 has been identified as potential migratory habitat for 

this species, while the southern reach provides potentially suitable spawning 

and rearing habitat if downstream barriers are removed or modified (Gunther et 

al. 2000). 

CZ-13 also supports 12% (351 acres) of the study area’s unprotected modeled 

breeding habitat for California red-legged frog (Table 4-19b) and 9% (11,670 

acres) of the study area’s unprotected critical habitat for this species (Table 4- 

20). Breeding habitat is found mainly in ponds and some scattered seasonal 

wetlands along the southern reach of Arroyo Mocho. The CZ contains 39 acres 

in 64 ponds, or 11% of the study area’s unprotected pond habitat (Table 4-13). 

Of these 64 ponds, those that support breeding California red-legged frog 

should be a high conservation priority, as should ponds with the potential to be 

enhanced to support this species. Ponds within 1.3 miles of other known redlegged 

frog breeding sites are the highest priority. Finally, CZ-13 supports 11% 

(17,709 acres) of the study area’s unprotected modeled San Joaquin kit fox 

habitat (Table 4-19d). This species’ potentially suitable habitat occurs across 

most of this CZ, with the exception of chaparral and cypress communities in the 

south. Additionally, the Arroyo Mocho corridor could provide suitable 

movement habitat for this species. 





• Protection of Sargent cypress woodland land cover type. 


• Protection of northern mixed chaparral/chamise chaparral and mixed 

serpentine chaparral land cover types. 

• Protection of and restoration opportunities along Arroyo Mocho, including 

mixed willow riparian scrub, to protect potential foothill yellow-legged frog 

and central California coast steelhead habitat. 


• Protection of golden eagle nesting habitat. 


ICF 00906.08


• Protection of foothill pine/oak woodland and blue oak woodland land cover 

types. 



CZ-14 is a small CZ located midway down the western boundary of the 

Conservation Strategy study area in the East Bay Hills. This 4,326-acre CZ 

contains portions of the Sheridan Creek, Sinbad Creek, and Stonybrook Canyon 

watersheds. The CZ’s northern border is formed by SR 84 and its southeastern 

border is formed by I-680. Table 4-14 shows the acreage of each land cover 

present in CZ-14, based on Figure 2-8, as well as the proportion of each that is 

currently under some form of protection. As shown in Table 4-14, dominant 

natural land cover types in this conservation zone are annual grassland (1,931 

acres), mixed evergreen forest/oak woodland (1,198 acres), and mixed riparian 

forest and woodland (164 acres). 


CZ-14 contains 14% of the study area’s unprotected acreage of perennial 

freshwater marsh (Table 4-14) near Alameda Creek in the southeast part of the 

CZ. This land cover type provides habitat for a number of focal species; 

however, this 9-acre patch of marsh is very near I-680 and Sunol Valley Golf 

Course, exposing it to a number of human disturbance mechanisms and likely 

reducing the quality of the habitat it provides. The segment of Alameda Creek 

that forms the northern boundary of this CZ supports a mix of sycamore alluvial 

woodland and mixed riparian forest and woodland. Fourteen percent (42 acres) 

of the study area’s unprotected sycamore alluvial and 8% (164 acres) of the 

study area’s unprotected mixed riparian forest and woodland occur in the 

southern part of the CZ (Table 4-14) along two small spring-fed creeks. The area 

along Alameda Creek in this CZ also supports 43 acres (5% of the study area’s 

unprotected acreage) of coast live oak forest and woodland (Table 4-14). The 

fact that this stretch of Alameda Creek supports such a diverse mix of woodland 

suggests that its preservation and restoration should be a conservation priority 

for this CZ. 

Preservation and restoration along Alameda Creek would also result in 

protection of potentially suitable habitat for central coast steelhead and 

Alameda whipsnake. In the future, assuming that downstream barriers are 

removed, Alameda Creek will provide migratory habitat for central California 

coast steelhead along its entire reach in this CZ, as well as a section of suitable 

spawning and rearing habitat at the confluence of Alameda Creek and Arroyo de 

la Laguna. Suitable dispersal habitat for Alameda whipsnake is found along the 


ICF 00906.08


entire reach of Alameda Creek in this CZ; in addition, this CZ contains 2,527 

acres of Recovery Unit 7 for this species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). 

This is one of the only places where Alameda whipsnake Recovery Unit 7 is 

connected (free of development) to the central and northern portion of the 

species range CZ-14 contains 4% (15 acres) of the study area’s unprotected 

modeled breeding habitat for tricolored blackbird (Table 4-19c) and 3% of the 

study area’s unprotected modeled breeding habitat for both California redlegged 

frog (96 acres) and California tiger salamander (17 acres) (Table 4-19b). 

Potential breeding habitat for all three species occurs in the CZ’s 29 ponds and 

in the 9-acre patch of perennial freshwater marsh near I-680; however, because 

the marsh’s proximity to human development compromises its habitat value to 

these species, habitat conservation should be focused on the CZ’s ponds, 

scattered throughout the CZ but concentrated in the eastern part. Of these 29 

ponds, those that support breeding California red-legged frog, California tiger 

salamander, or tricolored blackbird should be a high conservation priority, as 

should ponds with the potential to be enhanced to support these species. Ponds 

within 1.3 miles of other known red-legged frog or tiger salamander breeding 

sites are the highest priority. 

In addition, modeling shows that areas in the western portion of the CZ support 

potential Callippe silverspot butterfly habitat. It is unknown whether necessary 

larval host/food plants are present in this area to support Callippe silverspot 

butterfly. Surveying for stands of larval host/food plants is an important first 

step toward determining where potential habitat could exist. 





• Protection and restoration along Alameda Creek to conserve sycamore 

alluvial woodland, mixed riparian forest and woodland, and coast live oak 

forest and woodland and to improve habitat value for central coast 

steelhead and Alameda whipsnake. 

• Protect suitable dispersal habitat for Alameda whipsnake along the entire 

reach of Alameda Creek in this CZ. This is one of the only places where 

Alameda whipsnake Recovery Unit 7 is connected (free of development) to 

the central and northern portion of the species range 

• Protection and enhancement opportunities for ponds to increase potential 

breeding habitat for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, 

and tricolored blackbird. 




ICF 00906.08




CZ-15 is in the East Bay Hills in the southwestern corner of the Conservation 

Strategy study area. This 14,594-acre CZ is made up of the Leyden Creek 

watershed along with portions of the Sheridan Creek and Vallecitos Creek 

watersheds. I-680 and SR 84 form the northwestern boundary of this CZ. Table 

4-15 shows the acreage of each land cover present in CZ-15, based on Figure 2- 

8, as well as the proportion of each that is currently under some form of 

protection. As shown in Table 4-15, dominant natural land cover types in this 

conservation zone are annual grassland (8,527 acres), mixed evergreen 

forest/oak woodland (2,750 acres), and blue oak woodland (1,078 acres). 


CZ-15 contains 47% (141 acres) of the study area’s unprotected sycamore 

alluvial woodland (Table 4-15) along the stretch of Alameda Creek in this CZ, and 

a large patch just south of the confluence of Alameda Creek with Pirate Creek. 

Because such a large percentage of the study area’s unprotected acreage of this 

land cover type occurs in CZ-15, its protection is a conservation priority for this 

CZ. CZ-15 contains 26% (22 acres) of the study area’s unprotected serpentine 

bunchgrass grassland (Table 4-15) in the far southern part of the CZ near Sunol 

Regional Wilderness, a Type 2 open space preserve that occupies much of the 

southern portion of CZ-15. The CZ contains a total of 40 acres of serpentine 

bunchgrass grassland, half of which is protected within the Sunol Regional 

Wilderness, with the rest located just south of this preserve’s southern 

boundary. Given this land cover’s relative rarity within the study area, its 

conservation within this CZ is a priority. CZ-15 contains 9% (5 acres) of the study 

area’s unprotected rock outcrop (Table 4-15) in small patches just west and 

southwest of San Antonio Reservoir. In addition, CZ-15 contains 6% (120 acres) 

of the study area’s unprotected acreage of northern coastal scrub/Diablan sage 

scrub (Table 4-15) just west of Alameda Creek on San Francisco Public Utilities 

Commission lands. While the majority of this CZ’s northern coastal 

scrub/Diablan sage scrub land cover is protected in the Sunol Regional 

Wilderness, the protection of the remainder of this land cover remains a 

conservation priority due to its relative rarity within the study area. Additionally, 

CZ-15 contains 6% (5,790 acres) of the study area’s unprotected acreage of 

California annual grassland (Table 4-15). While the majority of the study area’s 

unprotected acreage of this land cover is in other CZs, its protection in this CZ 

remains a priority because it is one of the few sources of potential habitat in this 

region of the study area for Callippe silverspot butterfly, burrowing owl, and 

American badger. The area of grassland north of San Antonio Reservoir is 


ICF 00906.08


particularly important because it represents a relatively contiguous patch of 

potential habitat for these species. 


habitat for burrowing owl (Table 4-19c). Much of this species’ modeled habitat 

in this CZ occurs in small patches surrounded by unsuitable habitat. The area 

north of San Antonio Reservoir and south of SR 84 provides a patch of 

contiguous potential habitat for this species, as well as for American badger and 

Callippe silverspot butterfly. CZ-15 contains 4% (5,728 acres) of the study area’s 

unprotected modeled habitat for American badger (Table 4-19d). It is unknown 

whether necessary larval host/food plants are present in this area to support 

Callippe silverspot butterfly. Surveying for stands of larval host/food plants is an 

important first step toward determining where potential habitat could exist. 

CZ-15 contains 5% (213 acres) of the unprotected modeled breeding and 

movement habitat for foothill yellow-legged frog (Table 4-19b) along four 

tributaries of Alameda Creek in the southern part of the CZ—Leyden Creek, 

Pirate Creek, Sheridan Creek, and Indian Joe Creek. One CNDDB record for this 

species is located in the southern region of the CZ along Alameda Creek, north 

of Calaveras Reservoir. CZ-15 also contains 4% (1,388 acres) of the study area’s 

unprotected critical habitat for Alameda whipsnake (Table 4-20). This CZ 

contains 6,457 total acres of critical habitat for this species, but most (78%) is 

protected in Sunol Regional Wilderness and Mission Peak Regional Preserve. CZ- 

15 also contains 7% of the unprotected habitat (8,806 acres) in portions of 

Recovery Units 3, 5, and 7 for Alameda whipsnake (Table 4-19b). Protection of 

this species’ critical habitat and recovery unit habitat is a conservation priority 

for this CZ, as is protection of dispersal habitat along Alameda Creek. Protection 

of habitat along Alameda Creek will also provide enhancement of potential 

migratory habitat for central California coast steelhead along most of the reach 

of Alameda Creek in the CZ, as well as potential spawning and rearing habitat 

along Alameda Creek in the southern part of CZ-15 (Gunther et al. 2000). 

Downstream barriers would need to be removed or modified before Alameda 

Creek could provide these types of habitat for steelhead. 

Finally, CZ-15 provides 4% (111 acres) of the study area’s unprotected modeled 


acres) of its unprotected critical habitat (Table 4-20). This potential breeding 

habitat is scattered throughout the CZ in ponds and localized areas of 

freshwater marsh and seasonal wetland in the northern portion of the CZ. Much 

of the California red-legged frog habitat in CZ-15 is currently protected in Sunol 

Regional Wilderness and other open space areas. Therefore, protection for this 

species should be focused on the 10 acres of CZ’s ponds, 37 of which are within 

the CZ and seven (2 acres) of which are currently protected (Table 4-15). Of 

these ponds, those that support breeding California red-legged frog should be a 

high conservation priority, as should ponds with the potential to be enhanced to 

support this species. Ponds within 1.3 miles of other known red-legged frog 

breeding sites are the highest priority. 


ICF 00906.08






• Protection and restoration along Alameda Creek to conserve sycamore 

alluvial woodland and improve habitat value for central California coast 

steelhead and Alameda whipsnake. 

• Protection of critical habitat and recovery unit habitat for Alameda 

whipsnake. 

• Protection of potential breeding and movement habitat for foothill yellowlegged 

frog. 

• Protection of serpentine bunchgrass grassland and northern coastal 

scrub/Diablan sage scrub land cover. 

• Protection and enhancement opportunities for ponds to increase potential 

breeding habitat for California red-legged frog. 

• Complete surveys in annual grassland habitat for callippe silverspot 

butterfly larval host /food plants and map occurrences of plant populations. 

• Protection of annual grassland in area between SR 84 and San Antonio 

Reservoir to support potential habitat for callippe silverspot butterfly, 

western burrowing owl, and American badger. 



CZ-16, in the southeast section of the Conservation Strategy study area, 

contains San Antonio Reservoir and Wauhab Ridge. This 24,468-acre CZ is 

composed of the La Costa Creek, Indian Creek, and San Antonio Reservoir 

watersheds in their entirety. Table 4-16 shows the acreage of each land cover 

type present in CZ-16, based on Figure 2-8, as well as the proportion of each 

that is currently under some form of protection. As shown in Table 4-16, 

dominant natural land covers in this conservation zone are annual grassland 

(10,725 acres), mixed evergreen forest/oak woodland (4,849 acres), blue oak 

woodland (4,695 acres), and foothill pine/oak woodland (1,631 acres). 



northern coastal scrub/Diablan sage scrub (Table 4-16), largely along San 


ICF 00906.08


Antonio Creek in the eastern part of the CZ. This CZ contains a higher proportion 

of northern coastal scrub/Diablan sage scrub than any other CZ. Even though a 

large portion of this land cover is preserved within the Ohlone Preserve 

Conservation Bank, the conservation of the remainder will support habitat 

connectivity within this CZ and should be a conservation priority. CZ-16 contains 

28% (235 acres) of the study area’s unprotected acreage of coast live oak and 

woodland (Table 4-16), mainly near San Antonio Reservoir and along Williams 

Gulch, with some preserved in Ohlone Regional Wilderness and Sunol Regional 

Wilderness. Because this land cover is relatively rare in the study area and CZ-16 

contains almost 30% of the study area total, its preservation is a conservation 

priority for this CZ. CZ-16 contains 17% (11 acres) of the study area’s 

unprotected perennial freshwater marsh (Table 4-16) near the northeastern 

shore of San Antonio Reservoir. Marsh land cover such as this provides potential 

habitat for California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, and tricolored 

blackbird and should be a conservation priority for this CZ. CZ-16 contains 14% 

(41 acres) of the study area’s unprotected sycamore alluvial woodland and 12% 

(3,028 acres) of the study area’s unprotected mixed evergreen forest/oak 

woodland (Table 4-16), both of which occur along the CZ’s creeks, including 

Indian Creek and La Costa Creek, with mixed evergreen forest extending outside 

the riparian zone. These land covers are a conservation priority because they 

provide a mix of habitats that support the CZ’s focal species and, along with 

mixed riparian forest and woodland, support a diverse and healthy riparian zone 

along the CZ’s creeks. 

Preservation of habitat along the CZ’s creeks will support conservation of a 

number of the strategy’s focal species, including foothill yellow-legged frog. CZ- 

16 contains 15% (687 acres) of the study area’s unprotected modeled foothill 

yellow-legged frog breeding and movement habitat (Table 4-19b) along all the 

streams in CZ-16. Potential habitat for central California coast steelhead can 

also be found in this CZ. If barriers to movement are removed or enhanced, the 

lower reaches of Indian Creek, La Costa Creek, and San Antonio Creek are 

expected to provide suitable spawning and rearing habitat (Gunther et al. 2000). 

In addition, the CZ’s streams provide potential habitat for nesting golden eagles, 

according to species modeling. CZ-16 also contains 9% (6,303 acres) of the study 

area’s unprotected modeled golden eagle nesting habitat (Table 4-19c), and the 

CNDDB lists two nesting records north and east of San Antonio Reservoir 

(California Natural Diversity Database 2009). According to occurrence records, 

one nest was active from 1991 to 1993, with two offspring fledged each of those 

years; the other nest was active from 1992 to 1993, with one offspring fledged 

in 1992 and two in 1993. 



acres) of this species’ unprotected critical habitat (Table 4-20). Critical habitat 

occurs throughout most of the CZ, while modeled breeding habitat occurs in the 

CZ’s 112 ponds, 12 (5 acres) of which are protected in open space (Table 4-16). 

The CZ’s ponds, along with seasonal wetlands near San Antonio Reservoir, also 


ICF 00906.08


provide 30 acres of suitable modeled habitat for California tiger salamander (5% 

of the study area’s unprotected habitat) (Table 4-19b) and 31 acres of suitable 

modeled habitat for tricolored blackbird (8% of the study area’s unprotected 

habitat) (Table 4-19c). Of these ponds, those that support breeding California 

red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, or tricolored blackbird should be a 

high conservation priority, as should ponds with the potential to be enhanced to 

support these species. Ponds within 1.3 miles of other known red-legged frog or 

tiger salamander breeding sites are the highest priority. 


Congdon’s tarplant habitat (Table 4-19e) in the northern area of the CZ near San 

Antonio Reservoir and in the northeastern corner of the CZ. These rather 

isolated islands of potential Congdon’s tarplant habitat should be surveyed for 

occurrences of this species. Any occurrences found could possess a high degree 

of genetic uniqueness due to the area’s isolation from other Congdon’s tarplant 

habitat and, for this reason, should be a high conservation priority for this CZ. 

Alameda whipsnake dispersal habitat occurs along the shores of San Antonio 

Reservoir, according to this species’ draft recovery plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2002), and the CNDDB lists occurrence just south of San Antonio 

Reservoir (California Natural Diversity Database 2009). Additionally, 13% 

(16,132 acres) of the unprotected acreage in Recovery Unit 5 for this species is 

in CZ-16 (Table 4-19b). Potential callippe silverspot butterfly habitat occurs in 

patches scattered throughout this CZ, with the most contiguous patches just 

south of San Antonio Reservoir and along La Costa Creek. It is unknown whether 

necessary larval host/food plants are present in this area to support Callippe 

silverspot butterfly. Surveying for stands of larval host/food plants is an 

important first step toward determining where potential habitat could exist. 





• Protection of northern coastal scrub/Diablan sage scrub and coast live oak 

and woodland land covers. 

• Protection of sycamore alluvial woodland, mixed evergreen forest/oak 

woodland, and mixed riparian forest and woodland land covers along the 

CZ’s streams to support riparian and riverine species, including foothill 

yellow-legged frog and coast steelhead. 


• Protection of perennial freshwater marsh and seasonal wetland, as well as 

protection and enhancement opportunities for ponds to increase potential 

breeding habitat for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, 

and tricolored blackbird. 


ICF 00906.08


• Protection of dispersal habitat for Alameda whipsnake. 

• Complete surveys for Congdon’s tarplant and map occurrences of plant 

populations. 




4.17.1 Background 

CZ-17 is in the southwestern corner of the Conservation Strategy study area; 

Valpe Ridge forms its northeastern boundary. This 12,118-acre CZ is made up of 

portions of the Calaveras Reservoir, Whitlock Creek, and Baby Peak watersheds. 

Table 4-17 shows the acreage of each land cover present in CZ-17, based on 

Figure 2-8, as well as the proportion of each that is currently under some form 

of protection. As shown in Table 4-17, dominant natural land covers in this CZ 

are annual grassland (4,428 acres), mixed evergreen forest/oak woodland 

(4,161 acres), and blue oak woodland (1,380 acres). 


CZ-17 contains 40% (33 acres) of the study area’s unprotected serpentine 

bunchgrass grassland (Table 4-17) very near Calaveras Reservoir on the 

southern boundary of the CZ. Given this land cover’s relative rarity in the study 

area and the large proportion found in CZ-17, its preservation is a high 

conservation priority for this CZ. CZ-17 contains 13% (3,318 acres) of the study 

area’s unprotected mixed evergreen forest/oak woodland (Table 4-17) 

scattered across the southern region of the CZ, with large contiguous patches 

that should be conservation priorities. CZ-17 contains 11% (208 acres) of the 

study area’s unprotected northern coastal scrub/Diablan sage scrub along 

Alameda Creek in the south of the CZ and near Calaveras Reservoir in the west. 

CZ-17 contains 8% (68 acres) of the study area’s unprotected coast live oak 

forest and woodland land cover near Alameda Creek and Calaveras Reservoir in 

the southern area of the CZ and 6% (18 acres) of the study area’s unprotected 

sycamore alluvial woodland, mostly along Alameda Creek (Table 4-17). While 

much of the CZ’s sycamore alluvial woodland is currently protected in Sunol 

Regional Wilderness, protection of the adjoining unprotected areas would 

enhance continuity of this land cover and should be a conservation priority. 


nesting habitat for golden eagle (Table 4-19c), most of which occurs on either 

side of Alameda Creek in the southern region of the CZ. The CNDDB lists a nest 

occurrence north of Alameda Creek in Ohlone Regional Wilderness. An active 


ICF 00906.08


nest was identified here in 1993, with two adults and one juvenile (California 

Natural Diversity Database 2009). The existence of potential nesting habitat and 

a historic nest suggests that this should be a conservation priority for CZ-17. CZ- 

17 contains 6% (295 acres) of the study area’s unprotected modeled foothill 

yellow-legged frog breeding and movement habitat (Table 4-19b) along the CZ’s 

reach of Alameda Creek and Whitlock Creek, with two CNDDB occurrences 

along Alameda Creek (California Natural Diversity Database 2009). Conservation 

of riparian habitat along Alameda Creek should be a priority not only because it 

will provide protection for potential foothill yellow-legged frog habitat but also 

because it will provide protection for potential habitat central California coast 

steelhead and Alameda whipsnake dispersal habitat. If barriers to movement 

are removed or enhanced, the reach of Alameda Creek in CZ-17 could provide 

suitable spawning and rearing habitat (Gunther et al. 2000). Thirteen percent 

(5,286 acres) of the study area’s unprotected critical habitat for Alameda 

whipsnake occurs in CZ-17 (Table 4-20), along with 6% (8,055 acres) of Recovery 

Unit 5 for this species (Table 4-19b). Protection of critical habitat should be a 

conservation priority. Additionally, potential Callippe silverspot butterfly habitat 

occurs in this CZ, with the largest contiguous patches found just north and east 

of Calaveras Reservoir. It is unknown whether necessary larval host/food plants 

are present in this area to support Callippe silverspot butterfly. Surveying for 

stands of larval host/food plants is an important first step toward determining 

where potential habitat could exist. Finally, CZ-17 contains 4% (4,878 acres) of 

the study area’s unprotected critical habitat for California red-legged frog (Table 

4-20). Critical habitat for this species can be found across most of the CZ with a 

large portion protected in Ohlone and Sunol Regional Wildernesses. The 

protection of the remaining critical habitat should be a conservation priority for 

CZ-17. 





• Protection of serpentine bunchgrass grassland land cover. 

• Protection of critical habitat and recovery unit habitat for Alameda 

whipsnake. 

• Protection of riparian habitat along Alameda Creek to support foothill 

yellow-legged frog, Alameda whipsnake, and central California coast 

steelhead. 

• Protection of golden eagle nesting habitat, with surveys to determine if 

previously identified nests are still active. 



ICF 00906.08


• Protection of contiguous patches of mixed evergreen forest/oak woodland 

and sycamore alluvial woodland land covers. 





CZ-18 is in the Northern Diablo Range near the southeast corner of the 

Conservation Strategy study area. This 23,369-acre CZ is in rugged terrain and 

contains Cedar Mountain and Man Ridge, with Cedar Ridge forming the CZ’s 

eastern boundary. Portions of Valpe Creek, Trout Creek, Lang Canyon, and 

Coffee Mill Creek watersheds make up this CZ. Table 4-18 shows the acreage of 



dominant natural land covers in this CZ are foothill pine/oak woodland (10,400 

acres), blue oak woodland (5,318 acres), mixed serpentine chaparral (2,875 

acres), and mixed evergreen forest/oak woodland (2,338 acres). 



mixed serpentine chaparral (Table 4-18) in a relatively large, connected patch in 

the center of the CZ east of Arroyo Valle. Due to this land cover’s relative rarity 

within the study area and the large percentage present in this CZ, it is the 

highest conservation priority for CZ-18. CZ-18 contains 49% (10,245 acres) of the 

study area’s unprotected foothill pine/oak woodland (Table 4-18) throughout 

the CZ, and largely interspersed with blue oak woodland in the southwest part 

of the CZ. Because this CZ contains almost half of the study area’s unprotected 

acreage of this land cover type, it is a high conservation priority, as is the 

protection of serpentine bunchgrass grassland. CZ-18 contains 35% (29 acres) of 

the study area’s unprotected serpentine bunchgrass grassland (Table 4-18) in 

the area of Sugarloaf Butte near the eastern boundary of the CZ. CZ-18 contains 

28% (745 acres) of the study area’s unprotected northern mixed chaparral 

/chamise chaparral (Table 4-18) in widely scattered patches throughout the CZ, 

with the largest patches located along Arroyo Valle in the north of the CZ. CZ-18 

contains 23% (5,109 acres) of the study area’s blue oak woodland (Table 4-18), 

found in large patches across the northern and southern regions of the CZ. 


golden eagle nesting habitat (Table 4-19c). There is a large continuous area of 

potentially suitable nesting habitat with relatively few edges in the western 


ICF 00906.08


portion of the CZ; conservation activities for this species should be focused in 

this area of potential habitat. Sixteen percent (708 acres) of the study area’s 

unprotected modeled foothill yellow-legged frog is in CZ-18 (Table 4-19b) along 

the CZ’s major streams—Arroyo Valle, Valpe Creek, and Trout Creek. In addition, 

CZ-18 contains a portion of the study area’s unprotected modeled habitat for 

San Joaquin kit fox and American badger. CZ-18 contains 12% (18,929 acres) of 

the study area’s unprotected potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat (Table 4-19d) 

across most of the CZ except its center, with the largest patches located west of 

Arroyo Valle. The western portion of the CZ contains what are likely the CZ’s 

most suitable patches of potential American badger habitat. Aside from these 

large patches, modeled American badger habitat occurs in many small patches 

scattered across the landscape, comprising 8% (11,698 acres) of the study area’s 

unprotected potential badger habitat (Table 4-19d). Finally, CZ-18 contains 15% 

(18,363 acres) of the study area’s unprotected critical habitat for California redlegged 

frog (Table 4-20), a conservation priority for this CZ, and 17% (22,378 

acres) of unprotected Alameda whipsnake habitat within Recovery Unit 5 (Table 

4-19b). 





• Protection of mixed serpentine chaparral and foothill pine/oak woodland 

land covers. 

• Protection of serpentine bunchgrass grassland, northern mixed 

chaparral/chamise chaparral, and blue oak woodland land covers. 

• Protection of contiguous patches of golden eagle nesting habitat. 

• Protection and restoration of Arroyo Valle, Valpe Creek, and Trout Creek to 

support foothill yellow-legged frog. 

• Protection of contiguous patches of San Joaquin kit fox and American 

badger modeled habitat. 


• Protection of recovery unit habitat for Alameda whipsnake. 


ICF 00906.08

Table 4-1. Natural land cover protection goals for Conservation Zone 1. 

Natural Landcover Type Protection Goal 

Tot 

(CZ 

al Acreage 

-1) 

Pro 

in T 

tected Acreage 

ype 1&2 (CZ-1) 

Unprotected 

Acreage (CZ-1) 

Unprotected Acrea 

(Study Area) 

ge 

Study Area's 

Unprotected Acreage 

in CZ-1 (%) 

Conservation Goal 

(= acres unprotected x 

protection goal) 

Grassland 

California Annual Grassland 75% 780 176 605 104,749 1% 454 

Oak Woodland 

Mixed Evergreen Forest / Oak Woodland 75% 204 77 127 24,757 1% 95 


Mixed Riparian Forest and Woodland 75% 140 28 112 2,110 5% 84 

Natural Land Cover Type Total 1,124 280 844 131,616 1% 633



To 

(CZ 

tal Acreage 

-2) 

Pro 

in 

tected Acreag 

Type 1&2 (CZ-2 

e 

) 

Unprotected 


Unprotected 

Acreage (Study 

Area) 

Study Area's 

Unprotected 

Acreage in CZ-2 (%) 




Grassland 

California Annual Grassland 75% 3,409 95 3,314 104,749 3% 2,485 

Oak Woodland 

Blue Oak Woodland 75% 11 1 10 22,193 0.05% 8 

Coast Live Oak Forest and Woodland 75% 2 0 2 844 0.26% 2 

Mixed Evergreen Forest / Oak Woodland 75% 1 0 1 24,757 0.003% 0 



Mixed Willow Riparian Scrub 75% 341 0 341 664 51% 256 

Sycamore Alluvial Woodland 90% 188 152 36 298 12% 32 

Wetlands 

Perennial Freshwater Marsh 90% 7 0 7 62 12% 7 

Seasonal Wetland 90% 43 0 43 532 8% 39 

Open Water 

Pond 75% 84 0 84 362 23% 63 

Quarry Pond 75% 1,079 0 1,079 1,246 87% 810 

Reservoir (defined by management) 75% 32 0 32 1,886 2% 24 

Streams 1 90% 46 2 44 215 20% 40 

Natural Land Cover Type Acreage Total 2 5,607 277 5,330 159,703 3% 4,010 

1 All numbers in table for streams are represented as miles. 

2 Natural land cover type total does not include streams, which are represented as miles.



T 

( 

otal Acreage 

CZ-3) 

P 

in 

rotected Acrea 

Type 1&2 (CZ 

ge 

-3) 

Unprotect ed 

Acreage (C Z-3) 

Unprotect 

Acreage ( 

Area) 

ed 

Study 

Study Area's 

Unprotected 

Acreage in CZ-3 (%) 




Grassland 


Oak Woodland 

Blue Oak Woodland 75% 2 0 2 22,193 0% 2 




Wetlands 

Alkali wetland 90% 8 0 8 621 1% 7 


Open Water 

Pond 75% 19 0 19 362 5% 14 

Streams 1 90% 6 0 6 215 3% 5 






To 

(CZ 

tal Acreage 

-4) 

Pro 

in T 

tected Acreag 

ype 1&2 (CZ-4 

e 

) 

Unprotected 


Unprotected Acre 

(Study Area) 

age 

Study Area's 


in CZ-4 (%) 




Grassland 

Alkali Meadow and Scalds 90% 258 69 189 871 22% 170 


Valley sink scrub 90% 410 256 154 155 99% 139 



Wetlands 

Alkali wetland 90% 106 64 42 621 7% 38 



Open Water 

Pond 75% 29 24 5 362 1% 4 

Natural Land Cover Type Total 5,426 805 4,621 109,462 4% 3,576



Tot 

(CZ 

al Acreage 

-5) 

Pro 

in T 

tected Acreag 

ype 1&2 (CZ-5 

e 

) 

Unprotected 


Unprotected Acrea 

(Study Area) 

ge 

Study Area's 


in CZ-5 (%) 




Grassland 


California Annual Grassland 75% 7,528 1,520 6,008 104,749 6% 4,506 

Valley sink scrub 90% 0.2 0 0 155 0% 0 

Rock Outcrop 90% 4 0 4 53 8% 4 

Oak Woodland 

Blue Oak Woodland 75% 42 0 42 22,193 0.2% 32 

Coast Live Oak Forest and Woodland 75% 146 146 0 844 0% 0 

Wetlands 

Alkali Wetland 90% 127 31 96 621 15% 86 


Open Water 

Pond 75% 9 2 7 362 2% 6 

Streams 1 90% 3 0 3 215 1% 3 

Natural Land Cover Type Acreage Total 2 8,094 1,698 6,397 130,380 5% 4,848 





To 

(CZ 

tal Acreage 

-6) 

Pro 

in T 

tected Acreag 

ype 1&2 (CZ-6 

e 

) 

Unprotected 



(Study Area) 

age 

Study Area's 


in CZ-6 (%) 




Grassland 



Rock Outcrop 90% 71 44 27 53 50% 24 

Oak Woodland 





Coulter Pine Woodland 75% 1 0 1 14 6% 1 

Wetlands 



Open Water 

Canal / Aqueduct 0% 81 0 81 198 41% 0 

Pond 75% 30 1 29 362 8% 22 


Streams 1 90% 3 0 3 215 1% 3 

Natural Land Cover Type Total 2 13,702 607 13,095 157,080 8% 9,697 





To 

(CZ 

tal Acreage 

-7) 

Pro 

in T 

tected Acreag 

ype 1&2 (CZ-7 

e 

) 

Unprotected 



(Study Area) 

age 

Study Area's 


in CZ-7 (%) 




Grassland 



Wetlands 



Open Water 


Pond 75% 17 2 15 362 4% 11 




To 

(C 

tal Acreage 

Z-8) 

Pro 

in 

tected Acreag 

Type 1&2 (CZe 

8) 

Unprotected 



(Study Area) 

age 

Study Area's 


in CZ-8 (%) 




Grassland 


Chaparral and Coastal Scrub 

Northern Coastal Scrub / Diablan Sage Scrub 75% 363 38 324 1,926 17% 243 

Oak Woodland 



Mixed Evergreen Forest / Oak Woodland 75% 9,617 3,135 6,482 24,757 26% 4,862 





Wetlands 


Open Water 

Pond 75% 8 4 4 362 1% 3 

Natural Land Cover Type Total 15,670 4,900 10,769 158,435 7% 8,078



To 

(CZ 

tal Acreage 

-9) 

Pro 

in T 

tected Acreag 

ype 1&2 (CZ-9 

e 

) 

Unprotected 



(Study Area) 

age 

Study Area's 


in CZ-9 (%) 




Grassland 




Oak Woodland 

Blue Oak Woodland 75% 1,159 0 1,159 22,193 5% 869 



Foothill Pine-Oak Woodland 75% 88 0 88 20,751 0% 66 




Wetlands 



Open Water 

Pond 75% 28 0 28 362 8% 21 

Streams 1 90% 6 0 6 215 3% 5 






T 

(C 

otal Acreage 

Z-10) 

P 

in 

1 

rotected Acreag 

Type 1&2 (CZ- 

0) 

e 

Unprotected 


Unprotected Ac 

(Study Area) 

reage 

Study Area's 


in CZ-10 (%) 




Grassland 



Rock Outcrop 90% 11 0 11 53 21% 10 


Mixed Serpentine Chaparral 90% 48 0 48 3,740 1% 43 


Northern Mixed Chaparral / Chamise Chaparral 75% 377 0 377 2,684 14% 283 

Oak Woodland 

Blue Oak Woodland 75% 2,685 0 2,685 22,193 12% 2,013 

Mixed Evergreen Forest / Oak Woodland 75% 1,575 0 1,575 24,757 6% 1,181 


Foothill Pine-Oak Woodland 75% 2,024 0 2,024 20,751 10% 1,518 




Wetlands 



Open Water 


Pond 75% 21 0 21 362 6% 15 

1 

Streams 90% 4 0 4 215 2% 4 



2 Natural land cover type total does not include streams, which are represented as miles. 

1



To 

(C 

tal Acreage 

Z-11) 

Pr 

in 

otected Acreag 

Type 1&2 (CZ-1 

e 

1) 

Unprotected 


Unprotected Acr 

(Study Area) 

eage 

Study Area's 


in CZ-11 (%) 




Grassland 


Oak Woodland 






Wetlands 



Open Water 

Pond 75% 15 2 13 362 4% 10 




T 

(C 

otal Acreage 

Z-12) 

P 

in 

1 


Type 1&2 (CZ- 

2) 

e 

Unprotected 



(Study Area) 

reage 

Study Area's 


in CZ-12 (%) 




Grassland 





Oak Woodland 











Wetlands 


Open Water 

Pond 75% 34 1 34 362 9% 25 


Streams 1 90% 24 1 23 215 11% 21 






T 

(C 

otal Acreage 

Z-13) 

P 

in 

1 

rotected Acrea 

Type 1&2 (CZ 

3) 

ge 

- Unprotected 


Unprotected A 

(Study Area) 

creage 

Study Area's 


in CZ-13 (%) 




Grassland 





Northern Mixed Chaparral / Chamise Chaparral 75% 1,380 0 1,380 2,684 51% 1,035 

Oak Woodland 





Sargent Cypress Woodland 90% 636 0 636 653 97% 573 




Wetland 


Open Water 

Pond 75% 39 0 39 362 11% 29 

Streams 1 90% 18 0 18 215 8% 16 






To 

(C 

tal Acreage 

Z-14) 

Pr 

in 

14 


Type 1&2 (CZ- 

) 

e 

Unprotected 



(Study Area) 

reage 

Study Area's 


in CZ-14 (%) 




Grassland 




Oak Woodland 



Mixed Evergreen Forest / Oak Woodland 75% 1,198 236 962 24,757 4% 721 





Wetland 


Open Water 

Pond 75% 8 0 8 362 2% 6 




T 

(C 

otal Acreage 

Z-15) 

P 

in 

15 


Type 1&2 (CZ- 

) 

e 

Unprotected 



(Study Area) 

reage 

Study Area's 


in CZ-15 (%) 




Grassland 


Rock Outcrop 90% 5 0 5 53 9% 5 

Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland 90% 40 19 22 84 26% 19 




Oak Woodland 

Blue Oak Woodland 75% 1,078 594 484 22,193 2% 363 


Mixed Evergreen Forest / Oak Woodland 75% 2,750 1,531 1,219 24,757 5% 914 








Wetland 


Open Water 

Pond 75% 10 2 8 362 2% 6 

Quarry Pond 75% 167 0 167 1,246 13% 125 


Streams 1 90% 25 7 18 215 8% 16 

Natural Land Cover Type Acreage Total 2 13,535 5,375 8,159 185,739 4% 6,148 





T 

(C 

otal Acreage 

Z-16) 

P 

in 

16 


Type 1&2 (CZ- 

) 

e 

Unprotected 



(Study Area) 

reage 

Study Area's 


in CZ-16 (%) 




Grassland 


Rock Outcrop 90% 8 2 6 53 12% 6 


Northern Coastal Scrub / Diablan Sage Scrub 75% 1,044 318 726 1,926 38% 544 

Oak Woodland 

Blue Oak Woodland 75% 4,695 2,580 2,115 22,193 10% 1,586 


Mixed Evergreen Forest / Oak Woodland 75% 4,849 1,821 3,028 24,757 12% 2,271 



Foothill Pine-Oak Woodland 75% 1,631 1,475 156 20,751 1% 117 




Wetlands 


Open Water 

Pond 75% 24 5 19 362 5% 14 





To 

(C 

tal Acreage 

Z-17) 

Pr 

in 

17 


Type 1&2 (CZ- 

) 

e 

Unprotected 



(Study Area) 

reage 

Study Area's 


in CZ-17 (%) 




Grassland 






Oak Woodland 

Blue Oak Woodland 75% 1,380 519 861 22,193 4% 646 




Foothill Pine-Oak Woodland 75% 1,171 248 923 20,751 4% 692 




Open Water 

Pond 75% 18 9 9 362 3% 7 





To 

(C 

tal Acreage 

Z-18) 

Pr 

in 

18 

otected Acrea 

Type 1&2 (CZ 

) 

ge 

- Unprotected 


Unprotected Acr 

(Study Area) 

eage 

Study Area's 


in CZ-18 (%) 




Grassland 




Mixed Serpentine Chaparral 90% 2,875 0 2,875 3,740 77% 2,588 


Oak Woodland 





Sargent Cypress Woodland 90% 17 0 17 653 3% 15 



Open Water 

Pond 75% 24 2 22 362 6% 16 


Table419a.Modeledsuitablehabitat(acres)forfocalinvertebratespecies 1 

LonghornFairyShrimp VernalPoolFairyShrimp 

Conservation 

Zone Total Protected Unprotected Total Protected Unprotected 

CZ1 

CZ2 644 644 680 680 

CZ3 14 14 

CZ4 1,446 546 900 1,438 516 921 

CZ5 1,597 1,577 19 186 6 180 

CZ6 413 397 16 443 220 223 

CZ7 312 312 319 319 

CZ8 2 1 1 

CZ9 90 90 130 130 

CZ10 6 6 

CZ11 7 1 7 

CZ12 

CZ13 15 15 

CZ14 

CZ15 3 3 

CZ16 

CZ17 

CZ18 

Total 4,501 2,520 1,981 3,243 744 2,499 

1 Habitatforcallippeesilverspotbutterflywasnotmodeled.

Table419b.Modeledsuitablehabitat(acres)forfocalreptileandamphibianspecies 

CaliforniaTigerSalamander CaliforniaRedleggedFrog 1 Foothillyellowleggedfrog 

Alamedawhipsnake 2 

Conservation 

Zone Total Protected Unprotected Total Protected Unprotected Total Protected Unprotected Total Protected Unprotected 

CZ1 0.2 0.1 0.1 5 2 2 1,164 278 885 

CZ2 133 133 323 0.1 323 261 7 254 1,842 268 1,575 

CZ3 30 30 150 150 106 106 20 0 20 

CZ4 91 52 39 267 166 101 304 15 289 605 0 605 

CZ5 34 7 27 148 36 111 139 139 456 14 442 

CZ6 109 9 99 366 35 330 105 14 91 156 132 24 

CZ7 24 2 22 91 16 75 

CZ8 10 5 5 76 34 42 316 177 139 16,435 4,945 11,490 

CZ9 68 68 268 268 222 222 4,763 0 4,763 

CZ10 27 0.5 26 216 4 213 405 405 10,971 0 10,971 

CZ11 23 3 20 138 23 114 43 43 7,482 112 7,371 

CZ12 56 1 56 258 4 253 271 26 245 16,424 563 15,861 

CZ13 53 53 351 351 726 726 16,420 0 16,420 

CZ14 17 0.4 17 99 3 96 3,059 532 2,527 

CZ15 15 2 13 134 22 111 352 139 213 14,214 5,408 8,806 

CZ16 34 4 30 337 39 298 1,141 454 687 24,439 8,307 16,132 

CZ17 15 9 6 102 61 40 383 88 295 12,130 4,075 8,055 

CZ18 12 2 10 81 10 71 745 37 708 22,778 400 22,378 

Total 749 96 653 3,408 457 2,951 5,520 957 4,563 153,357 25,034 128,324 

Notes: 

1 ModeledhabitatforCaliforniaredleggedfrogonlyincludesbreedinghabitat. 

2 HabitatforAlamedawhipsnakewasnotmodeled,butratherisbasedonUSFWSrecoveryunits.

Table419c.Modeledsuitablehabitat(acres)forfocalbirdspecies 

Goldeneagle 1 Tricoloredblackbird 2 Burrowing owl 

Conservation 

Zone Total Protected Unprotected Total Protected Unprotected Total Protected Unprotected 

CZ1 344 105 239 0.1 0.1 257 56 201 

CZ2 612 182 429 81 81 8,094 103 7,991 

CZ3 93 93 16 16 4,676 4,676 

CZ4 11 11 36 24 12 4,718 407 4,310 

CZ5 188 146 42 9 2 7 4,784 908 3,875 

CZ6 33 9 24 28 1 27 8,978 336 8,642 

CZ7 13 0.3 13 1,784 123 1,661 

CZ8 10,506 3,314 7,192 8 4 4 2,387 871 1,516 

CZ9 2,152 2,152 28 28 7,588 7,588 

CZ10 6,294 6,294 19 19 9,990 336 9,654 

CZ11 1,942 21 1,921 14 2 12 2,832 42 2,791 

CZ12 7,318 246 7,071 55 1 54 3,454 201 3,254 

CZ13 14,104 14,104 26 26 3,045 3,045 

CZ14 1,476 236 1,240 15 0.4 15 1,294 169 1,125 

CZ15 4,309 2,311 1,997 11 2 9 5,161 1,072 4,090 

CZ16 11, 842 

5 , 539 

6 , 303 

34 3 31 5 , 567 689 4 , 

878 

CZ17 6,967 1,735 5,232 14 9 4 1,573 764 809 

CZ18 18,230 370 17,860 13 2 11 914 58 856 

Total 86,421 14,216 72,205 419 50 369 77,095 6,135 70,960 

Notes: 

1 Modeledhabitatforgoldeneagleonlyincludesnestinghabitat. 

2 Modeledhabitatfortricoloredblackbirdonlyincludesnestinghabitat.

Table419d.Modeledsuitablehabitat(acres)forfocalmammalspecies 

Americanbadger SanJoaquinkitfox 

Conservation 

Zone Total Protected Unprotected Total Protected Unprotected 

CZ1 759 176 584 

CZ2 7,978 105 7,873 4,215 12 4,204 

CZ3 8,433 8,433 8,481 8,481 

CZ4 7,071 699 6,372 6,070 412 5,658 

CZ5 7,759 1,521 6,237 7,626 1,666 5,959 

CZ6 13,060 543 12,517 12,547 552 11,995 

CZ7 5,098 140 4,957 4,801 124 4,677 

CZ8 4,481 1,434 3,047 

CZ9 12,365 12,365 14,050 14,050 

CZ10 20,793 388 20,405 24,485 364 24,121 

CZ11 4,615 87 4,528 

CZ12 8,034 328 7,706 13,625 423 13,202 

CZ13 10,570 10,570 17,709 17,709 

CZ14 2,443 274 2,169 

CZ15 8,523 2,795 5,728 12,165 4,881 7,284 

CZ16 12 , 357 

2 , 794 

9 , 563 

21 , 988 

6 , 635 

15 , 

352 

CZ17 5,747 2,445 3,302 11,183 3,823 7,360 

CZ18 11,880 182 11,698 19,327 398 18,929 

Total 151,964 13,909 138,054 178,269 19,289 158,980

Table419e.Modeledsuitablehabitat(acres)forfocalplantspecies 1 

SanJoaquinspearscale Bigtarplant Congdon's 

tarplant 

Conservation 

Zone Total Protected Unprotected Total Protected Unprotected Total Protected Unprotected 

CZ1 44 1 42 

CZ2 638 638 6 6 1,035 27 1,007 

CZ3 360 360 3,055 3,055 

CZ4 1,846 394 1,452 1,213 212 1,001 

CZ5 396 40 357 4,124 761 3,363 747 242 505 

CZ6 417 417 6,319 241 6,078 

CZ7 311 18 293 88 10 78 

CZ8 122 122 

CZ9 43 43 4,435 4,435 105 105 

CZ10 274 25 249 9,450 75 9,375 

CZ11 310 4 305 

CZ12 64 48 15 

CZ13 

CZ14 22 22 

CZ15 167 13 154 

CZ16 394 394 

CZ17 

CZ18 

Total 4,286 477 3,809 24,422 1,087 23,335 7,278 549 6,729 

1 Habitatforrecurvedlarkspur,Livermorevalleytarplant,andpalmatebractedbird'sbeakwasnotmodeled.

Table420.Criticalhabitat(acres)forfederallylistedfocalspecies 

AlamedaWhipsnake CaliforniaTigerSalamander LonghornFairyShrimp California 

RedleggedFrog VernalPoolFairyShrimp 

Conservatio n 

Zone 

Total Protected Unprotected Total Protected Unprotected Total Protected Unprotected Total Protected Unprotected Total Protected Unprotected 

CZ1 814 271 543 

CZ2 81 81 

CZ3 1,178 1,178 7,426 7,426 

CZ4 857 83 774 1,378 486 892 

CZ5 133 0.1 133 8,343 1,705 6,637 77 17 60 

CZ6 354 220 134 13,095 606 12,489 

CZ7 842 141 701 

CZ8 14,916 4,782 10,134 1,829 995 834 

CZ9 185 184 11,966 11,966 

CZ10 11,046 11,046 24,937 277 24,659 

CZ11 92 92 

CZ12 2,191 2,191 8,567 140 8,427 

CZ13 8,913 8,913 11,670 11,670 

CZ14 12 12 

CZ15 6,457 5,069 1,388 6,631 5,096 1,535 

CZ16 35 17 18 23,265 8,307 14,958 

CZ17 9,141 3,854 5,286 8,838 3,960 4,878 

CZ18 366 366 18,763 400 18,363 

Total 53,261 13,722 39,544 1,178 1,178 487 220 267 148,105 21,981 126,034 1,455 503 952

Chapter 5 

Conservation Strategy Implementation 


5.1 Overview ................................................................................................ 5-2 

5.2 Implementation Structure ..................................................................... 5-3 

5.2.1 Implementation Committee ............................................................ 5-3 

5.2.2 Public Advisory Committee ............................................................. 5-5 

5.2.3 Annual Meeting ............................................................................... 5-5 

5.2.4 Data Tracking and Reporting ........................................................... 5-6 

5.3 Funding .................................................................................................. 5-9 

5.4 Participating Entities .............................................................................. 5-9 

5.4.1 Local Governments.......................................................................... 5-9 

5.4.2 State and Federal Resource Agencies ........................................... 5-10 

5.4.3 Special Districts and Agencies ....................................................... 5-10 

5.5 Project-by-Project Regulatory Compliance .......................................... 5-11 

5.5.1 National Environmental Policy Act ................................................ 5-11 

5.5.2 California Environmental Quality Act ............................................ 5-11 

5.5.3 Federal Endangered Species Permitting ....................................... 5-12 

5.5.4 State Endangered Species Permitting ........................................... 5-14 

5.5.5 Federal Clean Water Act Permitting ............................................. 5-14 

5.5.6 Clean Water Act Section 401 and the Porter-Cologne 

Water Quality Control Act ............................................................. 5-14 

5.5.7 State Streambed and Lake Alteration Agreement ........................ 5-15 

5.6 Conservation through Mitigation ........................................................ 5-15 

5.6.1 Roles and Responsibilities of Project Applicants ........................... 5-16 

5.6.2 Land Acquisition for Mitigation ..................................................... 5-18 

5.6.3 Conservation Easements for Mitigation ........................................ 5-20 

5.6.4 Conservation or Mitigation Banks ................................................. 5-24 

5.6.5 New Concepts for Mitigation Planning ......................................... 5-25 

5.7 Conservation Actions Unrelated to Mitigation— 

Voluntary Conservation Actions .......................................................... 5-26 

5.7.1 Existing Stewardship Programs ..................................................... 5-27 

5.7.2 New Stewardship Programs and Tools ......................................... 5-29 


ICF 00906.08

Chapter 5 Conservation Strategy Implementation 

5.1 Overview 

Implementation will be a challenging part of the Conservation Strategy, and the 

most critical. Effective implementation will require creativity, commitment, and 

flexibility. A variety of implementation methods will be needed to make this 

Conservation Strategy more than just a “shelf document.” This chapter 

describes the methods for implementing the Conservation Strategy. The 

Conservation Strategy distinguishes between stewardship-driven conservation 

(described in Chapter 3 as “Independent Conservation Actions”) and mitigationdriven 

conservation (described in Chapter 3 as “Using this Strategy for 

Projects”). The Conservation Strategy creates a structure where both types of 

conservation can collectively contribute to the regional goals set by the strategy. 

From a regulatory perspective, this Conservation Strategy may streamline and 

simplify the issuance of permits for future project proponents, establish 

priorities for mitigation and conservation, and help maintain native biological 

and ecological diversity in eastern Alameda County. This Conservation Strategy 

also aims to standardize avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and compensation 

requirements to comply with federal, state, and local laws and regulations 

relating to biological and natural resources of the study area. Although 

acquiring adequate mitigation would still be the responsibility of the project 

applicant, the process would be streamlined and therefore more efficient, 

ultimately resulting in more effective conservation. 

The Conservation Strategy also provides a framework for future conservation 

efforts unrelated to mitigation. The Conservation Strategy establishes a 

baseline condition for acres of protected land in the study area and establishes 

which land cover types and focal species should be the focus of project planning 

and conservation efforts. The Conservation Strategy will be used to guide 

conservation projects, assist in obtaining grants for conservation efforts, 

contribute to the implementation of the San Francisco Bay Area Upland Goals 

projects, and promote the protection of wildlife corridors. It is intended to be 

utilized by various entities including but not limited to landowners, land trusts, 

non-profit organizations, and municipalities developing their regional planning 

documents. 

However, the Conservation Strategy is not creating any new regulations in 

Alameda County, nor is it changing the process by which a project applicant 

would obtain permits for impacts to biological resources. This Conservation 

Strategy simply provides information that can be utilized by project applicants, 

local jurisdictions, and state and federal regulators to increase certainty about 

project impacts and appropriate mitigation. 


ICF 00906.08


5.2 Implementation Structure 

The Conservation Strategy can be used immediately. Guidance in the strategy 

can be utilized for the various permitting vehicles described in Chapter 1. The 

Conservation Strategy is meant to be a “living document” that will be updated 

as new information becomes available to the Implementation Committee and 

Public Advisory Committee. 

As described in Chapter 1, several federal, state, and local entities have 

prepared this Conservation Strategy through a Steering Committee that directed 

its preparation. Many members of that Steering Committee will remain 

involved during implementation of the Conservation Strategy. Any jurisdiction 

that opts to utilize the guidance in the Conservation Strategy for projects or for 

projects under their permit authority has a role in implementing the strategy. 

Additionally, implementation will rely on the technical expertise and working 

landscape knowledge of landowners (both public and private), development 

community, non-profit organizations, land trusts, etc. A committee of these 

agencies and organization is proposed to provide technical expertise and 

knowledge of the East County’s working landscape necessary for effective 

implementation. This section describes the roles of the agencies and 

organizations that are anticipated to help implement the strategy. 

5.2.1 Implementation Committee 

In order to track how the strategy is working and update the strategy over time, 

an Implementation Committee will be formed. This committee will consist of 

one representative from each local agency that was a member of the Steering 

Committee during the planning process. Input from other local stakeholders 

will come from the public advisory committee described in the next section. 

It is important to note that the Implementation Committee will not arbitrate or 

negotiate mitigation on behalf of project proponents. It is not the role of the 

Implementation Committee to become involved in decisions regarding project 

mitigation. Such responsibility will remain with the project applicant and 

resource agencies. However, it is the role of the committee to assess how well 

the strategy worked to provide guidance to project proponents and the 

resource agencies regarding mitigation needs. 

The Implementation Committee will operate under the following mission 

statement: 

“The Implementation Committee will ensure that the East Alameda County 

Conservation Strategy is readily accessible as well as current, relevant, and 

practical for facilitating regional conservation and providing greater permitting 

certainty to local jurisdictions, project applicants, and the resource agencies.” 


ICF 00906.08


The Committee will rely on input from the general public and the public advisory 

committee. All Implementation Committee meetings will be open to the public. 

The following are the roles of the Implementation Committee. 

• Publicize the strategy within participating agencies and to other entities that 

may use the strategy through a project web site and outreach (e.g., 

presentations, training sessions, and other communications). 

• Answer questions from users of the strategy. 

• Develop guidance as needed to clarify and refine components of the 

strategy. 

• Track loss of natural lands and protection of natural lands in Alameda 

County (see Section 5.6 for details). 

• Prepare annual reports for CDFG and USFWS documenting the 

implementation of the strategy (see Section 5.6.3 for details). 

• Undertake periodic updates of the strategy based on significant new 

information on the focal species and their conservation. 

• Maintain the Conservation Strategy web site with the most up to date 

biological resource information (updated annually). 

• Ensure that the database is updated with new information on focal species. 

• Seek federal and state grants to assist in funding implementation. 

• Facilitate or participate in EACCS focused discussions and planning with the 

Public Advisory Committee and stakeholders to explore new concepts for 

mitigation and voluntary conservation. 

Initially the Implementation Committee will meet monthly but eventually the 

committee will meet less frequently. The committee will check in with the 

resource agencies on the effectiveness of the strategy for their respective 

permitting processes and receive continual feedback from local agencies and 

permitting participants on implementation. 

A chair of the Implementation Committee will be designated. The 

responsibilities of the chair will include the following. 

• Organizing and preparing meeting agendas. 

• Preparing meeting minutes and posting them to the Conservation Strategy 

web site. 

• Maintaining a record of conservation or mitigation acquisitions including 

conservation easements that are recorded in the study area during their 

tenure as chair. 

• Other duties determined by the Implementation Committee during 

implementation. 


ICF 00906.08


The Implementation Committee will be advised by a public advisory committee, 

as described below. The Implementation Committee should consider having 

periodic joint meetings with the public advisory committee. 

5.2.2 Public Advisory Committee 

The Implementation Committee will form a Public Advisory Committee to 

discuss technical issues, any lessons learned, and recommendations to the 

Implementation Committee. The Public advisory Committee should include 

species experts with knowledge of the study area, representatives from the 

environmental community, development community, private landowner 

community, and mitigation banking community. There will also be a 

representative from the NRCS and ACRCD as well as a representative from the 

County’s Partnership for Land Conservation and Stewardship (PLCS). Resource 

agencies and local jurisdictions may send representatives to the Public Advisory 

Committee who have appropriate technical expertise. 

At a minimum the Public Advisory Committee will meet once a year, preferably 

in advance of the annual meeting. Additional meetings will be scheduled if 

needed. The responsibilities of the Public Advisory Committee would include 

the following: 

• Evaluate and make recommendations to the Implementation Committee 

concerning the effectiveness of the Conservation Strategy and its 

implementation. 

• Review any new information and progress in implementation. 

• Monitor progress toward achieving the conservation goals and objectives 

for each focal species in each Conservation Zone. 

• Recommend key issues to discuss during the annual meeting. 

5.2.3 Annual Meeting 

The Implementation Committee will host an annual meeting to update the 

general public on the progress and challenges with implementation during the 

previous year. It will be an opportunity to update the public on any changes that 

have been made to the Conservation Strategy and any new information that has 

been added. This meeting will be organized to coincide with the release of the 

annual report (discussed below). The agenda for the meeting will be determined 

by the Implementation Committee in cooperation with the Public Advisory 

Committee to ensure that key issues related to implementation are discussed. 


ICF 00906.08


5.2.4 Data Tracking and Reporting 

To track the relative level of impacts within each natural community and focal 

species modeled habitat in the study area, a database will be established. The 

Implementation Committee will update the land cover map (Figure 2-8) 

annually to account for the loss of land covers from project activities. Similarly 

they will update the Protected Open Space data (Figure 2-3) to determine how 

many additional acres of each land cover type have been protected in the 

previous year. Outputs from those two data sets will be tracked in a database 

which will allow for easy reporting on the loss of habitat and the gain in habitat 

protection in a given year. 

5.2.4.1 Database Development and Maintenance 

The Implementation Committee will develop and maintain a comprehensive 

data repository to track implementation of all aspects of the Conservation 

Strategy. The data repository and any associated databases should be 

structured such that a trained staff person (as opposed to a technician or 

programmer) can enter data (e.g., data base used by the East Contra Costa 

Conservancy to track impacts and mitigation). Additionally, the data base will 

allow for future expansion and integration with external databases (e.g., linkage 

to agency or other GIS map libraries). Finally, the database will allow for easy 

tabulation and reporting for the annual report. This information will be critical 

to assessing the efficacy of Conservation Strategy and will help identify 

conservation gaps in the future. 

The data repository should be structured to facilitate the following 

requirements. 

• Data documentation such that future users can determine why, how, and 

where data were collected (documentation standards [i.e., data about the 

data] should be consistent for all types of monitoring and over time; 

adequate documentation will facilitate the future use of monitoring data). 

• Quality assurance and quality control of the data. 

• Access and use of the most current information in assessment and decision 

making (the database should allow repeated access to current and past 

information over time). 

• Storage of spatial information in a GIS-linked database (a geodatabase). 

The primary types of information for which the data repository will be 

developed and maintained are listed below. 

• Monitoring and survey results. 


ICF 00906.08


• General tracking of activities for each of the local jurisdiction, including 

tracking of impacts based on an overlay of project footprints and 

Conservation Strategy land cover data. 

• Annually update status of Conservation Strategy land cover 

preservation/creation/restoration acreage. 

• Adopted changes to the Conservation Strategy focal species occurrence 

data and changes to Conservation Strategy land cover data. 

• Tracking of parcels with documented conservation activities or recorded 

conservation easements. 

• Track voluntary conservation efforts, both specific on-the-ground projects 

as well as non-mitigation based conservation easements in the study area. 

This would be best done on a regional level either for the entire study area 

or for each conservation zone (this many acres of grassland were managed 

for burrowing owl or this many ponds were restored and managed for focal 

species this year, etc.). 

5.2.4.2 Conservation Tracking 

The primary purpose of maintaining a database is to track the progress that the 

Implementation Committee is making towards conservation goals and 

objectives set in the Conservation Strategy. The Implementation Committee will 

be responsible to track the following items. 

• The location, extent, and timing of recorded conservation easements and 

land acquisitions within each Conservation Zone and through the entire 

study area. 

• Descriptions of conservation agreements; lands acquired in fee title; 

interagency memorandums of agreement; management plans for private 

lands (developed in cooperation with the landowner); or any other 

agreements entered into for the purposes of protecting, enhancing, or 

restoring focal species habitat. 

• An estimate of the location, extent, and timing of impacts on land cover 

types (based on reports submitted by project applicants). 

• The location, extent, and timing of protection, enhancement, restoration, or 

creation of land cover types. 

The purpose of monitoring this basic information will be to track the 

Implementation Committee’s progress toward achieving the conservation goals 

and objectives for focal species and natural communities. This tracking will help 

ensure that habitats for focal species and natural communities are conserved 

within the study area and allow for more accurate assessment of impacts on 

those resources at the project level as time goes on. Tracking this information in 


ICF 00906.08


a database will also allow for easier and consistent generation of graphics and 

tables for production in the annual report. 

5.2.4.3 Annual Reporting 

The Implementation Committee will prepare an annual report at the end of 

each calendar year. Each annual report will summarize the previous calendar 

year’s implementation-related activities. Annual reports will require synthesis 

of data and reporting on important trends such as general functionality of the 

Conservation Strategy, large projects that were permitted, land acquisition, and 

habitat restoration projects. 

Annual reports will be submitted to the designated representatives of the 

resource agencies and discussed at the Implementation Committee meeting(s). 

The reports will be posted on the Conservation Strategy public web site. 

The goals of the annual report are listed below. 

• Providing the information and data necessary for the Implementation 

Committee to demonstrate to the resource agencies and the public that the 

Conservation Strategy is being implemented properly and functioning as 

anticipated. 

• Disclosing any problems with Conservation Strategy implementation so they 

can be corrected. 

• Documenting issues with Conservation Strategy implementation that may 

require additional coordination between the Implementation Committee 

and the USFWS and CDFG and/or effect changes in the Programmatic 

Biological Opinion and Consistency Determination. 

• Document issues with the templates, management plans, etc. and their 

implementation that may require coordination with technical specialists and 

with the project partners for correction or adaptation. Document changes 

in technical information that should inform this topic and implementation. 

Document new tools that could be utilized. 

• Identifying administrative or minor changes to the Conservation Strategy 

components required to increase the success of the strategy. 

At a minimum, annual reports will include the following information. 

• A year-to-date and cumulative summary (i.e., from the start of Conservation 

Strategy implementation) of impacts on land cover types associated with 

implementation of project activities that have utilized the Conservation 

Strategy. 

• A year-to-date and cumulative summary of the extent of land cover types 

protected, enhanced, restored, or created. 


ICF 00906.08


• A map containing this information will also be generated. This will include 

an assessment of the progress toward all land cover acquisition goals 

reported by conservation zone and for the entire study area. 

5.3 Funding 

It is assumed that the administrative costs associated with the Implementation 

Committee will be shared between all members of the Implementation 

Committee. This will mostly be contributions in staff time from each entity. 

External funding will likely be needed for the implementation database, web 

site maintenance, and annual report preparation. 

The Implementation Committee will also seek grants to assist in implementation 

cost sharing. A small fee could be imposed by local land use agencies on project 

utilizing the strategy to help pay for the administrative costs of implementing 

the strategy. The need for the fee and the amount of the fee will be determined 

by a separate cost analysis conducted by the Committee. 

5.4 Participating Entities 

5.4.1 Local Governments 

The local governments participating in the Conservation Strategy (Cities of 

Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton; Alameda County) have an important 

responsibility to assist with implementation of the strategy because of their 

authorities over land use in the study area. Each jurisdiction and/or 

organization will present the Conservation Strategy to their respective Boards 

and Councils for acceptance within six months of completion. Upon acceptance, 

members of the Implementation Committee and participating agencies and 

organizations will direct project applicants operating within their jurisdiction to 

the Conservation Strategy for guidance on how projects should avoid, minimize, 

and mitigate for impacts on biological resources in the study area. 

The participating local governments also have an important role in promoting 

the use of the strategy to their own staff for public infrastructure projects. Local 

governments may individually or collectively hold training sessions periodically 

on the background and mechanics of the Conservation Strategy so that their 

staff understands when and how to use it for planning and permitting purposes. 

Further, each agency has an obligation to implement long range plans and/or 

general plans that include Open Space Elements. Open Space Elements establish 

goals, objectives, and policies for the preservation and conservation of open 

space lands, including open space for the preservation of natural resources, the 


ICF 00906.08


managed production of resources (including agricultural lands), outdoor 

recreation, and public health and safety. 

5.4.2 State and Federal Resource Agencies 

Representatives from the state and federal resource agencies may serve on the 

Implementation Committee. Resource agencies may, in part, be responsible for 

providing guidance to the Implementation Committee on how to fulfill the 

requirements of programmatic permits. 

USFWS and CDFG are the resource agencies that issue the federal and state 

authorizations and permits for incidental take of the focal species listed under 

the federal and/or state Endangered Species Acts. Thus, they may continue 

providing feedback on updates to the Conservation Strategy as it relates to the 

permitting process, critical habitat, and recovery of listed species. USFWS and 

CDFG will also receive and may assess the annual reports from the 

Implementation Committee. 

Other resource agencies may rely on information in the Conservation Strategy 

when issuing permits for impacts on resources within their jurisdiction. These 

other agencies may include the SFRWQCB, the Corps, Environmental Protection 

Agency, etc. These agencies will also participate on the Implementation 

Committee. 

5.4.3 Special Districts and Agencies 

Special districts and agencies participating in the Conservation Strategy 

(Alameda County Congestion Management Authority, Alameda County Waste 

Management Authority, Alameda County Resource Conservation District, East 

Bay Regional Park District, Livermore Area Recreation and Park District, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Zone 7 

Water Agency, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, and Caltrans) have an 

important responsibility to assist with the implementation of the strategy 

because of their authorities, resources, and programs. These special districts 

additionally have an important role in promoting the use of the strategy for 

their own projects, land management, and outreach to public and private 

landowners. 

Conservation Strategy mitigation lands and conservation areas will often border 

lands owned and operated by regional public agencies such as EBRPD, DWR, and 

SFPUC. These agencies will be invited to help guide implementation of the 

strategy by participating as a member of the Implementation Committee. In 

addition, representatives with species or land management expertise may also 

participate on the Public Advisory Committee. 


ICF 00906.08


5.5 Project-by-Project Regulatory Compliance 

Approval of the Conservation Strategy will not change any existing regulations 

that govern development or infrastructure projects in the study area. Instead, 

the strategy will provide a regional framework for more effective and efficient 

permitting decisions. The following section provides a guide to how project 

applicants should utilize information in the Conservation Strategy when meeting 

existing regulatory requirements. Additional details on federal, state, and local 

laws and regulation are found in Section 1.4, “Regulatory Setting,” in Chapter 1. 

The intent of the Conservation Strategy is to ensure that all the jurisdictions and 

agencies coordinate their permitting responsibilities to implement the 

Conservation Strategy. Participating agencies may modify specific action and 

agreements to reflect their regulatory authority. Lands that are protected to 

meet the conservation objectives of the Conservation Strategy would be 

tracked, provided the information is made available to the Implementation 

Committee. 

5.5.1 National Environmental Policy Act 

When federal agencies are completing the NEPA review process for projects 

inside of the study area they should rely on the Conservation Strategy for the 

natural environment section of their document. The Conservation Strategy 

provides extensive information for federal agencies to consider in their analysis 

of the effects of their proposed action and alternatives on biological resources 

of the study area at the species, natural community, and regional (landscape) 

levels. 

5.5.2 California Environmental Quality Act 

The information provided in the Conservation Strategy may contribute to 

baseline information for the analysis of biological resources under CEQA. Once 

project impacts are assessed, the Conservation Strategy’s avoidance and 

minimization measures, mitigation standards, and conservation actions may be 

used to develop mitigation measures. 

Many of the conservation measures will also benefit other special-status species 

(i.e., species that are not focal species under the Conservation Strategy) and 

may be sufficient to meet CEQA standards for these species as well. 


ICF 00906.08


5.5.3 Federal Endangered Species Permitting 

This section includes a description of how permitting under Section 7 and 10 of 

the federal ESA would interface with the Conservation Strategy. Any project 

with a federal lead agency or federal involvement (e.g., a federal permit, federal 

funding, or a project on federal land) must obtain its take authorization through 

Section 7. All nonfederal projects obtain take authorization through Section 10 

and an HCP, as described in Chapter 1. 

The Conservation Strategy will also enable endangered species permitting to be 

coordinated with other regional permitting efforts in and adjacent to Alameda 

County. Those efforts include: 

• East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 

• Santa Clara County HCP/NCCP 

• San Joaquin County MSHOSP 

• Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area HCP/NCCP 

• East Bay Regional Park District HCP/NCCP 

• San Francisco Public Utilities Commission HCP 

The baseline information available in each of these planning areas is similar as is 

level of detail expected in the permitting process. For project applicants 

operating in more than one of these regional planning jurisdictions consistency 

permit requirements will streamline the permit process. The conservation goals 

in this Conservation Strategy are consistent with these other plans. If conflicts 

between plans arise, then the USFWS and CDFG will be involved in reconciling 

those differences. 

5.5.3.1 Endangered Species Act Section 7 

The information provided in the Conservation Strategy for federally listed focal 

species would provide baseline information for an analysis of how the proposed 

project could affect the species in question. This information would be utilized 

by the project applicant during preparation of the biological assessment that 

would support their consultation application. It would also be utilized by the 

USFWS or NMFS when making their finding on how the project would affect the 

species. The strategy also provides guidance on avoidance, minimization, and 

mitigation/compensation measures that can be used to meet regulatory 

standards. 


ICF 00906.08


Programmatic Biological Opinion 

At the conclusion of the planning process for the Conservation Strategy, the 

USFWS will prepare a Programmatic Biological Opinion for federally listed 

species within the study area. The Programmatic Biological Opinion will be 

completed by the USFWS through a consultation with the Corps. That opinion 

will assess the effect that various activities or projects could have on federally 

listed focal species, the effectiveness of avoidance and minimization outlined in 

the Conservation Strategy for each species, and conservation actions that 

should be incorporated into project design in order for a project to “qualify” for 

permit inclusion under the Programmatic Biological Opinion. Future projects 

with the need for permits from the Corps would then “tier” off of that initial 

analysis with future project specific biological opinions appended to the 

Programmatic Biological Opinion. This would greatly streamline the ESA Section 

7 process for a large subset of future projects in the study area and facilitate 

implementation of the strategy. An additional programmatic opinion may be 

developed with the Federal Highway Administration for transportation projects. 

Individual Biological Opinion 

Individual biological opinions will prepared for projects that initiate consultation 

prior to the completion of the programmatic opinion(s) or have a different 

action agency than the Corps or Federal Highway Administration. 

These projects will incorporate the Conservation Strategy and will require the 

same individual review but instead of “tiering” off of a programmatic opinion, a 

full project specific biological opinion will be prepared. Because the project will 

have incorporated the goals, objectives, avoidance, minimization, and 

mitigation/compensation measures of the Conservation Strategy the 

consultation and preparation of the biological opinion will be streamlined. 

Projects that do not incorporate the Conservation Strategy or only parts of the 

Conservation Strategy will not benefit from a streamlined process. 

5.5.3.2 Endangered Species Act Section 10 

As is described above for Section 7, the information provided in the 

Conservation Strategy for federally listed focal species would provide baseline 

information for an analysis of how the proposed covered activities could affect 

the species in question. This information would be utilized by the project 

applicant during preparation of the HCP that would support their Section 10 

permit application. It would also be utilized by the USFWS or NMFS when 

making their finding on the adequacy of the HCP at addressing and offsetting 

project-level impacts in the HCP. 


ICF 00906.08


5.5.4 State Endangered Species Permitting 

The Conservation Strategy provides information on state-listed species that 

would be used by project proponents and local jurisdictions to determine 

whether a proposed project could result in take of a state-listed species. In 

addition, avoidance and minimization measures and mitigation practices 

outlined in the Conservation Strategy would be referenced by the project 

applicant when creating a plan that minimizes and fully mitigates the impacts of 

the project. By utilizing mitigation practices in this Conservation Strategy and 

linking mitigation to the conservation goals and objectives of the Conservation 

Strategy, CESA take authorization could be streamlined through a programmatic 

consistency determination coordinate with the USFWS programmatic biological 

opinion. 

5.5.5 Federal Clean Water Act Permitting 

5.5.5.1 Clean Water Act Section 404 

Although the Conservation Strategy will not provide permits under Section 404 

of the CWA for impacts on wetlands or other waters, Section 404 permitting is 

expected to be streamlined substantially as a result due to the amount of 

background material included in the Strategy and conservation action aimed at 

aquatic resources. Issuance of a Section 404 permit often requires the Corps to 

consult with USFWS and/or NMFS to comply with Section 7 of the ESA. This 

consultation would address the federally listed species that could be affected as 

the result of changes to or loss of wetland habitat. As discussed above, the 

USFWS plans to write a Programmatic Biological Opinion for activities that need 

Section 404 permit issuance and are within the study area. 

5.5.6 Clean Water Act Section 401 and the Porter- 

Cologne Water Quality Control Act 

The Conservation Strategy does not include certifications under Clean Water Act 

Section 401 or waste discharge requirements under the Porter-Cologne Water 

Quality Control Act. These authorizations, if required, must be obtained 

separately from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board). The 

Water Board is charged with maintaining the beneficial uses of waters of the 

state in the San Francisco Bay Region, as presented in the San Francisco Bay 

Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), which is the Board's master water 

quality control planning document 

(http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/basin_planning.shtml#2004b 

asinplan). Project proponents implementing activities that comply with the 

terms of the Conservation Strategy should find their permit process streamlined 


ICF 00906.08


with the Water Board for projects that may impact waters of the State with the 

assigned Beneficial Use of preservation of rare and endangered species, because 

this Conservation Strategy provides a comprehensive means to address the 

needs of threatened and endangered species in the study area. 

Project proponents should also consult Appendix G (Water Quality Objectives 

for Use in Designing and Implementing Projects with Impacts to Creeks or 

Wetlands) for guidance in designing projects in a manner that minimizes 

impacts to waters of the State. 

Project proponents are encouraged to contact the SFRWQCB early in the 

development of mitigation proposals. Guidance on developing mitigation for 

impacts on waters of the State is provided on the SFRWQCB’s web site, at 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/401_ 

certs/fact_sheet_wetland_projects_12-1-06.doc. In general, mitigation for 

impacts on waters of the state will focus on creating, restoring, enhancing, 

and/or preserving waters of the state, with less emphasis on the upland 

components of habitat that are addressed in mitigation measures developed for 

compliance with CDFG and USFWS oversight of impacts on special-status 

species. It is often possible to provide mitigation for impacts on waters of the 

state within mitigation lands that also satisfy the habitat requirements of the 

CDFG and USFWS. Early consultation with the SFRWQCB may assist project 

proponents in identifying parcels that satisfy SFRWQCB mitigation 

requirements, in addition to the mitigation requirements of CDFG and USFWS. 

5.5.7 State Streambed and Lake Alteration Agreement 

A project proponent must submit a notification of streambed or lake alteration 

to CDFG before construction of projects with impacts to biological resources 

associated with rivers, streams and lakes. The notification requires an 

application and fee for a streambed alteration agreement. Many of the 

concerns raised by CDFG during streambed alteration agreement negotiations 

are related to special-status species. Activities that need a streambed alteration 

agreement are expected to partially or fully meet the standards of the 

streambed alteration agreement through the inclusion of avoidance and 

minimization measures and mitigation standards outlined in the Conservation 

Strategy. 

5.6 Conservation through Mitigation 

The Conservation Strategy provides information necessary to inform permitting 

decisions at a regional scale. In addition, the Conservation Strategy provides 

information at many spatial scales that will enable project applicants and 

regulatory personnel to make consistent determinations about how a project 


ICF 00906.08


might affect focal species or their habitats. Project applicants and permitting 

agencies will have to engage at a smaller scale and more detailed analyses in 

order to directly link project impacts and the terms and location of the 

mitigation. This section describes the expected process to use the Conservation 

Strategy. 

5.6.1 Roles and Responsibilities of Project Applicants 

The ability of the Conservation Strategy to streamline project permitting 

depends upon the applicant’s use of the document. The Conservation Strategy 

provides the background information, avoidance and minimization measures, 

and mitigation guidelines necessary for applicants to assess the sensitivity of 

their project location with respect to biological resources. Based on that 

information, applicants should use the Conservation Strategy by incorporating 

avoidance, minimization, and mitigation into their project design, before they 

approach local jurisdiction or resource agencies with a plan proposal. 

5.6.1.1 Use of the Conservation Strategy for Project 

Planning and Mitigation 

Typical steps in the development review process are outlined below as they 

relate to Conservation Strategy. Note that variations are likely between local 

jurisdiction and state and federal resource agencies. Management plans for 

individual parcels or groups of parcels intended to provide mitigation for 

individual projects should be completed prior to project implementation and 

concurrent with the acquisition of the land, unless otherwise specified by 

federal and state resource agencies. Additionally, the mitigation standards and 

analysis presented in the Conservation Strategy should not apply to projects 

that do not incorporate the conservation goals, objectives, and priorities of the 

strategy. Those projects will require additional analysis and most likely 

increased mitigation. 

Suggested steps are: 

1. Determine location of project site within study area. Submit a request to 

local jurisdiction with permit authority (city or county) for land cover and 

focal species information for that parcel from the GIS information generated 

for the Conservation Strategy. 

2. Quantify the total acres of habitat on the parcel that will be lost as the 

result of the project. This should be quantified by Conservation Strategy 

land cover type (Table 2-1). If desired, verify regional data with site-specific 

survey data on land cover type. 

3. Conduct site assessment by a qualified biologist of focal species occurrence 

using accepted survey protocols for listed and special-status species, if 


ICF 00906.08


available. An applicant may also assume presence of focal species with 

suitable habitat that are difficult to detect. 

4. Using the Focal Species Impact/Mitigation Score Sheets (Appendix E), a 

qualified biologist will determine the habitat quality score of the parcel for 

each applicable focal species. 

5. Discuss site assessment and Focal Species Impact/Mitigation Score Sheets 

with local jurisdiction and USFWS and CDFG to verify approach (optional). 

6. Based on the land cover impact acres quantified in Step 2, seek mitigation 

for all of the focal species that could occur on the parcel based on 

Conservation Strategy data and Species Score Sheets. Assess mitigation 

parcel(s) using the Focal Species Impact/Mitigation Score Sheets to ensure 

that the score for each species in question is equal to or higher than the 

score that was calculated for the project site. 

7. Ensure that acreage of potential mitigation parcel(s) is enough to satisfy the 

Standardize Mitigation Ratio for each focal species found or assumed to be 

present on the project site. Derive ratios using Tables 3-4 through 3-12 and 

Figures 3-6 through 3-14. 

8. Procure initial agreements with owner of potential mitigation parcel (this 

step could occur earlier if the project proponent wishes to secure a 

mitigation option). 

9. Include all appropriate avoidance and minimization measures in the design 

and description of the project that will be presented to the local permitting 

jurisdiction and resource agencies (see Tables 3-2 and 3-3). 

10. Present a completed project application package that includes the project 

description (including avoidance and minimization measures) and proposed 

mitigation with appropriate land protection (conservation easement, 

endowment and management plan) to the local permitting agency and to 

the state and federal resource agencies that have jurisdiction of the 

resources that could be affected. 

11. Continue through standard permitting channels (i.e., CEQA, ESA, CESA) 

depending on the resources in question including specific information about 

avoidance and mitigation. If the avoidance and mitigation package is 

rejected by the resource agencies, then work with the agencies to identify 

the deficiencies in that proposal and if needed procure agreements on 

another property that meets their needs starting with Step 5 in this list. 

12. Upon completion of permitting process and final approvals, implement 

mitigation prior to or concurrent with project construction or 

commencement. 

13. Once final project design is approved and mitigation agreements are made, 

report the final acres lost on the parcel and the final acres protected 

through mitigation, by location and land cover type, to the local permitting 


ICF 00906.08


jurisdiction, which will in turn be responsible for reporting it to the 

Implementation Committee. 

14. The local jurisdiction will report the project information to the 

Implementation Committee. This information will be entered and stored in 

the Conservation Strategy Tracking Database. 

5.6.2 Land Acquisition for Mitigation 

A central component of mitigation is the requirement that resources be 

protected in perpetuity. Protection in perpetuity generally requires the 

property have a conservation easement conveyed to a third party that is 

approved by the resource agencies to hold conservation easements. CDFG and 

USFWS are typically third-party beneficiaries depending upon their jurisdiction 

over the focal species requiring mitigation. Public agencies, such as cities or 

park districts, may acquire lands suitable for mitigation upon approvals from 

federal and state resource agencies. In addition public agencies may act in favor 

for the project applicant (e.g, agreement between applicant and special district 

where special district acquires land and applicant conveys a conservation 

easement on land for mitigation purposes). Mitigation for listed species or 

natural resources under CDFG or USFWS jurisdiction often includes 

compensation lands with a conservation easement, management plan, and 

funded endowment to ensure management in perpetuity. In addition to having 

a permanent conservation easement placed on the mitigation lands, a resource 

management plan and long-term maintenance and monitoring endowment 

must also be established and all documents approved by the resource 

agency(ies) requiring the mitigation. 

East Alameda County is largely undeveloped, with the exception of the Cities of 

Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore. Because the majority of species’ habitat 

occurs on lands under private or public ownership outside of the three cities, 

the bulk of conservation opportunities that will support the goals and objectives 

of the Conservation Strategy will need to occur on those lands. The land 

acquisition process should generally follow the steps listed below for land 

acquired in fee title or through conservation easements. The steps to procuring 

a conservation easement on a property are discussed later in this document. 

A project applicant (i.e., the entity in need of mitigation) could perform these 

steps on their own or in conjunction with a variety of partners including, but not 

limited to the resource agencies, local jurisdiction(s), the RCD, the Alameda 

County PLCS, special districts (LARPD, EPRPD, etc.), and land trusts. 

• Identify sites that have the potential to meet conservation goals within a 

given Conservation Zone. 


ICF 00906.08


• Approach property owners and or local entities such as the RCD or PLCS 

who have active lists of landowners interested in mitigation with a proposal 

to acquire land through conservation easement or fee title. 

• If the property owner is willing, enter into an agreement with them to 

conduct pre-acquisition surveys of property for land cover types (including 

jurisdictional wetlands and waters) addressed in the Conservation Strategy 

and habitat for focal species. These surveys are typically conducted at the 

project applicant’s (i.e., entity in need of mitigation) expense. If landowner 

has been working with RCD or PLCS, much of this information may already 

exist. 

• For conservation acquisitions in fee or as conservation easements, develop 

Baseline Conditions Report to document existing conditions on the site prior 

to conveyance of the conservation easement. 

• Determine if site meets Conservation Strategy conservation goals and 

objectives and ensure that property encumbrances (e.g., existing 

conservation easements, property title, resource extraction rights, presence 

of hazardous materials [Phase I environmental assessment]) do not conflict 

with Conservation Strategy goals and objectives. For conservation 

easements, use the agency template to determine conservation easement 

terms and management prior to purchase. 

• Acquisition may require an appraisal of property rights (conservation 

easement or fee) subject to negotiation between the property owner and 

project applicant. 

• If the project applicant evaluates multiple mitigation sites, then rank 

available sites on the basis of cost versus ability to meet Conservation 

Strategy conservation goals and objectives. 

• Make offer to property owner and develop acquisition terms, purchase and 

conservation easement conditions, if appropriate. If the site will be 

proposed as mitigation for listed species impacts, recommend consultation 

with USFWS and CDFG prior to commitment of financial resources and 

document language to the property owner. 

• Prepare a draft a conservation easement if the project affects federally or 

state listed species and prepare a management plan for the site based on 

site conditions. Management plans will be consistent with the Conservation 

Strategy and will need to be approved by the resource agencies. 

Conservation easements will be consistent with the resource agencies’ 

templates and are subject to review and approval by resource agencies. 

• Examine all leases that apply to the property for consistency with 

Conservation Strategy conservation goals and objectives. Inconsistent 

leases will be terminated, subordinated, or modified to conform. 

• Execute sale of fee-title or conservation easement and complete all related 

documents and processes, including funding the endowment for the longterm 

management plan. 


ICF 00906.08


• Initiate management plan and monitoring, and conduct habitat restoration 

(if applicable). 

5.6.2.1 Willing Sellers 

A key principle of the Conservation Strategy is that mitigation land will only be 

acquired by the project applicants from willing sellers. However, the 

implementation of the Conservation Strategy does not change the terms under 

which private lands can be condemned for the public good. The acquisition of 

sensitive resources and habitat, regardless of the method, may contribute to 

regional conservation and the implementation of the Conservation Strategy. 

However, utilizing eminent domain to acquire lands for mitigation is contrary to 

the intent of the Conservation Strategy to facilitate mitigation only through 

willing sellers. 

5.6.3 Conservation Easements for Mitigation 

A conservation easement is a legal agreement a property owner makes with 

another entity, in this case an entity needing mitigation (mitigator), to 

voluntarily sell certain property rights and protect the specific resources in 

question to meet the mitigation need. To understand the conservation 

easement concept, think of owning land as holding a bundle of rights (i.e., 

development rights, water rights, timber harvest rights, mineral rights, etc). 

Through a conservation easement, a landowner may sell the whole bundle of 

rights, or just the particular rights necessary to protect the resources in question 

in perpetuity. These rights may include, for example, land management 

techniques, the right to construct buildings, to subdivide the land, or to restrict 

access. In the study area, conservation easement restrictions typically permit 

landowners to continue traditional uses of their land such as livestock grazing, 

subject to management plan vegetation performance standards. 

For a mitigation transaction, the Deed of Conservation Easement, which clearly 

spells out the goals, restrictions, obligations, rights maintained, monitoring 

requirements, and enforcement procedures, will be based on existing legal 

templates developed by the resource agencies. These templates (attached in 

the Conservation Easement Toolkit, Appendix F) provide both the resource 

agencies, mitigators, landowners, and conservation easement holders with a 

clear understanding of the basic expectations involved in a conservation 

easement. The templates can be tailored, to a limited extent, to the particular 

property and/or the particular needs of the conservation easement 

purchaser/mitigator as well as the habitat goals for and other conservation 

values on that property. Conservation easements not following the agency 

templates, or that have been modified, will require significant review by agency 

attorneys and may not be appropriate for certain mitigation purposes. 


ICF 00906.08


For USFWS, conservation easement holders must have third party oversight by a 

qualified non-profit or government agency. Qualifications include: 

• Organized under Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3); 

• Qualified under California Civil Code § 815; 

• Bylaws, Articles of Incorporation, and biographies of Board of Directors on 

file at, and approved by USFWS. Must meet requirements of USFWS, 

including 51% disinterested parties on the Board of Directors; or 

• Additionally conservation easement holders must have satisfactorily 

completed CDFG due diligence process for conservation easement holders 

and/or be accredited by the Land Trust Accreditation Commission. 

• The conservation easement holder cannot be the same as the fee title 

holder 

The specific terms of the conservation easement will be developed and 

negotiated using the templates provided by each resource agency. Each 

conservation easement will be drafted to protect the existing conservation 

values of the property forever, and to confine the allowable uses of the 

property to those activities that ensure or promote the preservation or 

enhancement of those conservation values consistent with the Management 

Plan. The terms of the conservation easement also prevent any use of the 

property that would impair or interfere with the conservation values of the 

property. The conservation values will be specifically described in terms of both 

the native species and their habitat, and other natural communities on the 

property. Conservation easements are typically recorded prior to project 

commencement. 

Except as necessary to maintain or enhance conservation values, each 

conservation easement will be consistent with the template shown in Appendix 

F. 

Any owner of property with conservation values may sell a conservation 

easement. If the property belongs to more than one person, all owners must 

consent to selling a conservation easement. If the property is mortgaged, the 

owner must obtain an agreement from the lender to subordinate its interests to 

those of the conservation easement holder so that the conservation easement 

cannot be extinguished in the event of foreclosure. Once executed, the 

landowner conveys the right to enforce the negotiated stewardship plan, 

including land use restrictions to a qualified conservation recipient, such as a 

public agency, a land trust, RCD, or approved conservation organization. Finally, 

a conservation easement remains tied to the land—that is, the original owner 

and all subsequent owners are bound by the restrictions of the conservation 

easement. The conservation easement is recorded at the county or city records 

office so that all future owners and lenders will learn about the restrictions 

when they obtain title reports. 


ICF 00906.08


5.6.3.1 Conservation Endowment 

Another key component of the conservation easement process is development 

of the conservation endowment. This nonwasting endowment is designed to 

provide funding in perpetuity to implement management recommendations, 

adaptively manage the conservation easement area to meet management plan 

goals, to cover monitoring expenses. When determining the appropriate 

amount of funds necessary to manage the conservation easement land in 

perpetuity, the land manager must analyze the characteristics and needs of the 

specific property from which management requirements are derived. The 

endowment should include management tasks and their costs as well as the 

necessary administrative costs to provide the full cost of managing the property. 

Funding for the management is derived from the interest of the endowment 

only. Therefore, the principal needs to be sufficient to generate adequate 

interest for the management and monitoring activities and to account for 

inflation. The endowment will be fully funded prior to project commencement. 

CDFG has a specific process for approving endowment holders. That process is 

currently undergoing revision. This section will be updated once a final process 

is agreed upon. For now, project proponents and landowners should contact 

their local CDFG representative if they have questions. 

5.6.3.2 Long-Term Management Plans 

Any property that is purchased and/or placed under conservation easement for 

the purpose of providing mitigation will need to have a long-term management 

plan. The purpose of this long-term management plan is to ensure the 

mitigation parcel(s) or bank is managed, monitored, and maintained in 

perpetuity as required by the conservation documents. This management plan 

establishes objectives, priorities, and tasks to monitor, manage, maintain, and 

report on the waters of California and the United States, focal species, and 

natural communities or other resources that are being provided as mitigation on 

the site. One of the intended outcomes of this Strategy is to have consistent 

management across the study area for similar land cover types and species to 

the degree possible. Ultimately this responsibility falls to the resource agencies. 

The management plan is a binding and enforceable instrument, implemented by 

the conservation easement covering the property. It is to ensure management 

of the site in perpetuity and becomes a binding “contract” between the land 

owner and the resource agencies that give the agencies the assurances that 

they need to allow a parcel to be used as mitigation. A template of a typical 

management plan is included in Appendix F. The landowner is responsible for 

implementing the management plan in perpetuity, and may contract this work if 

desired. If changes to the program are needed based on monitoring data the 

long-term management plan can be updated through an adaptive management 

process. 


ICF 00906.08


5.6.3.3 Monitoring 

The third-party organization or agency that holds the conservation easement is 

responsible for enforcing the restrictions contained in the conservation 

easement document. To do this, the conservation easement holder monitors 

the property on a regular basis, and typically prepares a report once a year. 

Representatives of the holder visit the property, usually accompanied by the 

owner, to determine whether the property remains in the condition prescribed 

or enhanced by the conservation easement and documented at the time of the 

conservation easement is recorded. The holder maintains written records of 

the monitoring visits. The visits also serve to keep the holder and the property 

owner in regular communication. If a monitoring visit reveals that the 

conservation easement has been violated, the conservation easement holder 

has the legal right to require the owner to correct the violation and restore the 

property to its condition prior to the violation as prescribed in the negotiated 

easement and/or management plan. 

5.6.3.4 Partnership for Land Conservation and 

Stewardship: Conservation Easement Facilitation 

The PLCS was developed under Alameda County’s Measure D that required the 

County to develop a “Land Trust” to support conservation of open spaces in 

eastern Alameda County. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors, acting 

upon recommendations from the County Agricultural Advisory Committee, 

created PLCS as a program intended to facilitate bringing together landowners 

interested in selling conservation easements and offering resource 

enhancement projects on their property with funding sources interested in 

buying those conservation easements or in constructing the enhancements. 

Rather than develop a new land trust, the Board of Supervisors elected to 

develop a facilitating entity that would work cooperatively with landowners, 

conservation organizations, and others to coordinate protection of the county's 

natural resources. The Alameda County RCD is the fiscal agent for PLCS and also 

provides technical and educational support for PLCS related to natural resource 

conservation and agriculture enhancement. 

PLCS will develop a table to provide a list of the key steps and documents to 

complete a conservation easement transaction. When complete, this table will 

be included in the Conservation Toolkit (Appendix F). This table also provides 

guidance of responsible parties for each step and puts these steps in sequential 

order for ease of use. PLCS educates landowners about conservation 

easements, while connecting the landowners, mitigating entities, and 

conservation easement holding entities to complete a mitigation transaction on 

private lands. The agreements between the parties involved are reached 

voluntarily. 


ICF 00906.08


5.6.4 Conservation or Mitigation Banks 

A conservation or mitigation bank is privately or publicly owned land managed 

for its natural resource values. In exchange for permanently protecting and 

managing the land, the bank operator is allowed to sell habitat credits to project 

proponents who need to satisfy legal requirements for compensating 

environmental impacts of development projects. 1 A conservation or mitigation 

bank is a free-market enterprise that performs the following functions. 

• Offers landowners economic incentives to protect natural resources. 

• Provides permanent protection of resources prior to impacts (i.e., a 

conservation easement is executed for the bank prior to any credits being 

sold on the market). 

• Saves project applicant’s time and money by providing them with the 

certainty of preapproved compensation lands that have existing 

management plans and funding. 

• Provides protection and management of habitat in perpetuity. 

The goals of private mitigation banks are generally compatible and supportive of 

regional conservation plans such as the Conservation Strategy. Mitigation banks 

provide entities in need of mitigation with a simple solution to meeting some or 

all of their mitigation needs, which in turn helps the Implementation Committee 

achieve the goals and objectives in the strategy. Each bank holds “credits,” 

typically by species, that are based on the resources protected within the bank 

and that the resource agencies that have granted to the bank. Because of the 

limitations on available credits, it is not always possible for a mitigator to have 

all of their projects mitigation needs met through one bank or even multiple 

banks. For example, a given bank may have California tiger salamander credits 

but not burrowing owl credits, or it may have California red-legged frog credits 

but not riparian habitat credits. There are a few approved banks operating in 


Because land and resources are protected up-front for mitigation banks, these 

areas within the study area will be counted toward the conservation goals and 

objectives in Conservation Strategy as they are approved. Banks that have 

already been approved have already been accounted for in Table 3-1 and are 

considered Type 1 Open Space. Credits sold by banks outside the study area 

cannot count towards meeting the Conservation Strategy’s goals even if the 

bank’s service area is within the Conservation Strategy planning area. 

Private parties wishing to develop and establish a new mitigation bank in the 

study area should consult guidance and instructions provided by CDFG 

1 For additional information on banking see the following web sites: 

and . 


ICF 00906.08


(http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/conplan/mitbank/) and USFWS 

(http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/cons_bank.htm). 

5.6.5 New Concepts for Mitigation Planning 

Listed below are additional mechanisms or agreements that could be entered 

into with federal, state, or local jurisdictions that would guarantee conservation 

on lands within the study area. While mitigation typically occurs between one 

project applicant and one landowner there are additional ways to accomplish 

the same goal. For example, the development of a mitigation bank can be done 

on a different scale and with potentially better results than the project-byproject 

mitigation alternative. Below is a list of additional ideas that the 

Implementation Committee will continue to explore. This is intended to be a 

running list of ways to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of mitigation in 

the study area and to continue to engage private landowners in the act of 

conserving natural resources on their lands. 

1. Early Coordination. Work with resource agencies and local and state 

infrastructural/utility agencies (i.e., Zone 7, California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans), SFPUC, etc.) to develop early-mitigation planning 

efforts that would facilitate implementation of mitigation prior to 

anticipated impacts. This type of effort would facilitate pre-mitigation and 

allow utilities or other infrastructure agencies with large capital 

improvement plan portfolios to address permitting requirements well in 

advance of project implementation. By enabling this type of conservation, 

mitigation monies can be figured into annual budgets, monies can be 

pooled, and larger tracts of land can be protected. Advanced mitigation also 

ensures that mitigation will offset the temporal loss of habitat that occurs 

between the time that the impacts occur and the time when mitigation 

reaches full maturity. 

2. Facilitate Mitigation Banks. Establish framework that enables the 

establishment of one or more co-operatives between two or more private 

landowners to establish a mitigation bank on multiple parcels of land at one 

time. In theory this would allow private landowners to lower the start up 

cost of a mitigation banking effort by pooling their resources and 

consolidating interactions with the resource agencies. 

3. Revolving Funds. Utilize local open space funds (Altamont Landfill Open 

Space Fund, Vasco Road Landfill Open Space fund etc.) as revolving fund to 

acquire high-priority land from willing sellers with an immediate deadline. 

Local agency could hold the land with an option to reimburse the originating 

open space fund with future mitigation funds. (Once a permanent 

conservation easement is established to mitigate a specific project, the 

originating open space fund is no longer eligible for reimbursement unless 

surplus mitigation is available on the site.) 


ICF 00906.08


4. Fund Coordination. To increase efficiency of funds and to contain project 

and acquisition costs, Strategy encourages cooperative projects from 

multiple funders. 

5. Reduce Mitigation Cost. Work with stakeholders to develop new tools and 

processes that will reduce the cost of mitigation (e.g., pre-certifying 

mitigation lands to reduce costs of surveys). Any investigations necessary to 

pre-certify lands for mitigation will remain the responsibility of a the land 

owner and will not be subsidized by the EACCS Implementation Committee. 

5.7 Conservation Actions Unrelated to Mitigation— 

Voluntary Conservation Actions 

East Alameda County is largely undeveloped, with the exception of the Cities of 

Dublin, Pleasanton, and Livermore. With growth controls in place in this part of 

the county (city UGBs and Measure D), it is expected that the portion of 

conservation that would occur as the result of mitigation for project impacts is 

less than other conservation opportunities. Because the majority of species’ 

habitat occurs on lands under private or public ownership outside of the three 

cities, the bulk of conservation opportunities that will support the goals and 

objectives of the Conservation Strategy will need to occur on those lands. Some 

of these conservation efforts will be funded by mitigation money, but most will 

not. 

To maximize the use of public and private lands for focal species habitat, this 

strategy includes a focus on use of existing, incentive-based stewardship 

programs, and suggests developing new stewardship programs to increase the 

number of ways that conservation actions can occur on private or public lands. 

The Implementation Committee is committed to supporting voluntary actions 

that further conservation in the study area. The Implementation Committee, 

when and where appropriate, will look for innovative ways to support others 

taking the lead in implementing voluntary conservation actions provided that it 

is consistent with the goals/objectives outlined in the strategy. 

This section specifically addresses conservation actions that are not funded or 

driven specifically by mitigation, but instead are conducted by landowners 

(public or private), land trusts, non-profits conservation groups, etc. These 

efforts are voluntary and are conducted in an effort to increase the resource 

values in the study area. It should be noted that although the bulk of this 

section is focused on supporting private landowners, many of the programs and 

concepts for non-mitigation based conservation are applicable to any individual 

or organization interested in conducting or funding conservation actions in the 

study area. Whether or not private landowners are interested in participation in 

conservation through mitigation opportunities, the Strategy provides useful 

information that the private ranchers can use to better understand the land 


ICF 00906.08


type, habitat, species and management needs of their own lands that will 

enhance their stewardship decisions. The Strategy will provide such reference 

material and access to knowledgeable stakeholders. The landowners’ 

easements when completed will be recorded and their stewardship efforts, if 

made public, would be recognized by the Strategy’s databank and outreach 

activities. As new conservation tools and educational activities are developed, 

landowners will have the opportunity to participate. 

There are several local land trusts and state-wide land trusts. Land trusts have a 

special opportunity to utilize and obligation to implement the Strategy as it 

pertains to their respective missions. They will participate in easement 

negotiations (both voluntary conservation and mitigation) as easement holders, 

report voluntary conservation transactions to the databank, and hold and 

monitor both types of easements in perpetuity. The land trusts, much like the 

landowners may utilize the reference material and other stakeholders in 

planning their own conservation goals and in performing their stewardship 

responsibilities. They will participate in landowner and community education 

and outreach. The existence of the Strategy may help facilitate the award of 

grants for voluntary conservation efforts. 

5.7.1 Existing Stewardship Programs 

There are a wide variety of existing conservation programs in the study area 

that are currently being utilized to further stewardship and conservation on 

private and public lands. Not all of these efforts specifically target the 

conservation of focal species; however, most are concerned with retaining 

natural landscapes and intact habitats. Most of these efforts fall into one of the 

following three categories: conservation planning for ranches and/or farms; 

technical assistance and/or cost-share for implementing conservation actions; 

or education. These programs range from the suite of Federal Farm Bill–related 

programs overseen by the NRCS and local conservation programs implemented 

through the RCD to USFWS Partners Program projects to large-scale 

conservation easement efforts funded by private conservation organizations like 

The Nature Conservancy, the California Rangeland Trust, and local land trusts 

such as the Tri-Valley Conservancy as well as agencies like the Department of 

Conservation and Wildlife Conservation Board. A full listing of currently 

available stewardship programs can be obtained in Appendix F. These existing 

programs can provide anything from technical assistance and cost-share support 

for implementing conservation projects to restoration of wildlife friendly stock 

ponds. Of particular note is pest and weed management programs provided by 

the Alameda County Agriculture Department and forestry expertise provided by 

the County Forester. Although many of these programs are not specifically 

designed to conserve a piece of land in perpetuity (i.e., through fee-title 

purchase or purchase of a conservation easement), they nonetheless provide 

both incremental and cumulative benefits for conservation of various land cover 

types, habitats, and native species throughout the study area. 


ICF 00906.08


5.7.1.1 Endangered Species Act Safe Harbor Agreement 

Landowners participating in the Conservation Strategy also have the 

opportunity to voluntarily enter into a Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) with 

USFWS. The USFWS must ensure the SHA results in a “net conservation benefit” 

for the listed species on the enrolled property. The baseline conditions must be 

determined, as well as the beneficial activities, routine and on-going activities 

proposed for incidental take coverage, and potential impacts from returning the 

property to baseline after the end of the agreement. 

When the landowner meets all the terms of the SHA, they will receive written, 

formal assurances from USFWS that additional or different management 

activities would not be required without the participant’s consent during the 

period of time for which the SHA is valid. Under Section 10 of the ESA, the 

landowner would receive an Enhancement of Survival Permit authorizing 

incidental take of species that may result from actions undertaken by the 

landowner under the SHA. In exchange, the landowner would participate in 

actions that would contribute to the recovery of federally listed species. At the 

end of the SHA period, the participant also has the option of returning the 

enrolled property to the baseline conditions that existed before entering into 

the SHA. For more information on Safe Harbor Agreements visit the USFWS 

website, http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/Partnerships/safe_harbor.htm. 

Currently there is a safe harbor program that is administered by the ACRCD for 

rehabilitation of stock ponds. This allows for the rehabilitation of stock ponds 

provided that they enhance habitat for California red-legged frog and California 

tiger salamander. Establishing the baseline under the safe harbor agreement 

give private land owners some assurance that they can conduct the work on 

their ponds without permitting delays or costs and that they can operate their 

pond within certain parameters provided that the quality of habitat does not 

become less than what it was when the program was initiated. Details on this 

program can be found at: 

http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/docs/plan_documents/tsha/tsha_572.pdf 

5.7.1.2 California Department of Fish and Game Voluntary 

Local Program 

Agricultural landowners (farmers and ranchers) who want to enhance habitat on 

their property can be protected from endangered species regulations. The 

California Endangered Species Act offers such protection (Fish and Game Code 

Section 2086). Landowners can sign up for a Voluntary Local Program to restore 

or enhance habitat and receive permission to incidentally take (injure or kill) 

threatened or endangered species in the course of their routine and ongoing 

farming or ranching activities. 


ICF 00906.08


The Voluntary Local Program is DFG’s compliment to the federal Safe Harbor 

Agreement Program sponsored under the federal Endangered Species Act. The 

two programs have the same goals of trying to encourage landowners to 

enhance habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife, while maintaining 

viable agricultural operations. 

5.7.2 New Stewardship Programs and Tools 

As the Conservation Strategy was developed, various landowners, 

representatives from conservation organizations and local agency staff, and 

state and federal resource agency personnel have discussed concepts to help 

foster conservation on private lands in east Alameda County. New ideas are 

constantly being developed, and the Implementation Committee will continue 

to solicit information on new ideas for furthering the goals of the Conservation 

Strategy through voluntary stewardship and hold discussions on how to best 

implement them. In many cases there are examples of existing programs that 

fit into these categories. They are listed when appropriate. Below is a list of 

ideas generated by the Implementation Committee, the UAG, and various other 

stakeholders. This list is in no particular order and does not suggest available 

staffing or funding or represent a hierarchy or prioritization of the listed ideas, 

issues, and concepts. 

1. ECOSYSTEMS SERVICE CONTRACTS AND TAX INCENTIVES. Consider 

development of a habitat based program similar to the Williamson Act that 

would provide tax breaks for landowners willing to develop and implement 

long-term, but not perpetual, conservation plans and actions. This would 

require the development, implementation, and monitoring of a 

management plan and would be a commitment for a predetermined period 

of time. 

2. STOCK POND AMNESTY PROGRAM. Work with the State Board, Regional 

Water Quality Control Board, CDFG, and the California Rangeland 

Conservation Coalition to develop a new pond registration amnesty 

program or something with similar intent to simplify and incentivize 

landowners to register their stock ponds with the State Board. In the 

current regulatory climate, it is very difficult to obtain permits from both the 

Regional Water Quality Control Board (401 Certification) and the CDFG 

(1600 Agreement) for conservation projects on unregistered ponds, even if 

those projects would benefit listed species. Registering ponds can be costly, 

time-consuming, and confusing, thus creating a disincentive to landowners 

to register them. This may create significant issues with using existing ponds 

as mitigation for impacts on resources under state jurisdiction. 

3. FACILTATE BASELINE DATA ASSESSMENTS ON PRIVATE LANDS. Develop and 

expand landowner training/education opportunities to provide landowners 

with the tools and procedures to collect baseline data on species 

occurrences and conservation opportunities on their properties. Baseline 


ICF 00906.08


data collection would also support voluntary long-term management and 

monitoring. This could provide the biological resources information 

necessary for mitigation. 

4. EXPAND LANDOWNER EDUCATION ABOUT CONSERVATION EASEMENTS. 

Work with PLCS and land trusts to develop and expand landowner 

training/education on the implications and nuances of executing a 

conservation easement on private property. In conjunction with this effort, 

landowners have suggested developing online resources, to serve as a 

clearinghouse for information on conservation easements, lessons learned, 

and a library of on-line resources and provide referrals for local 

professionals that specialize in conservation transactions (appraisers, tax 

professionals, real-estate brokers, biologists, etc). 

5. CONTINUE LANDOWNER AND OPERATOR EDUCATION ABOUT HABITAT AND 

SPECIES STEWARDHSIP. Renew the RCD’s Partners in Restoration Permit 

Coordination Program to coordinate permitting for a suite of voluntary 

NRCS/RCD sponsored conservation actions on private lands. The future 

efficacy of this program is tied to Step 3 above. Changes that are instituted 

upon program renewal would be consistent with the conservation goals and 

objectives of the Conservation Strategy. This effort would be coordinated 

with the California Rangeland Conservation Coalition. 

6. UTILIZATION FEE. Work with local jurisdictions to consider creating a 

Conservation Strategy Utilization Fee that would be tied to development 

applications and could be used as cost-share grants for implementing 

various types of conservation projects in the study area (e.g., . cost-share 

grants for conservation actions funding for programs that perform outreach 

and education to landowner education). 

7. In coordination with a Conservation Strategy Utilization Fee (#6), or another 

existing local conservation funding mechanism, develop a program modeled 

after other local programs for fund dispersal, such as the County Fish and 

Game Commission. 

8. TRACKING VOLUNTARY EFFORTS. In concert with the mitigation tracking 

database to be developed for Conservation Strategy, find a way to track 

voluntary conservation efforts, both specific on-the-ground projects as well 

as non-mitigation based conservation easements in the study area. This 

would be best done on a regional level either for the entire study area or for 

each conservation zone (i.e., this many acres of grassland were managed for 

burrowing owl and this many ponds were restored this year). This 

information will be critical to assessing the efficacy of Conservation Strategy 

and will help identify conservation gaps in the future. 

9. DEVELOP ECOSYSTEM SERVICES VALUATION PROCESS. Work with California 

Rangeland Conservation Coalition, NRCS, and ACRCD to develop a local 

mitigation marketing system that recognizes the monetary benefits of land 

stewardship provided voluntarily by private and public landowners. 


ICF 00906.08

Chapter 6 

Literature Cited 


6.1 Printed References ................................................................................ 6-1 

6.2 Personal Communications ................................................................... 6-21 

6.1 Printed References 

Alameda County Community Development Agency. 2002. East County Area Plan 

(Revised by Initiative Nov. 2000). Planning Department. Hayward, CA. 

Available: 

http://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/plans/EastCountyAreaPlancombined.p 

df. Accessed: February 19, 2009. 

Alameda County Community Development Department. 2008. Alameda County 

General Plan – Agriculture Element. Draft Version. Hayward, CA. Prepared 

for: Alameda County Community Development Department. 

Alameda County Community Development Agency. 2007. East County Area Plan 

Land Use Diagram. Draft Version. Hayward, CA. Prepared for: Alameda 

County. 

Alameda County Resource Conservation District. 2006. Arroyo de la Laguna 

streambank restoration project. Project fact sheet. Available: 

http://www.acrcd.org/Portals/0/Arroyo/ArroyoFactSheet.pdf. Accessed: 

April 27, 2009. 

Alameda Creek Alliance. 2009. Recent fish documentation. Available: 

http://www.alamedacreek.org/Historical%20photos/recent%20fish%20doc 

umentation/Recent%20fish%20documentation.htm. Accessed: February 23, 

2009. Updated March 12, 2008. 


ICF 00906.08

Alameda Creek Alliance. 2009. Arroyo Mocho. Available: 

http://www.alamedacreek.org/Fish_Passage/Arroyo%20Mocho/Arroyo%20 

Mocho.htm. Accessed: April 27, 2009. Updated April 24, 2009. 

Alvarez, J. A. 2004. Rana aurora draytonii (California Red-legged frog) 

Microhabitat. Herpetological Review 35:162-163. 

Arnold, R.A. 1981. Distribution, life history, and status of three California 

lepidoptera proposed as endangered or threatened species. California 

Department of Fish & Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. Final report for 

contract #S-1620. 39 pp. 

Arnold, R. A. 2008. Draft Survey Report for Four Endangered Butterflies at the 

San Francisco Peninsula Watershed for the Crystal Springs/San Andreas 

Transmission System Upgrade Project. Prepared for SFPUC. 21 pp. 

Association of Bay Area Governments. 2006. Projections 2007: Forecasts for the 

San Francisco Bay Area to the Year 2035. ABAG Catalog Number 

P07001PRO. Oakland, CA. 

Baker, G. A., P. W. Rundel, and D. J. Parsons. 1981. Ecological relationships of 

Quercus douglasii (Fagaceae) in the foothill zone of Sequoia National Park, 

California. Madroño 28:1–12. 

Barbour, M., J. Burk, and W. Pitts. 1993. California’s Changing Landscapes: 

Diversity and Conservation of California Vegetation. Sacramento, CA: 

California Native Plant Society. 

Barbour, Michael G.; Keeler-Wolf, Todd; and Schoenherr, Allen A. 2007. 

Terrestrial vegetation of California. Third Edition. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 

CA.: University of California Press. 

Barry, S. J. and H. B. Shaffer. 1994. The Status of the California Tiger Salamander 

(Ambystoma californiense) at Lagunita: A 50-Year Update. Journal of 

Herpetology 28:159–164. 

Bartolome, J. W., and B. Gemmill. 1981. The ecological status of Stipa pulchra 

(Poaceae) in California. Madroño 28:172184. 

Bay Area Open Space Council. 2004. San Francisco Bay Area Uplands Goals 

Project. Phase One: Reconnaissance, Final Report. September. Available: 

http://www.openspacecouncil.org/upload/files/20090513155457_baosc_u 

pland_2004.09.28_phase_one_final_report.pdf. Accessed August 2009. 


ICF 00906.08

Beedy, E. C. and W. J. Hamilton III. 1997. Tricolored Blackbird Status Update and 

Management Guidelines. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. (JSA 97-099.) 

Sacramento, CA. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR; 

and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 

———. 1999. Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). In A. Poole and F. Gill 

(eds.), The Birds of North America, No. 423. Philadelphia, PA: The Birds of 

North America, Inc. 

Beir, P., and R. F. Noss. 2000. Documenting the conservation value of corridors. 

In Missing linkages: restoring connectivity to the California landscape. 

Conference Proceedings and report prepared by the California Wilderness 

Coalition, The Nature Conservancy, the Biological Resources Division of the 

U.S. Geological Survey, the Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species, 

and California State Parks. Available: 

http://www.calwild.org/resources/publications. 

Bell, H. 1994. Analysis of Habitat Characteristics of San Joaquin Kit Fox in Its 

Northern Range. Master’s Thesis, California State University, Hayward. 

Bobzien, S. and DiDonato, J. E. 2007. The Status of the California Tiger 

Salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California Red-Legged Frog (Rana 

draytonii), Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii) and other Aquatic 

Herpetofauna in the East Bay Regional Park District, California. East Bay 

Regional Park District, Oakland, CA. 87 pp. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 1998. California Vernal Pool 

Assessment Preliminary Report. Sacramento, CA: Wildlife and Habitat Data 

Analysis Branch. 

———. 2003a. List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by 

the California Natural Diversity Database. September 6 edition. 

———. 2003b. Atlas of the Biodiversity of California. Sacramento, CA. 

———. 2007. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program List of California 

Vegetation Alliances. October 22 edition. 

———. 2009a. Special Animals list. February. Available online at: 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/spanimals.pdf 

———. 2009b. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens list. January. 

Available online at: 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/spplants.pdf 


ICF 00906.08

Califorina Integrated Waste Management Board. 2009. List of Disposal Facilities 

Used in Alameda County, 2007. Available: 

http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/profiles/County/CoProfile4.asp?COID=01. 

Accessed March 2009. 

California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants 

of California (6 th edition). David Tibor, Ed. Sacramento, CA: California Native 

Plant Society. 

———. 2007. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (7 th edition). 

Sacramento, CA. On-line database Available: www.cnps.org. 

———. 2008. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. 

California Natural Diversity Database. 2009. RareFind, Version 3.1.0 (February 

2010 update). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 

California Partners in Flight. 2004. Version 2.0. The Coastal Scrub and Chaparral 

Bird Conservation Plan: A Strategy for Protecting and Managing Coastal 

Scrub and Chaparral Habitats and Associated Birds in California. (J. Lovio, 

lead author). Stinson Beach, CA: Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO) 

Conservation Science. Available: http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html. 

California Wilderness Coalition. 2001. Missing linkages: restoring connectivity to 

the California landscape. Conference proceedings and report prepared by 

the California Wilderness Coalition, The Nature Conservancy, the Biological 

Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, the Center for 

Reproduction of Endangered Species, and California State Parks. Available: 

http://www.calwild.org/resources/publications. 

City of Dublin. 2009a. Demographic Profile. Dublin, CA. Available: 

http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/DepartmentSubLevel2.cfm?PL=econ&SL=demog 

&dsplyID=862. Accessed: May 26, 2009. 

City of Dublin. 2009b. New Development. Dublin, CA. Available: 

http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/DepartmentSub.cfm?PL=econ&SL=newdev. 

Accessed: March 27, 2009. 

City of Dublin. 2008. General Plan. Community Development Department. 

Dublin, CA. Available: 

http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/pdf/General%20Plan%20November%202008.pd 

f. Accessed: February 20, 2009. 

City of Livermore. 2009. About Livermore. Livermore, CA. Available: 

http://www.ci.livermore.ca.us/profile.html. Accessed: March 27, 2009. 


ICF 00906.08

City of Livermore. 2004. General Plan 2003 – 2025. Livermore, CA. Available: 

http://www.ci.livermore.ca.us/general_plan/general_plan.html. Accessed: 

February 20, 2009. 

City of Pleasanton. 2009a. The Pleasanton Community. Pleasanton, CA. 

Available: http://www.ci.pleasanton.ca.us/community/pleasanton. 

Accessed: March 27, 2009. 

City of Pleasanton. 2009b. Pleasanton General Plan 2005 – 2025: Land Use 

Element. Draft Version. Pleasanton, CA. Available: 

http://www.ci.pleasanton.ca.us/pdf/genplan-080918-landuse.pdf. 

Accessed: February 20, 2009. 

Coats, R., M. A. Showers, and B. Pavlik. 1988. A management plan for the 

Springtown alkali sink wetlands and the endangered plant Cordylanthus 

palmatus. San Francisco, CA: Phillip Williams and Associates. 

Collier, G. 1968. Annual Cycle and Behavioral Relationships in the Red-Winged 

and Tricolored Blackbirds of Southern California. Ph.D. dissertation. 

University of California. Los Angeles, CA. 

Cook, L. 1996. Nesting Adaptations of Tricolored Blackbirds (Agelaius tricolor). 

Master’s thesis. University of California. Davis, CA. 

Corbett, Michael. 2005. Historical and Cultural Resource Survey, East Alameda 

County. Hayward, CA. Prepared for: Alameda County Community 

Development Agency. 

Crane, R. C. 1995. Geology of the Mt. Diablo Region and East Bay Hills. In: 

Recent Geologic Studies in the San Francisco Bay Area. Sangines, Andersen, 

and Buising (Eds). Fullerton, CA: The Pacific Section of the Society of 

Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists. Pp. 87-114. 

Davidson, C., H. B. Shaffer, and M. R. Jennings. 2001. Declines of the California 

Red-Legged Frog: Climate, UV-B, Habitat, and Pesticides Hypotheses. 

Ecological Applications 11(2):464–479. 

Davidson, C., H.B. Shaffer, and M. R. Jennings. 2002. Spatial test of pesticide 

drift, habitat destruction, UV-B, and climate-change hypotheses for 

California amphibian declines. Conservation Biology 16: 1588-1601. 

Davis, S. D., V. H. Heywood, O. Herrera-MacBryde, J. Villa-Lobos, A. C. Hamilton 

(eds.). 1997. Centres of plant diversity: a guide and strategy for their 

conservation. Volume 3: The Americas. Cambridge, United Kingdom: The 

World Wildlife Fund for Nature and the World Conservation Union (IUCN). 


ICF 00906.08

DeHaven R. W., F. T. Crase, and P. P. Woronecki. 1975a. Breeding Status of the 

Tricolored Blackbird, 1969–1972. California Department of Fish and Game. 

DeSante, D. F., E. D. Ruhlen, and D. K. Rosenberg. 1997. The Distribution and 

Relative Abundance of Burrowing Owls in California: Evidence for a 

Declining Population. Unpublished manuscript. Point Reyes Station, CA: The 

Institute for Bird Populations. 

Dobkin, D. S., I. Olivieri, and P. R. Ehrlich. 1987. Rainfall and the interaction of 

microclimate with larval resources in the population dynamics of 

checkerspot butterflies (Euphydryas editha) inhabiting serpentine grassland. 

Oecologia 71:161166. 

DWR (Department of Water Resources). 2001. South Bay Aqueduct. 

(BethanyReservoir and Lake Del Valle). April. Available: 

http://www.water.ca.gov/recreation/brochures/pdf/South-Bay-Aque.pdf. 

Accessed: May 26, 2009. 

East Bay Regional Park District. 1997. East Bay Regional Park District Master 

Plan. Oakland, CA. Available: 

http://www.ebparks.org/files/RPM_Plan97.pdf. Accessed: February 20, 

2009. 

Edwards, S. W. 1992. Observations on the prehistory and ecology of grazing in 

California. Fremontia 20(1):3–11. 

Egoscue, H. J. 1962. Ecology and Life History of the Kit Fox in Tooele County, 

Utah. Ecology 43:481–497. 

Eng, L., D. Belk, and C. Eriksen. 1990. Californian Anostraca: Distribution, 

Habitat, and Status. Journal of Crustacean Biology 10(2):247-277. 

Environmental Science Research Institute. 2008. ESRI Data & Maps: Streetmap. 

ESRI Redlands, California. 

Eriksen, C. and D. Belk. 1999. Fairy shrimps of California’s pools, puddles, and 

playas. Mad River Press, Eureka, California. 

Fellers, G. M., editor. 1994. California/Nevada declining apmphibian working 

group. Newsletter 1, 1 May 1994. 10 pp. 

Fellers, G. M., A E. Launer, G. Rathbun, S. Bobzien, J. Alvarez, D. Sterner, R. B. 

Seymour, and M. Westphal. 2001. Overwintering tadpoles in the California 

red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Herpetological Review 32: 156-157. 


ICF 00906.08

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

movement and habitat use: Implications for conservation. Journal of 

Herpetology 41:271-281. 

Fisher, R. N. and H. B. Shaffer. 1996. The Decline of Amphibians in California’s 

Great Central Valley. Conservation Biology 10:1387-1397. 

Fitch, H .S. 1938. Rana boylii in Oregon. Copeia 1938(3):148. 

Girard, I. 2001. Field Cost of Activity in the Kit Fox, Vulpes macrotis. 

Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 74(2):191–202. 

Giusti, G. A., R. B. Standiford, D.D. McCreary, A. Merenlender, and T. Scott. 

2004. Oak Woodland Conservation in California’s Changing Landscape. 

University of California, Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program, 

Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources and University of California, 

Berkeley. 

Goodman, D. 1987. How do species persist? Lessons for conservation. 

Conservation Biology 1:59–62. 

Graymer, R.W., D.L. Jones, and E.E. Brabb. 1996. Preliminary Geologic Map 

Emphasizing Bedrock Formations in Alameda County, California: Derived 

from the Digital Database Open-File Report 96-252. Reston, VA: United 

States Geological Survey. 

Grinnell, J., and A. H. Miller. 1944. The Distribution of the Birds of California. 

Pacific Coast Avifauna No. 27. 

Griffin, J. R. 1971. Oak regeneration in the upper Carmel Valley, California. 

Ecology 52:862–868. 

———. 1973. Xylem Sap Tension in Three Woodland Oaks of Central California. 

Ecology 54:152–159. 

———. 1977. Oak Woodland. Pages 383–415 in M. G. Barbour and J. Major 

(eds.), Terrestrial Vegetation of California. New York: Wiley and Sons. 

Groom, M. J., G. K. Meffe, and C. R. Carroll. 2006. Principles of Conservation 

Biology. Third edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, MA. 

Gunther, A. J., J. Hagar, and P. Salop. 2000. An assessment of the potential for 

restoring a viable steelhead trout population in the Alameda Creek 

watershed. Richmond, CA. Prepared for: Alameda Creek Fisheries 

Restoration workgroup. 


ICF 00906.08

H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1997. Distribution of the San Joaquin kit fox in the 

north part of its range. Pleasanton, CA. Prepared for Ted Fairfield. 

H.T. Harvey and Associates. 1999. Santa Clara Valley Water District Foothill 

Yellow-Legged Frog Distribution and Status-1999. Prepared for Santa Clara 

Valley Water District, San Jose, CA. 

Hanes, T. L. 1988. California chaparral. Pages 417–469 in M. G. Barbour and J. 

Major (eds.), Terrestrial Vegetation of California. Sacramento, CA: California 

Native Plant Society. 

Hamilton, W. J., III. 1998. Tricolored Blackbird Itinerant Breeding in California. 

Condor 100:218B226. 

Hamilton, W. J., III. 2000. Tricolored Blackbird 2000 Survey and Population 

Analysis. Unpublished report. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Portland, OR. 

Hamilton, W. J. III. 2004. Management Implications of the 2004 Tricolored 

Blackbird Survey. Central Valley Bird Club Bulletin. Volume 7, Numbers 2-3. 

Hamilton, W. J. and Meese, R. J. 2006. Habitat and Population Characteristics of 

Tricolored Blackbird Colonies in California: 2005 Final Report. Prepared for 

the California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 

Hanes, T. L. 1988. California chaparral. Pages 417–469 in M. G. Barbour and J. 

Major (Eds.), Terrestrial Vegetation of California. Sacramento, CA: California 

Native Plant Society. 

Harrison, S. 1999. Local and regional diversity in a patchy landscape: native, 

alien and endemic herbs on serpentine soils. Ecology 80:70–80. 

Harrison, S., B. D. Inouye, and H. D. Safford. 2003. Ecological heterogeneity in 

the effects of grazing and fire on grassland diversity. Conservation Biology 

17(3):837–845. 

Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. The Burrowing Owl (Speotyto 

cunicularia). In A. Poole and F. Gill (Eds.), The Birds of North America, No. 

61. Philadelphia, PA: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D. C: 

The American Ornithologists’ Union. 

Hayes, M. P. and M. R. Jennings. 1986. Decline of Ranid Frog Species in Western 

North America: Are Bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) Responsible? Journal of 

Herpteology 20(4):490–509. 


ICF 00906.08

Heady, H. F. 1988. Valley grassland. Pages 491–514 in M.G. Barbour and J. Major 

(eds.), Terrestrial Vegetation of California. Sacramento, CA: California Native 

Plant Society. 

Heady, H. F., T. C. Foin, M. M. Hektner, D. W. Taylor, M. G. Barbour, and W. J. 

Barry. 1988. Coastal prairie and northern coastal scrub. Pages 733–760 in 

M.G. Barbour and J. Major (eds.), Terrestrial Vegetation of California. 

Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society. 

Herron, C., M. A. King, and K. MacDonald. 2004. A preliminary assessment of 

potential steelhead habitat in Sinbad Creek, Alameda County. University of 

California at Berkeley. Available: 

http://www.alamedacreek.org/Fish_Passage/Sunol%20Valley/Sinbad%20Cr 

eek%20Assessment.pdf. Accessed: April 27, 2009. 

Hilty, J., and A. M. Merelender. 2004. Use of riparian corridors and vineyards by 

mammalian predators in Northern California. Conservation Biology 18:126– 

135. 

Hilty, J. A., W. Z. Lidicker Jr., and A. M. Merenlender. 2006. Corridor Ecology. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. 

Hobbs, R. J. 1985. Harvester ant foraging and plant species distribution in annual 

grassland. Oecologia 67:519523. 

Hobbs, R. J., and H. A. Mooney. 1985. Community and population dynamics of 

serpentine grassland annuals in relation to gopher disturbance. Oecologia 

67:343351. 

———. 1991. Effects of rainfall variability and gopher disturbance on 

serpentine annual grassland dynamics. Ecology 72:5968. 

Holland, D. C., M. P. Hayes, and E. McMillan. 1990. Late Summer Movement and 

Mass Mortality in the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma 

californiense). Southwestern Naturalist 35:217–220. 

Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural 

communities of California. Sacramento, CA: Department of Fish and Game. 

Hooper, D. U., and P. M. Vitousek. 1998. Effects of plant composition and 

diversity on nutrient cycling. Ecological Monographs 68:121149. 

Howard, J. L. 1998. Bromus hordeaceus. Fire Effects Information System; U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/brohor/all.html#FIRE 

%20EFFECTS (2005). 


ICF 00906.08

Hunt, G. and T. Hunt. 2006. The Trend of Golden Eagle Territory Occupancy in 

the Vicinity of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area: 2005 Survey. 

Prepared for the California Energy Commission, contract 500-01-032, to the 

Predatory Bird Research Group, University of California, Santa Cruz. 

Hunt, W. G., R. E. Jackman, T. L. Brown, D. E. Driscoll, and L. Culp. 1998. A 

Population Study of Golden Eagles in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource 

Area: Population Trend Analysis 1997. Prepared for the National Renewable 

Energy laboratory, subcontract XAT-6-16459-01 to the Predatory Bird 

Research Group, University of California, Santa Cruz. 

Hunt, W. G., R. E. Jackman, T. L. Brown, J. G. Gilardi, D. E. Driscoll, and L. Culp. 

1995. A Population Study of Golden Eagles in the Altamont Pass Wind 

Resource Area, California. Prepared for the National Renewable Energy 

laboratory, subcontract XCG-4-14200 to the Predatory Bird Research Group, 

University of California, Santa Cruz. 

Jennings, M. R. 1988. Natural History and Decline of Native Ranids in California. 

Pages 61–72 in H. F. DeLisle, P. R. Brown, B. Kaufman, and B. M. McGurty 

(editors), Proceedings of the Conference on California Herpetology. 

Southwestern Herpetologists Society, Special Publication (4). 

Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1990. Report on the Status of the California 

Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) in the Pescadero Marsh Natural 

Preserve. (Final.) Prepared for the California Department of Parks and 

Recreation under contract No. 4-823-9018 with the California Academy of 

Sciences. 

Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special 

Concern in California. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and 

Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, CA. 

Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles and Falcons of North America: Biology and 

Natural History. Page 403. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution 

Press. 

Jones & Stokes. 2001. Vasco-Laughlin resource conservation plan. Working 

draft, March. Prepared for the City of Livermore, Livermore, CA. 

Jones & Stokes. 2002. Alameda County ROSAProject: Biologicla Rsources Report, 

Final Draft. Prepared for: Alameda County. December. 

Kelsey, R. 2008. Results of the Tricolored Blackbird Census. 2008. Audubon 

California, Winters, CA. 


ICF 00906.08

Keeler-Wolf, T., K. Lewis, and C. Roye. 1997. The definition and location of 

central California sycamore alluvial woodland; unpublished report. State of 

California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, 

Sacramento, CA. 

Keeley, J. E. 2000. Chaparral. Pages 203–253 in M. G. Barbour and W. D. Billings 

(eds.), North American Terrestrial Vegetation (2 nd ed.). Cambridge, England: 

Cambridge University Press. 

King, R. A. and J. R. Belthoff. 2001. Post-Fledging Dispersal of Burrowing Owls in 

Southwestern Idaho: Characterization of Movements and Use of Satellite 

Burrows. Condor 103:118-126. 

Klute, D. S., L. W. Ayers, M. T. Green, W. H. Howe, S. L. Jones, J. A. Shaffer, S. R. 

Sheffield, and T. S. Zimmerman. 2003. Status Assessment and Conservation 

Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States. (Biological 

Technical Publication FWS/BTP-R6001-2003.) Washington, D.C: U.S. 

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 108 pp. 

Kochert, M.N., K. Steenhof, C.L. McIntyre, and E. H. Craig. 2002. Golden Eagle 

(Aquila chrysaetos). In A.Poole and F. Gill (eds.), The Birds of North America, 

No. 684. Philadelphia, PA: The Birds of North America, Inc. 

Kohlmann, S., J. Alvarez, C. Clark, and R. Nuzum. 2008. A Baseline Assessment of 

Environmental and Biologicl Conditions at Five Pillars Farms, Alameda 

County, California. Unpublished Report. Tierra Resource Management, 

Catro Valley, CA. 89pp. 

Kruckeberg, A. R. 1954. The ecology of serpentine soils: a symposium. III. Plant 

species in relation to serpentine soils. Ecology 35:267–274. 

———. 1984. California Serpentines: Flora, Vegetation, Geology, Soils, and 

Management Problems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 

Kupferberg, S. J. 1994. Exotic Larval Bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) as Prey for 

Native Garter Snakes: Functional and Conservation Implications. 

Herpetological Review 25(3):95–97. 

Kupferberg, S. J. 1996. Hydrologic and geomorphic factors affecting 

conservation of a river-breeding frog (Rana boylii). Ecological Applications 

6:1332-1344. 

Kyser G. B. and J. M. DiTomaso. 2002. Instability in a grassland community after 

the control of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) with prescribed 

burning. Weed Science 50(5):648–657. 


ICF 00906.08

Lamphier & Associates and SWA Group. 2000. North Livermore specific plan. 

Draft environmental impact report. April. Prepared for County of Alameda 

and City of Livermore. Oakland, CA. 

Larson, C. J. 1987. Badger distribution study. California Department of Fish and 

Game. Non-game wildlife investigations report. Project W-65-R-4. 8pp. 

Available: 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/info/bm_research/bm_pdfrpts/87_14.pdf. 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 2008a. Weapons and Complex 

Integration Cutting-Edge Facilities, Site 300. Last revised: July 31, 2008. 

Available: https://wci.llnl.gov/fac/site300/. Accessed: February 20, 2009. 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 2008b. Site 300 Explosives Test Facility 

– Prescribed Burn/Smoke Management Plan. UCRL-AR-154174-REV-5. 

Revised: March 2008. 

Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, and B.N. Harvey. 2003. Historical distribution and 

current status of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), coho salmon (O. 

kiustch),and Chinook salmon (O. tschawtyscha) in streams of the San 

Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and 

Restoration, Oakland, CA. 

Lind, A. J. 1990. Ontogenetic Changes in the Foraging Behavior, Habitat Use and 

Food Habits of the Western Aquatic Garter Snakes, Thamnophis couchii, at 

Hurdygurdy Creek, Del Norte County, California. MA thesis. Humboldt State 

University. Arcata, CA. 

Lindzey, F. G. 1978. Movement patterns of badgers in northwestern Utah. 

Journal of Wildlife Management. 42:418-422. 

Livermore Area Recreation and Park District. 2008. Parks, Recreation and Trails 

Master Plan. Community Development Department. Draft Version. 

Livermore, CA. Available: 

http://www.larpd.dst.ca.us/board/LARPD_Master_Plan/LARPDMasterPlanP 

ublicReviewDraft.pdf. Accessed: February 20, 2009. 

Long, C. A. 1972. Taxonomic revision of the North American badger, Taxidea 

taxus. Journal of Mammalogy. 53:725-729. 

Long, C. 1999. American badger: Taxidea taxus. Pp. 177-179 in D.E. Wilson, S. 

Ruff, Eds. The Smithsonian Book of North American Mammals. Washington, 

D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Loredo, I., D. Van Vuren, and M. L. Morrison. 1996. Habitat Use and Migration 

Behavior of the California Tiger Salamander. Journal of Herpetology 30:282– 

285. 


ICF 00906.08

Love, M. 2001. Stonybrook Creek fish passage assessment. Prepared for: 

Alameda County Public Works Agency. April 6. Michael Love & Associates. 

Arcata, CA. Available: 

http://www.alamedacreek.org/Reports_Data/Stonybrook%20Fish%20Passa 

ge%20Report.pdf. Accessed: April 27, 2009. 

McCarten, N. F. 1987. Ecology of the serpentine vegetation in the San Francisco 

Bay region. Pages 335-339 in T. S. Elias (ed.), Conservation and management 

of rare and endangered plants. Proceedings from a conference of the 

California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant 

Society. 

McNaughton, S. J. 1968. Structure and function in California grasslands. Ecology 

49:962972. 

Merenlender, A., and J. Crawford. 1998. Vineyards in an oak landscape: 

exploring the physical, biological and social benefits of maintaining and 

restoring native vegetation in and around the vineyard. Davis, CA: University 

of California Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program. 

Messick, J. P. and M. G. Hornocker. 1981. Ecology of the badger in southwestern 

Idaho. Wildlife Monographs. 76:1-53. 

Miles, S. R., and C. B. Goudey. 1997. Ecological Subregions of California. USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, R5-EM-JP-005. 

Morey, S. 2005. Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii). California Wildlife 

Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game, 

California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. Available: 

www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/html/A043.html. Accessed: January 5, 2005. 

Murphy, D.D. and S.B. Weiss. 1990. Report on surveys for the Callippe Silverspot 

butterfly, Speyeria callippe callippe, at the proposed Sky Valley 

development site. 9 pp. 

National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses under the 

Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: Committee on Mitigating Wetland 

Losses, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology. 

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life [web 

application]. Version 4.7. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: February 20, 2009. 

Neff, J. A. 1937. Nesting Distribution of the Tricolored Red-Wing. Condor 39:61– 

81. 


ICF 00906.08

Norris, R. M. and R. W. Webb. 1990. Geology of California. Second Edition. New 

York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Pp. 359-411. 

Noss, R. F., M. A. O’Connell, and D. D. Murphy. 1997. The Science of 

Conservation Planning: Habitat Conservation Planning under the 

Endangered Species Act. Covelo, CA: Island Press. 

Nussbaum, R. A., E.D. Brodie, Jr, and R. M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and 

Reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University Press of Idaho. 

Oakland Museum of California. 2009. Arroyo las Positas watershed map. 

Available: http://www.museumca.org/creeks/133B06-OMAPositas.html. 

Accessed: April 27, 2009. 

Ollenburger, R.D. 1986. Source and Stratigraphy of the Livermore Gravels, 

Alameda County, California. Master’s thesis, California State University, 

Hayward. 

Orians, G. H. 1961a. The Ecology of Blackbird (Agelaius) Social Systems. 

Ecological Monographs 31:285–312. 

Orians, G. H. 1961b. Social Stimulation within Blackbird Colonies. Condor 63: 

330–337. 

Orians, G. H. and G. Collier. 1963. Competition and Blackbird Social Systems. 

Evolution 17:449–459. 

Orloff, S., F. Hall, and L. Spiegel. 1986. Distribution and Habitat Requirements of 

the San Joaquin Kit Fox in the Northern Extreme of Their Range. Trans. 

West. Sect. Wildl. Soc. 22: 60–70. 

Payne, R. 1969. Breeding Seasons and Reproductive Physiology of Tricolored 

Blackbirds and Red-Winged Blackbirds. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 90:1–137. 

Paysen, T. E., R. J. Ansley, J. K Brown, G. J. Gottfried, S. M. Haase, M. G. 

Harrington, M. G. Narog, S. S. Sackett, and R. C Wilson. 2000. Fire in western 

shrubland, woodland, and grassland ecosystems. Pages 121–159 in J. K. 

Brown and J. K. Smith (eds.), Wildland Fire and Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on 

Flora. (General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-412-Vol. 2.) Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Phillip Williams & Associates. 1988. A management plan for the Springtown 

alkali sink wetlands and the endangered plant, Cordylanthus palmatus. 

Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California 

Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 


ICF 00906.08

Questa Engineering Corporation. 1998. Hydrologic analysis of the Springtown 

alkali sink, Livermore, California. Prepared for the City of Livermore, the 

County of Alameda, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 

Reichle, M.S. 2004. Seismic Hazard Zones Niles Quadrangle. Sacramento, CA: 

California Geological Survey. Available: 

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shzp. Accessed: February 20, 2009. 

Remsen, J.V., Jr. 1978. California Department of Fish and Game: Bird Species of 

Special Concern in California: Golden Eagle. Available: 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/jsp/more_info/jsp?specy=birds&idNu 

m=35. Accessed: March 7, 2006. 

Richards, L.A. 1954. Origin and Nature of Saline and Alkali Soils. In: Diagnosis 

and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils (Agriculture Handbook #60). 

Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture. 

Riley, S. P. D., H. B. Shaffer, R. Voss, and B. M. Fitzpatrick. 2003. Hybridization 

between a Rare, Native Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) and Its 

Introduced Congener. Ecological Applications 13:1263-1275. 

RMC. 2006. Zone 7 stream management master plan. Section 1. August. 

Available: http://www.zone7water.com/images/SMMP_sec.1.bckd.pdf. 

Accessed: May 26, 2009. 

Roderick, P. J. and N. E. Mathews. 1999. Characteristics of Natal and Non-Natal 

Kit Fox Dens in the Northern Chihuahuan Desert. Great Basin Naturalist 

59(3):252–258. 

Rosenberg, D. K., J. Gervaia, H. Ober, and D. DeSante. 1998. An Adaptive 

Management Plan for the Burrowing Owl Population at Naval Air Station 

Lemoore, California. 

Rundel, P. W. and R. Gustafson. 2005. Introduction to the Plant Life of Southern 

California. (California Natural History Guide Series No. 85.) Berkeley and Los 

Angeles, CA: University of California Press. 

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

California flora: a database of serpentine affinity. Madroño 52:222–257. 

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2008. San Francisco Public Utilities 

Commission: Alameda Watershed. Last Revised: February 12, 2008. 

Available: http://www.sfwater.org/detail.cfm/C_ID/92. Accessed: February 

23, 2009. 


ICF 00906.08

SFPUC. 2007. Alameda Creek Aquatic Resource Monitoring Report 2005. San 

Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Water Enterprise, Natural Resources 

and Lands Management Division, Fisheries and Wildlife Section. Sunol, CA. 

94 pp. 

Sargeant, A. B. and D. W. Warner. 1972. Movement and denning habits of a 

badger. Journal of Mammalogy. 61:375-376. 

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

California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. 471 pp. 

Schoenherr, A. A. 1992. A Natural History of California. (California Natural 

History Guide 56.) Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 

Shaffer, H. B., and R. Fisher. 1991. California Tiger Salamander Surveys, 1990. 

(Final Report.) (Contract FG 9422). Prepared for California Department of 

Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, CA. 

Shaffer, H. B., and S. Stanley. 1992. California Tiger Salamander Surveys, 1991. 

(Contract FG 9422). Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game, 

Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, CA. 

Shaffer, H. B. and P. C. Trenham. 2005. Ambystoma californiense. Pages 1093– 

1102 in M.J. Lannoo (Ed.), Status and Conservation of U.S. Amphibians. 

Volume 2: Species Accounts. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 

Shaffer, H. B., R. N. Fisher, and S. E. Stanley. 1993. Status Report: the California 

Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Final report for the California 

Department of Fish and Game. 

Shaffer, H. B., R. N. Fisher, and S. E. Stanley. 1994. Status Report: The California 

Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense). (Final) (Contracts FG 9422 and 

FG 1383.) Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game, Inland 

Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, CA. 

Shanfield, A. N. 1984. Alder, cottonwood and sycamore distribution and 

regeneration along the Nacimiento River. In R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix, 

California Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation and Productive 

Management. Berkeley: University of California Press. 

Shefferly, N. 1999. "Taxidea taxus" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed 

January 06, 2009. Available: 

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Taxidea 

_taxus.html. 

Shuford, W.D. and T. Gardali, Eds. 2008. California Bird Species of Special 

Concern. Studies of Western Birds No. 1. February 4, 2008. Sacramento. 


ICF 00906.08

Smith, J. J. 1998. Steelhead and other fish resources of western Mt. Hamilton 

streams. December. San Jose State University. San Jose, CA. 

Soil Conservation Service. 1966. Soil survey, Alameda area, California. Davis, CA: 

United States Department of Agriculture. 

Spiegel, L. K. and M. Bradbury. 1992. Home Range Characteristics of the San 

Joaquin Kit Fox in Western Kern County, California. Transactions of the 

Western Section Wildlife Society 28:83–92. 

State of California. 2008. California State Parks. Available: 

http://www.parks.ca.gov. Accessed: February 20, 2009. 

Stebbins, R C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. New 

York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company. 

Stebbins, R.C. and N.W. Cohen. 1995. A Natural History of Amphibians. 

Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 

Stein, B. A. 2002. States of the Union: Ranking America's Biodiversity. 

NatureServe: Arlington, VA. Available: 

http://www.natureserve.org/Reports/stateofunions.pdf. 

Stein, B. A., L. S. Kutner, and J. S. Adams. 2000. Precious heritage: The status of 

biodiversity in the United States. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. 

Steinberg, P. D. 2002. Nassella pulchra. In U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Fire Effects Information System. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/naspul/all.html. 

Sullivan, R. and J. Waters. 1980. History of Mount Diablo Coalfield Contra Costa 

County. California Geology. March 1980: Pp.51-59. 

Swaim, K. E. 1994. Aspects of the ecology of the Alameda whipsnake 

(Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus). Masters Thesis, California State 

University, Hayward, CA. 140 pp. 

Swick, C. D. 1973. Determination of San Joaquin Kit Fox in Contra Costa, 

Alameda, San Joaquin, and Tulare Counties. Special Wildlife Investigations 

Program Report W-54-R4, California Department of Fish and Game, 

Sacramento, California. 14 pp. 

Thomas Reid Associates. 1981. Endangered species survey, San Bruno 

Mountain. Biological Study -- 1981. Palo Alto, CA. 

Thomsen, L. 1971. Behavior and Ecology of Burrowing Owls on the Oakland 

Municipal Airport. Condor 73:177–192. 


ICF 00906.08

Trenham, P. C. 2001. Terrestrial Habitat Use by Adult California Tiger 

Salamanders. Journal of Herpetology 35:343–346. 

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

consequences for population viability. Ecological Applications 15:1158– 

1168. 

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

Demography and Interpond Dispersal in the Salamander Ambystoma 

californiense. Ecology 82:3519–3530. 

Tricolored Blackbird Working Group. 2007. Conservation Plan for the Tricolored 

Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). Susan Kester (ed.). Sustainable Conservation. 

San Francisco, CA. 

Tri-Valley Conservancy. 2005. Tri-Valley Conservancy: Preserving Land for Future 

Generations. Last Revised: February, 2009. Available: 

http://www.trivalleyconservancy.org/history.html. Accessed February 20, 

2009. 

Tri-Valley Conservancy. 2008. North Livermore Priority Landscape Area 

Resource Conservation Plan Public Review Draft. Prepared for Tri-Valley 

Conservancy by Nomad Ecology, Martinez, CA. December 2008. 

Trulio, L. 1997. Burrowing Owl Demography and Habitat Use at Two Urban Sites 

in Santa Clara County, California. Journal of Raptor Research 9:84–89. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. American Fact Finder: Detailed Tables, Total 

Population. Last Revised: January 26, 2009. Census 2000 Summary File 1 

(SF1) 100-Percent Data. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. September 19, 1994. Federal Register Final Rule; 

determination of endangered status for the conservancy fairy shrimp, 

longhorn fairy shrimp, and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp; and threatened 

status for the vernal pool fairy shrimp. 

———. April 19, 1996. Interim survey guidelines to permittees for recovery 

permits under Section 10(a) (1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the 

listed vernal pool brachiopods. 

———. 1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of 

Threatened Status for the California Red-Legged Frog. 61(110) FR 25813- 

25833 (May 23). 


ICF 00906.08

———. 1997. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of 

endangered status for the Callippe Silverspot butterfly and the Behren’s 

Silverspot butterfly and threatened status for the Alameda Whipsnake. 

Federal Register 62:64306-64320. 

———. 1998. Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, 

California. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Region 1, Portland, OR. 319 pp. 

———. 2000a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final 

Determination of Endangered Status for the Santa Barbara County Distinct 

Vertebrate Population Segment of the California Tiger Salamander 

(Ambystoma californiense). 

———. 2000b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final 

determination of critical habitat for the Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophis 

lateralis euryxanthus). (65:192 FR October 3, 2000). 

———. 2002. Draft Recovery Plan for Chaparral and Scrub Community Species 

East of San Francisco Bay, California. Region 1, Portland, OR. xvi + 306 pp. 

———. 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora 

draytonii). Pages viii and 173. Portland, OR: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

———. August 6, 2003. Federal Register Final Rule; designation of critical 

habitat for four vernal pool crustaceans and eleven vernal pool plants in 

California and southern Oregon. 

———. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 

Endangered Status for the Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment of 

the California Tiger Salamander. (Final Rule) 68 FR 53:13497-13520 (March 

19). 

———. February 10, 2006. Federal Register Final Rule; Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Designation of Critical Habitat for Four 

Vernal Pool Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal Pool Plants, Final Rule. Federal 

Register 71(28): 7118–7316. 

———. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 

Threatened Status for the California Tiger Salamander; and Special Rule 

Exemptions for Existing Routine Ranching Activities. (Final Rule.) 69 FR 

149:47212-47248 (August 4). 

———. 2005a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the California Tiger Salamander, Central Population, Final 

Rule. Federal Register 70(162):49380–49458. August 23. 


ICF 00906.08

———. 2005b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed 

determination of critical habitat for the Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophis 

lateralis euryxanthus). (70:200 FR October 18, 2005). 

———. 2005. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and 

Oregon. 

———. 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog and and Special Rule 

Exemption Associated With Final Listing for Existing Routine Ranching 

Activities, Final Rule. Federal Register 71(71):19244–19346. April 13. 

———. February 10, 2006. Federal Register Final Rule; Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Designation of Critical Habitat for Four 

Vernal Pool Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal Pool Plants, Final Rule. Federal 

Register 71(28):7118–7316. 

———. 2008. Threatened and Endangered Species list for Alameda County. 

October. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/cno/ 

———. 2009. Online species account. Accessed February 9, 2009. Available: 

http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/animal_spp_acct/callippe_silverspot_b 

utterfly.pdf. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS). 1996. Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook. November. 

Wagner, D.L., E.J. Bortugno, and R.D. McJunkin. 1990. Geologic Map of the San 

Francisco-San Jose Quadrangle, California, Scale 1:250,000. (Regional 

Geologic Map Series, Map No. 5A) Sacramento, CA: California Division of 

Mines and Geology. 

Weiss, S. B. 1999. Cars, cows, and checkerspot butterflies: nitrogen deposition 

and management of nutrient-poor grasslands for a threatened species. 

Conservation Biology 13:1476–1486. 

Weiss, S. B., and D. H. Wright. 2005. Serpentine Vegetation Management Project 

2005 Report. (FWS Grant Agreement No 814205G240.) Menlo Park, CA. 

Wellicome, T. I. 1997. Reproductive Performance of Burrowing Owls (Speotyto 

cunicularia): Effects of Supplemental Food. Pages 68-73 in J. L. Lincer and K. 

Steenhof, (Eds.), The Burrowing Owl, its Biology and Management: Including 

the Proceedings of the First International Symposium. (Raptor Research 

Report Number 9.). 


ICF 00906.08

Wentworth, C.M., S.E. Graham, R.J. Pike, G.S. Beukelman, D.W. Ramsey, and 

A.D. Barron. 1997. Summary Distribution of Slides and Earth Flows in 

Alameda County, California. Reston, VA: United States Geological Survey. 

Western Regional Climate Center. 2009. Livermore, California: Period of Record 

Monthly Climate Summary. Available: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliMAIN.pl?casjos+sfo. 

Accessed: April 2009. 

Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. and Zander Associates. 2004. Resource 

Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties. Draft. San Rafael, CA. 

Prepared for: City of Dublin, CA. 

White, P. J. and K. Ralls. 1993. Reproduction and Spacing Patterns of Kit Foxes 

Relative to Changing Prey Availability. Journal of Wildlife Management. 

57(4):861–867. 

Wild, C. 2002. San Francisco Bay Area Gap Analysis: A Preliminary Assessment of 

Priorities for Protecting Natural Communities. Oakland, CA. Prepared for the 

California State Coastal Conservancy. 

Wilen, B. O., and W. E. Frayer. 1990. Status and Trends of United States 

Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats. Forest Ecology Management 33:181– 

192. 

Williams, D.F. 1986. Mammalian Species of Concern in California. California 

Department of Fish and Game Report 86-1. 112pp. California Department of 

Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., and K. E. Meyer. 1988. California’s Wildlife. 

Volume I: Amphibians and Reptiles. Sacramento, CA: California Department 

of Fish and Game. 

Zeiner, D. C., K. E. Meyer and M. White. 1990. California’s Wildlife. Volume II: 

Birds. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. 

Zone 7 Water Agency. 2006. Zone 7 Stream Management Master Plan. Prepared 

by RMC Water and Environment. August. 

6.2 Personal Communications 

Diamond, Tanya. Professor, De Anza College. Cupertino, CA. Various 

communications (email, phone, and in person interviews) with Troy Rahmig, 

ICF Jones & Stokes about the movement of American badgers in the south 

Santa Clara Valley. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix A 

Wildlife Species Considered for Inclusion as Focal 

Species in the East Alameda Conservation Strategy

Appendix A. Wildlife Species Considered for Inclusion as Focal Species in the East Alameda Conservation Strategy 

Species 

Status a Criteria b Recommended 

State Federal Range Status Threat Data Focal Species c Notes 

Invertebrates 

Mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater 

snail) 

Tryonia imitator 

— — N N N N N Study area outside of range or current distribution; not 

expected to become listed during permit term 

Bay checkerspot butterfly 

Euphydryas editha bayensis 

— FT N Y N Y N Study area outside of range or current distribution 

Longhorn fairy shrimp 

Branchinecta longiantenna 

— FE Y Y Y? Y? Y Population in Brushy Peak Preserve in Livermore and 

adjacent private land 

Vernal pool fairy shrimp 

Branchinecta lynchi 

— FT Y Y Y Y Y Occurrence information not well documented for study area. 

Three CNDDB (2008) records in study area, presumed 

extant. Vernal pools in Springtown Alkali Sink support the 

species. 

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp 

Lepidurus packardi 

— FE N Y N Y N Isolated occurrences in Alameda County; No CNDDB 

(2007) records listed in study area 

Callippe silverspot butterfly 

Speyeria callippe callippe 

— FE ? Y ? N Y Limited knowledge about species in the study area; species 

is covered by the SFPUC Alameda Watershed HCP; 

recommend a limited conservation strategy 

Fairmont (=Lum’s) micro-blind harvestman 

Microcina lumi 



Lee’s micro-blind harvestman 

Microcina leei 



Bridges (= Coast Range) shoulderband 

Helminthoglypta nickliniana bridgesi 



California linderiella fairy shrimp 

Linderiella occidentalis 

— — Y N Y Y N Not expected to become listed during permit term; study area 

is within known range or current distribution 

Curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle 

Hygrotus curvipes 

— — Y N N Y N Not expected to become listed during permit term 

Monarch butterfly 

Danaus plexippus 

— — N N N Y N Roost sites not known to occur in the study area; not 


Fish 

Green sturgeon 

Acipenser medirostris 

CSC FT N Y N Y N Out of species range 

Central California coast coho salmon 

Oncorhynchus kisutch 

SE FE N Y N Y N Out of species range

Appendix A. Continued Page 2 of 7 

Species 



Central CA coastal steelhead 

Oncorhynchus mykiss 

— FT N Y N Y Y Steelhead run could return to Alameda Creek if barriers near 

SF Bay are removed (BART weir). Barriers at Sunol and 

Niles dams recently removed. 

Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon 

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 

— FT N Y N Y N Out of species range 

Winter-run Chinook salmon, Sacramento 

River 

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 

— FE N Y N Y N Out of species range 

River lamprey 

Lampetra ayresi 

CSC — Y N N? Y? N Unsure of threats currently posed to the species and level of 

understanding of species conservation needs. 

Delta smelt 

Hypomesus transpacificus 

ST FT N Y N Y N Out of species range 

Tidewater goby 

Eucyclogobius newberryi 

CSC FE N Y N Y N Out of species range 

Amphibians 

California tiger salamander 

Ambystoma californiense 

CSC FT Y Y Y Y Y Occurrences of species in study area; mitigation typically 

required under CEQA and ESA 

Western spadefoot 

Spea hammondii 

CSC — Y Y N N N Species may be listed in near future but it is not well 

documented in study area. Conservation opportunities may 

be limited. 

California red-legged frog 

Rana aurora draytonii 

CSC FT Y Y Y Y Y Occurrences of species in study area; mitigation typically 

required under CEQA and ESA 

Foothill yellow-legged frog 

Rana boylii 

CSC — Y N Y Y Y Species occurs in several fast moving streams in the study 

area. Conservation opportunities may be limited outside of 

additional protection of key reaches. 

Reptiles 

Western pond turtle 

Clemmys marmorata 

CSC — Y N Y Y N Not expected to become listed in near future. 

Alameda whipsnake 

Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus 

ST FT Y Y Y Y Y Occurrences of species in study area; mitigation typically 

required under CESA and ESA 

San Joaquin coachwhip 

Masticophis flagellum ruddocki 

CSC — Y N Y Y N Not expected to become listed in near future


Species 



California horned lizard 

Phrynosoma coronatum frontale 

CSC — Y N Y N N Not expected to become listed in near future; USFWS and 

CDFG has not covered this species in other regional 

planning efforts due to limited data; taxonomy uncertain: 

recent study combined P. c. frontale and P. c. schmidti into 

new species P. blainvilii 

Birds 

Great blue heron (rookery) 

Ardea herodias 

— MBTA Y N N Y N Not expected to become listed in near future 

Black-crowned night heron (rookery) 

Nycticorax nycticorax 

— MBTA Y N N Y N Not expected to become listed in near future 

Wood duck 

Aix sponsa 

— MBTA Y N N N N Not expected to become listed in near future; not likely to be 

assessed in CEQA documents 

Prairie falcon 

Falco mexicanus 

CSC MBTA Y N Y Y N Not expected to become listed in near future; ongoing 

monitoring program by EBRPD. This species will receive 

incidental conservation benefits through conservation actions 

for golden eagle and protection of rock outcrops. 

American peregrine falcon 

Falco peregrinus anatum 

SE, FP FD, MBTA Y Y N Y N Species is fully protected by the state; take of individuals not 

allowed; not likely to be listed under the federal ESA 

because it was recently removed from the list; removal of 

limited habitat not expected to affect population stability in 

the county; 

California clapper rail 

Rallus longirostris obsoletus 

SE, FP FE, MBTA N Y N Y N Study area outside of range or current distribution; Species is 

fully protected; take of individuals not allowed 

Bald eagle 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

SE/ FP FD, BGPA, 

MBTA 

Y Y N Y N Some breeding pairs occur near reservoirs in the study area 

and breeding range may expand; individuals occasionally 

winter at reservoirs in study area; Species is fully protected; 

take of individuals not allowed 

Sharp-shinned hawk 

Accipiter striatus 

CSC MBTA Y N Y Y N Not expected to become listed in near future 

Cooper’s hawk 

Accipiter cooperii 


Red shouldered hawk 

Buteo lineatus 

— MBTA Y N N N N Not expected to become listed in the future; not likely to be 


Golden eagle 

Aquila chrysaetos 

CSC/FP BGPA, 

MBTA 

Y Y Y Y Y Eastern Alameda county is important source population for 

region 

Northern harrier 

Circus cyaneus 

CSC MBTA Y N Y Y N Not expected to become listed in near future


Species 



Ferruginous hawk 

Buteo regalis 

CSC MBTA Y N N Y N Not expected to become listed in near future 

California black rail 

Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus 

ST/ FP MBTA N Y N Y N Study area outside of range or current known distribution; 

little information on use of inland freshwater wetlands; 

Species is fully protected; take of individuals not allowed 

Western snowy plover 

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus 

CSC FT, MBTA N Y N Y N Study area outside of range or current breeding distribution 

Black skimmer 

Rynchops niger (nesting colony) 

CSC MBTA N N N Y N Study area outside of range or current known breeding 

distribution 

California least tern 

Sterna antillarum (albifrons)browni (nesting 

colony) 

SE/ FP FE, MBTA N Y N Y N Study area outside of range or current known distribution; 

No suitable habitat in study area; Species is fully protected; 

take of individuals not allowed 

California brown pelican (nesting colony) 

Pelecanus occidentalis californicus 

SE/ FP FPD, 

MBTA 

N Y N Y N Study area outside of range or current known distribution; 

Species is fully protected; take of individuals not allowed 

Double-crested cormorant 

Phalacrocorax auritus (rookery site) 

CSC MBTA N N N Y N Study area outside of range or current known distribution 

California horned lark 

Eremophila alperstris actia 


Loggerhead shrike 

Lanius ludovicianus 


White-tailed kite 

Elanus leucurus 

FP MBTA Y N N Y N Species is fully protected; take of individuals not allowed; 

species relatively common in study area so not likely to be 

state or federally listed if fully protected designation is 

withdrawn 

Western burrowing owl 

Athene cunicularia hypugea 

CSC MBTA Y Y Y Y Y Species is in decline throughout Bay Area; may become state 

listed; mitigation typically required under CEQA 

Lewis’s woodpecker 

Melanerpes lewis 

— MBTA Y N N N N Nest sites are in decline but species is not likely to become 

listed in near future; not typically assessed in CEQA 

documents 

Say’s phoebe 

Sayornis saya 

— MBTA Y N N N N Species is not likely to be listed in near future; not typically 

assessed in CEQA documents; will benefit from protection 

of rocky outcrops and grassland as the result of conservation 

under this strategy 

Yellow-billed magpie 

Pica nuttalli 

— MBTA Y N Y? N N Nest sites are in decline but species is not likely to become 

listed in near future; not typically assessed in CEQA 

documents


Species 



Bank swallow 

Riparia riparia 

ST MBTA Y Y N N N No CNDDB records in study area but species has been 

recorded in the county. Threats are bank erosion degradation 

of stream corridors through water development 

Western bluebird 

Sialia Mexicana 

— MBTA Y N N N N Species not likely to be listed in near future; not typically 


Willow flycatcher 

Empidonax traillii 

— MBTA Y N N ? N N Not likely to become listed in near future; not typically 


Black-throated gray warbler 

Dendroica nigrescens 

— MBTA Y N N ? N N Not likely to become listed in near future; not typically 


Salt marsh common yellowthroat (= San 

Francisco yellowthroat) 

Geothlypis trichas sinuosa 

CSC MBTA N N N N N Study area outside of range or current known distribution 

Tricolored blackbird 

Agelaius tricolor 

CSC MBTA Y Y Y Y Y Number of breeding colonies is in decline; could become 

federally or state listed; developing conservation for the 

species is difficult due to the ephemeral nature of breeding 

colonies. Species would benefit from wetland restoration in 

the study area 

Yellow warbler 

Dendroica petechia brewsteri (nesting) 

CSC MBTA Y N N Y N Not expected to become listed in near future 

Blue grosbeak 

Guiraca caerulea 

— MBTA Y N N N N Not expected to become listed in near future’ not likely to be 


Song Sparrow 

Melospiza melodia 

— MBTA Y N N Y N Not expected to become listed in near future; not typically a 

species that is assessed in CEQA documents 

Alameda (South Bay) song sparrow 

Melospiza melodia pusillula 

CSC MBTA N N N Y N Study area outside of range 

Mammals 

Alameda Island mole 

Scapanus latimanus parvus 

CSC — N N N N N Study area outside of range 

Salt marsh vagrant (wandering) shrew 

Sorex vagrans halicoetes 

CSC — N N N Y? N Study area outside of range 

Pacific Townsend’s (=western) big-eared bat 

Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii 

CSC — Y Y N N N Species thought to be declining in the Bay Area; data is 

somewhat limited 

Yuma myotis 

Myotis yumanensis 

— — Y N N Y N Not expected to become listed in near future


Species 



Greater western mastiff bat 

Eumops perotis californicus 

CSC — Y N N Y N Not expected to become listed in near future 

Pallid bat 

Antrozous pallidus 


Big free-tailed bat 

Nyctinomops macrotis (=Tadarida m., T. 

molossa) 

CSC — N N N N N Study area outside of range or current known distribution 

Hoary bat 

Lasiurus cinereus 


Silver-haired bat 

Lasionycteris noctivagans 

CSC — N N N Y N Study area outside of range or current known distribution 

San Joaquin pocket mouse 

Perognathus inornatus inornatus 

— — Y N N N N Not expected to become listed in near future 

Berkeley kangaroo rat 

Dipodomys heermanni berkeleyensis 

— — Y N N N N Subspecies possibly extinct; historic distribution in Contra 

Costa and Alameda Counties with southernmost record at 

Calaveras Reservoir (1940). Several unconfirmed sightings, 

one in Alameda Cty in 2000 

San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat 

Neotoma fuscipes annectens 

CSC — Y N Y? Y N Not expected to become listed in near future 

Ringtail 

Bassariscus astutus 

FP — Y N N N N Species is fully protected; take of individuals not allowed; 

species relatively common so not likely to be state or 

federally listed if fully protected designation is withdrawn 

Salt marsh harvest mouse 

Reithrodontomys raviventris 

E,FP E N Y N Y N Study area outside of range; Species is fully protected; take 

of individuals not allowed 

San Joaquin kit fox 

Vulpes macrotis mutica 

ST FE Y Y Y Y Y The Altamont Hills provide extensive breeding habitat and a 

critical linkage in the northern part of species’ range 

American badger 

Taxidea taxus 

CSC — Y Y Y Y? Y Species could become state listed. Could be a candidate for 

guiding conservation of movement corridors in grassland 

ecosystems.


Species 



Notes 

a. Status 

State Status 

FP Fully Protected 

SE State listed as endangered 

ST State listed as threatened 

CSC California special concern species 

Federal Status 

BGPA Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

FE Federally endangered 

FT Federally threatened 

FC Candidate for federal listing 

FPT Federally proposed for threatened listing 

FPD Federally proposed for delisting 

FD Federally delisted 

SOC Species of Concern (National Marine Fisheries Service designation) 

b. Criteria 

Range: The species is known to occur or is likely to occur within the Conservation Strategy study 

area, based on credible evidence, or the species is not currently known in the study area but is 

expected in the study area in the foreseeable future (e.g., through range expansion or reintroduction 

to historic range). 

Status: The species is either: 

• listed under the federal ESA as threatened or endangered, or proposed for listing; 

• listed under CESA as threatened or endangered or a candidate for such listing, or listed under 

the Native Plant Protection Act as rare; or 

• expected to be listed under ESA or CESA within the permit term. Potential for listing during 

the permit term is based on current listing status, consultation with experts and Wildlife Agency 

staff, evaluation of species population trends and threats, and best professional judgment. 

Impact: The species or its habitat would be adversely affected by project related activities in 

Alameda County. 

Data: Sufficient data exist on the species’ life history, habitat requirements, and occurrence in the 

study area to adequately evaluate impacts on the species and to develop conservation measures to 

mitigate these impacts to levels specified by regulatory standards. 

Species proposed as focal species were limited to those species for which impacts from project in the 

county were likely, or for which mitigation is often required under CEQA or ESA. However, many 

other special-status species are expected to benefit from the Conservation Strategy. 

c. Recommended Status 

Y recommended as a focal species for East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 

N not recommended as focal species for East Alameda County Conservation 

Strategy

Appendix B 

Plant Species Considered for Inclusion as Focal 

Species for the East Alameda Conservation Strategy

Appendix B. Plant Species Considered for Inclusion as Focal Species for the East Alameda Conservation Strategy 

Species 

Allium sharsmithiae 

Sharsmith's onion 

Amsinckia grandiflora 

large-flowered fiddleneck 

Amsinckia lunaris 

bent-flowered fiddleneck 

Arctostaphylos pallida 

pallid manzanita 

Astragalus tener var. tener 

alkali milk-vetch 

Atriplex cordulata 

Heartscale 

Atriplex depressa 

Brittlescale 

Atriplex joaquiniana 

San Joaquin spearscale 

Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis 

big-scale balsamroot 

Blepharizonia plumosa 

big tarplant 

California macrophylla 

round-leaved filaree 

Calochortus pulchellus 

Mt. Diablo fairy-lantern 

Campanula exigua 

chaparral harebell 


Federal State CNPS Range Status Threat Data Focal Species c Notes 

— — 1B.3 Y N N Y N Occurs in remote part of study area and is likely 

under little or no threat. Mixed serpentine 

chaparral will be addressed at the natural 

community level which will benefit species. 

FE SE 1B.1 Y Y N Y N One occurrence on Lawrence Livermore Lab 

property appears to be extirpated; no take 

designation requested by CNPS; this is a no take 

plant in the ECCC HCP/NCCP 

— — 1B.2 Y N N N N Species not expected to become listed in near 

future; no local threats known; occurrence 

location not specific 

FT SE 1B.1 N Y N N N Does not occur in study area 

— — 1B.2 Y N N N N Species not expected to become listed in near 

future; only known occurrence in study area is 

extirpated 

— — 1B.2 Y N Y N N Not expected to become listed in near future; 

taxonomic identity of study area populations in 

question 

— — 1B.2 Y N Y N N Not expected to become listed in near future; 

taxonomic identity of study area populations in 

question 

— — 1B.2 Y Y Y Y Y Covered in the East Contra Costa County 

HCP/NCCP 

— — 1B.2 Y N N Y N Only occurrence in study area appears to be 

extirpated 

— — 1B.1 Y Y Y Y Y Not expected to become listed in near future; 

road maintenance threatens some occurrences; 

covered in the East Contra Costa County 

HCP/NCCP 

— — 1B.1 Y Y N N N No local threats; occurrence locations not 

specific; covered in the East Contra Costa 

County HCP/NCCP 

— — 1B.2 N Y N N N No occurrences in study area; covered in the East 

Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 

— — 1B.2 Y Y N N N Not expected to be listed in near future; no local 

threats; occurrence locations not specific; 

covered in the Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP

Appendix B. Continued Page 2 of 5 

Species 

Caulanthus coulteri var. lemmonii 

Lemmon's jewelflower 

Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii 

Congdon's tarplan 

Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata 

San Francisco Bay spineflower 

Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta 

robust spineflower 

Cirsium fontinale var. campylon 

Mt. Hamilton fountain thistle 

Clarkia concinna ssp. automixa 

Santa Clara red ribbons 

Clarkia franciscana 

Presidio clarkia 

Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris 

Point Reyes bird's-beak 

Cordylanthus mollis ssp. hispidus 

hispid bird's-beak 

Cordylanthus palmatus 

Palmate-bracted bird's-beak 

Coreopsis hamiltonii 

Mt. Hamilton coreopsis 

Deinandra bacigalupii 

Livermore Valley tarplant 

Delphinium californicum ssp. interius 

Hospital Canyon larkspur 

Delphinium recurvatum 

recurved larkspur 

Dirca occidentalis 

western leatherwood 



— — 1B.2 Y N N N N Not expected to be listed in near future; no local 

threats; occurrence locations not specific 

— — 1B.2 Y Y Y Y Y Populations concentrated in areas subject to 

possible future development 

— — 1B.2 N N N N N No occurrences in study area 

FE — 1B.1 N Y N N N No occurrences in study area 

— — 1B.2 Y N N Y N Occurs in remote part of study area and is likely 

under little or no threat. Serpentine communities, 

including seeps will be conserved at the 

community level. 

— — 4.3 Y? N N N N One non-specific occurrence in the Cedar 

Mountain region from 1903. 

FE SE 1B N Y N N N No occurrences in study area 

— — 1B.2 Y N N N N No occurrences in study area 

— — 1B.1 Y Y N Y N Only occurrence in study area in Springtown 

Wetlands Preserve, threats from potential 

changes in local hydrology and from recreational 

uses 

FE SE 1B.1 Y Y Y Y Y Occurrences in study area in Springtown 

Wetlands Preserve and on adjacent private lands; 

threats from potential changes in local hydrology 

and from recreational uses 

— — 1B.2 Y N N Y N Two recorded occurrences in the study area; not 

expected to become listed in near future 

FE — 1B.1 Y Y Y Y Y Very rare within study area; high potential for 

impacts on populations 

— — 1B.2 Y N N N N Occurs in remote part of study area; not expected 

to become listed in near future 

— — 1B.2 Y Y Y Y Y One occurrence in study area; covered in the 

East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP 

— — 1B.2 N N N N N No occurrences in study area


Species 

Eriogonum luteolum var. caninum 

Tiburon buckwheat 

Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri 

Hoover's button-celery 

Eschscholzia rhombipetala 

diamond-petaled California poppy 

Fritillaria falcata 

talus fritillary 

Fritillaria liliacea 

fragrant fritillary 

Helianthella castanea 

Diablo helianthella 

Hesperolinon sp. nov. "serpentinum" 

Napa western flax 

Hoita strobilina 

Loma Prieta hoita 

Holocarpha macradenia 

Santa Cruz tarplant 

Horkelia cuneata ssp. sericea 

Kellogg's horkelia 

Lasthenia conjugens 

Contra Costa goldfields 

Legenere limosa 

Legenere 

Lilaeopsis masonii 

Mason's lilaeopsis 

Monardella villosa ssp. globosa 

robust monardella 

Navarretia prostrata 

prostrate navarretia 




— — 1B.1 N N N N N No occurrences in study area; taxonomic 

problems 

— — 1B.1 Y Y N Y N Known occurrences at Lawrence Livermore 

National Lab; no local threats (other than small 

population size) 

— — 1B.2 Y N N N N Occurs in remote part of study area and is likely 

under little or no threat. Mixed serpentine 

chaparral will be addressed at the natural 

community level which will benefit species. 


— — 1B.2 Y Y N Y N Occurs in remote part of study area; no known 

threats; covered in the East Contra Costa County 

HCP/NCCP 

— — 1B.1 Y N N Y N Not a published species; not expected to become 

listed in near future 

— — 1B.1 N Y N N N No occurrences in study area; covered in the 

Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP 

FT SE 1B.1 N Y N N N No occurrences in study area 



— — 1B.1 Y N N Y N Occurs in remote part of study area; not expected 

to become listed in near future 

— SR 1B.1 Y Y N Y N One population at edge of study area; no known 

threats 


— — 1B.1 N Y N N N No occurrences in study area


Species 

Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. 

chorisianus 

Choris' popcorn-flower 

Plagiobothrys diffusus 

San Francisco popcorn-flower 




— SE 1B.1 N Y N N N No occurrences in study area 

Plagiobothrys glaber 

hairless popcorn-flower 

Sanicula maritima 

adobe sanicle 

Senecio aphanactis 

Chaparral ragwort 

Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus 

most beautiful jewel-flower 

Suaeda californica 

California seablite 

Trifolium depauperatum var. 

hydrophilum 

saline clover 

Tropidocarpum capparideum 

caper-fruited tropidocarpum 

— — 1A Y N Y N N Vernal pool species that will receive some 

protection by seasonal wetlands being called out 

at the natural community level. One possible 

occurrence in study area; may face threats and 

may expect to be listed in near future 

— SR 1B.1 N Y N N N Species not expected to be impacted 

consistently; avoidance is possible 

— — 2.2 Y Y N Y N One occurrence in study area at Carnegie ORV 

SP; no threats evident; populations small, mostly 

historic, more rare than CNPS status indicates 

— — 1B.2 Y Y N Y N In SFPUC lands, no reported threats; covered in 

the Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP 


— — 1B.2 Y N Y N N Vernal pool species. Not expected to be listed in 

near future; one occurrence in East Dublin from 

2002, possibly extirpated by development in 

2005 

— — 1B.1 Y Y N N N Occurrences in study area are extirpated; no take 

scenario requested by CNPS; this is a no take 

plant in the ECCC HCP/NCCP


Species 

Notes 

a. Status 

State Status 

SE State listed as endangered 

ST State listed as threatened 

SR State listed as rare 

Federal Status 

FE Federally endangered 

FT Federally threatened 

California Native Plant Society Ranking 

1A Presumed extinct in California 

1B Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere 

2 Rare or endangered in California but more common elsewhere 



Native Plant Threat Rankings 

.1 Seriously threatened in California (high degree/immediacy of threat) 

.2 Fairly threatened in California (moderate degree/immediacy of threat) 

.3 Not very threatened in California (low degree/immediacy of threats or no current 

threats known) 

b. Criteria 

Range: The species is known to occur or is likely to occur within the Conservation Strategy 

study area, based on credible evidence, or the species is not currently known in the study 

area but is expected in the study area in the foreseeable future (e.g., through range expansion 

or reintroduction to historic range). 

Status: The species is either: 

• listed under the federal ESA as threatened or endangered, or proposed for listing; 

• listed under CESA as threatened or endangered or a candidate for such listing, or listed 

under the Native Plant Protection Act as rare; or 

• expected to be listed under ESA or CESA within the permit term. Potential for listing 

during the permit term is based on current listing status, consultation with experts and 

Wildlife Agency staff, evaluation of species population trends and threats, and best 

professional judgment. 

Impact: The species or its habitat would be adversely affected by project related activities 

in Alameda County. 

Data: Sufficient data exist on the species’ life history, habitat requirements, and occurrence 

in the study area to adequately evaluate impacts on the species and to develop conservation 

measures to mitigate these impacts to levels specified by regulatory standards. 

Species proposed as focal species were limited to those species for which impacts from 

project in the county were likely, or for which mitigation is often required under CEQA or 

ESA. However, many other special-status species are expected to benefit from the 

Conservation Strategy. 

c. Recommended Status 

Y recommended as a focal species for the EACCS 

N not recommended as focal species for the EACCS

Appendix C 

Glossary

Appendix C 

Glossary 

Definitions of Key Terms And Concepts 

Adaptive management. A method for examining alternative strategies for 

meeting measurable biological goals and objectives, and then if necessary, 

adjusting future conservation management actions according to what is learned 

(65 FR 106 35242–35257, June 1, 2000). 

Aerial Signature. Characteristic value, color, or texture on an aerial photograph 

that correlates to a particular land-cover type. 

Agriculture. Broad use term used to describe ranching and/or farming 

activities. 

Anthropogenic. Caused or produced through human activity or influence. 

Baseline. The existing environmental state, which includes past and present 

impacts as well as the anticipated impacts of all permitted projects in the 

inventory area. 

Benchmark. A performance monitoring standard that allows a community to 

periodically measure the extent to which the goals and policies of its General 

Plan are met. Benchmarking: The process by which a community evaluates 

indicators, data and performance against established benchmarks to identify its 

progress toward its planning goals. 

Biodiversity. The variety of native organisms considered at all levels, from 

genetic variants of a single species through arrays of species to arrays of genera, 

families, and higher taxonomic levels; includes the variety of natural 

communities and ecosystems. 

Biological Assessment (BA): Under section 7 of the ESA. A document prepared 

to determine whether a proposed action is likely to affect listed species or 

designated critical habitat. BA’s must be prepared for "major construction 

activities." The outcome of the BA determines whether formal consultation with 

the USFWS is necessary. 

East Alameda County Conservation Strategy C-1 October 2010 

ICF 00906.08

Appendix C 

Glossary 

Biological opinion (BO). The document stating the opinion of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and/or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 

National Marine Fisheries Service as to whether or not a federal action is likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat (50 CFR 402.02). A 

biological opinion is one of the decision documents of a consultation under 

Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act. 

Biological goals. Guiding principles for conservation within the study area 

based on the conservation needs of the focal species and natural communities. 

The goals describe the vision for the focal species and natural communities to 

be achieved through implementation of a successful conservation program. 

Biological goals are typically qualitative rather than quantitative (65 FR 106 

35242–35257, June 1, 2000). 

Biological objectives. Measurable targets that will be sought to achieve the 

biological goal. Biological objectives are typically quantitative or at least 

measurable (65 FR 106 35242–35257, June 1, 2000). 

Broad goals (or program goals). Broad guiding principles for the entire 

Strategy. These goals represent a summary of the “project purpose and need” 

for the Strategy and may be incorporated as a mission statement for the process 

and the plan. These are a different set of goals than the biological goals and 

objectives. 

Buffer Zone. A strip of land created to separate and protect one type of land use 

from another; for example, as a screen of planting or fencing to insulate the 

surroundings from the noise, smoke, or visual aspects of an industrial zone or 

junkyard. 

California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Section 2080 of the Fish and Game 

Code prohibits “take” of any species that the commission determines to be an 

endangered species or a threatened species. CESA allows for take incidental to 

otherwise lawful development projects. CESA emphasizes early consultation to 

avoid potential impacts to rare, endangered, and threatened species and to 

develop appropriate mitigation planning to offset project-caused losses of listed 

species populations and their essential habitats. 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Created in 1970, shortly after the 

Federal Government created the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

CEQA is the basis for environmental law and policy to protect environmental 

quality in the State of California. CEQA does not directly regulate land uses but 

describes how project information and impacts are analyzed. CEQA requires 

state and local agencies to make decisions with environmental consequences in 

mind by mandating that they: Disclose the potential environmental effects of a 

proposed project to decision makers and the public (in Environmental Impact 

Reports (EIR) for example, etc.); Identify methods to minimize those effects to 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix C 

Glossary 

the environment; Identify feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives to 

the project; and Solicit and respond to comments from the public and from 

other agencies concerned with the project. 

CEQA species. Plant and animal species that are considered endangered, 

threatened, or rare under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and 

thus must be considered in CEQA documents, but are not focal species in the 

Strategy (670.2 or 670.5, Title 14, CCR). See also endangered species and 

threatened species. 

City limits. Official jurisdictional boundary of a city. 

Compensation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Compensation measures are 

actions that minimize or offset potential adverse effects of a proposed activity 

on species covered by the §7 consultation. 

Condition of Approval. A condition placed on a development entitlement 

without which final approval may be withheld, often required to be satisfied 

prior to recording a Final Map, or receiving a grading or building permit. Similar 

to mitigation, although mitigations are often monitored over longer periods. 

For example, ‘prior to receiving a building permit, the Dept. of Fish & Game 

must be consulted.” Or, “prior to receiving a Building Permit, the applicant 

must dedicate 10 acres to East Bay Regional Park District.” 

Conservation. According to the federal Endangered Species Act, conserve, 

conserving, and conservation are the methods and procedures necessary to 

bring any endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 

provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures 

include, but are not limited to, activities associated with resource management 

such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and 

maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transportation (16 USC 1532 [3]). 

According to the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, conserve, 

conserving, and conservation are the use of methods and procedures within the 

Plan area that are necessary “to bring any covered species to the point at which 

the measures provided pursuant to [the California Endangered Species Act] … 

are not necessary, and for covered species that are not listed pursuant to [the 

California Endangered Species Act] …, to maintain or enhance the condition of a 

species so that listing pursuant to [the California Endangered Species Act] …will 

not become necessary.” In other words, the Natural Community Conservation 

Planning Act defines conservation as the steps necessary to remove a species 

from the California threatened or endangered species list (Cal. Fish & Game 

Code 2085[d]). 

Conservation actions –Specific activities that will be carried out to meet the 

conservation needs of the focal species and natural communities in order to 

achieve the biological goals and objectives. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix C 

Glossary 

Conservation Bank. A parcel of land containing natural resource values that are 

conserved and managed in perpetuity for specified listed species and used to 

offset impacts occurring elsewhere to the same resource values on non-bank 

lands. 

Conservation Easement. A tool for acquiring open space with less than full-fee 

purchase; the public agency or not-for-profit corporation buys only certain 

specific rights from the landowner in order to restrict the development, 

management or use of the land. A landowner (grantor) voluntarily sells and/or 

donates permanent legal restrictions on a property, to a qualified third party 

(grantee), to limit or prohibit development in order to protect conservation 

values such as cultural or historic structures, biodiversity, water quality, wildlife 

habitat, agricultural uses, etc. The restriction is recorded and ‘runs with the 

land’ through successive owners. The restriction reduces the "highest and best" 

economic use of the property so that the property’s value reflects only the 

allowed uses; property taxes may be reduced as a result. If the landowner 

donates the easement as a gift, this reduction in value may become a charitable 

tax deduction. An easement also can be sold to non-profit or government 

agencies to provide revenue. Sometimes referred to as a ‘negative’ easement 

since a conservation easement doesn’t allow the grantee to do anything other 

than monitor and enforce the restrictions. 

Conservation Values. Wildlife habitat, open space, historic, or recreational 

resources. For example, land may have a high conservation value if it contains 

habitat for endangered species or if it has open space in a highly developed 

area. Conservation values are usually assessed and included in the purposes 

section of a conservation easement. 

Conservation strategy. The Strategy’s overall and unified approach for 

achieving the biological goals and objectives. The conservation strategy is the 

collection of all conservation actions that will be implemented. 

Construction monitoring. Monitoring by biologists of construction activities to 

ensure that conservation actions are implemented and impacts to biological 

resources are avoided or minimized in accordance with Strategy requirements. 

Contribute to recovery. Actions that measurably increase the baseline 

conditions necessary to support focal species and that contribute to the 

eventual delisting of a listed species or prevention of listing of a nonlisted 

species. A contribution to recovery does not include actions necessary to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate impacts of covered activities. 

Cover (also canopy cover, areal cover). The area of ground covered by 

vegetation of particular species or vegetation type, generally expressed as a 

percentage. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix C 

Glossary 

Critical habitat. An area designated as critical habitat by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service or by the National Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to the 

federal Endangered Species Act. Critical habitat areas are specific geographic 

areas that may or may not be occupied by listed species, that are determined to 

be essential for the conservation and management of listed species, and that 

have been formally described and designated in the Federal Register 

(16 USC 1532 [5]). 

Cumulative Impacts. The incremental environmental impacts of an individual 

project reviewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of 

other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects considered 

together in order to ascertain the overall effect on the environment of a 

particular project. Also two or more environmental effects which, when 

considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other 

environmental impacts. An assessment of cumulative impacts is a requirement 

of CEQA. 

Deed Restrictions. Terms are placed in the deed to the property that restrict 

certain uses of the real estate by future owners. No income tax benefits; 

possible estate tax benefits. 

Discretionary Project. A project which requires the exercise of judgment or 

deliberation when the public agency or body decides to approve or disapprove a 

particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the public agency or 

body merely has to determine whether there has been conformity with 

applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations. Discretionary projects and 

approvals trigger CEQA review. 

Easement. A grant by a property owner of a positive right for a specific use of 

the property or a defined part to a second party. It may be temporary or 

permanent, is legally recorded and ‘runs with the land’. It can be donated or 

purchased. Example: a landowner may grant an access easement, an easement 

to allow hunting, wood cutting, mining, etc. Some easements can be 

temporary. 

Easement Value. The difference between a property's value before an 

easement is placed on it and the value after the easement is placed on it. 

Ecological integrity. Ecosystems have ecological integrity when their native 

components are intact, including abiotic components, biodiversity, and 

ecosystem processes. 

Ecosystem. A community of organisms and their physical environment 

interacting as an ecological unit. 

Ecosystem function. The sum total of processes operating at the ecosystem 

level, such as the cycling of matter, energy, and nutrients. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix C 

Glossary 

Ecosystem restoration. The reestablishment of ecological functions within an 

area that historically supported those functions. 

Endangered species. A native species, subspecies, variety of organism, or 

distinct population segment (DPS) which is in serious danger of becoming 

extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range due to one or more 

causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, 

competition, or disease (16 USC 1532[6], Cal. Fish & Game Code Section 2062). 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). Created in 1973, the ESA provides a program for 

the conservation of federally threatened and endangered plants and animals 

and the habitats in which they are found. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of 

the Department of the Interior maintains a worldwide list which, as of February 

20, 2008, included 1574 endangered species (599 are plants) and 351 

threatened species (148 are plants). Species include grasses, flowers, trees, 

insects, crustaceans, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Anyone 

can petition USFWS to include a species on this list (7 USC §136; 16 USC §460 et 

seq). 

Endemic. A species, subspecies, or variety found only in the region defined. 

Environmental gradient. A shift in physical and ecological parameters across a 

landscape, such as changes in topography, climate, land cover types, or natural 

communities. 

Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In CEQA, a document used to evaluate the 

potential environmental impacts of a project, evaluate reasonable alternatives 

to the project, and identify mitigation measures necessary to minimize the 

impacts. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the 

agency with primary responsibility over the approval of a project (the lead 

agency) evaluate the project's potential impacts in an Environmental Impact 

Report (EIR). EIRs typically have a draft (DEIR) and a Final (FEIR) stage. 

EIS: Environmental Impact Statement – Environmental impact document 

prepared pursuant to NEPA, in place of the term EIR which is used in CEQA. 

Environmental Assessment: Under NEPA - A document that briefly discusses 

the environmental consequences of a proposed action and alternatives. 

Ephemeral stream. Stream that flows only in response to rain events and 

receives no groundwater input. 

Extinct species. A species no longer in existence. 

Extirpated species. A species no longer surviving in regions that were once part 

of its range. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix C 

Glossary 

Farming. Narrow use term used to describe cultivation activities, including 

orchards, vineyards, hay, or grain farming, truck farming, and activities on 

irrigated and/or drylands. 

Federal Action: Discretionary actions authorized, funded, or carried out by 

federal agency. 

Federal Nexus. Occurring at the discretion of a federal agency, whether it be 

through permitting, funding, or direct implementation of a project. 

Focal species. Those species addressed in the Strategy for which mitigation 

actions will be described. 

Gap Analysis. A comparison of the distribution of elements of biodiversity with 

that of areas managed for their long-term viability to identify elements with 

inadequate representation. 

Geographic Information System (GIS). Computer-based mapping technology 

that manipulates geographic data in digital layers and facilitates a wide array of 

environmental analyses. 

Genetic Diversity. Variety among individuals within a species -- or, more 

specifically, the variety in the DNA of a species. See also "alleles." 

Habitat. The environmental conditions that support occupancy of a given 

organism in a specified area (Hall et al. 1997). In scientific and lay publications, 

habitat is defined in many different ways and for many different purposes. For 

the purposes of the Conservation Strategy, habitat is defined as the specific 

places where the environmental conditions (i.e., physical and biological 

conditions) are present that are required to support occupancy by individuals or 

populations of a given species. Habitat may be occupied (i.e., individuals or a 

population of the species are or have recently been present) or unoccupied. 

See also unoccupied habitat. 

Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP): Under section 10 of the ESA. A plan that 

outlines ways of maintaining, enhancing, and protecting a given habitat type 

needed to protect species; usually includes measures to minimize impacts, and 

may include provisions for permanently protecting land, restoring habitat, and 

relocating plants or animals to another area. Required before an incidental take 

permit may be issued. 

Habitat creation. The establishment of a natural community in an area that did 

not previously support it. For example, stock ponds can be created in areas that 

previously did not support them by grading and installing a check dam. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix C 

Glossary 

Habitat enhancement. The improvement of an existing degraded natural 

community. Habitat enhancement involves improving one or more ecological 

factors, such as species richness, species diversity, overall vegetative cover, or 

wildlife value. Enhancement activities typically occur on substrates that are 

largely intact. 

Habitat quality. The ability of the environment to provide conditions that 

support the persistence of individuals and populations (Hall et al. 1997). The 

precise meaning of habitat quality varies by species and depends on the subject 

species’ specific needs in the context of a particular area. High-quality habitat 

for some species comprises only foraging and resting elements; for others it 

comprises foraging, resting, and nesting elements; for still others it may 

encompass all elements needed for the species to complete its lifecycle. Lowquality 

habitat would include only the minimal elements that support 

occurrence of the species. High-quality habitat tends to support larger numbers 

of species than low-quality habitat. 

Habitat restoration. See Restoration. 

Harass. An intentional or negligent act or omission that creates the likelihood of 

injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt 

normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). One component of the legal definition of 

“take” under the federal Endangered Species Act. 

Harm. An act that kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant 

habitat modification or degradation which results in injury of or death to wildlife 

by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Harm is one component of the legal 

definition of “take” under the federal Endangered Species Act. 

Highest And Best Use. The most profitable likely and legal use to which a parcel 

of land is likely to be put (a determination made in calculating value). 

Hydrology. The movement of surface and subsurface water flows in a given 

area. The hydrology of an area is intimately connected with its precipitation, 

soils, and topography. 

In perpetuity. Always; forever. 

Incidental take. Any take otherwise prohibited, if such take is incidental to and 

not the purpose of the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity (50 CFR 17.3). 

Incidental Take Permit: A permit issued under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA to 

a non-Federal party undertaking an otherwise lawful project that might result in 

take of an endangered or threatened species. Application for an incidental take 

permit is subject to certain requirements, including preparation by the permit 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix C 

Glossary 

applicant of a conservation plan, generally known as a "Habitat Conservation 

Plan" or "HCP." 

Indicator species. A species, the presence or absence of which is indicative of a 

particular habitat, community, or set of environmental conditions (Lincoln et al. 

1998). 

Infrastructure. A general term describing public and quasi-public utilities and 

facilities such as roads, bridges, sewers and sewer plants, water lines, parks and 

other public spaces, power lines, schools, police and fire protection, and health 

and welfare services, etc. necessary for the functioning of an urban area. 

Initial Study. In CEQA, a preliminary analysis prepared by the Lead Agency to 

determine whether an EIR or a Negative Declaration must be prepared or to 

identify the significant environmental effects to be analyzed in an EIR. 

In-kind/on-site mitigation. Establishing a vegetative community or habitat that 

would provide the same ecological values over time as the habitat affected. This 

created habitat must be within, or in proximity to, the site where habitat will be 

lost. Proximity requirements vary by resource. For focal species, those 

requirements would depend on the natural history traits and home range of the 

species and specific requirements would be determined on a case-by-case basis. 

Since habitat created with this type of mitigation is essentially equal and near to 

the affected habitat, it would directly benefit those populations impacted by 

development and is a preferred means of mitigation. 

In-kind/off-site mitigation. Establishing a vegetative community or habitat that 

would provide the same ecological values over time as the habitat affected. This 

created habitat may be distant from the site experiencing habitat loss and does 

not fall under the proximity requirements of on-site creation for that resource. 

This form of mitigation would only be appropriate in cases where in-kind habitat 

would be inferior if created on-site. Since habitat created with this type of 

mitigation is off-site, it does not necessarily benefit those populations impacted 

by development. 

Intermittent stream. A stream that is supplied by both rainfall runoff and 

groundwater; intermittent streams tend to be seasonal, flowing during the rainy 

season and into the late spring or early summer. 

Invasive species. A species that is non-native to the ecosystem and whose 

introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or 

harm to human health (Atkinson et al. 2004; EO 13112). 

Jeopardy: Under the ESA, jeopardy occurs when an action is reasonably 

expected, directly or indirectly, to diminish a species’ numbers, reproduction, or 

distribution so that the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild is 

appreciably reduced. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix C 

Glossary 

Keystone predator. The dominant predator, often the top predator in a given 

food web; a predator having a major influence on community structure, often in 

excess of that expected from its relative abundance (Lincoln et al. 1998). 

Keystone species. A species whose impacts on its community or ecosystem are 

large, and much larger than would be expected from its abundance (Meffe and 

Carroll 2005). 

Land-cover type. The dominant feature of the land surface discernible from 

aerial photographs and defined by vegetation, water, or human uses. 

Land-use designation. The designation, by parcel, in an adopted city or county 

General Plan of the allowable uses. 

Less than Significant Impact. In CEQA, an impact that would not result in a 

substantial and adverse change in the environment and would not require 

mitigation. 

Linkage/Corridor. A linkage is an area of land that supports or contributes to 

the long-term movement of wildlife and genetic material. A corridor is a specific 

route that is used for movement and migration of species. A corridor may be 

different from a linkage because it represents a smaller or narrower avenue for 

movement. 

Listed Species. These are plant and animal species that are federally listed as 

endangered or threatened. The Secretary of the Interior publishes these lists in 

the Federal Register. 

Management Agreement. A landowner and a governmental agency or land 

trust enter into a generally informal contract concerning how the property's 

natural resources are to be managed. More formal management agreements 

are often associated with mitigation properties. 

Mesic. Intermediate in moisture, without extremes; neither wet (hydric) nor 

dry (xeric). 

Metapopulation. A group of partially isolated populations belonging to the 

same species that are connected by pathways of immigration and emigration. 

Exchange of individuals occurs between such populations, enabling 

recolonization of sites from which the species has recently become extirpated 

(Lincoln et al. 1998). 

Mitigation. Actions or project design features that reduce environmental 

impacts by avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for adverse effects (Fulton 

1999). 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix C 

Glossary 

Mitigation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Mitigation measures are actions that 

reduce or address potential adverse effects of a proposed activity on species 

covered by a HCP, under §10 ESA. 

Mitigation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: actions taken to offset the adverse 

effects of the loss of wetlands. 

Mitigation Bank. Large blocks of land preserved, restored, and enhanced for 

purposes of consolidating mitigation for and mitigating in advance for projects 

that take listed species or affect protected natural resources. 

Mitigated Negative Declaration. In CEQA, a Negative Declaration that 

incorporates mitigation measures into the design of the project or establishes 

measures as conditions of project approval to avoid significant effects. 

Mitigation Monitoring Program. In CEQA, when a lead agency adopts a 

mitigated negative declaration or an EIR, it must adopt a program of monitoring 

or reporting which will ensure that mitigation measures are implemented. 

Natural community. A collection of species that co-occur in the same habitat or 

area and interact through trophic and spatial relationships. Communities are 

typically characterized by reference to one or more dominant species. 

Negative Declaration. In CEQA, a written statement prepared by the Lead 

Agency that briefly describes the reasons that a project, not exempt from CEQA, 

will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not 

require the preparation of an EIR. 

Non-native species. A species that is not native to the ecosystem under 

consideration. 

Out-of-kind/on-site mitigation. Establishing a similar vegetative community 

that will, over time, develop some of the same ecological functions and values 

as the affected habitat. This created habitat must be within, or in proximity to, 

the site where habitat will be lost. Proximity requirements vary by resource. 

For focal species, those requirements would depend on the natural history traits 

and home range of the species and specific requirements would be determined 

on a case-by-case basis. Since the habitat created by this type of mitigation is 

unequal to the affected habitat, it should only be used in instances where there 

is a compelling biologically-based rationale. 

Out-of-kind/off-site mitigation. Establishing a similar vegetative community 

that will, over time, develop some of the same ecological functions and values 

as the affected habitat. This created habitat may be distant from the site 

experiencing habitat loss and does not fall under the proximity requirements of 

on-site creation for that resource. Since the habitat created by this type of 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix C 

Glossary 

mitigation is unequal to, and distant from, the affected habitat, it is a less 

acceptable means of mitigation. 

Perennial stream. Year-round stream that is supplied by both rainfall runoff 

and groundwater, as well as by substantial dry-season inputs. 

Performance indicator. An environmental variable that is quantitatively 

measured over time to determine whether enhanced, created, or restored 

natural communities have successfully met the Strategy’s biological goals and 

objectives. 

Performance objective. In monitoring, the optimal desired value for each 

performance indicator. Performance objectives establish a higher threshold for 

each indicator than that established for performance standards. Funding, 

design, and management objectives for enhanced, created, or restored natural 

communities are established at levels that are designed to ensure that the 

performance objectives are achieved. Failure to meet a performance objective 

would not constitute a changed circumstance or require remedial measures. 

Performance period. In monitoring, the time over which performance 

standards must be met. 

Performance standard. In monitoring, a minimum requirement necessary to 

achieve biological goals and objectives. Failure to achieve a performance 

standard could constitute a changed circumstance and require that remedial 

measures be implemented. 

Population. A group of individuals of the same species inhabiting a given 

geographic area, among which mature individuals reproduce or are likely to 

reproduce. Ecological interactions and genetic exchange are more likely among 

individuals within a population than among individuals of separate populations 

of the same species. 

Practicable. Referring to an action, available and capable of being done after 

taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of 

overall project purpose (45 FR 85344, December 24, 1980: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Part 40 CFR 230.3, Definitions). 

Preconstruction surveys. Surveys conducted for certain biological resources 

immediately prior to construction, as directed by the permitting process under 

the CEQA, ESA, or CESA, to ensure that species are adequately protected and 

that habitat avoidance and minimization measures can be effectively 

implemented during construction or implementation of project activities. 

Preservation. Preventing changes in land use from a natural state by, for 

example, acquiring land or a conservation easement. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix C 

Glossary 

Project description. In CEQA, describes the basic characteristics of the project 

including location, need for the project, project objectives, technical and 

environmental characteristics, project size and design, project phasing and 

required permits. The level of detail provided in the project description varies 

according to the type of environmental document prepared. 

Recovery goal. An established goal, usually quantitative, in a U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service or by the National Marine Fisheries Service recovery plan that 

identifies when a listed species is restored to a point at which the protections of 

the federal Endangered Species Act are no longer required. 

Range. The geographic area a species is known or believed to occupy. 

Recovery plan. A document published by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or by 

the National Marine Fisheries Service that lists the status of a listed species and 

the actions necessary to remove the species from the endangered species list. 

Recovery. The process by which the decline of an endangered or threatened 

species is arrested or reversed or threats to its survival neutralized so that its 

long-term survival in nature can be ensured. Recovery entails actions to achieve 

the conservation and survival of a species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

National Marine Fisheries Service 1998), including actions to prevent any further 

erosion of a population’s viability and genetic integrity, as well as actions to 

restore or establish environmental conditions that enable a species to persist 

(i.e., the long-term occurrence of a species through the full range of 

environmental variation). 

Regulatory Agencies. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 

Restoration. Establishment of a natural community or habitat in an area that 

historically supported it, but no longer supports it because of the loss of one or 

more required ecological factors. Restoration typically involves altering the 

substrate or physical features to improve a site’s ability to support the historic 

natural community or habitat. 

Riparian habitat or vegetation. Vegetation associated with river, stream, or 

lake banks and floodplains. Also defined by USFWS (1998) as: Plant 

communities contiguous to and affected by surface and subsurface hydrologic 

features of perennial or intermittent lotic and lentic water bodies (i.e., rivers, 

streams, lakes, or drainage ways). Riparian areas have one or both of the 

following characteristics: 1) distinctively different vegetation than adjacent 

areas, 2) species similar to adjacent areas but exhibiting more vigorous or 

robust growth forms due to the greater availability of surface and subsurface 

water. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix C 

Glossary 

Ruderal. A species or plant community that occurs on a highly disturbed site. 

Setback. A minimum distance required by zoning to be maintained between two 

structures or between a structure and property lines. 

Significant effect on the environment. Under CEQA, a significant effect on the 

environment means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in 

any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including 

land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or 

aesthetic significance. Mitigation measures are proposed, where feasible, to 

reduce the magnitude of significant impacts. 

Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Under CEQA, an impact that would result 

in a substantial adverse effect on the environment which would not be 

mitigable to a less-than-significant level. A project with such an impact could still 

proceed, provided the Lead Agency prepares a Statement of Overriding 

Considerations, pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, explaining 

why the Agency would proceed with the project despite the occurrence of such 

an impact. 

Special-status species. Plants and animals that are legally protected under ESA, 

CESA, or other regulations, and species that are considered sufficiently rare by 

the scientific community to qualify for such listing. 

Species. A taxonomic level; a group of organisms that resemble one another in 

appearance, general behavior, ecological niche, chemical makeup and 

processes, and genetic structure. Organisms that reproduce sexually are 

classified as members of the same species only if they can actually or potentially 

interbreed with one another and produce fertile offspring. 

Study area. Geographic area studied by the Strategy. 

Succession. The change in the composition and structure of a biological 

community over time. Successional patterns often shift dramatically following a 

major disturbance (e.g., fire, flood, anthropogenic clearing of land). 

Suitable habitat. Habitat that exhibits the characteristics necessary to support a 

given species. 

Take. According to the federal Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1532 [19]), take 

means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. According to California 

Fish and Game Code (Cal. Fish & Game Code Section 86), take means to hunt, 

pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or to attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or 

kill. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix C 

Glossary 

Threatened species. A native species, subspecies, variety, or distinct population 

segment (DPS) of an organism that, although not presently threatened with 

extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future 

throughout all of a significant portion of its range (16 USC 1532 [5], Cal. Fish & 

Game Code Section 2067). 

Unoccupied habitat. Habitat that exhibits all the constituent elements 

necessary for a species, but which surveys have determined is not currently 

occupied by that species. The lack of individuals or populations in the habitat is 

assumed to be the result of reduced numbers or distribution of the species such 

that some habitat areas are unused. It is expected that these areas would be 

used if species numbers or distribution were greater. See also suitable habitat. 

Urban growth boundary (UGB). An officially adopted and mapped line dividing 

land to be developed from land to be protected for natural or rural uses, 

including agriculture. UGBs are regulatory tools, often designated for 20 or 

more years to provide greater certainty for both development and conservation 

goals. 

Urban service area. The area within a city’s sphere of influence where utilities 

such as gas, water, sewer, and electricity, and public services such as police, fire, 

schools, and parks and recreation are and will be provided. 

Vernal Pools. Vernal pools are land depressions that are covered by shallow 

water for variable periods from winter to spring, but may be completely dry for 

most of the summer and fall. These wetlands range in size from small puddles to 

shallow lakes and are usually found in a gently sloping plain of grassland. 

Although generally isolated, they are sometimes connected to each other by 

small drainages known as vernal swales. Beneath vernal pools lies either 

bedrock or a hard clay layer in the soil that helps keep water in the pool. 

Wetland. An area inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a 

frequency sufficient to support vegetation types adapted to wet soil conditions. 

Note that within the study area, presence of wetland soils, vegetation, or 

wetted area is generally sufficient to characterize an area as a wetland. 

Wetlands in the study area include vernal pools, ponds, streams and marshes. 

Wildland-urban interface. The area where structures and other human 

development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland (University of 

Wisconsin n.d.). 

Wildlife Corridor. A natural corridor, such as an undeveloped ravine, a creek or 

a habitat area, that is frequently used by wildlife to travel from one area to 

another. 

Xeric. Dry or desert-like. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 

Species Accounts

Appendix D 



San Joaquin Spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana) ...................................................... 1 

Recurved Larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum) ........................................................ 4 

Big Tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa) .................................................................... 6 

Congdon’s Tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) ..................................... 8 

Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak (Cordylanthus palmatus) ....................................... 10 

Livermore tarplant (Deinandra bacigalupii) ........................................................ 11 

Longhorn Fairy Shrimp ......................................................................................... 12 

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp ..................................................................................... 15 

Callippe Silverspot Butterfly ................................................................................ 18 

California Tiger Salamander ................................................................................. 21 

California Red-Legged Frog .................................................................................. 25 

Foothill yellow-legged frog .................................................................................. 28 

Alameda Whipsnake ............................................................................................ 31 

Central California Coast Steelhead ...................................................................... 34 

Golden Eagle ........................................................................................................ 37 

Tricolored Blackbird ............................................................................................. 40 

Burrowing Owl ..................................................................................................... 44 

American Badger.................................................................................................. 47 

San Joaquin Kit Fox .............................................................................................. 50 

San Joaquin Spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana) 

Distribution 

San Joaquin spearscale occurs along the western side of the Great Valley from 

Glenn County to Merced County and in the small valleys of the inner Coast 

Ranges, including the Livermore Valley. It occurs in the broad flood basins of 

the valley floor and on alluvial fans associated with the major streams draining 

from the inner Coast Ranges foothills. It is generally found at low elevations, 

but has been collected up to 1,055 feet above sea level. 

East Alameda County Conservation Strategy D-1 October 2010 

ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Occurrences within the Study Area 

There are 12 documented occurrences of San Joaquin spearscale in the study 

area. All are presumed extant and occur north of I-580. These documented 

populations range in size from several hundred individual plants to several 

thousand. Concentrations occur in alkaline drainages off of Dolan Road north of 

Livermore and in Springtown Preserve. There are two populations near the 

junction of Dyer Road and Altamont Pass Road and one occurrence in the 

northeastern corner of the study area, east of Mountain House Road near the 

Delta Mendota Canal (CNDDB 2009). 

Ecology 

San Joaquin spearscale typically occurs in alkali grassland and alkali meadow, or 

on the margins of alkali scrub. It blooms from April through October and occurs 

on clay soils, often in areas of high alkalinity. 

Species Associated with San Joaquin Spearscale 

Allenrolfea occidentalis 

Atriplex coronata 

Atriplex depressa 

Centromadia pungens 

Cordylanthus palmatus 

Distichlis spicata 

Frankenia salina 

Hordeum depressum 

Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum 

Lolium multiflorum 

Nitrophila occidentalis 

Salicornia subterminalis 

Spergularia macrotheca 

Suaeda moquinii 

iodine bush 

crownscale 

brittlescale 

common spikeweed 

palmate bird’s-beak 

saltgrass 

alkali heath 

low barley 

Mediterranean barley 

Italian ryegrass 

western niterwort 

Parish’s pickleweed 

large-flowered sand-spurry 

bush seepweed 

Threats 

San Joaquin spearscale is a CNPS List 1B.2 species, considered fairly endangered 

in California (CNPS 2009). The principal threat to San Joaquin spearscale has 

been the historic conversion of much of the alkali grassland to agriculture. 

Present threats include habitat conversion to urban use, overgrazing, invasive 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


annual species,and impacts associated with road and utility line construction 

and maintenance (CNDDB 2009). 

Modeled Habitat Distribution in Study Area 

Model Assumptions 

Model Results 

The San Joaquin spearscale habitat model includes the following land covers 

types: alkali meadow and scald and alkali wetland. The model also includes 

other areas with alkaline soils and is restricted to elevations below 1,055 feet. 

Figure D-1 in Appendix D shows the modeled potential habitat for San Joaquin 

spearscale within the study area. The number of known occurrences is sufficient 

to verify model results and the modeled habitat predicts 9 of the 12 known 

populations. The model’s extent is restricted to the northern portion of the 

study area where alkaline soils are present. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Recurved Larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum) 

Distribution 

Historically, recurved larkspur was widely distributed in California’s Great Valley, 

ranging from Butte County to Kern County. Most of the remaining occurrences 

are in Kern, Tulare, and San Luis Obispo Counties. The species now appears to 

be very rare outside the southern San Joaquin Valley (CNDDB 2009). 


One occurrence of recurved larkspur has been documented in the north east 

corner of the study area. It is located on the west side of Burns Road about 0.6 

miles north of Kelso Road, just south of the Contra Costa/Alameda County line. 

Ecology 

Recurved larkspur occurs on sandy or clay alkaline soils, generally in annual 

grasslands or in association with saltbush scrub or valley sink scrub habitats, 

ranging in elevation from 100 to 2,000 feet above sea level (CNDDB 2009). It 

blooms from March through May (CNPS 2009). 

Species Associated with Recurved Larkspur 

Atriplex polycarpa 

Atriplex spinifera 

Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens 

Centromadia pungens 

Distichlis spicata 

Erodium cicutarium 

Frankenia salina 

Isocoma acradenia var. bracteosa 

Lasthenia californica 

Sporobolus airoides 

Suaeda moquinii 

allscale 

spinescale 

red brome 

common spikeweed 

saltgrass 

red filaree 

alkali heath 

alkali goldenbush 

California goldfields 

alkali sacaton 

bush seepweed 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Threats 

Recurved larkspur is a CNPS List 1B.2 species, considered fairly endangered in 

California (CNPS 2009). The principal threat to this species has been the historic 

conversion of much of the alkali habitat of the Great Valley to agriculture. At 

present, the primary threat to recurved larkspur is overgrazing. Other threats 

include road and utility line construction, which in turn increase competition 

from invasive plants (CNDDB 2009). 



Model Results 

The recurved larkspur habitat model contains the following parameters: annual 

grassland land cover, elevation from 100-2,000 feet, sandy or clay alkaline soils. 

Additionally, potential habitat was restricted to areas east of the Diablo Range 

crest. 

Figure D-2 in Appendix D shows the modeled potential habitat for recurved 

larkspur as being very restricted within the study area. The model predicted 

several very small areas of potential habitat in the northeast corner of the study 

area. The predicted habitat does not include the one occurrence of recurved 

larkspur just south of the Alameda/Contra Costa County line. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Big Tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa) 

Distribution 

Big tarplant is endemic to California and is found primarily in eastern Contra 

Costa, eastern Alameda, and western San Joaquin Counties; with smaller 

populations in Stanislaus and Solano Counties (Hoover 1937, CNDDB 2009). 


Six occurrence of big tarplant are known within the study area (CNDDB 2009). 

One occurrence is located along the eastern edge of the study area between 

Midway Road and a power substation. The other five occurrences are clustered 

along Tesla Rd between Livermore and Tracy in the Carnegie State Vehicular 

Recreation Area. 

Ecology 

Big tarplant occurs in annual grassland on clay to clay-loam soils, usually on 

slopes and often in burned areas, below 1,500 feet (CNDDB 2009). Seedlings 

appear in early spring, but the plants do not begin to bloom until mid-summer. 

The blooming period, during which the plants produce many heads with white 

flowers, generally occurs between July-October. 

Two species of big tarplant are present in the study area: big tarplant and viscid 

big tarplant (Blepharizonia laxa). Viscid big tarplant is the more widely 

distributed species, ranging throughout most of the south Coast Ranges and 

reaching its northern limit in Contra Costa County, just north of the study area. 

The two species, which often occur in adjacent populations, can be 

differentiated by their branching patterns, the amount and color of the simple 

and glandular hairs on the stems and leaves, the chemical compounds produced 

by the glands, and by genetic markers (Hickman 1993, Baldwin et al. 2001, 

Preston pers. comm.). The two species can hybridize, but the hybrids are 

infertile (Baldwin et al. 2001). 

Species Associated with Big Tarplant 

Avena species 

Bromus species 

Epilobium brachycarpum 

Eriogonum angulosum 

Eriogonum gracile 

wild oats 

brome grasses 

panicled willow-herb 

angle-stemmed wild buckwheat 

slender woolly wild buckwheat 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Species Associated with Big Tarplant 

Grindelia camporum 

Holocarpha obconica 

Holocarpha virgata 

Lagophylla ramosissima 

Lolium multiflorum 

Nassella pulchra 

Great Valley gumplant 

San Joaquin tarplant 

virgate tarplant 

common hareleaf 

Italian ryegrass 

purple needlegrass 

Threats 

Big tarplant occurs in only a few highly restricted populations and is considered 

seriously endangered in California (CNPS List 1B.1) (CNPS 2009). The primary 

threat to big tarplant has been habitat loss from conversion to urban 

development and lack of disturbance in areas where natural processes are 

restricted. Ground disturbance and erosion caused by cattle grazing and 

competition from invasive exotics such as yellow star-thistle (Centaurea 

solstitialis) may also pose a threat to populations (CNDDB 2009). 



Model Results 

The big tarplant habitat model includes the following parameters: annual 

grassland land cover, soils consisting of clay and clay loam, elevations up to 

1,827 feet, and on slopes of 10-31 degrees. The model restricts habitat to those 

areas within the Diablo Range that are underlain by Great Valley Sequence 

geologic landforms. 

Figure D-3 in Appendix D shows the modeled potential habitat for big tarplant 

within the study area. Potential habitat is restricted to areas in the Diablo Range 

with parent material from the Great Valley Sequence (Bartosh pers. comm.). 

Known occurrences are generally within the vicinity of predicted habitat. The 

exception is the population along Midway Road near the Alameda/San Joaquin 

County line, which does not fall within the modeled habitat. The small number 

of clustered occurrence in the study area is not sufficient to provide a high level 

of confidence in the model results. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Congdon’s Tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. 

congdonii) 

Distribution 

Congdon’s tarplant is known from East San Francisco Bay Area, Salinas Valley, 

and Los Osos Valley. 


Seven occurrences have been documented in the northern portion of the study 

area (CNDDB 2009). These include populations that have been recorded at: 

Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (10,000 indivuals reported in 2003) 

along Tassajara Road north of Livermore (4000+ plants and 9600 plants 

observed at two locations in 1998), east of Livermore along North Livermore 

Road (370,000 plants observed in 1998), and along the Contra Costa/Alameda 

County line along Collier Canyon Road (321,000 plants observed in 1998) 

(CNDDB 2009). 

Ecology 

Congdon’s tarplant blooms from May through October and occurs in annual 

grassland on lower slopes, flats, and swales below 800 feet. This species can be 

associated with alkaline or saline soils. Hybridization with the subspecies 

Centromadia parryi ssp.rudis was reported on 1998 survey forms for the North 

Livermore Road population (CNDDB 2009). 

Threats 

Congdon’s tarplant is a CNPS List 1B.2 species that is considered fairly 

endangered in California. The species is severely threatened by development in 

most areas, including road widening that accompany development (CNDDB 

2009). In other more natural settings mowing or heavy grazing can impact this 

species, though it has been documented in areas where both mowing and 

grazing occur. The biggest threat is the loss of natural disturbance in areas 

where natural processes are restricted. The allows annual invasive species to 

outcompete this species. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 




Model Results 

The Congdon’s tarplant habitat model parameters include the annual grassland 

land cover and clay, clay loam, and silty clay loam soils. Additionally, model 

habitat was restricted to areas west of the Diablo Range crest to better fit the 

known extent of occurrence data from Alameda County. 

Figure D-4 in Appendix D shows the modeled potential habitat for Congdon’s 

tarplant within the study area. Predicted habitat is scattered in the Livermore 

and Amador Valley areas. The number of known occurrences is sufficient to 

verify model results. Five of the seven occurrences fall within modeled habitat 

for this species. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak (Cordylanthus palmatus) 

Distribution 

The Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak is state and federally endangered. Palmatebracted 

bird’s-beak is known from scattered locations in the Central Valley from 

Colusa County to Fresno County. There is a lone population in the Springtown 

Preserve north of Livermore. 


One occurrence of Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak has been reported in the study 

area, located northeast of Livermore in the Springtown Preserve. This 

population has been surveyed repeatedly over the last 20 years. The population 

has varied in size from 9,000 plants in 1990 to nearly 53,000 in 1997 (CNDDB 

2009). 

Ecology 

Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak is associated with alkaline sites in grassland and 

chenopod scrub from 10-500 feet elevation. This species blooms from May 

through October. Seeds are dispersed by water, making the local hydrology very 

important to the extent of a population. 

Threats 

Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak is listed as endangered both at the federal and 

state level. It is a CNPS List 1B.1 species and is seriously endangered in 

California. This species is threatened by agriculture, grazing, urbanization and 

development, unauthorized off-road vehicle use, and altered hydrology. Nonnative 

annual grasses are becoming a threat to this species. Targeted grazing 

programs or other forms of non-native grass control may be beneficial at 

abating this threat. 


This species not modeled due to low number of occurrences in the study area 

and the known occurrences being well documented in Springtown Alkali 

Preserve. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Livermore tarplant (Deinandra bacigalupii) 

Distribution 

Livermore tarplant is endemic to California and know from three occurrences, 

all near Livermore, Alameda County. 


All three occurrences of Livermore tarplant are known within the study area, 

located northeast of Livermore in the foothills of the Diablo Range. Two of those 

populations are located just south of I-580 between the junction of Greenville 

Road and Las Positas Road and Hawthorne Road. These two populations are just 

east of Greenville Road. The third population is located near the intersection of 

Ames Street and Raymond Road north of Livermore. 

Ecology 

Livermore tarplant blooms from June through October and occurs in seeps and 

meadows, often associated with alkali meadows at 500-600 feet in elevation. 

Threats 

This species is a CNPS List 1B.2 species and is considered fairly endangered in 

California. This species is threatened by development including road widening 

that could occur as the result of development pressure. 


This species not modeled due to low number of occurrences throughout the 

species range and the known extent of populations within the study area. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Longhorn Fairy Shrimp 

Distribution 

The longhorn fairy shrimp is federally listed as endangered and is extremely 

rare. It is known to occur in alkali sink and scrub plant communities. The four 

known populations of longhorn fairy shrimp include areas within the Carrizo 

Plain National Monument, San Luis Obispo County; areas within San Luis 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex; areas within the Brushy Peak Regional 

Preserve, Alameda County, and areas within the Vasco Caves Preserve, near the 

town of Byron in Contra Costa County (USFWS 2007a). Three of the four 

populations are found within public lands that are protected and managed for 

vernal pool species (USFWS 2007a). The Livermore Vernal Pool Region is listed 

as a core recovery area (USFWS 2007a). 


The species is known to occur at one location within the Conservation Strategy 

study area (Brushy Peak Regional Preserve) (USFWS 2007a). Critical habitat has 

been designated for the species within the study area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2006). Brushy Peak Regional Preserve is owned by the Livermore Area 

Recreation and Park District and managed by EBRPD. All of the known localities 

of this species in the study area are within this preserve, which is currently 

protected (USFWS 2007a). 

Ecology 

Longhorn fairy shrimp occurrences are rare and highly disjunct with specific pool 

characteristics largely unknown (USFWS 2003). Typical habitat for listed fairy 

shrimp in California include vernal pools, seasonally ponded areas within vernal 

swales, ephemeral freshwater habitats and artificial habitats (railroad toedrains, 

roadside ditches, abandoned agricultural drains, ruts left by heavy 

construction vehicles, and depressions in firebreaks) (Eng et al. 1990, USFWS 

2003). 

Habitat for longhorn fairy shrimp in Alameda County is primarily in water pooled 

in sandstone depressions. Vernal pools in other parts of California that support 

these fairy shrimp are either loam and sandy loam or shallow, alkaline pools 

(USFWS 1994). The seasonal pool habitat is subject to seasonal variations, and 

it is thought that longhorn fairy shrimp are dependent on the ecological 

characteristics of those variations. These characteristics include duration of 

inundation and presence or absence of water at specific times of the year (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). The longhorn fairy shrimp is capable of living in 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


vernal pools of relatively short duration (pond 6 to 7 weeks in winter and 3 

weeks in spring) (Eriksen and Belk 1999). 

Longhorn fairy shrimp are omnivorous filter-feeders (Eriksen and Belk 1999). 

They are a component of the planktonic crustacea within seasonal temporary 

pools and can occur in densities as high as 200 per liter of water (Eriksen and 

Belk 1990). 

Predator consumption of fairy shrimp cysts (resting eggs) aids in distributing 

populations. Predators expel viable cysts in their excrement, often at locations 

other than where they were consumed (Wissinger et al. 1999). If conditions are 

suitable, these transported cysts may hatch at the new location and potentially 

establish a new population. Cysts can also be transported in mud carried on the 

feet of animals, including livestock that may wade through their habitat (Eriksen 

and Belk 1999). Beyond inundation of the habitat, the specific cues for hatching 

are largely unknown (Eriksen and Belk 1999), although temperature is believed 

to play a role. Longhorn fairy shrimp have been reported to co-occur with the 

vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), throughout its range. 

Threats 

Longhorn fairy shrimp are threatened by the same activities as other vernal pool 

invertebrates. These threats include the conversion of vernal pool habitat to 

agricultural lands and urban development, and extinction due to the small and 

isolated nature of remaining populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). 

The limited and disjunct distribution of vernal pools, coupled with the even 

more limited distribution of the longhorn fairy shrimp, means that any 

reduction in vernal pool habitat could adversely affect this species. 

Recolonization opportunities are diminished when physical barriers, such as 

development or lack of vernal pool habitat, isolate populations from one 

another or inhibit transport of cysts. Isolated populations could be more 

susceptible to inbreeding depression, which can result in local extinction or 

reduced fitness (Gilpin and Soule 1986, Goodman 1987). However, this has 

never been demonstrated for branchiopod crustaceans. 

Activities that alter the suitability of vernal pool habitat could impact the 

special-status crustaceans that depend on them. These activities include 

damaging the impermeable clay and /or hardpan layers of the habitat bottom, 

filling in the habitat, altering (e.g. through contaminants) or destroying the 

watershed that conveys overland flow into the habitat. Additionally, 

introduction of non-native plants, destruction or degradation of the surrounding 

upland habitat, introduction of fish (such as Gambusia spp.) into special-status 

shrimp habitats, and activities that would discourage or prevent waterfowl and 

waders from feeding at occupied habitats and thereby restrict gene-flow 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


between populations would also significantly affect longhorn fairy shrimp 

populations. 



Model Results 

The longhorn fairy shrimp habitat model includes all seasonal wetlands and rock 

outcrops that were identified within the study area. Data from vernal pool 

surveys (Holland 1996), and critical habitat were also include in the map to 

capture the likely extent of the species distribution in east Alameda County. 

Figure D-5 in Appendix D shows the modeled potential habitat for the longhorn 

fairy shrimp within the study area. In addition to its presence at Brushy Peak 

Regional Preserve, there is one CNDDB occurrence for the species. The number 

of known occurrences is not sufficient to verify model results. The model’s 

extent is restricted to the northern, central portion of the study area where rock 

outcrop formations are prevalent. Due to the ephemeral nature of vernal pool 

habitats it is likely that the model underestimates potential habitat in the study 

area. During wet years habitat for vernal pool species would be more extensive 

than in dry years. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp 

Distribution 

The vernal pool fairy shrimp is federally listed as threatened. The vernal pool 

fairy shrimp is found from southern Oregon to southern California, throughout 

the Central Valley, and west to the central Coast Ranges. Disjunct populations 

occur in San Luis Obispo County, Santa Barbara County, and Riverside County. 

This species has been observed in the eastern portions of Alameda County 

(Eriksen and Belk 1999). In 1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported that 

there were 32 known populations of the vernal pool fairy shrimp. 

The Livermore Vernal Pool Region straddles Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa 

Clara Counties, extending into southwestern San Joaquin County (USFWS 

2007b). There are 12 occurrences of vernal pool fairy shrimp in the Livermore 

Vernal Pool Region: eight in the Altamont Hills core area, four of which are in 

areas planned for development (USFWS 2007b). The core recovery area includes 

portions of Brushy Peak Regional Preserve, which is inside of the EACCS study 

area (USFWS 2007b). 


There are three CNDDB occurrence records for this species in the study area: at 

the Springtown Natural Communities Reserve near Livermore, in an alkali sink 

containing vernal pools; in a seasonal wetland with an annual grassland upland, 

north of interstate 580 near Livermore; and south of Frick Lake, in a heavily 

grazed pasture (CNDDB 2009). Vernal pool fairy shrimp may also be found 

elsewhere throughout the study area in vernal pool habitats. The lack of data 

points could be due to a lack of survey effort. 

Ecology 

This species is usually associated with vernal pools, but can also be found in 

association with other ephemeral habitats including alkali pools, seasonal 

drainages, stock ponds, vernal swales, rock outcrops and artificially created 

ephemeral habitats (railroad toe-drains, roadside ditches, abandoned 

agricultural drains, ruts left by heavy construction vehicles, and depressions in 

firebreaks) (Eng et al. 1990, Vollmar 2002). 

Vernal pools are subject to seasonal variations, and vernal pool fairy shrimp are 

dependent on the ecological characteristics of those variations. These 

characteristics include duration of inundation and presence or absence of water 

at specific times of the year (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). The vernal 

pool fairy shrimp is capable of living in Central Valley vernal pools of relatively 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


short duration (pond 6 to 7 weeks in winter and 3 weeks in spring) (Eriksen and 

Belk 1999). Other factors contributing to the suitability of pools for vernal pool 

fairy shrimp include alkalinity 22 to 274 ppm (parts per million), total dissolved 

solids (TDS) (48 to 481 ppm), and pH (6.3 to 8.5) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1994; Eriksen and Belk 1999). Water in pools occupied by vernal pool fairy 

shrimp typically has low conductivity and chloride (USFWS 1994). Vernal pool 

fairy shrimp have been found in pools ranging from 0.05 acre to 0.1 acre but 

occur more frequently in small, deep pools (Eriksen and Belk 1999). Vernal pool 

fairy shrimp are omnivorous filter-feeders. Fairy shrimp indiscriminately filter 

particles from the surrounding water, including bacteria, unicellular algae, and 

micrometazoa (Eriksen and Belk 1999). 

Like the longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp are a component of the 

planktonic crustacea within seasonal temporary pools and can occur in densities 

as high as 200 per liter of water. Predator consumption of fairy shrimp cysts 

(resting eggs) aids in distributing populations of fairy shrimp. Predators expel 

viable cysts in their excrement, often at locations other than where they were 

consumed (e.g. Wissinger et al. 1999). If conditions are suitable, these 

transported cysts may hatch at the new location and potentially establish a new 

population. Cysts can also be transported in mud carried on the feet of animals, 

including livestock, that may wade through the habitat (USFWS 2007b). 

Beyond inundation of the habitat, the specific cues for hatching are unknown 

(Eriksen and Belk 1999), although temperature is believed to play a large role. 

Typically, midvalley fairy shrimp mature in about 16 days when water 

temperatures reach at least 20 degrees Celsius (Eriksen and Belk 1999). 

Vernal pool fairy shrimp commonly co-occur with the California linderiella 

(Linderiella occidentalis) and has also been reported co-occurring with the 

midvalley pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis) (Eriksen and Belk 

1999). In most cases, the vernal pool fairy shrimp does not co-occur with other 

fairy shrimp species and is not numerically dominant when other fairy shrimp 

species are present (Eng et al. 1990). 

Threats 

Vernal pool fairy shrimp are threatened by the same activities as other vernal 

pool invertebrates. These threats include the conversion of vernal pool habitat 

to agricultural lands and urban development, and stochastic extinction because 

of the small and isolated nature of remaining populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1994). The limited and disjunct distribution of vernal pools, coupled 

with the even more limited distribution of the vernal pool fairy shrimp, means 

that any reduction in vernal pool habitat quantity could adversely affect this 

species. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Recolonization opportunities are diminished when physical barriers, such as 

development or lack of vernal pool habitat, isolate populations from one 

another or inhibit transport of cysts. Isolated populations could be more 

susceptible to inbreeding depression, which can result in local extinction or 

reduced fitness (Gilpin and Soule 1986, Goodman 1987). However, this has 

never been demonstrated for branchiopod crustaceans. 

Activities that alter the suitability of vernal pool habitat may impact the specialstatus 

crustaceans dependent on those habitats. These activities include 

damaging the impermeable clay and /or hardpan layers of the habitat bottom, 

filling in the habitat, and altering (e.g. through contaminants) or destroying the 

watershed that conveys overland flow into the habitat. Additionally, 

introduction of non-native plants, destruction or degradation of the surrounding 

upland habitat, introduction of fish (such as Gambusia spp.) into special-status 

shrimp habitats, and activities that would discourage or prevent waterfowl and 

waders from feeding at occupied habitats and thereby restrict gene flow 

between populations would also significantly affect mid-valley fairy shrimp 

populations. 



Model Results 

The vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat model includes all seasonal wetlands that 

were identified within the study area. Vernal pools and other suitable 

microhabitats occur at too small a scale to be mapped in the area (e.g., vernal 

pools are subsumed within “seasonal wetlands”). However, data from vernal 

pool surveys (Holland 1996), critical habitat and core recovery areas listed in the 

USFWS recovery plan were added to the potential habitat figure (Figure D-6) for 

vernal pool fairy shrimp. 

Figure D-6 in Appendix D shows the modeled potential habitat for the vernal 

pool fairy shrimp within the study area. The modeled potential habitat for the 

vernal pool fairy shrimp can be found in Appendix D. The model fits the known 

occurrences from the CNDDB well, in Alameda County. Due to the ephemeral 

nature of vernal pool habitats it is likely that the model underestimates 

potential habitat in the study area. During wet years habitat for vernal pool 

species would be more extensive than in dry years. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Callippe Silverspot Butterfly 

Distribution 

The Callippe silverspot is federally listed as endangered. The Callippe silverspot 

(Speyeria callippe callippe) is endemic to the San Francisco Bay area and is best 

known from San Bruno Mountain in San Mateo County. Historically, 

populations occurred on the west side of San Francisco Bay from Twin Peaks in 

San Francisco to the vicinity of La Honda in San Mateo County (Arnold 2008). In 

the East Bay, populations were known from northwestern Contra Costa County 

southward to the Castro Valley area of Alameda County (Arnold 2008). 

Additional populations of the species S. callippe occur in the Sky Valley-Lake 

Herman area of southern Solano County and in the north central and 

northeastern portions of Alameda County (Arnold 1981; Murphy and Weiss 

1990). Since 1988, callippe silverspot butterflies have been recorded at San 

Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill near South San Francisco (San Mateo County), in 

the hills near Pleasanton (Alameda County), at Sears Point (Sonoma County), 

and in the hills between Vallejo and Cordelia (USFWS online 02/09/09). 

Currently the only population known on the San Francisco Peninsula is at San 

Bruno Mountain, while populations in the East Bay are limited to southern 

Solano County and the Pleasanton-Sunol areas (Arnold 1981). A closely related 

subspecies, S. callippe comstocki, is difficult to distinguish from S. callippe 

callippe and is known to occur in the San Francisco Bay area. Critical habitat for 

the Callippe silverspot, designated July, 1978. There is no designated critical 

habitat in the study area (78 CFR 28938-28945). 

There are no CNDDB occurrences in the study area (CNDDB 2009), but there 

have been records in the hills near Pleasanton (USFWS online 02/09/09) 

Ecology 

The callippe silverspot butterfly occurs in grasslands where its sole larval food 

plant, johnny jump-up (Viola pedunculata), grows. It has been observed in both 

grazed and ungrazed grasslands. The callippe silverspot butterfly occurs in hilly 

terrain with a mixture of topographic relief. Adults will visit the margins of oak 

woodlands and riparian areas in search of nectar, as well as disturbed areas if 

favored nectar plants grow there (Arnold 1981). The three primary habitat 

requirements of the callippe silverspot butterfly are: 

• grasslands supporting its larval food plants; 

• hilltops near suitable habitat for mate location; and 

• nectar plants, which can occur in grasslands or nearby oak woodlands, 

riparian areas, or disturbed areas. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Because the butterfly has been observed flying distances of approximately 1 

mile (Thomas Reid Associates 1981), these three habitat features do not 

necessarily have to be adjacent to each other. 

The adult flight season is about 6 to 8 weeks in length, starting in mid-May and 

terminating in mid-July. When available, the adult silverspot feed on nectar 

plants including mints, especially Monardella, and thistles, such as Silybum, 

Carduus, and Cirsium, and buckeyes (Aesculus) (Arnold 1981). Adults tend to 

congregate on hilltops, a behavior known as hilltopping, where they search for 

potential mates. 

Because the leaves of Viola pedunculata are typically dry by the start of the 

adult flight season, females frequently lay their eggs in or near areas where 

Viola grows. For this reason, newly hatched larvae do not feed before they find 

a suitable diapause location. When Viola sprouts during the following winter, 

the larvae have to search for the food plant. Also, developing larvae usually 

feed at night, but crawl off of the food plant and hide nearby during the 

daytime. Thus, short distance dispersal, probably on the order of tens of feet, 

occurs routinely during the larval stage. 

Threats 

Loss and alteration of habitat, primarily through urbanization and habitat 

degradation by non-native plants, are some of the factors contributing to the 

decline of the callippe silverspot butterfly in the study area. Overgrazing can be 

detrimental, but properly managed grazing can enhance grassland habitat by 

preventing other species from outcompeting host plants (USFWS 1997). 

Increased frequency of fire may also be detrimental, but this impact would 

require further study. Other threats include trampling by hikers, bikers and 

equestrians (Arnold 1981). Dust from quarrying operations has been reported as 

a threat to the species, because abundant dust could clog the spiracles of larvae 

and adults, interfering with their respiration (USFWS 1997). Callippe silverspot 

butterflies are also very sensitive to pesticide use. 



The potential habitat model shown in Figure D-7 includes all native and annual 

grassland habitats within its historic range, which includes the Pleasanton- 

Sunol-Castro Valley areas of Alameda County (Arnold 2004). The range was 

extended to the edge of eastern Livermore to account for potential habitat that 

has been previously unsurveyed. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Model Results 

Figure D-7 in Appendix D shows the modeled potential habitat for the Callippe 

silverspot butterfly based on suitable grassland habitat and previously published 

ranges. Since there are no occurrence data to corroborate this model, any 

potential habitat shown would need to be surveyed for the presence of host 

plants, first, and then for the presence of the butterfly to determine whether an 

area provides habitat for the species. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


California Tiger Salamander 

Distribution 

The California tiger salamander is divided into three distinct population 

segments (DPS) and each has a separate designation under the federal ESA. The 

Sonoma DPS and Santa Barbara DPS are listed as federally endangered. The 

Central California DPS (which overlaps with the study area) is federally 

threatened. The California tiger salamander is also state listed as threatened (50 

CFR 47212-47248, August 4, 2004) (California Department of Fish and Game, 

February 5, 2009). 

The California tiger salamander is endemic to California. Historically, the 

California tiger salamander probably occurred in grassland habitats throughout 

much of the state. Although this species still occurs within much of its historic 

range, it has been extirpated from many areas it once occupied (Fisher and 

Shaffer 1996, Stebbins 1995). The loss of California tiger salamander 

populations has been primarily due to habitat loss within their historic range 

(Fisher and Shaffer 1996). 

Based on genetic analysis, there are six populations of California tiger 

salamanders, distributed as follows: (1) Santa Rosa area of Sonoma County, 

(2) Bay Area (central and southern Alameda, Santa Clara, western Stanislaus, 

western Merced, and the majority of San Benito counties), (3) Central Valley 

(Yolo, Sacramento, Solano, eastern Contra Costa, northeast Alameda, San 

Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, and northwestern Madera counties), (4) southern 

San Joaquin Valley (portions of Madera, central Fresno, and northern Tulare and 

Kings counties), (5) Central Coast range (southern Santa Cruz, Monterey, 

northern San Luis Obispo, and portions of western San Benito, Fresno, and Kern 

counties), and (6) Santa Barbara County (Shaffer and Trenham 2005). 

Most populations occur at elevations below 1,500 feet, but California tiger 

salamanders have been recorded at elevations up to 3,660 feet (Trenham pers. 

comm.). Although populations have declined, the species continues to breed at 

a large number of locations within its current range (59 FR § 18353–18354, April 

18, 1994). At most historic breeding sites below 200 feet elevation, ponds 

remain present but are typically occupied by non-native species and no longer 

support California tiger salamanders (Fisher and Shaffer 1996). 

Occurrence in Study Area 

There are 136 occurrences within the study area on both private and public 

lands (EBRPD, Carnegie SVRA, SFPUC watershed lands, Lawrence Livermore 

Laboratories) (CNDDB 2009). Occurrences on EBRPD land include Frick Lake, Del 

Valle Reservoir, Sunol Regional Wilderness, Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


(Bobzien and DiDonato 2007). Critical habitat (CV-18) has been designated 

within the study area, north of Livermore (70 FR 49379-49458; August 23, 2005). 

Ecology 

California tiger salamanders require two major habitat components: aquatic 

breeding sites and terrestrial upland sites. California tiger salamanders inhabit 

valley and foothill grasslands and the grassy understory of open woodlands, 

usually within one mile of water (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Following 

metamorphosis California tiger salamanders are terrestrial animals that spend 

most of their time underground in subterranean refuge sites. Underground 

retreats are usually California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beechyii) or pocket 

gopher (Thomomys bottae) burrows and, occasionally, human-made structures. 

Adults emerge from underground to breed, but only for brief periods during the 

year. California tiger salamanders breed and lay their eggs primarily in vernal 

pools and other ephemeral ponds that fill in winter and often dry out by 

summer (Loredo et al. 1996); they sometimes use permanent human-made 

ponds (e.g., stock ponds), reservoirs, and small lakes that do not support 

predatory fish or bullfrogs (Stebbins 1995, Zeiner et al. 1988). Streams are 

rarely used for reproduction. 

Adult salamanders migrate from upland habitats to aquatic breeding sites 

during the first major rainfall events of early winter and return to upland 

habitats after breeding. This species requires small-mammal burrows for cover 

during the non-breeding season and during migration to and from aquatic 

breeding sites (Zeiner et al. 1988). California tiger salamanders also use logs, 

piles of lumber, and shrink-swell cracks in the ground for cover (Holland et al. 

1990). California tiger salamanders have been documented up to 1.3 miles from 

their breeding sites (Jennings and Hayes 1994; USFWS 2004, Trenham and 

Shaffer 2005). 

The California tiger salamander is particularly sensitive to the duration of 

ponding in aquatic breeding sites. Because at least 10 weeks are required to 

complete metamorphosis, aquatic sites that are considered suitable for 

breeding should retain water for a minimum of 10 weeks; these tend to be 

larger pools. Large vernal pool complexes, rather than isolated pools, probably 

offer the best quality habitat; these areas can support a mixture of aquatice 

breeding sites and nearby upland refuge sites (Shaffer et al. 1994, Jennings and 

Hayes 1994). 

Aquatic larvae feed on algae, small crustaceans, and small mosquito larvae for 

about six weeks after hatching (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000a). Larger 

larvae feed on zooplankton, amphipods, mollusks, and smaller tadpoles of 

Pacific treefrogs (Pseudacris regilla), California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora 

draytoni), western toads (Bufo boreas) and spadefoot toads (Spea spp.) (Zeiner 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


et al. 1988, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000a). Adults eat earthworms, snails, 

insects, fish, and small mammals (Stebbins 1972). 

Dispersal of juveniles from natal ponds to underground refuge sites could occur 

throughout the year. While juveniles will move short distances from breeding 

ponds once they start to dry up in the late spring and summer, longer distances 

from breeding ponds are attained during rainy periods. 

California tiger salamander larvae and embryos are susceptible to predation by 

fish, herons and egrets, bullfrogs, and possibly garter snakes (Shaffer and Fisher 

1991, Shaffer and Stanley 1992, Shaffer et al. 1993, Shaffer et al. 1994). Because 

of their secretive behavior and limited periods above ground, adult California 

tiger salamanders have few predators (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000a). 

Threats 

California tiger salamander populations have declined as a result of two primary 

factors: widespread habitat loss and habitat fragmentation. Residential 

development and land use changes in the California tiger salamander’s range 

have removed or fragmented vernal pool complexes, eliminated refuge sites 

adjacent to breeding areas, and reduced habitat suitability for the species over 

much of the Central Valley (Barry and Shaffer 1994, Jennings and Hayes 1994). 

Grading activities have probably also eliminated large numbers of salamanders 

directly (Barry and Shaffer 1994). 

Non-native species (bullfrogs, Louisiana red swamp crayfish, and non-native 

fishes (mosquitofish, bass, and sunfish)) prey on tiger salamander larvae and 

may eliminate larval populations from breeding sites (Jennings and Hayes 1994, 

USFWS 2000). Rodent control through destruction of burrows and release of 

toxic chemicals into burrows can cause direct mortality to individual 

salamanders and may result in a decrease of available habitat (USFWS 2000a). 

Vehicular-related mortality is an important threat to California tiger salamander 

populations (Barry and Shaffer 1994, Jennings and Hayes 1994). California tiger 

salamanders readily attempt to cross roads during migration, and roads that 

sustain heavy vehicle traffic or barriers that impede seasonal migrations may 

have impacted tiger salamander populations in some areas (Shaffer and Fisher 

1991, Shaffer and Stanley 1992, Barry and Shaffer 1994). Hybridization between 

California tiger salamander and an introduced congener, A. tigrinum, has been 

documented and may be extensive (Riley et al. 2003). 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 




California tiger salamanders require two major habitat components: aquatic 

breeding sites and upland or refuge sites. 

1. 

Breeding and Foraging 

Potential breeding habitat within the study area is assumed to be all ponds, 

perennial freshwater marshes, alkali wetlands and seasonal wetlands within 

riparian, grassland, oak woodland, and conifer woodland land cover types, 

up to 3,660 feet in elevation. This species sometimes use permanent 

human-made ponds (e.g., stock ponds), reservoirs, and small lakes that do 

not support predatory fish or bullfrogs (Zeiner et al. 1988). Streams are 

rarely used for reproduction. 

Model Results 

2. Upland Refuge Sites and Dispersal Habitat 

Upland habitats that provide subterranean refuge sites for this species are 

assumed to be within 1.3 miles of primary habitat (USFWS 2004) in 

grassland, chaparral and coastal scrub, oak woodland, riparian forest/scrub, 

riparian forest/woodland wetlands, conifer woodlands, and agricultural 

areas, except for urban, rural, residential, landfill and canal/aqueduct cover 

types. 

Figure D-8 in Appendix D shows the modeled potential habitat for the California 

tiger salamander within the plan area. The model output designates breeding 

habitat and bases upland and dispersal habitat on known movement distances 

from that habitat. Suitable habitat for this species is spread evenly throughout 

the undeveloped portions of the study area, primarily due to the even 

distribution of stock ponds and other aquatic habitat. Upland and dispersal 

habitat covers most of the non-urbanized plan area. The known occurrences of 

this species fall within the modeled habitat. Due to the seasonal nature of most 

aquatic breeding habitat (e.g. vernal pools), breeding habitat may be under 

mapped. Site specific conditions should be surveyed to determine whether 

habitats on the site would support California tiger salamander. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


California Red-Legged Frog 

Distribution 

The California red-legged frog is federally listed as threatened and is a California 

species of special concern. The taxon is known from isolated locations in the 

Sierra Nevada, North Coast, and northern Transverse Ranges. It is relatively 

common in the San Francisco Bay area and along the central coast. The 

California red-legged frog is believed to be extirpated from the floor of the 

Central Valley (USFWS 2002). California red-legged frogs occupy many areas of 

suitable habitat throughout Alameda County (USFWS 2002; CNDDB 2009). 

Occurrence in Study Area 

There are 124 occurrences within the study area, many within small farm and 

stock ponds, as well as creeks and drainages (CNDDB 2009). California redlegged 

frogs occur at Brushy Peak Regional Preserve, Del Valle Reservoir, Ohlone 

Regional Wilderness, Pleasanton Ridge Regional Park and Sunol Regional 

Wilderness (Bobzien and DiDonato 2007). The study area is within the East San 

Francisco Bay core area (USFWS 2002). Over two thirds of the study area has 

been designated as critical habitat (75 FR 12815 to 12959; March 17, 2010). The 

study area contains the following critical habitat units: CCS-2, ALA-2, and the 

eastern portions of ALA-1A and ALA-1B. 

Ecology 

California red-legged frogs use a variety of habitat types; these include various 

aquatic systems as well as riparian and upland habitats (USFWS 2002). 

However, they may complete their entire life cycle in a pond or other aquatic 

site that is suitable for all life stages (66 Federal Register [FR] 14626). California 

red-legged frogs inhabit marshes; streams; lakes; ponds; and other, usually 

permanent, sources of water that have dense riparian vegetation (Stebbins 

2003). The highest densities of frogs are found in habitats with deepwater pools 

(at least 2.5 feet deep) with dense stands of overhanging willows (Salix sp.) and 

a fringe of tules (Scirpus sp.) or cattails (Typha sp.) (Jennings 1988; Jennings and 

Hayes 1994). Juvenile frogs seem to favor open, shallow aquatic habitats with 

dense submergent vegetation. Although red-legged frogs can inhabit either 

ephemeral or permanent streams or ponds, populations probably cannot be 

maintained in ephemeral streams in which all surface water disappears 

(Jennings and Hayes 1994). 

As adults, California red-legged frogs are highly aquatic when active but depend 

less on permanent water bodies than do other frog species (USFWS 2002). 

Adults may take refuge during dry periods in rodent holes or leaf litter in 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


riparian habitats (USFWS 2002). Adult California red-legged frogs have been 

observed using large cracks in the bottom of dried ponds as refugia (Alvarez 

2004). Although red-legged frogs typically remain near streams or ponds, 

marked and radio-tagged frogs have been observed to move more than two 

miles through upland habitat. These movements are typically made during wet 

weather and at night (USFWS 2002). 

California red-legged frogs typically lay their eggs in clusters around aquatic 

vegetation from December to early April (Jennings 1988). Larvae undergo 

metamorphosis 3.5–7 months after hatching (Jennings and Hayes 1990). 

However, larvae have been observed to take more than a year to complete 

metamorphosis in four counties in the central coast of California (Fellers et al. 

2001). 

Threats 

The decline of the California red-legged frog is attributable to a variety of 

factors. Large-scale commercial harvesting of red-legged frogs led to severe 

depletions of populations at the turn of the century (Jennings and Hayes 1985). 

Subsequently, exotic aquatic predators such as bullfrogs, crayfish, and various 

species of predatory fish became established and contributed to the continued 

decline of the species (Hayes and Jennings 1986). Habitat alterations such as 

conversion of land to agricultural and commercial uses, reservoir construction 

which effects downstream riparian environments, and in some places 

unauthorized off-highway vehicle use threaten remaining populations (Zeiner et 

al. 1988, Jennings and Hayes 1994). 

Modeled Species Distribution in Study Area 


Breeding and Foraging Habitat 

All perennial freshwater marsh, seasonal wetland, ponds (natural and manmade), 

rivers and habitat within 150 feet of these, up to an elevation of 3500 

feet, were considered potential breeding and foraging habitat for California redlegged 

frog. Within the study area, stock ponds may be used as breeding sites 

by this species. All existing ponds and streams within the area were, therefore, 

considered potential suitable breeding habitats for California red-legged frogs. 

Movement and Refuge Sites 

All grassland, chaparral and coastal scrub, oak woodland, riparian forest/scrub, 

conifer woodland, and agriculture land cover types beyond 150 feet but within 2 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Model Results 

miles of breeding and foraging habitat are characterized as movement and 

refuge habitat. This is habitat that might be used by individuals during seasonal 

movements between breeding and summer habitat. 

During dry weather, California red-legged frogs likely remain in or near water. 

However, as ponds dry out, these frogs disperse from their breeding sites to 

other areas with water or to temporary shelter or aestivation sites. This latter 

habitat may include small mammal burrows, incised stream channels, shelter 

under boulders, rocks, logs, leaf litter, agricultural drains, watering troughs, 

abandoned sheds, or unused farm equipment (Jennings and Hayes 1994). 

Dispersal distances are believed to depend on the availability of suitable habitat 

and prevailing environmental conditions, and may be up to 1.7 miles (2.8 km) 

(Fellers and Kleeman 2007). Because the actual movement patterns of California 

red-legged frogs in these habitats is generally not known, for this model it was 

conservatively estimated that all non-urban land cover areas within a radius of 

two miles from all potential breeding sites were potential migration and/or 

aestivation habitats for California red-legged frogs. 

Figure D-9 in Appendix D shows the modeled potential habitat for the California 

red-legged frog within the study area. Due to the abundance of aquatic habitat 

in the moderate to high elevations of the study area the associated upland 

refuge sites and dispersal habitat covers most of the study area. The known 

occurrences of this species fall within the modeled habitat. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Foothill yellow-legged frog 

Distribution 

Historically, foothill yellow-legged frogs occurred from west of the crest of the 

Cascade mountains in Oregon south to the Transverse ranges in Los Angeles 

County, and in the Sierra Nevada foothills south to Kern County (Stebbins 2003). 

The known elevation range of the species extends from near sea level to 

approximately 2,040 meters (6,700 feet) above sea level (Stebbins 2003). The 

current range excludes coastal areas south of northern San Luis Obispo County 

and foothill areas south of Fresno County, where the species is apparently 

extirpated (Jennings and Hayes 1994). The foothill yellow-legged frog is still 

common along the north coast of California (G. Fellers cited by Stebbins and 

Cohen 1995). Fellers (1994) reported healthy, reproducing populations 

throughout suitable habitat in the Diablo Range in Alameda, western Stanislaus, 

Santa Clara, San Benito, and western Fresno counties. 

Occurrences in Conservation Strategy Area 

Of the six CNDDB occurrences within the Conservation Strategy Area, four were 

within Alameda Creek; one was located in the headwaters of Corral Hollow 

Creek; and one at Arroyo Mocho, upstream of the Hetch-Hetchy pumping 

station bridge (CNDDB 2009). Foothill yellow-legged frogs are also found in 

Sunol Regional Wilderness and Ohlone Regional Wilderness (Bobzien and 

DiDonato 2007). 

Ecology 

Foothill yellow-legged frogs are a highly aquatic amphibian, spending most or all 

of their life in or near streams, though frogs have been documented 

underground and beneath surface objects more than 50 meters (165 feet) from 

water (Nussbaum et al. 1983). Foothill yellow-legged frogs require shallow, 

flowing water in small to moderate-sized streams with at least some cobblesized 

substrate (Hayes and Jennings 1988, Jennings 1988). This species has been 

found in streams without cobble (Fitch 1938), but it is not clear whether these 

habitats are regularly used (Hayes and Jennings 1988, Jennings and Hayes 1994). 

Foothill yellow-legged frogs are usually absent from habitats where introduced 

aquatic predators, such as various fishes and bullfrogs, are present (Hayes and 

Jennings 1986, Kupferberg 1994). The species deposits its egg masses on the 

downstream side of cobbles and boulders over which a relatively thin, gentle 

flow of water exists (Fitch 1936, Kupferberg 1996). 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Garter snakes are predators on foothill yellow-legged frog tadpoles (Jennings 

and Hayes 1994). Salamanders, including the rough-skinned newt (Taricha 

tarosa), are believed to prey on the species’ eggs. 

Threats 

Threats include stream scouring (which may negatively impact frogs in 

streambed hibernation sites), introduced incompatible aquatic animals, riverine 

and riparian impacts of nonselective logging practices, and stabilization of 

historically fluctuating stream flows. Poorly timed water releases from upstream 

reservoirs can scour egg masses of this species from their oviposition substrates 

(Jennings and Hayes 1994), and decreased flows can force adult frogs to move 

into permanent pools, where they may be more susceptible to predation (Hayes 

and Jennings 1988). Introduced predators include bullfrog larvae (Kupferberg 

1997) and centrachid fishes (e.g., bass) (Morey 2005). Other threats include 

airborne agrochemicals (Davidson et al. 2002), habitat destruction, climate 

change, and UV-B radiation. 


Model Description 


Breeding and Foraging Habitat 

All perennial rivers and streams in all land cover types except as they pass 

through urban, rural residential and landfill land covers were determined to be 

potential habitat. Foothill yellow-legged frogs are stream-dwelling amphibians 

that require shallow, flowing water in small to moderate-sized perennial 

streams with at least some cobble-sized substrate, but occasionally found in 

perennial streams without cobble (Hayes and Jennings 1988, Jennings 1988, H.T. 

Harvey and Associates 1999). 

Upland/Movement Habitat 

The species has been documented up to 165 feet from water (Zeiner et al. 

1988). A buffer of 165-feet around all breeding and foraging habitat was 

considered upland habitat. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Model Results 

Figure D-10 in Appendix D shows the modeled potential habitat for the foothill 

yellow-legged frog within the study area. Suitable habitat appears to be present 

in all areas that maintain some perennial stream flow at moderate elevations. 

This includes nearly all streams in the study area with the exception of the very 

small tributaries and some heavily modified stream channels on the valley floor. 

The known occurrences in the study area fall within the modeled habitat. Since 

it is unknown which streams are perennial during most years and which of those 

have cobblestone substrate, the model likely overestimates foothill yellowlegged 

frog habitat substantially. Site surveys would need to verify whether 

each stream was suitable for the species. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 



Distribution 

The Alameda whipsnake is a federally and state listed as threatened. The 

Alameda whipsnake’s range is restricted to the inner Coast Range in western 

and central Contra Costa and Alameda Counties (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2000). The historical range of the Alameda whipsnake has been fragmented 

into five disjunct populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997): Tilden– 

Briones, Oakland–Las Trampas, Hayward–Pleasanton Ridge, Sunol–Cedar 

Mountain, and the Mount Diablo–Black Hills (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1997). 

Occurrences within the Conservation Strategy Area 

Of the four CNDDB occurrences (CNDDB 2009), one is located in the northern 

portion of the study area, southwest of Dublin (CNDDB 2009). Three CNDDB 

occurrences are located in the southern portion of the study area (CNDDB 

2009). In addition to the CNDDB occurrences, in the northern portion of the 

study area, two documented occurrences occur in the vicinity of the Alameda 

county –Contra Costa County border (Tri-Valley Conservancy 2009). The Brushy 

Peak Regional Preserve contains several unconfirmed observations of Alameda 

whipsnake and the habitat in this area is considered suitable (Tri-Valley 

Conservancy 2008, Swaim pers. comm.). Areas adjacent to Brushy Peak 

(especially north and south of Frick Lake) have been identified as high priority 

areas (Tri-Valley Conservancy 2008). 

Four recovery units are located within the study area: Hayward-Pleasanton 

Ridge, Sunol-Cedar Mountain, Mount Diablo/Black Hills and Niles Canyon-Sunol 

Corridor (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997). 

Designated critical habitat occurs in three parts of the study area, south of 

Highway 580: East of highway 680 on the north of 580 (AWS-3); south of 580 on 

the east side of the county (AWS-5A) and south of 580 on the west side of the 

county (AWS-5B) (USFWS 71 FR 58175 to 58231; October 2, 2006). 

Ecology 

The Alameda whipsnake occurs primarily in coastal scrub and chaparral 

communities, but also forages in a variety of other communities in the inner 

Coast Range, including grasslands and open woodlands (Swaim 1994). Rock 

outcrops with deep crevices or abundant rodent burrows are important habitat 

components for overnight dens, refuges from predators and excessive heat, 

foraging, egg laying and winter hibernacula (winter residence where snakes 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


hibernate) (Swaim 1994, USFWS 2000b). Suitable habitat for this species 

includes communities that support mixed chaparral, coastal scrub, and annual 

grassland and oak woodlands that are adjacent to scrub habitats (USFWS 

2000b). Grassland areas that are linked to scrub by rock outcrops or river 

corridors are also considered primary constituent elements for the species 

(USFWS 2000b). 

Whipsnake habitat must consist of a mix of sunny and shady sites in order to 

provide a range of temperatures for the snake’s activities (Swaim 1994, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2000b). A sparse shrub canopy is ideal because it also 

provides a visual barrier from avian predators (Swaim 1994). The Alameda 

whipsnake is non-migratory. Alameda whipsnakes spend November through 

March in a winter hibernaculum (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000b). 

Mating occurs from late March through mid-June (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2000b). Whipsnakes lay a clutch of 6 to 11 eggs (Stebbins 1985), probably in 

loose soil or under logs or rocks (Zeiner et al. 1988). According to Swaim (1994), 

female Alameda whipsnakes will use grassland habitat for egg laying. 

Whipsnakes prey on a variety of vertebrate species, including frogs, lizards, 

nestling birds, and rodents (Zeiner et al. 1988). Studies indicate that the 

Alameda whipsnake prefers lizard prey and may be an example of a feeding 

specialist. Rock outcrops are particularly important foraging habitat for the 

Alameda whipsnake because they support many of the species’ prey (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2000b). Additionally, the Alameda whipsnake has been 

observed foraging in grassland habitats adjacent to native Diablan sage scrub 

habitats (Swaim 1994). 

Diurnal predators, especially raptors, prey on adult Alameda whipsnakes. 

Nocturnal mammals likely prey on Alameda whipsnake eggs (Zeiner et al. 1988). 

Basking in open terrain may expose snakes to predators such as red-tailed 

hawks (Fitch 1949 in Swaim 1994). 

Threats 

Alameda whipsnake populations have declined from loss of habitat resulting 

from urban expansion (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000b). Urban 

development, particularly road and highway construction, has also fragmented 

Alameda whipsnake populations and made them more vulnerable to extinction 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997). Urban development adjacent to 

whipsnake habitat increases the likelihood of predation from feral cats and 

injury or death from public recreational use. Other significant threats to this 

species’ recovery include inappropriate grazing practices which remove shrub 

cover and reduce grass cover, and alteration of habitat through fire suppression 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997). 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Fire suppression alters suitable Alameda whipsnake habitat by increasing the 

likelihood of large catastrophic fires occurring in areas where vegetation has 

become overgrown or by creating a closed scrub canopy which tends to reduce 

the diversity of microhabitats that whipsnakes require (Swaim 1994). 

Incompatible land uses include fire suppression, off-road vehicle use, some 

grazing practices, unauthorized collecting and mining. 

Species Distribution in Study Area 

Due to the nuances of Alameda whipsnake habitat in the study area, specific 

model parameters were not able to be distinguished. Recovery units described 

above and shown in Figure D-11 were used to delineate potential Alameda 

whipsnake habitat within the study area. Mitigation guidance and conservation 

planning for the Alameda whipsnake will be determined based on these 

Recovery Units. The presence or absence of Alameda whipsnakes or suitable 

habitat for Alameda whipsnake will ultimately need to be determined through 

an on-the-ground habitat assessment. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Central California Coast Steelhead 

Distribution 

The historical range of central California coast steelhead includes coastal 

streams from the Russian River south to and including Soquel Creek in Santa 

Cruz County. This includes the stream tributaries of the San Francisco Bay and 

San Pablo Bay basins. Central California coast steelhead is still present in most 

of the coastal streams in their historic range, though abundance may be 

reduced and/or distribution within individual basins may be restricted. See 

Figure 2-10 for the range map of the central California coast steelhead distinct 

population segment (DPS). 


Current distribution of central California coast steelhead is up to the Bay Area 

Rapid Transit (BART) weir, located in the Lower Alameda Creek flood control 

channel, which is the lowermost barrier in Alameda Creek. However, rainbow 

trout occur throughout the Alameda watershed including the upper watershed, 

which is in the study area. The occurrence of all life stages (juveniles and adults) 

in the upper watershed suggests suitable rearing and spawning habitat is 

available in the study area. Trout were found in: Niles Canyon, Upper Alameda 

Creek and Little Yosemite Creek, Upper Alameda Creek above Alameda 

Diversion, Indian Joe Creek, La Costa Creek, San Antonio Creek, and Arroyo 

Hondo Creek (Gunther et al 2000). 

Ecology 

Smith (1999) describes two different habitat types used by central California 

coast steelhead and resident trout. The primary habitat consists of shaded 

pools of small, cool, low-flow upstream reaches typical of the original steelhead 

habitat in the region. In addition, they use warm water habitats below some 

dams or pipeline outfalls, where summer releases provide high summer flows 

and fast-water feeding habitat. Trout metabolic rate and thus food demand 

increases with temperature. Trout rely heavily on insect drift for food, and drift 

increases with flow velocity. Under conditions of low flow and high 

temperatures, trout have increasing difficulty obtaining sufficient food to meet 

metabolic costs. 

Steelhead select spawning sites with gravel substrate and sufficient flow velocity 

to maintain circulation through the gravel, providing a clean, well-oxygenated 

environment for incubating eggs. Preferred flow velocity is in the range of 1 to 

3 feet per second (Raleigh et al 1986). Preferred gravel substrate is in the range 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


of 0.25 to 4 inches in diameter for steelhead, and 0.25 to 2.5 inches in diameter 

for resident rainbow trout (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). 

After emergence from the gravel, fry inhabit low velocity areas along the stream 

margins. As they feed and grow, they gradually move to deeper and faster 

water. In central California streams, steelhead typically rear for one or two 

years. Cover is provided by boulders, undercut banks, logs, or other objects. 

Heads of pools generally provide classic conditions for older trout. Trout can 

inhabit very small streams, particularly in coastal areas. 

Steelhead along the central California coast enter freshwater to spawn from late 

October through the end of May, with peaks between mid-December and mid- 

April (Shapovalov and Taft 1954). 

In the Bay Area, trout are typically found in clear, cool, shaded portions of the 

middle or upper reaches of perennial streams in relatively undisturbed 

watersheds. In headwater streams, the gradient is relatively high, water is 

usually clear, and streams are well shaded, have relatively cold temperatures, 

(seldom exceeding 21° C), and are saturated with oxygen. The lower extent of 

trout distribution is regulated largely by temperature. In freshwater habitats, 

steelhead parr and rainbow trout feed primarily on small invertebrates. 

Juveniles, particularly fry, are vulnerable to predation by birds including 

kingfishers, mergansers, green herons, great blue herons, and night herons. 

Garter snakes also prey on juveniles, as do raccoons, particularly in situations 

where fish are trapped in isolated pools during the dry season. 

Abundance estimates for the central California coast steelhead are poor. 

Juveniles in this DPS have been observed in 82 percent of streams in which it 

was historically found, but their abundance has decreased. Due to impassable 

dams in some basins, which have limited access to historical spawning areas, 

National Marine Fisheries Service predicts that this DPS will become 

“endangered within the foreseeable future” (71 FR 852 January 5, 2006). 

Threats 

Urbanization, particularly in lower watershed areas, has resulted in habitat 

degradation and has created migration barriers where streams have been 

modified for flood control, placed in long underground culverts, bridged, 

culverted, and channelized. Urbanization has also altered patterns of stream 

flow due to decreased drainage efficiency, increases in impervious areas, and in 

some cases, increased summer irrigation. Water supply projects have also 

altered stream flow through water diversion, storage, and water delivery 

projects. Dams for water supply or recreational use have eliminated access to 

many headwater areas important to steelhead and rainbow trout. Watershed 

activities, especially urbanization, have increased delivery of fine sediments to 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


streams and have lead to the deterioration of substrate conditions for spawning 

and food availability. Increased water diversions by landowners have reduced 

summer baseflows in some areas. Expanded human populations have resulted 

in increased frequency of contact and higher levels of exploitation through 

poaching and even legal fishing activities. Climate change and particularly 

variation in ocean conditions may result in periods of lower productivity and 

reduced survival in the ocean environment for steelhead, particularly in 

California where they are near the southern edge of their range. Global 

increase in temperature threatens to alter both stream temperature and rainfall 

patterns with uncertain consequences. 



Steelhead distribution in the study area was based on existing information on 

the potential for the species within the streams of eastern Alameda County. 

Model Results 

Figure D-12 shows the potential habitat for steelhead in the study area and 

areas of current use by rainbow trout. These areas will not be connected to 

ocean environments until downstream barriers are removed. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Golden Eagle 

The golden eagle is considered a special-status species in California. It is 

protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden 

Eagle protection Act. This species is also protected by California Fish and Game 

Code and is a Fully Protected Species by the State of California. It is considered a 

species of special concern by the California Department of Fish and Game. 

Distribution 

The golden eagle is predominately a western North American species ranging 

from northern Alaska through the western states and Great Plains to Mexico 

with some breeding and wintering locations in eastern North America (Kochert 

et al. 2002). Within California, the golden eagle is a year-round resident 

generally inhabiting mountainous and hilly terrain throughout the open areas of 

the state. 

Occurrences Within the Study Area 

Four golden eagle nest occurrences are reported in the CNDDB, at Del Valle 

Reservoir, San Antonio Reservoir and Mission Peak Park and Lover’s Peak in 

Sunol Regional Park (CNDDB 2009). The four sites had nesting adults with 

fledglings (CNDDB 2009). In addition, a pair nests along a tributary to Tassajara 

Creek, on the northwest side of the Dublin Ranch Development. 

Ecology 

Golden eagles use nearly all terrestrial habitats of the western states except 

densely forested areas. In the interior central Coast Ranges of California, golden 

eagles favor open grasslands and oak savanna, with lesser numbers in oak 

woodland and open shrublands (Hunt et al. 1998). Secluded cliffs with 

overhanging ledges and large trees are used for nesting and cover. Preferred 

territory sites include those that have a favorable nest site, a dependable food 

supply (medium to large mammals and birds), and broad expanses of open 

country for foraging. Hilly or mountainous country where takeoff and soaring 

are supported by updrafts is generally preferred to flat habitats (Johnsgard 

1990). Deeply cut canyons rising to open mountain slopes and crags are ideal 

habitat (Kochert et al. 2002). 

Breeding densities are directly related to territorial spacing and foraging 

requirements for the species. Territory size has been estimated to average 124 

square kilometers (sq km) in northern California (Smith and Murphy 1973) but 

can vary largely with habitat conditions. Mating occurs from late January 

through August, with peak activity in March through July. Eggs are laid from 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


early February to mid-May. Clutch size varies from one to four eggs, but two is 

the most common size (Johnsgard 1990, Hunt et al. 1995). Incubation lasts 43– 

45 days (Kochert et al. 2002), and the fledging period is about 72–84 days 

(Johnsgard 1990). The young usually remain dependent on their parents for as 

long as eleven weeks afterward. Golden eagles are the top avian predator in the 

grassland/savanna ecosystem of the central Coast Range in California. They 

may directly compete with ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis) and other smaller 

hawks for small mammals, and with California condors (Gymnogyps 

californianus) for carrion. 

The species is relatively common in some areas of its range. Local threats or 

declines do not pose a major conservation problem from a population 

perspective (NatureServe 2006), though local populations could be effected by 

high mortality rates. This species was once a common resident throughout the 

open areas of California; numbers are now reduced near human population 

centers, but in general, populations seem stable (Remsen 1978). Within West 

Central California, including Alameda County, the golden eagle population is 

apparently stable (Hunt and Hunt 2006). 

Threats 

The primary existing threats to golden eagle survival throughout its range 

include loss or alteration of both foraging and nesting habitat. In California, this 

is due to reclamation of grasslands for agriculture, urbanization, and the 

elimination of annual grassland habitat. Human disturbance of nesting birds 

and fatalities caused by contact with infrastructure (e.g., power facilities, 

buildings, fences, wind turbines) also pose threats to this species. An analysis of 

the causes of fatalities in 61 golden eagles radio-tagged and recovered in the 

Diablo Range from January 1994 to December 1997 found that 37% were killed 

by wind turbine strikes, 16% by electrocution, and 5% by lead poisoning (Hunt 

et al. 1998). The remaining birds were lost due to shootings (2%), car strikes 

(5%), botulism (2%), territorial fights with other eagles (5%), collision with 

fences (3%), fledging mishaps (10%), and other unknown factors (15%) (Hunt et 

al. 1998). A portion of the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area is within the 

study area. As noted above wind turbines could be effected the local population 

of golden eagles due to high mortality rates. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Modeled Species Distribution in the Study Area 


Model Results 

Nesting habitat 

Traditional nesting sites as identified by researchers include secluded cliffs with 

overhanging ledges and large trees adjacent to suitable foraging habitat. 

Therefore, nesting habitat includes cliffs and large trees in oak woodland, 

riparian forest, and conifer woodland. 

Foraging habitat 

All land cover types (grassland, chaparral and coastal scrub, agriculture, 

cropland, ruderal) excluding those that have been designated as nesting habitat 

and any urban areas, orchards and vineyards. 

The suitable nesting habitat that is mapped for this species likely overestimates 

the potential for eagles to nest within the study area. All land cover types that 

could contain large trees have been included as nesting habitat but more sitespecific 

information will be necessary to deduce whether a particular project 

might impact nesting golden eagles. The same is true for secluded cliffs that 

could provide nest sites. Foraging habitat is widespread in the study area and is 

depicted on Figure D-13. In general, golden eagles favor open grasslands and 

oak savanna, with fewer numbers in oak woodland and open shrublands (Hunt 

et al. 1998). 

Figure D-13 in Appendix D shows the modeled potential habitat for the golden 

eagle within the study area. Potential nesting habitat is found throughout most 

of the southern and western portion of the study area. Most of the study area 

contains potential foraging habitat. The four golden eagle occurrences reported 

in the CNDDB were included in the modeled potential habitat. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Tricolored Blackbird 

The tricolored blackbird is considered a special-status species in California. It is 

protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California Fish and 

Game Code. It is considered a species of special concern by the California 


Distribution 

Tricolored blackbirds are endemic to the west coast of North America and 

primarily to California. The species’ historical breeding range in California 

included the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, lowlands of the Sierra Nevada 

south to Kern County, the coast region from Sonoma County to the Mexican 

border, and sporadically on the Modoc Plateau (Neff 1937; Grinnell and Miller 

1944). Though individuals move and utilize different habitats within the region, 

depending on time of year, long distance migration has not been verified in this 

species. 

Tricolored blackbirds are largely endemic to California, and more than 99 

percent of the global population occurs in the state (Beedy and Hamilton 1999). 

In any given year, more than 75 percent of the breeding population can be 

found in the Central Valley (Hamilton 2000). Small breeding populations also 

exist at scattered sites in Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and the western coast 

of Baja California (Beedy and Hamilton 1999). 

Tricolored blackbirds are considered “itinerant breeders” (i.e., nomadic 

breeders) where individuals or colonies can breed in different regions within the 

same year (Hamilton 1998, Hamilton 2004). Breeding colonies of tricolored 

blackbirds often go unreported because of their similar appearance to the 

common red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). 

Occurrences in the Study Area 

Six tri-colored blackbird occurrences are listed in the CNDDB, at the following 

locations: Sunol Valley (approximately 1200 in 1971, 150 in 1994); along 

Altamont Pass Road, east of Dyer Road 45 adults observed nesting in 1992); east 

of Pleasanton (16 pair in 1980; Kaiser gravel pit); Arroyo del Valle, south west of 

Livermore (1974; possibly extirpated); Isabel gravel pits (1994); and a colony 

adjacent to California aqueduct, south end of Bethany Reservoir in 2003 

(CNDDB 2009). 

In 2005 there were three nesting colonies within the study area: Broadmoor 

pond (200 birds); northwest of Altamont Pass and Dyer Road (30 birds); and 

southwest of Altamont Pass and Dyer roads (25 birds) (Hamilton and Meese 

2006). 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Results of a 2008 census reported only one active colony in Alameda county, at 

Ames and Dolan roads near Livermore (April 27 2008, 27 nesting pairs) (Kelsey 

2008). There were no nesting tricolored blackbirds at the following historic 

colony sites: Altamont Creek, Broadmoor Pond, Dagnino Road, Dyer Road, 

Laughlin Road, North Flynn Road, Vallecitos Lane (Kelsey 2008). 

Ecology 

Tricolored blackbirds have three basic requirements for selecting their breeding 

colony sites: open, accessible water; a protected nesting substrate, including 

either flooded, thorny, or spiny vegetation; and a suitable foraging space 

providing adequate insect prey within a few miles of the nesting colony 

(Hamilton et al. 1995; Beedy and Hamilton 1997, 1999). Almost 93 percent of 

the 252 breeding colonies reported by Neff (1937) were in freshwater marshes 

dominated by cattails and bulrushes (Schoenoplectus spp.). The remaining 

colonies in Neff's study were in willows (Salix spp.), blackberries (Rubus spp.), 

thistles (Cirsium and Centaurea spp.), or nettles (Urtica spp.). 

An increasing percentage of tricolored blackbird colonies in the 1980s and 1990s 

were reported in Himalayan blackberries (Rubus discolor) (Cook 1996), and 

some of the largest recent colonies have been in silage and grain fields 

(Hamilton et al. 1995, Beedy and Hamilton 1997, Hamilton 2000). Other 

substrates where tricolored blackbirds have been observed nesting include giant 

cane (Arundo donax), safflower (Carthamus tinctorius) (DeHaven et al. 1975), 

tamarisk trees (Tamarix spp.), elderberry/poison oak (Sambucus spp. and 

Toxicodendron diversilobum), and riparian scrublands and forests (e.g., Salix, 

Populus, Fraxinus) (Beedy and Hamilton 1999). Ideal foraging conditions for 

tricolored blackbirds are created when shallow flood-irrigation, mowing, or 

grazing keeps the vegetation at an optimal height (

Appendix D 


northern Central Valley and northeastern California, individuals move after their 

first nesting attempts, whether successful or unsuccessful (Beedy and Hamilton 

1997). Banding studies indicate that significant movement into the Sacramento 

Valley occurs during the post-breeding period (DeHaven et al. 1975). 

Wintering populations shift extensively within their breeding range in California 

(Beedy and Hamilton 1999). Concentrations of more than 15,000 wintering 

tricolored blackbirds may gather at one location and disperse up to 32 

kilometers (20 miles) to forage (Neff 1937; Beedy and Hamilton 1999). Local, 

regional, and statewide tricolored blackbird populations have experienced 

major declines since 1994. 

Threats 

The greatest threats to this species are the direct loss and alteration of habitat; 

however, other human activities, as well as predation, also threaten tricolored 

blackbird populations in the Central Valley (Beedy and Hamilton 1999). Most 

native habitats that once supported nesting and foraging tricolored blackbirds 

have been altered by urbanization and unsuitable agricultural uses, including 

vineyards, orchards, and row crops (Hamilton et al. 1995; Beedy and Hamilton 

1997). Many former agricultural areas within the historical range of tricolored 

blackbirds are now being urbanized. Nests and nest contents in cereal crops 

and silage are often destroyed by agricultural operations (Hamilton et al. 1995; 

Beedy and Hamilton 1997). Harvesting of silage and plowing of weedy fields are 

currently the most common reasons that tricolored blackbird nesting colonies 

are destroyed in agricultural areas. Typically tricolored blackbirds have not 

completed their nesting cycle when fields are plowed, creating a situations 

where birds are attracted to an area to breeding, because there is ample 

foraging opportunities, but then nests are destroyed as a result of the 

agricultural operations. California Audubon Society has worked with local land 

owners to delay plowing until tricolored blackbirds have completed their nesting 

cycle and moved out of the area. Financial incentives have been offered to land 

owners to offset the cost of a delayed harvest. Other factors that may affect the 

nesting success of colonies in agricultural areas include herbicide and pesticide 

applications, and spraying ponds for mosquito abatement (Beedy and Hamilton 

1999). A primary reason for limited nesting success in agricultural areas 

(particularly in rice fields) is predation of fledgling by black-crowned night 

herons (Nycticorax nycticorax) (Hamilton 2004). 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Modeled Species Distribution in the Study Area 


Model Results 

More recent colonies have been observed in a diversity of upland and 

agricultural areas (Collier 1968, Cook 1996, Hamilton 2004), riparian scrublands 

and woodlands (Orians 1961, Hamilton et al. 1995, Beedy and Hamilton 1999). 

Small breeding colonies have been documented at public and private lakes, 

reservoirs, and parks surrounded by shopping centers, subdivisions, and other 

urban development. Adults from these colonies generally forage in nearby 

undeveloped upland areas. Beedy and Hamilton (1999) predict that these small, 

urban wetlands and upland foraging habitats may continue to accommodate 

tricolored blackbirds in the future unless they are eliminated entirely by 

development. High-quality foraging areas include irrigated pastures, lightly 

grazed grasslands, dry seasonal pools, mowed alfalfa fields feedlots, and dairies 

(Beedy and Hamilton 1999). Lower quality foraging habitats include cultivated 

row crops, orchards, vineyards, and heavily grazed rangelands. 

Breeding habitat 

Habitats suitable for breeding and foraging during the breeding season were 

modeled using freshwater marsh and ponds within grassland, oak woodland, 

riparian, agriculture, and golf course land cover types. In addition to CNDDB 

occurrences, historic colony locations were added to the figure (Online 

wesbsite: tricolor.ice.ucdavis.edu/node/2520, Accessed 03/25/09 (Appendix D)). 

Year-round foraging habitat 

Areas that provide suitable foraging and wintering habitats include seasonal 

wetlands, all grasslands, riparian, agricultural, golf courses, and rural-residential 

land cover types (Appendix D). 

Figure D-14 in Appendix D shows the modeled potential habitat for the 

tricolored blackbird within the study area. Breeding habitat is limited within the 

study area and it should be noted that by including all riparian areas the 

available breeding habitat is likely overestimated. Site specific conditions need 

to be verified to determine if these riparian areas currently provide breeding 

habitat. Breeding habitat will actually be limited to small ponds/wetlands that 

occur in slow water portions of these riparian corridors. Foraging habitat is 

prevalent throughout the area. Many historic colony sites and CNDDB 

occurrences are included within the modeled habitat. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Burrowing Owl 

The burrowing owl is considered a special-status species in California. It is 

protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and 

Game Code. It is considered a species of special concern by the California 


Distribution 

The burrowing owl is found throughout western North America, west of the 

Mississippi River and south into Mexico. In California, the range of burrowing 

owl extends through the lowlands south and west from north central California 

to Mexico, with small, scattered populations occurring in the Great Basin and 

the desert regions of the northeastern and southwestern part of the state, 

respectively (DeSante et al. 1997). They are absent from the coast north of 

Sonoma County and from high mountain areas such as the Sierra Nevada and 

the Transverse Ranges extending east from Santa Barbara County to San 

Bernardino County. Burrowing owls once occurred in suitable lowland habitats 

throughout the Bay Area (Grinnell and Miller 1944). This species utilized what 

was once vast open valley floors and low sloping foothills year round. Burrowing 

owl populations have been greatly reduced or extirpated from most of the San 

Francisco Bay Area (Trulio 1997) and along the California coast to Los Angeles. 

Occurrences in the Study Area 

There are 52 known occurrences of burrowing owls in the study area (CNDDB 

2009). Of those, 36 are occurrence records from within the breeding season 

(February 1 to August 30). All occurrences are in the northern portion of the 

Strategy area, in open fields, annual grassland, grazed grassland, alkali sinks and 

in the vicinity of business developments (CNDDB 2009) (Appendix D). 

Ecology 

Throughout their range, burrowing owls require habitats with three basic 

attributes: open, well-drained terrain; short, sparse vegetation; and 

underground burrows or burrow facsimiles (Klute et al. 2003). During the 

breeding season, they may also need enough permanent cover and taller 

vegetation within their foraging range to provide them with sufficient prey, 

which includes large insects and small mammals (Wellicome 1997). Burrowing 

owls occupy grasslands, deserts, sagebrush scrub, agricultural areas (including 

pastures and untilled margins of cropland), earthen levees and berms, coastal 

uplands, and urban vacant lots, as well as the margins of airports, golf courses, 

and roads. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Burrowing owls typically select sites that support short vegetation, even bare 

soil, presumably because they can easily see over it. However, they will tolerate 

tall vegetation if it is sparse. Owls will perch on raised burrow mounds or other 

topographic relief such as rocks, tall plants, fence posts, and debris piles to 

attain good visibility (Haug et al. 1993). 

This opportunistic feeder will consume arthropods, small mammals, birds, 

amphibians, and reptiles (Haug et al. 1993). Insects are often taken during the 

day, while small mammals are taken at night. In California, crickets and meadow 

voles were found to be the most common food items (Thomsen 1971). 

Nocturnal foraging can occur up to several kilometers away from the burrow 

(Haug et al. 1993). In urban areas, burrowing owls are often attracted to 

streetlights, where insect prey congregates. Western burrowing owls most 

commonly live in burrows created by California ground squirrels (Spermophilis 

beecheyi). Burrowing owls may compete incidentally with other predators such 

as coyotes, other owls and hawks, skunks, weasels, and badgers for rodents and 

a variety of insects (Rosenberg et al. 1998). 

Little information exists on the migration routes, timing of migration, and 

wintering areas, especially for the California population (DeSante et al. 1997). 

Threats 

The most immediate threats to the burrowing owl are the conversion of 

grassland habitat to urban and some agricultural uses (vineyards, orchards, and 

some row crops) and the loss of more suitable agricultural lands to 

development. Equally important is the loss of fossorial rodents, such as ground 

squirrels across much of the owl’s historical habitat. Eradication programs have 

decimated populations of these rodents over time and have in turn disrupted 

the ecological relationships on which owls depend; because western burrowing 

owls typically need other animals to dig their burrows, the loss of fossorial 

rodents limits the extent of year-round owl habitat throughout their range 

(Haug et al. 1993). 



Breeding and Overwintering Habitat 

All annual grassland, serpentine bunchgrass grassland, and ruderal land cover 

types; and valley oak woodland, and blue oak woodland land cover types within 

300 m of grassland were considered potential overwintering habitat, in areas 

where the slope was 0 to 25%. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


Model Results 

Figure D-15 in Appendix D shows the modeled potential habitat for the western 

burrowing owl within the study area. Suitable habitat is spread widely 

throughout the northern portion of the area. Some suitable habitat in 

developed areas may not show up in the output because it cannot be 

distinguished at this mapping resolution. These are typically small vacant lots or 

the margins of other land cover types. Most known occurrences fall within 

modeled habitat, but the range of the suitable habitat is large, and many areas 

that the model indicates as suitable have no owl occurrences. In all cases site 

specific conditions will dictate whether burrowing owls could be present. 

Protocol level nesting surveys are recommended to determine if burrowing owls 

are breeding on a site and how many owls the site supports. Other parameters 

that the model was not able to capture may be driving burrowing owl 

occurrence such as prey abundance. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


American Badger 

The American badger is considered a special-status species in California. It is 

considered a species of special concern by the California Department of Fish and 

Game. 

Distribution 

In North America, American badgers occur as far north as Alberta, Canada and 

as far south as central Mexico. Their distribution through the United States is 

expanding and presently extends from the Pacific Coast eastward to Texas, 

Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio (Long 1972, Williams 1986). The 

American badger has a broad altitudinal range, from below sea level at Death 

Valley up to 12,000 feet (3,660 meters) at the Arctic-Alpine Life Zone (Long 

1972). In California, American badgers occur throughout the state except in 

humid coastal forests of northwestern California in Del Norte and Humboldt 

Counties (Williams 1986). 

The American badger has been decreasing in numbers throughout California 

over the last century (Williams 1986). A distribution study for American badgers 

in California conducted through the 1970’s and 1980’s determined that there 

was no change in the overall range of this species since early in the century 

(Larson 1987). However, changes in the abundance of badgers in California 

could not be accurately determined by this study (Larson 1987). 

Occurrences Within the Study Area 

The eleven American badger occurrences listed in the CNDDB, were in the 

northern half of the study area (CNDDB 2009). Badgers occurred on short grass 

and dry pasture and some scrub habitat near Del Valle Reservoir and on 

Lawrence Livermore Laboratories and Department of Defense property (CNDDB 

2009). One adult near a burrow and a female with two juveniles were observed 

at the DOD site (CNDDB 2009). One vehicle mortality was located on Kelso Road 

(CNDDB 2009). 

Ecology 

American badgers occur in a wide variety of open, arid habitats but are most 

commonly associated with grasslands, savannas, mountain meadows, and open 

areas of desert scrub (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). The principal habitat 

requirements for this species appear to be sufficient food (burrowing rodents), 

friable soils, and relatively open, uncultivated ground (Williams 1986). American 

badgers are primarily found in areas of low to moderate slope (Stephenson and 

Calcarone 1999). Burrows are used for denning, escape, and predation on 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


burrowing rodents (Long 1973). A recent study in the Bay Area documented the 

use suburban areas as movement corridors between larger patches of grassland 

(T. Diamond, pers. comm.). 

Young are born in burrows dug in relatively dry, often sandy, soil, usually in 

areas with sparse overstory. American badgers mate in summer and early 

autumn and young are born in March and early April (Long 1973). Juveniles may 

leave their natal grounds at 3 – 4 months of age, disperse up to 110 km, and use 

disturbed habitats and agricultural areas (Messick and Hornocker 1981). 

Badgers are solitary animals, but they are not known to defend an exclusive 

territory (Long 1999). Typical population density is about 5 animals per square 

kilometer (Shefferly 1999). Although home range size varies according to 

geographic area, distribution of food resources, and season, the general range 

of this species is 395 acres – 2,100 acres (137 –850 hectares) (Lindzay 1978, 

Messick and Hornocker 1981, Sargeant and Warner 1972). Males occupy larger 

home ranges than females (2.4 versus 1.6 square kilometers). 

American badgers are mostly nocturnal but also forage and disperse during the 

daytime (Lindzay 1978, Messick and Hornocker 1981). This species is active year 

round, except at high elevations and latitudes, where they become torpid 

during the winter. At lower elevations, the American badger in the winter 

exhibits reduced surface activity (Long 1973). 

American badgers are carnivorous and are relatively opportunistic predators, 

feeding on a number of rodent species such as mice, chipmunks, ground 

squirrels, gophers, rabbits, and kangaroo rats (Zeiner et al. 1990). They will also 

eat reptiles, insects, birds and their eggs, and carrion (Williams 1986, Zeiner et 

al. 1990). The American badger is a ferocious fighter (Long 1973) and has very 

few predators. Predators include coyotes, golden eagles, mountain lions, bears 

and gray wolves throughout its range (Long 1973; Shefferly 1999). 

Threats 

Common threats to the American badger include habitat conversion to urban 

and agricultural uses, shooting and trapping, poisoning, automobile fatalities, 

and reduction of prey base from rodent control activities (Williams 1986). In the 

west, infill of formerly open woodlands and encroachment of forests into 

grassland as a result of effective fire suppression has eliminated or degraded 

much badger habitat (Natureserve 2009). Some populations are estimated to be 

up to 80% yearlings or young of the year, suggesting high mortality rates (Long 

1999). Badgers may be attracted to roads, both because ground squirrels often 

burrow alongside them, and because they are good travel routes (T. Diamond, 

pers. comm.). 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 




Model Results 

Denning and Movement 

All grassland, alkali meadows/scalds, valley oak woodland, developed 

agriculture, cropland, ruderal and rural residential land cover types were 

considered suitable denning and foraging habitat for this species. Habitat 

patches smaller than 85 acres were not considered suitable habitat. 

Figure D-16 in Appendix D shows the modeled potential habitat of the American 

badger within the Conservation Strategy area. Potential habitat encompasses a 

large portion of the area. All occurrences, except one at Del Valle Reservoir, are 

in the northern portion of the study area. The least fragmented modeled habitat 

is in the northern portion of the study area. Since there are so few documented 

occurrences of the kit fox from within the study area it is difficult to state what 

the accuracy of the model is relative to actual presence of the species. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


San Joaquin Kit Fox 

Distribution 

The San Joaquin kit fox is federally and state listed as endangered. San Joaquin 

foxes occur in some areas of suitable habitat on the floor of the San Joaquin 

Valley and in the surrounding foothills of the Coast Ranges, Sierra Nevada, and 

Tehachapi Mountains from Kern County north to Contra Costa, Alameda, and 

San Joaquin Counties (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). There are known 

occurrences in Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, 

Monterey, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, 

Stanislaus, and Tulare Counties (California Natural Diversity Database 2008). 

The largest extant populations of kit fox are in Kern County (Elk Hills and Buena 

Vista Valley) and San Luis Obispo County in the Carrizo Plain Natural Area (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). 

Although the precise historical range of San Joaquin kit fox is unknown, it is 

believed to have extended from Contra Costa and San Joaquin Counties in the 

north to Kern County in the south. Surveys conducted between 1969 and 1975 

extended the known range of the kit fox back into portions of its historical range 

in the northern San Joaquin Valley, including Contra Costa, Alameda, and San 

Joaquin Counties (Orloff et al. 1986). At this time, kit foxes were also found in 

three counties outside the originally defined historical range: Monterey, Santa 

Clara, and Santa Barbara counties (Orloff et al. 1986). 

Occurrence in the Conservation Strategy Area 

The 15 San Joaquin kit fox occurrences were in the northern half of the study 

area, in grazed grassland, pasture, annual grassland and alkali sink scrub 

(California Natural Diversity Database 2009). They were located at Bethany 

Reservoir, Livermore Area RPD, on private lands and SFPUC land (CNDDB 2009). 

Ecology 

San Joaquin kit foxes occur in a variety of habitats, including grasslands, 

scrublands, vernal pool areas, alkali meadows and playas, and an agricultural 

matrix of row crops, irrigated pastures, orchards, vineyards, and grazed annual 

grasslands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). They prefer habitats with loosetextured 

soils (Egoscue 1962) that are suitable for digging, but they occur on 

virtually every soil type. Dens are generally located in open areas with grass or 

grass and scattered brush, and seldom occur in areas with thick brush. 

Preferred sites are relatively flat, well-drained terrain (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1998, Roderick and Mathews 1999). They are seldom found in areas 

with shallow soils due to high water tables or impenetrable bedrock or hardpan 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 


layers (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). However, kit foxes may occupy soils 

with a high clay content where they can modify burrow dug by other animals, 

such as California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) (Orloff et al. 1986). 

In the northern part of its range (including San Joaquin, Alameda, and Contra 

Costa Counties) where most habitat on the valley floor has been eliminated, kit 

foxes now occur primarily in foothill grasslands (Swick 173, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1998), valley oak savanna, and alkali grasslands (Bell 1994). Retaining a 

linkage between San Joaquin kit fox populations in western Merced County 

north into San Joaquin, Alameda, and Contra Costa Counties is an important 

recovery goal for this species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). Less 

frequently, foxes will den within small parcels of native habitat that are 

surrounded by intensively maintained agricultural lands and adjacent to dryland 

farms (Orloff et al. 1986, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998), and forage in tilled 

and fallow fields and irrigated row crops (Bell 1994). 

Kit foxes may range up to 20 miles at night during the breeding season and 

somewhat less (6 miles) during the pup-rearing season (Girard 2001). The 

species can readily navigate a matrix of land use types. Home ranges vary from 

less than one square mile up to approximately 12 square miles (Spiegel and 

Bradbury 1992, White and Ralls 1993). The home ranges of pairs or family 

groups of kit foxes generally do not overlap (White and Ralls 1993). 

San Joaquin kit foxes prey upon a variety of small mammals, ground-nesting 

birds, and insects. They are in turn subject to predation by such species as 

coyote, non-native red foxes, domestic dog, eagles, and large hawks (Ralls and 

White 1995, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). 

Threats 

Continued fragmentation of habitat is a serious threat to this species. 

Increasing isolation of populations through habitat degradation and barriers to 

movement, such as aqueducts and busy highways, can limit dispersal to and 

occupancy of existing and former lands. The threat of being struck by vehicles is 

high, particularly for dispersing individuals, crossing roadways with median 

barriers. Livestock grazing is not thought to be necessarily detrimental to the kit 

fox (Morrell 1975, Orloff et al. 1986), but it may affect the number of prey 

species available, depending on the intensity of grazing (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1998). Moderate grazing is thought to benefit the species because it can 

potentially enhance the prey base and reduce vegetation to allow kit fox to 

more easily detect and avoid predators. The use of pesticides to control rodents 

and other pests also threatens kit fox in some areas, either directly through 

poisoning or indirectly through reduction of prey abundance. 


ICF 00906.08

Appendix D 




Model Results 

Core Habitat—Denning and Movement 

All grassland land cover types and all oak woodlands within 500 feet from 

grasslands were considered suitable denning and foraging habitat for this 

species. Urban and suburban land cover types, and the area within the 

boundary created by Highways 580, 680 and 84 were excluded, as well as any 

areas within 200 m of highways (Gerrard et al. 2001). Small fragments of 

habitat that were disconnected from contiguous habitat blocks were removed 

from the results to better represent actual movement potential for the species 

in a connected landscape. 

Additional modeling was conducted to determine the most likely routes that 

could be used by San Joaquin kit fox in the northeastern corner of the study 

area. This analysis took into account the importance of land cover, topography, 

and barriers created by roadways and canals on the movement tendencies of 

the species. The intent was to determine how individuals could move through 

the study area between the northernmost extent of their range in Contra Costa 

County to areas in southern San Joaquin County, on the eastern side of the 

study area. The methodology is discussed below under wildlife linkages and the 

results are shown if Figure D-17. 

Low Quality Movement Habitat 

Areas that the San Joaquin kit fox may use occasionally for movement include 

developed agriculture, cropland, ruderal, and ruderal-residential land cover 

types within one mile of core habitat. These were intended to represent areas 

that individuals might pass through while moving between other more suitable 

habitat types. 

Figure D-17 in Appendix D shows the modeled potential habitat of the San 

Joaquin kit fox within the study area. Potential core habitat encompasses a large 

portion of the area, but all occurrences are in the northern portion. Very little 

habitat is within the low quality movement habitat. Since there are so few 

documented occurrences of the kit fox from within the study area it is difficult 

to state what the accuracy of the model is relative to actual presence of the 

species. 


ICF 00906.08


§¨¦ 580 



·|}þ84 

§¨¦ 680 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig D-1 Spearscale.mxd MF (09-13-10) 


Model Parameters 

Land Cover: 

Alkali meadow and scalds 

Alkali wetland 

Elevation: 

Up to 1055 feet 

Soil: 

Alkaline soil 



CZ1 

CZ3 CZ4 

Pleasanton 

CZ2 

Livermore 

CZ8 

CZ11 

Sunol 

CZ14 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

CZ16 

CZ15 

CZ17 

Calaveras 

Reservoir 

CZ12 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

CZ5 

CZ6 

CZ9 

CZ18 

CZ13 

CZ7 

CZ10 

Figure D-1 

Potential San Joaquin 

Spearscale (Atriplex 

joaquiniana) Habitat 

October 2010 




Open Space 

Potential Habitat 

San Joaquin 

Spearscale 

CNDDB Occurrences 

Note: Mapping procedure and 

habitat are described in the text. 

The purpose of the model is to identify areas 

within the study area where the species occurs 

or could occur based on known habitat 

requirements. The data on which this map is 

based are regional in scale. This map should not 

be used for site planning and should be 

verified in the field. Occurrence data are limited 

by where field surveys have been conducted; 

some occurrence points may be geographically 

inaccurate. Occurrence records from 

the California Natural Diversity Database, 2008. 

Source: California Natural Diversity Database, 

California Dept. of Fish & Game, Nov. 2008. 

California Spatial Information Library; 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles


§¨¦ 580 



·|}þ84 

§¨¦ 680 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig D-2 RecurvedLarkspur.mxd MF (09-13-10) 



Landcover: 

Annual grassland 

Elevation: 

100 – 2000 feet 

Soils: 

Sandy or clay alkaline soils 

East of Diablo Range 



CZ1 

CZ3 CZ4 

Pleasanton 

CZ2 

Livermore 

CZ8 

CZ11 

Sunol 

CZ14 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

CZ16 

CZ15 

CZ17 

Calaveras 

Reservoir 

CZ12 

CZ5 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

CZ6 

CZ9 

CZ18 

CZ13 

CZ7 

CZ10 

Figure D-2 

Potential Recurved 

Larkspur (Delphinium 

recurvatum) Habitat 

October 2010 




Open Space 


Recurved Larkspur 
















California Dept. of Fish & Game, May 2008. 

California Spatial Information Library 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles

§¨¦ 680 CZ3 


§¨¦ 580 

§¨¦ 680 



K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig D-3 BigTarplant.mxd MF (09-13-10) 



Land Cover: 

Annual Grassland 

Elevation: 

1827 feet 

Slope: 

10 - 31 degrees 

CZ6 



Soils: 

Clay or Clay loam 

East of Diablo Range 

CZ1 

CZ4 

CZ5 

CZ2 

Livermore 

Pleasanton 

CZ9 

CZ8 

CZ11 

CZ14 

Sunol 

CZ15 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

CZ16 

CZ17 

Calaveras 

Reservoir 

CZ12 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

CZ18 

CZ10 

CZ13 

CZ7 

Figure D-3 

Potential Big Tarplant 

(Blepharizonia plumosa 

ssp. plumosa) Habitat 

October 2010 




Open Space 


Big Tarplant 


















I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles


§¨¦ 580 



·|}þ84 

§¨¦ 680 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig D-4 CongonsTarplant.mxd MF (09-13-10) 



Land Cover: 

Annual grassland 



Soil Types: 

Danville silty clay loam 

Clear Lake clay 

Diablo clay 

Cropley clay 

Pescadero clay 

Rincon clay loam 

Capay clay 

Altamont clay 

West of Diablo Range 

CZ1 

CZ3 CZ4 

Pleasanton 

CZ2 

Livermore 

CZ8 

CZ11 

Sunol 

CZ14 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

CZ16 

CZ15 

CZ17 

Calaveras 

Reservoir 

CZ12 

CZ5 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

CZ6 

CZ9 

CZ18 

CZ13 

CZ7 

CZ10 

Figure D-4 

Potential Congdon's 

Tarplant (Centromadia 

parryi ssp. congdonii) 

Habitat 

October 2010 




Open Space 


Congdon's Tarplant 


















I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles


§¨¦ 580 



·|}þ84 

§¨¦ 680 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig D-5 LonghornFairyShrimp.mxd MF (09-13-10) 


Model Parmeters 

Vernal Pool Holland Data 

Vasco Caves and Brushy Peak 



CZ1 

CZ3 CZ4 

Pleasanton 

CZ2 

Livermore 

CZ8 

CZ11 

Sunol 

CZ14 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

CZ16 

CZ15 

CZ17 

Calaveras 

Reservoir 

CZ12 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

CZ5 

CZ6 

CZ9 

CZ18 

CZ13 

CZ7 

CZ10 

Figure D-5 

Potential Longhorn Fairy 

Shrimp (Branchinecta 

longiantenna) Habitat 

October 2010 




Open Space 



Longhorn 

Fairy Shrimp 
















California Dept. of Fish & Game 2008; 

Critical habitat for vernal pool crustaceans 2006; 

Holland 1996; Helm 1998; Eriksen and Belk 

1999. 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles


§¨¦ 580 



·|}þ84 

§¨¦ 680 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig D-6 VernalPoolFairyShrimp.mxd MF (09-13-10) 



Seasonal Wetlands & 

Vernal Pools from 

Holland Data 

Land Cover: 

Seasonal Wetlands 



CZ1 

CZ3 CZ4 

Pleasanton 

CZ2 

Livermore 

CZ8 

CZ11 

Sunol 

CZ14 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

CZ16 

CZ15 

CZ17 

Calaveras 

Reservoir 

CZ12 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

CZ5 

CZ6 

CZ9 

CZ18 

CZ13 

CZ7 

CZ10 

Figure D-6 

Potential Vernal 

Pool Fairy Shrimp 

(Branchinecta lynchi) 

Habitat 

October 2010 




Open Space 


Potential Vernal Pool 

Fairy Shrimp Habitat 

Vernal Pool 

Fairy Shrimp CNDDB 

Occurrences 

















Holland 1998 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles


§¨¦ 580 



·|}þ84 

§¨¦ 680 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig D-7 CallippeSilverspot.mxd MF (09-13-10) 



Native and 

Annual Grasslands 



CZ1 

CZ3 CZ4 

Pleasanton 

CZ2 

Livermore 

CZ8 

CZ11 

Sunol 

CZ14 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

CZ16 

CZ15 

CZ17 

Calaveras 

Reservoir 

CZ12 

CZ5 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

CZ6 

CZ9 

CZ18 

CZ13 

CZ7 

CZ10 

Figure D-7 

Potential Callippe 

Silverspot Butterfly 

(Speyeria callippe 

callippe) Habitat 

October 2010 




Open Space 


Callippe silverspot 

butterfly 














Source: Recovery Plan; Personal communication 

from species experts 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles


§¨¦ 580 



·|}þ84 

§¨¦ 680 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig D-8 TigerSalamader.mxd MF (09-13-10) 



Land Cover: 




Pond 


Elevation: 


§¨¦ 580 



·|}þ84 

§¨¦ 680 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig D-9 RedLegged.mxd MF (09-13-10) 




Breeding Habitat: 

Landcover: 




Pond 

300ft Buffer around all land covers 

Elevations < 3500 feet 

Upland/Movement Habitat: 

Landcover: 

All landcovers except urban, 

rural residential, landfill, and 

aquaduct, within 2miles 

of breeding habitat 

CZ1 

CZ3 CZ4 

Pleasanton 

CZ2 

Livermore 

CZ8 

CZ11 

Sunol 

CZ14 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

CZ16 

CZ15 

CZ17 

Calaveras 

Reservoir 

Lake 

CZ12 Del 

Valle 

CZ5 

CZ6 

CZ9 

CZ18 

CZ13 

CZ7 

CZ10 

Figure D-9 

Potential California 

Red-Legged Frog (Rana 

draytonii) Habitat 

October 2010 




Open Space 


Potential Breeding 

Habitat 

Potential Upland/ 

Movement Habitat 

California 

red-legged frog 


















Recovery Plan; FR listing and critical habitat 

documents; Fellers and Kleeman 2007; Marsh 

and Trenham 2000; Bulger 1998 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles

Figure D-10 

Potential Foothill 

Land Cover: 

Up to 165ft around 

Yellow-legged Frog 

all perennial rivers 

(Rana boylii) Habitat 

outside of urban, 

rural residential, 

landfill landcovers October 2010 


CZ7 




§¨¦ 580 

§¨¦ 680 

·|}þ84 



K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig D-10 YellowLegged.mxd MF (09-13-10) 


CZ1 

CZ8 

CZ14 

Pleasanton 

Sunol 

CZ15 

CZ2 

CZ3 CZ4 

CZ11 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Livermore 

CZ16 

CZ12 Lake 

Del 

Valle 

CZ5 

CZ9 

CZ18 

CZ6 

CZ13 

CZ10 




Open Space 

Potential Breeding 

and Movement 

Habitat 

Foothill yellow-legged 

Frog CNDDB 

Occurrences 

















Recovery Plan; FR listing and critical habitat 

documents; Fellers and Kleeman 2007; Marsh 

and Trenham 2000; Bulger 1998 

I 

0 1 2 4 

CZ17 

Miles 

Calaveras 

Reservoir

R 

i 

OLD 



§¨¦ 680 

·|}þ84 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig D-11 WhipsnakeRecoveryAreas.mxd MF (09-13-10) 


Arroyo Mocho 

CZ5 


§¨¦ 680 CZ3 


CZ1 

§¨¦ 580 


CZ4 

CZ8 

Pleasanton 

Livermore 

CZ2 

CZ11 

CZ14 

Sunol 

CZ15 

CZ16 

Lake 

Del 

CZ12 Valle 

CZ17 

CZ6 

CZ10 

CZ9 

CZ13 

CZ18 

CZ7 

C re ek 

Br ushy 

Syc amore 

Alamo Cr eek 

C ree k 

Cay etano 

Creek 

Arroyo 

Cot 

tas 

LasP os 

tonwood 

Creek 

Arroyo 

Mocho 

Se co 

Arroyo 

Arroyo 

de 

l a 

Laguna 

Dry 

Creek 

Sin bad 

e 

k 

Cre ek 

Cre 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Figure D-11 

Potential Alameda 

Whipsnake (Masticophis 

lateralis euryxanthus) 

Habitat 




Open Space 


Recovery Units 

Area of Potential 

Occurence 

Dispersal 

(Recovery Plan) 



I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles 

itos 

Vallec 

San 



La 

C osta Creek 

Indian Creek 

Alameda 

Cre ek 

Calaveras 

Reservoir 

October 2010 



The purpose of the map is to identify areas 











Additional occurrences have been recorded in 

the study area but they are not publicly available 

and therefore are not displayed on this figure 


California Dept. of Fish & Game, Aug. 2008. 

California Spatial Information Library. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002. 

USFWS Recovery Plan

Bethany 

Reservoir 

Brushy Creek 

§¨¦ 680 §¨¦ 580 




Patterson Run 

Gold Creek 


Arroyo Seco 

Arroyo Mocho 

Dry Creek 

§¨¦ 680 

·|}þ84 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

Altamont 

Hills 

Livermore 

Uplift 

Arroyo Valle 

Sinbad Creek 

Alameda Creek 

Arroyo Mocho 



Shafer Creek 

Leyden Creek 

Valpe Creek 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig D-12 CoastSteelhead.mxd MF (9/13/10) 


Hayward 

Union 



Pleasanton 

Sunol 

Livermore 


Sunol Valley 

Stoneybrook Canyon Ck 

CZ8 

CZ1 

Cedar 

Mountain 


CZ14 

CZ2 

Cedar Ridge 

Indian Creek 

Arroyo Valle 

Northern Diablo Range 

CZ15 

CZ3 

CZ11 

CZ16 

CZ4 

CZ12 

CZ18 

CZ9 

CZ6 

Alameda Creek 

CZ17 

CZ5 


CZ13 

CZ7 

CZ10 

Figure D-12 

Potential Central 

California Coast 

Steelhead 

(Oncorhynchus 

mykiss) Habitat 

October 2010 




Open Space 

Steelhead Habitat 

Inaccessible 

Spawn / Rear 

Migratory 

Non-Viable 

Habitat 

Suitable 

Spawn / Rear 

Source: 

Gunther, Hagar, and Salop 

(2000). Ralph Kanz pers. 

comm. (2009). San Francisco 

Public Utilities Commission 

(2007). 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles 

Santa Clara County


§¨¦ 580 



·|}þ84 

§¨¦ 680 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig D-13 GoldenEagle.mxd MF (09-13-10) 



Land Cover (Nesting) 

Mixed Riparian Forest 


Foothill Pine Woodland 

Blue/Valley Oak Woodland 


Coast Live Oak Forest/Woodland 



Mixed Evergreen Forest 

Northern Mixed Chamise Chaparral 



CZ1 

Land Cover (Foraging) 



Ruderal 

Developed Ag 


Northern Coastal and Diablan Sage Scrub 

Northern Mixed Chamise Chaparral 

CZ3 CZ4 

Pleasanton 

CZ2 

Livermore 

CZ8 

CZ11 

Sunol 

CZ14 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

CZ16 

CZ15 

CZ17 

Calaveras 

Reservoir 

CZ12 

CZ5 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

CZ6 

CZ9 

CZ18 

CZ13 

CZ7 

CZ10 

Figure D-13 

Potential Golden Eagle 

(Aquila chrysaetos) 

Habitat 

October 2010 




Open Space 


Nesting 

Foraging 

Golden Eagle 


















WHR range; BNA species account 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles


§¨¦ 580 



·|}þ84 

§¨¦ 680 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig D-14 TriColoredBlackBird.mxd MF (09-13-10) 





Landcover (Breeding): 

Freshwater marsh & 

Ponds adjacent to 

Grassland 

Oak Woodland 

Riparian 

Agriculture 

Golf Course 

Landcover (Foraging): 

Freshwater marsh & 

Grassland 

Riparian 

Agriculture 

Golf Course 


CZ1 

CZ3 CZ4 

Pleasanton 

CZ2 

Livermore 

CZ8 

CZ11 

Sunol 

CZ14 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

CZ16 

CZ15 

CZ17 

Calaveras 

Reservoir 

CZ12 

Lake 

Del 

Valle 

CZ5 

CZ6 

CZ9 

CZ18 

CZ13 

CZ7 

CZ10 

Figure D-14 

Potential Tricolored 

Blackbird (Agelaius 

tricolor) Habitat 

October 2010 




Open Space 

Breeding Habitat 

Foraging Habitat 


Historic Colonies 



















Tricolored Blackbird Portal 2009 

Churchwell et al. 2005; 

BNA species account; Hamilton 2004; 

90 finding 2006; TRBL Conservation Plan 2007; 

Hamilton 1998; Orians and Collier 1963; 

Payne 1969 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles


§¨¦ 580 



·|}þ84 

§¨¦ 680 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig D-15 BurrowingOwl.mxd MF (09-13-10) 




Land Cover: 



rural residential 

ruderal 

Blue and Valley Oak Woodland 

within 300m if grassland 

Slope: 


§¨¦ 580 

§¨¦ 680 



K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig D-16 AmericanBadger.mxd MF (09-14-10) 



Land Cover: 



Alkali meadow/scalds 

Valley Oak Woodland 

Developed Ag 

Cropland 

Ruderal 




Habitat patches


§¨¦ 580 



·|}þ84 

§¨¦ 680 

K:\Projects_2\Zone_7\00029_07\mapdoc\FinalFigures_Sep2010\Fig D-17 KitFox.mxd MF (09-13-10) 



All grassland 

Oak Woodland 

within 500ft of Grassland 

200m from highway = unsuitable 

Inside Hwy 580,680,84 polygon 

= unsuitable 

Small habitat fragments unsuitable 



CZ1 

CZ3 CZ4 

Pleasanton 

CZ2 

Livermore 

CZ8 

CZ11 

Sunol 

CZ14 

San Antonio 

Reservoir 

CZ16 

CZ15 

CZ17 

Calaveras 

Reservoir 

CZ12 Lake 

Del 

Valle 

CZ5 

CZ6 

CZ9 

CZ18 

CZ13 

CZ7 

CZ10 

Figure D-17 

Potential San Joaquin 

Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis 

mutica) Habitat 

October 2010 




Open Space 

Core Habitat 

Low Quality Habitat 

San Joaquin kit fox 
















California Dept. of Fish & Game, Nov 2008. 


USFWS 1998; ESRP range and species 

account; Patrick Kelley-personal communication; 

SFWSO 2007 

I 

0 1 2 4 

Miles

Appendix E 

Focal Species Impact/Mitigation Scoring Sheets

Appendix E. Focal Species Impact/Mitigation Scoring Sheets 

Table E-1. Impact/Mitigation Scoring for vernal pool fairy shrimp in the EACCS study area. 

Vernal pool fairy shrimp 5 4 3 2 1 0 Score 

Closest suitable vernal pool 

habitat to impact/mitigation area 

On-site 

-- -- 

Aquatic land covers impacted/ 

mitigated 

Upland land covers impacted/ 

mitigated 

Does project effect/protect 

hydrology in the watershed in a 

way that would degrade/improve 

Vernal pools 

Grassland 

Within 250 

feet 

Other aquatic 

features that 

can support 

species 

Oak woodland, 

Rural 

residential, 

ruderal 

Greater than 

250 feet but 

hydrologically 

connected 

-- -- -- 

-- -- 

Yes No 

vernal pool habitats downstream 

Inside Altamont Hills Core Area 

identified in Vernal Pool 

Yes No 

Recovery Plan 

Inside designated Critical Habitat Yes -- -- -- -- No 

On parcels with an approved 

management plan for this species. 

Yes -- -- -- No -- 

Total Score 

Greater than 

250-feet and 

not 


connected 

All others; 

none 

All others; 

none 

Note: The ratio of mitigation to impact depends on the location of the mitigation. The acres of mitigation for a given project would be determined using the ratios 

shown in Table 3-4. Habitat quality of the impact site would be scored using this table and the habitat quality of a mitigation site would need to meet or exceed 

that value. 

East Alameda County Conservation Strategy E-1 October 2010 

ICF 00906.08

Appendix E. Continued 

Table E-2. Impact/Mitigation Scoring for longhorn fairy shrimp in the EACCS study area. 

Longhorn fairy shrimp 5 4 3 2 1 0 Score 

Closest suitable vernal 

pool/sandstone pool habitat to 

impact/ mitigation area On-site 

-- -- 


mitigated Sandstone 

pools 


mitigated 

Grassland 

Within 250 

feet 

Vernal pools 

Oak woodland, 

Rural 

residential, 

ruderal 

-- Greater than 

250 feet but 


connected 

Other aquatic 

features that 

can support 

species 

-- -- 

-- -- 

Greater than 

250-feet and 

not 


connected 

All others; 

none 

All others; 

none 




Yes No 


Inside Altamont Hills Core Area 

identified in Vernal Pool 

Yes No 

Recovery Plan 




Yes -- -- -- No -- 

Total Score 


shown in Table 3-5. Habitat quality of the impact site would be scored using this table and the habitat quality of a mitigation site would need to meet or exceed 

that value. 


ICF 00906.08


Table E-3. Impact/Mitigation Scoring for Callippe silverspot butterfly in the EACCS study area. 

Callippe silverspot butterfly 5 4 3 2 1 0 Score 

Impact/ 

Mitigation occurs in: 

-- -- -- -- All others 

Presence of host/nectar plants 

Land covers impacted/ 

mitigated 



Total Score 

CZ1/CZ8/CZ11/ 

CZ12/CZ14/CZ 

15/CZ16 

On-site 

Within 0.25- 

mile of site 

>0.25-mile but 

0.5-mile 

Oak woodland 

-- All others 

Yes -- -- -- No -- 


shown in Table 3-6. Habitat quality of the impact site and the mitigation site would be scored using this table. 


ICF 00906.08


Table E-4. Impact/Mitigation Scoring for California tiger salamander in the EACCS study area. 

California tiger salamander 5 4 3 2 1 0 Score 

Closest suitable breeding habitat to 

site On-site 

Within 500 

feet 

Between 501 – 

1,600 feet 

Between 1,601 

–2,050 feet 

Between 

2051–6,900 

feet 

Is there occupied habitat within 

6,900 feet of site? Yes -- -- No -- -- 

Greater than 

6,900 feet 


mitigated 

Wetland, 

Ponds 

-- Stream/River -- -- 

All others; 

none 


mitigated 

Grassland, Oak 

woodland, 

Rural 

residential 

Elevation Below 3,700 

feet 

Presence of ground squirrels/pocket 

gophers On site 

Presence of bullfrogs or non-native 

fish in aquatic resources on site 

Create a new barrier between 

breeding and upland habitat 

Protect linkage between breeding 

and upland habitat 

No -- 

Documented 

breeding 

location 

Documented 

breeding 

location 

Chaparral/ 

Scrub 

Riparian 

Conifer 

woodland 

-- -- -- -- 

Within 1,350 

feet of site 

-- 

-- 

Between 

>1,351 but 

2,651 bu 

5,301 but 

7,901 feet 

from site 



-- 


ICF 00906.08


Table E-5. Impact/Mitigation Scoring for California red-legged frog in the EACCS study area. 

California red-legged frog 5 4 3 2 1 0 Score 

Closest suitable breeding habitat to 

>1-mile but < 

Greater than 2- 

On-site < 1-mile 

-- -- 

site 

2-miles 

miles 

Is there occupied habitat within 2- 

miles of site? 

Yes -- -- No -- -- 

Aquatic land covers impacted/ Wetland, 

mitigated 

All others; 

Ponds, -- -- -- -- 

none 

Stream/River 

Upland land covers impacted/ Riparian, 

mitigated 

Grassland, 

Chaparral/ Conifer Cultivated ag, 

All others; 

Oak woodland, 

-- 

Scrub woodland ruderal 

none 

Rural 

residential 


Above 3,500 

-- -- -- -- 

feet 

feet 

Presence of ground squirrels or 

< 0.25-mile of > 0.25 but > 0. 5 but > 1.0 but 

On site 

other burrowing mammals 

site 

0.5 miles 1.0 miles miles 

> 1.5 miles 

Presence of bullfrogs or non-native 

fish in aquatic resources on site 

Low numbers 

and not all 

Yes, occurring 

No -- 

aquatic -- 

in high -- 

habitats are 

occupied 

numbers 

Create a new barrier between breeding and upland habitat Documented 

breeding -- 

Potential 

breeding -- -- No 

location 

location 

Protect linkage between breeding and upland habitat 

Documented 

breeding -- 

Potential 

breeding -- -- No 

location 

location 

Inside East San Francisco Bay core 

recovery area 

Yes No 




Yes -- -- -- No -- 

Total Score 




ICF 00906.08


Table E-6. Impact/Mitigation Scoring for foothill yellow-legged frog in the EACCS study area. 

Foothill yellow-legged frog 5 4 3 2 1 0 Score 

Last documented occurrence within 

the Conservation Zone 


mitigated 

Within one 

year 

Perennial 

stream with 

riparian 

corridor 

1-3 yrs 4-5 yrs 6-10 yrs 11-25 yrs 

Perennial 

stream with 

limited 

riparian 

corridor 

Ephemeral 

stream 

Greater than 

25 yrs, never 

-- -- All others 

Substrate of stream bottom Rocky, cobble -- -- Clay, muddy Sandy Other 

Presence of reservoir upstream of 

site 



Total Score 

No -- Yes -- -- -- 

Yes -- -- -- No -- 




ICF 00906.08


Table E-7. Impact/Mitigation Scoring for Alameda whipsnake in the EACCS study area. 

Alameda whipsnake 5 4 3 2 1 0 Score 

Inside Core Recovery Unit 

Yes -- -- -- -- No 

reported in draft Recovery Plan 


High quality shrub habitat 

(scrub/chaparral especially; on 

northeast, east, south east, south 

and southwest 

Aspects) within one mile of subject 

site 


mitigated 

Yes -- -- -- No -- 

Chaparral/ 

Scrub 

Grassland, 

Oak Woodland 

Riparian 

Conifer 

Woodland 

-- All others 

Presence of rock outcrops 

Presence of important movement 

corridor reported in draft Recovery 

Plan 



Total Score 

On-site -mile 

On-site -mile 

1- 

mile 

1- 

mile 

-- -- > 1 mile 

-- -- > 1 mile 

Yes -- -- -- No -- 




ICF 00906.08


Table E-8. Impact/Mitigation Scoring for golden eagle in the EACCS study area. 

Golden eagle 5 4 3 2 1 0 Score 

Presence of golden eagle nest 

Yes -- -- -- -- No 

within 1.0-mile of site 


Mitigated 

Grassland, Oak 

woodland 

Chaparral and 

scrub, ruderal 

Cultivated ag 

Rural 

residential, 

Conifer 

woodland 

-- All others 

Presence of ground squirrels 

Wind turbines within 0.5-mile of 

site 



Total Score 

On site 

Within 0.25- 


> 0.25 but 

1.0 mile 

-- -- 

No -- -- -- Yes On-site 

Yes -- -- -- No -- 




ICF 00906.08


Table E-9. Impact/Mitigation Scoring for burrowing owl in the EACCS study area. 

Burrowing owl 5 4 3 2 1 0 Score 

Nearest known burrowing owl nest 

location to the impact site (within 

last 3 years) 

Wind turbines within 0.5-mile of 

site 


mitigated 


On-site 

Within 0.5- 


> 0.5 but < 2.0 

miles 

-- 

> 2.0but 

miles 

> 7.5 miles 

No -- -- -- Yes On-site 

Grassland, 

ruderal 

On-site 

Cultivated ag Oak woodland 

Within 0.25- 


> 0.25 but 

1.0 mile 

Rural 

residential 

-- All others 

-- -- 

Average height of grass on Less than 8- 

Greater than 

9-24 inches -- 25-36 inches -- 

impacted area 

inches 

36 inches 



Yes -- -- -- No -- 

Total Score 




ICF 00906.08


Table E-10. Impact/Mitigation Scoring for tricolored blackbird in the EACCS study area. 

Tricolored blackbird 5 4 3 2 1 0 Score 

Documented tricolored blackbird 

nest colony within 0.5-mile of site Yes -- -- -- -- No 

during previous 3-years. 

Acres of emergent vegetation that 

could support nesting TRBL 

>5 3-5 1-3 0.25 – 1 1000 501-1000 251-500 100-250


Table E-11. Impact/Mitigation Scoring for San Joaquin kit fox and America badger in the EACCS study area. 

San Joaquin kit fox/American 

badger 

Impact/ 

Mitigation occurs in: 


mitigated 

Average Slope 

5 4 3 2 1 0 Score 

CZ5CZ6/CZ7/ 

CZ9/CZ10 

Grassland, 

Rural 

residential 

-- 

Chaparral/ 

Scrub 

—CZ4 or 

CZ13 

Oak woodland, 

Cultivated Ag 

0-5% > 5 but < 10% 

25% 

-- 

Seasonal 

wetlands, 

Orchard 

—CZ2, CZ3, 

CZ11, CZ12 

-- 

, ruderal All others 

-- All others 


On site 

Within 0.25- 


Within 0.5- 


-- -- Further away 

Linkages and movement Creation or 

removal of 

potential 

linkage across 

barrier (e.g. 

culvert under 

freeway) 



Total Score 

Land adjacent 

to potential 

linkage on 

both sides of 

barrier (e.g., 

culvert under 

freeway) 

Land adjacent 

to potential 

linkage on one 

side of barrier 

(e.g., culvert 

under freeway) 

Land not 

adjacent to key 

linkage for 

species. 

-- -- 

Yes -- -- -- No -- 




ICF 00906.08


Table E-12. Impact/Mitigation Scoring for San Joaquin spearscale in the EACCS study area. 

San Joaquin spearscale 5 4 3 2 1 0 Score 


feet 


Mitigated Valley Sink 

Scrub 

Within EBCNPS Priority Plant 

Protection Area 



Total Score 

-- -- -- 

Alkali 

meadow and 

scald/alkali 

wetland 

Annual 

grassland, 

Rural 

residential, 

ruderal 

Above 1,050 

feet 

-- All others 

Yes -- No -- -- -- 

Yes -- -- -- No -- 




ICF 00906.08


Table E-13. Impact/Mitigation Scoring for recurved larkspur in the EACCS study area. 

Recurved larkspur 5 4 3 2 1 0 Score 

Conservation Zones Inside CZ6 or 

-- -- -- -- Other CZ 

CZ7 

Elevation 100 – 2,000 

feet 


mitigated 





Total Score 

Valley sink 

scrub 

-- -- -- 

Alkali 

meadow and 

scald 

-- 

Annual 

grassland, 

Above 2,000 

feet 

-- All others 

Yes -- No -- -- -- 

Yes -- -- -- No -- 




ICF 00906.08


Table E-14. Impact/Mitigation Scoring for big tarplant in the EACCS study area. 

Big tarplant 5 4 3 2 1 0 Score 


CZ10 

Inside CZ5 or 

CZ9 

-- -- -- Other CZ 

Above 2,000 

feet 


feet 

-- -- -- 


Annual 

mitigated 

grassland, 

native 

-- -- -- -- All others 

grassland 

Soils present in impact area Clay, Clayloam 

-- -- -- -- others 



Yes -- No -- -- -- 



Yes -- -- -- No -- 

Total Score 




ICF 00906.08


Table E-15. Impact/Mitigation Scoring for Congdon’s tarplant in the EACCS study area. 

Congdon’s tarplant 5 4 3 2 1 0 Score 

Conservation Zones Inside CZ2/ 

Elevation 


mitigated 

CZ3/CZ4/CZ5 

/CZ6/CZ7 

-- -- -- -- Other CZ 

Below 800 feet -- -- -- 

native 

grassland, 

Soils present in impact area Clay, Clayloam, 

silty 

clay loam 





Total Score 

Annual 

grassland, 

-- 

-- 

Alkali or 

Saline soils 

Rural 

residential, 

Ruderal 

Above 800 

feet 

-- All others 

-- -- others 

Yes -- No -- -- -- 

Yes -- -- -- No -- 




ICF 00906.08


Table E-16. Impact/Mitigation Scoring for Palmate-bracted bird’s beak in the EACCS study area. 

Palmate-bracted bird’s beak 5 4 3 2 1 0 Score 

Conservation Zones Inside CZ4 -- -- -- -- Other CZ 

Elevation 


mitigated 




Below 500 feet -- -- -- 

chenopod 

scrub 

Annual 

grassland, 

-- 

Rural 

residential, 

ruderal 

Above 500 

feet 

-- All others 

Yes No 


Soils present in impact area Alkali soils -- -- -- -- others 



Yes -- No -- -- -- 



Yes -- -- -- No -- 

Total Score 




ICF 00906.08


Table E-17. Impact/Mitigation Scoring for Livermore tarplant in the EACCS study area. 

Livermore tarplant 5 4 3 2 1 0 Score 


-- -- -- -- Other CZ 

CZ4 

Elevation 


mitigated 





Total Score 

500-600 feet -- -- -- 

Alkali 

meadow and 

scald 

- -- 

Annual 

grassland 

Above 600 

feet 

-- All others 

Yes -- No -- -- -- 

Yes -- -- -- No -- 




ICF 00906.08

Appendix F 

Conservation Easement Toolkit

PLEASE NOTE: 

The following Conservation Easement Deed is provided by the multi-agency Project 

Delivery Team as a standardized template document for Mitigation and Conservation 

Banks in California. Any modifications to this template shall be identified using tracked 

changes or other electronic comparison and explained in a memorandum. 

(Template Version Date: July 2009) 

RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND 

WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: 

[Fill in Grantee Name/Address] 

Grantee Name 

Grantee Address 

City, State ZIP 

Attn:______________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Space Above Line for Recorder's Use Only 

CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED 

[Insert Bank Name] 

THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED ("Conservation Easement") is made as of 

the ______ day of _________________, 20____, by [insert full legal name(s) of Grantor: 

_________________________] ("Grantor"), in favor of [insert Grantee’s full legal name: 

_______________________________] [if CDFG is Grantee insert: the State of California] 

("Grantee"), with reference to the following facts: 

RECITALS 

A. Grantor is the sole owner in fee simple of certain real property containing 

approximately ______ acres, located in the City of [insert City name], County of [insert County 

name], State of California, and designated Assessor’s Parcel Number(s) [insert Assessor’s 

Parcel Number(s)] (the "Bank Property"). The Bank Property is legally described and depicted 

in Exhibit A attached to this Conservation Easement and incorporated in it by this reference. 

B. The Bank Property possesses wildlife and habitat values of great importance to 

Grantee, the people of the State of California and the people of the United States. The Bank 

Property will provide high quality natural, restored and/or enhanced habitat for [specify listed 

and sensitive plant and/or animal species] and contain [list habitats; native and/or non-native], 

[include the following phrase only if there are jurisdictional wetlands: and restored, created, 

enhanced and/or preserved jurisdictional waters of the United States]. Individually and 

collectively, these wildlife and habitat values comprise the “Conservation Values” of the Bank 

Property. 

1 

CA CE Template Version July 18, 2009

C. The California Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG") has jurisdiction over the 

conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants and the habitat 

necessary for biologically sustainable populations of these species pursuant to California Fish 

and Game Code Section 1802. CDFG is authorized to hold easements for these purposes 

pursuant to California Civil Code Section 815.3, Fish and Game Code Section 1348, and other 

provisions of California law. 

D. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (the "USFWS"), an agency within 

the United States Department of the Interior, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, 

restoration and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and the habitat necessary for 

biologically sustainable populations of these species within the United States pursuant to the 

federal Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 1531, et seq., the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. Sections 661-666c, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 

Section 742(f), et seq., and other provisions of federal law. 

E. [Remove/modify this recital as appropriate when USEPA or USACE is not a 

signatory to the BEI or CBEI]. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA") and 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE") have jurisdiction over waters of the United States 

pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251, et seq. 

F. [Use this version of Recital F when qualified nonprofit organization is 

Grantee]. Grantee is authorized to hold this conservation easement pursuant to California Civil 

Code Section 815.3 and Government Code Section 65965. Specifically, Grantee is (i) a taxexempt 

nonprofit organization qualified under section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986, as amended, and qualified to do business in California; (ii) a “qualified organization” as 

defined in section 170(h) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code; and (iii) an organization which has as 

its primary and principal purpose and activity the protection and preservation of natural lands or 

resources in its natural, scenic, agricultural, forested, or open space condition or use. 

[Use this version of Recital F when governmental entity is Grantee]. Grantee is 

authorized to hold this conservation easement pursuant to California Civil Code Section 815.3. 

Specifically, Grantee is a governmental entity identified in Civil Code Section 815.3 (b) and 

otherwise authorized to acquire and hold title to real property. 

G. [Modify this recital as appropriate when CDFG, USFWS, USEPA or USACE is 

not a signatory to the BEI or CBEI.] This Conservation Easement is granted pursuant to the 

[insert the appropriate term: Mitigation Bank Enabling Instrument (the "BEI") or Conservation 

Bank Enabling Instrument (the “CBEI”)], by and between [insert Bank Sponsor name(s)], 

[insert Bank Property Owner name(s)], and [insert Region name] CDFG, CDFG Tracking No. 

[insert number], the [insert Field Office name] of the USFWS, USFWS File No. [insert 

number], the [insert District name] District of USACE, USACE File No. [insert number], and 

Region IX of the USEPA, entered into concurrently with this Conservation Easement, and the 

Bank Development Plan (the "Development Plan"), and the Interim Management Plan and Long- 

Term Management Plan (as applicable, the "Management Plan") created under the [insert: BEI 

or CBEI]. [Remove reference to any agency that is not a party to the BEI or CBEI] CDFG, 

USFWS, USACE, and USEPA are together referred to in this Conservation Easement as the 

"Signatory Agencies". 

2 


A final, approved copy of the [insert: BEI or CBEI], the Development Plan and the 

Management Plan, and any amendments thereto approved by the Signatory Agencies, shall be 

kept on file at the respective offices of the Signatory Agencies. If Grantor, or any successor or 

assign, requires an official copy of the [insert: BEI or CBEI], the Development Plan or the 

Management Plan, it should request a copy from one of the Signatory Agencies at its address for 

notices listed in Section 12 of this Conservation Easement. 

The [insert: BEI or CBEI], the Development Plan and the Management Plan are 

incorporated by this reference into this Conservation Easement as if fully set forth herein. 

H. All section numbers referred to in this Conservation Easement are references to 

sections within this Conservation Easement, unless otherwise indicated. 

COVENANTS, TERMS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 

For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby 

acknowledged, and pursuant to the laws of the United States and the State of California, 

including California Civil Code Section 815, et seq., Grantor hereby voluntarily grants and 

conveys to Grantee a conservation easement in perpetuity over the Bank Property. 

1. Purposes. 

The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to ensure that the Bank Property 

will be retained forever in its natural, restored, or enhanced condition as contemplated by the 

[insert: BEI or CBEI], the Development Plan, and the Management Plan, and to prevent any use 

of the Bank Property that will impair or interfere with the Conservation Values of the Bank 

Property. Grantor intends that this Conservation Easement will confine the use of the Bank 

Property to activities that are consistent with such purposes, including, without limitation, those 

involving the preservation, restoration and enhancement of native species and their habitats 

implemented in accordance with the [insert: BEI or CBEI], the Development Plan and the 

Management Plan. 

2. Grantee's Rights. 

To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantor hereby grants 

and conveys the following rights to Grantee: 

(a) 

To preserve and protect the Conservation Values of the Bank Property. 

(b) To enter the Bank Property at reasonable times, in order to monitor 

compliance with and otherwise enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement, the [insert: BEI 

or CBEI], the Development Plan and the Management Plan and to implement at Grantee's sole 

discretion Development Plan and Management Plan activities that have not been implemented, 

provided that Grantee shall not unreasonably interfere with Grantor's authorized use and quiet 

enjoyment of the Bank Property. 

(c) To prevent any activity on or use of the Bank Property that is inconsistent 

with the purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or 

features of the Bank Property that may be damaged by any act, failure to act, or any use or 

activity that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. 

3 


(d) To require that all mineral, air and water rights as Grantee deems 

necessary to preserve and protect the biological resources and Conservation Values of the Bank 

Property shall remain a part of and be put to beneficial use upon the Bank Property, consistent 

with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. 

(e) All present and future development rights appurtenant to, allocated, 

implied, reserved or inherent in the Bank Property; such rights are hereby terminated and 

extinguished, and may not be used on or transferred to any portion of the Bank Property, nor any 

other property adjacent or otherwise. 

3. Prohibited Uses. 

Any activity on or use of the Bank Property that is inconsistent with the purposes 

of this Conservation Easement is prohibited. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the 

following uses and activities by Grantor, Grantor's agents, and third parties are expressly 

prohibited: 

(a) Unseasonable watering; use of fertilizers, pesticides, biocides, herbicides 

or other agricultural chemicals; weed abatement activities; incompatible fire protection activities; 

and any and all other activities and uses which may impair or interfere with the purposes of this 

Conservation Easement [include the following language only if the Development Plan or 

Management Plan, including any adaptive management measures, specifies such an 

exception:], except for [insert specific exception(s)] as specifically provided in the [specify: 

Development Plan or Management Plan]. 

(b) Use of off-road vehicles and use of any other motorized vehicles except on 

existing roadways [include the following language only if the Development Plan or 

Management Plan, including any adaptive management measures, specifies such an 

exception:], except for [insert specific exception(s)] as specifically provided in the [specify: 

Development Plan or Management Plan]. 

(c) Agricultural activity of any kind [include the following language only if 

the Development Plan or Management Plan, including any adaptive management measures, 

specifies such an exception:] except grazing for vegetation management as specifically provided 

in the [specify: Development Plan or Management Plan]. 

(d) Recreational activities, including, but not limited to, horseback riding, 

biking, hunting or fishing except for personal, non-commercial, recreational activities of the 

Grantor, so long as such activities are consistent with the purposes of this Conservation 

Easement and specifically provided for in the Management Plan. 

Property. 

(e) 

(f) 

Commercial, industrial, residential, or institutional uses. 

Any legal or de facto division, subdivision or partitioning of the Bank 

(g) Construction, reconstruction, erecting or placement of any building, 

billboard or sign, or any other structure or improvement of any kind [include the following 

language only if the Development Plan or Management Plan specifies such an exception:], 

4 


except for [insert specific exception(s)] as specifically provided in the [specify: Development 

Plan or Management Plan]. 

(h) Depositing or accumulation of soil, trash, ashes, refuse, waste, bio-solids 

or any other materials. 

species. 

(i) 

Planting, introduction or dispersal of non-native or exotic plant or animal 

(j) Filling, dumping, excavating, draining, dredging, mining, drilling, 

removing or exploring for or extracting minerals, loam, soil, sand, gravel, rock or other material 

on or below the surface of the Bank Property, or granting or authorizing surface entry for any of 

these purposes. 

(k) Altering the surface or general topography of the Bank Property, including 

but not limited to any alterations to habitat, building roads or trails, paving or otherwise covering 

the Bank Property with concrete, asphalt or any other impervious material except for those 

habitat management activities specified in the Development Plan or Management Plan. 

(l) Removing, destroying, or cutting of trees, shrubs or other vegetation, 

except as required by law for (i) fire breaks, (ii) maintenance of existing foot trails or roads, or 

(iii) prevention or treatment of disease [include the following language only if the Development 

Plan or Management Plan specifies such an exception:]; and except for [insert specific 

exception(s)] as specifically provided in the [specify: Development Plan or Management Plan]. 

(m) Manipulating, impounding or altering any natural water course, body of 

water or water circulation on the Bank Property, and any activities or uses detrimental to water 

quality, including but not limited to degradation or pollution of any surface or sub-surface waters 

[include the following language only if the Development Plan or Management Plan specifies 

such an exception:], except for [insert specific exception(s)] as specifically provided in the 

[specify: Development Plan or Management Plan]. 

(n) Without the prior written consent of Grantee, which Grantee may 

withhold, transferring, encumbering, selling, leasing, or otherwise separating the mineral, air or 

water rights for the Bank Property; changing the place or purpose of use of the water rights; 

abandoning or allowing the abandonment of, by action or inaction, any water or water rights, 

ditch or ditch rights, spring rights, reservoir or storage rights, wells, ground water rights, or other 

rights in and to the use of water historically used on or otherwise appurtenant to the Bank 

Property, including but not limited to: (i) riparian water rights; (ii) appropriative water rights; 

(iii) rights to waters which are secured under contract with any irrigation or water district, to the 

extent such waters are customarily applied to the Bank Property; and (iv) any water from wells 

that are in existence or may be constructed in the future on the Bank Property. 

(o) Engaging in any use or activity that may violate, or may fail to comply 

with, relevant federal, state, or local laws, regulations, or policies applicable to Grantor, the Bank 

Property, or the use or activity in question. 

4. Grantee’s Duties. 

5 


(a) To ensure that the purposes of this Conservation Easement as described in 

Section 1 are being accomplished, Grantee and its successors and assigns shall: 

(1) Perform, at a minimum on an annual basis, compliance monitoring 

inspections of the Bank Property; and 

(2) Prepare reports on the results of the compliance monitoring 

inspections, and provide these reports to the Signatory Agencies on an annual basis. 

(b) In the event that the Grantee’s interest in this easement is held by, reverts 

to, or is transferred to the State of California, Section 4(a) shall not apply. 

5. Grantor's Duties. 

Grantor shall undertake all reasonable actions to prevent the unlawful entry and 

trespass by persons whose activities may degrade or harm the Conservation Values of the Bank 

Property or that are otherwise inconsistent with this Conservation Easement. In addition, Grantor 

shall undertake all necessary actions to perfect and defend Grantee’s rights under Section 2 of 

this Conservation Easement, and to observe and carry out the obligations of Grantor under the 

[insert: BEI or CBEI], the Development Plan and the Management Plan. 

6. Reserved Rights. 

Grantor reserves to itself, and to its personal representatives, heirs, successors, 

and assigns, all rights accruing from Grantor's ownership of the Bank Property, including the 

right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in all uses of the Bank Property that are not 

prohibited or limited by, and are consistent with the purposes of, this Conservation Easement. 

7. Grantee's Remedies. 

If Grantee determines that a violation of this Conservation Easement has occurred 

or is threatened, Grantee shall give written notice to Grantor of such violation and demand in 

writing the cure of such violation (“Notice of Violation”). If Grantor fails to cure the violation 

within thirty (30) days after receipt of a Notice of Violation, or if the cure reasonably requires 

more than thirty (30) days to complete and Grantor fails to begin the cure within the thirty (30)- 

day period or fails to continue diligently to complete the cure, Grantee may bring an action at 

law or in equity in a court of competent jurisdiction for any or all of the following: to recover 

any damages to which Grantee may be entitled for violation of the terms of this Conservation 

Easement or for any injury to the Conservation Values of the Bank Property; to enjoin the 

violation, ex parte as necessary, by temporary or permanent injunction without the necessity of 

proving either actual damages or the inadequacy of otherwise available legal remedies; to pursue 

any other legal or equitable relief, including but not limited to, the restoration of the Bank 

Property to the condition in which it existed prior to any violation or injury; or to otherwise 

enforce this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the liability of Grantor, Grantee may apply 

any damages recovered to the cost of undertaking any corrective action on the Bank Property. 

If Grantee, in its sole discretion, determines that circumstances require immediate 

action to prevent or mitigate injury to the Conservation Values of the Bank Property, Grantee 

may pursue its remedies under this Conservation Easement without prior notice to Grantor or 

6 


without waiting for the period provided for cure to expire. Grantee’s rights under this section 

apply equally to actual or threatened violations of this Conservation Easement. 

Grantor agrees that Grantee’s remedies at law for any violation of this 

Conservation Easement are inadequate and that Grantee shall be entitled to the injunctive relief 

described in this section, both prohibitive and mandatory, in addition to such other relief to 

which Grantee may be entitled, including specific performance of this Conservation Easement, 

without the necessity of proving either actual damages or the inadequacy of otherwise available 

legal remedies. Grantee’s remedies described in this section shall be cumulative and shall be in 

addition to all remedies now or hereafter existing at law or in equity, including but not limited to 

the remedies set forth in California Civil Code Section 815, et seq. The failure of Grantee to 

discover a violation or to take immediate legal action shall not bar Grantee from taking such 

action at a later time. 

(a) Costs of Enforcement. 

All costs incurred by Grantee, where Grantee is the prevailing party, in 

enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor, including, but not limited to, 

costs of suit and attorneys' and experts' fees, and any costs of restoration necessitated by 

negligence or breach of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor. 

(b) Grantee's Discretion. 

Enforcement of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantee shall 

be at the discretion of Grantee, and any forbearance by Grantee to exercise its rights under this 

Conservation Easement in the event of any breach of any term of this Conservation Easement 

shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver of such term or of any subsequent breach of the 

same or any other term of this Conservation Easement or of any rights of Grantee under this 

Conservation Easement. No delay or omission by Grantee in the exercise of any right or remedy 

shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. 

(c) Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. 

Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be construed to 

entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury to or change in the Bank 

Property resulting from (i) any natural cause beyond Grantor's control, including, without 

limitation, fire not caused by Grantor, flood, storm, and earth movement, or any prudent action 

taken by Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to 

the Bank Property resulting from such causes; or (ii) acts by Grantee or its employees. 

(d) Enforcement; Standing. 

All rights and remedies conveyed to Grantee under this Conservation 

Easement shall extend to and are enforceable by [insert if State of California is Grantee: CDFG 

and] the Third-Party Beneficiaries (as defined in Section 14(m)). These enforcement rights are in 

addition to, and do not limit, the rights of enforcement under the [insert: BEI or CBEI], the 

Development Plan or the Management Plan. If at any time in the future Grantor uses, allows the 

use, or threatens to use or allow use of, the Bank Property for any purpose that is inconsistent 

with or in violation of this Conservation Easement then, despite the provisions of California 

Civil Code Section 815.7, the California Attorney General and the Third-Party Beneficiaries 

each has standing as an interested party in any proceeding affecting this Conservation Easement. 

7 


(e) Notice of Conflict. 

If Grantor receives a Notice of Violation from Grantee or a Third-Party 

Beneficiary with which it is impossible for Grantor to comply consistent with any prior uncured 

Notice(s) of Violation, Grantor shall give written notice of the conflict (hereinafter "Notice of 

Conflict") to the Grantee and Third-Party Beneficiaries. In order to be a valid, a Notice of 

Conflict shall be given within fifteen (15) days of the date Grantor receives a conflicting Notice 

of Violation, shall include copies of the conflicting Notices of Violation, and shall describe the 

conflict with specificity, including how the conflict makes compliance with the uncured 

Notice(s) of Violation impossible. Upon issuing a valid Notice of Conflict, Grantor shall not be 

required to comply with the conflicting Notices of Violation until such time as the entity or 

entities issuing said conflicting Notices of Violation issue(s) revised Notice(s) of Violation that 

resolve the conflict. Upon receipt of a revised Notice of Violation, Grantor shall comply with 

such notice within the time period(s) described in the first grammatical paragraph of this Section. 

The failure of Grantor to issue a valid Notice of Conflict within fifteen (15) days of receipt of a 

conflicting Notice of Violation shall constitute a waiver of Grantor's ability to claim a conflict. 

(f) [Add if nonprofit organization is Grantee] Reversion. 

If the Signatory Agencies determine that Grantee is not holding, 

monitoring or managing this Conservation Easement for conservation purposes in the manner 

specified in this Conservation Easement or in the [insert: BEI or CBEI], the Development Plan 

or the Management Plan then, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65965(c), this 

Conservation Easement shall revert to the State of California, or to another public agency or 

nonprofit organization qualified pursuant to Civil Code Section 815.3 and Government Code 

Section 65965 (and any successor or other provision(s) then applicable) and approved by the 

Signatory Agencies. 

public. 

8. Access. 

This Conservation Easement does not convey a general right of access to the 

9. Costs and Liabilities. 

Grantor retains all responsibilities and shall bear all costs and liabilities of any 

kind related to the ownership, operation, upkeep, and maintenance of the Bank Property. Grantor 

agrees that neither Grantee nor Third-Party Beneficiaries shall have any duty or responsibility for 

the operation, upkeep or maintenance of the Bank Property, the monitoring of hazardous 

conditions on it, or the protection of Grantor, the public or any third parties from risks relating to 

conditions on the Bank Property. Grantor remains solely responsible for obtaining any applicable 

governmental permits and approvals required for any activity or use permitted by this 

Conservation Easement [insert if CDFG or another government entity is Grantee: , including 

permits and approvals required from Grantee acting in its regulatory capacity], and any activity 

or use shall be undertaken in accordance with all applicable federal, state, local and 

administrative agency laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, orders and requirements. 

(a) Taxes; No Liens. 

Grantor shall pay before delinquency all taxes, assessments (general and 

special), fees, and charges of whatever description levied on or assessed against the Bank 

Property by competent authority (collectively "Taxes"), including any Taxes imposed upon, or 

8 


incurred as a result of, this Conservation Easement, and shall furnish Grantee with satisfactory 

evidence of payment upon request. Grantor shall keep the Bank Property free from any liens 

(other than a security interest that is expressly subordinated to this Conservation Easement, as 

provided in Section 14(k)), including those arising out of any obligations incurred by Grantor for 

any labor or materials furnished or alleged to have been furnished to or for Grantor at or for use 

on the Bank Property. 

(b) Hold Harmless. 

(1) Grantor shall hold harmless, protect and indemnify Grantee and its 

directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, and representatives and the heirs, personal 

representatives, successors and assigns of each of them (each a "Grantee Indemnified Party" and 

collectively, "Grantee's Indemnified Parties") from and against any and all liabilities, penalties, 

costs, losses, damages, expenses (including, without limitation reasonable attorneys' fees and 

experts' fees), causes of action, claims, demands, orders, liens or judgments (each a "Claim" and, 

collectively, "Claims"), arising from or in any way connected with: (i) injury to or the death of 

any person, or physical damage to any property, resulting from any act, omission, condition, or 

other matter related to or occurring on or about the Bank Property, regardless of cause, except 

that this indemnification shall be inapplicable to any Claim due solely to the negligence of 

Grantee or any of its employees; (ii) the obligations specified in Sections 5, 9 and 9(a); and (iii) 

the existence or administration of this Conservation Easement. If any action or proceeding is 

brought against any of the Grantee's Indemnified Parties by reason of any such Claim, Grantor 

shall, at the election of and upon written notice from Grantee, defend such action or proceeding 

by counsel reasonably acceptable to the Grantee's Indemnified Party [insert if CDFG is grantee: 

or reimburse Grantee for all charges incurred for services of the California Attorney General in 

defending the action or proceeding]. 

(2) Grantor shall hold harmless, protect and indemnify Third-Party 

Beneficiaries and their respective directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, and 

representatives and the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of each of them 

(each a "Third-Party Beneficiary Indemnified Party" and collectively, "Third-Party Beneficiary 

Indemnified Parties") from and against any and all Claims arising from or in any way connected 

with: (i) injury to or the death of any person, or physical damage to any property, resulting from 

any act, omission, condition, or other matter related to or occurring on or about the Bank 

Property, regardless of cause and (ii) the existence or administration of this Conservation 

Easement. Provided, however, that the indemnification in this Section 9 (b) (2) shall be 

inapplicable to a Third-Party Beneficiary Indemnified Party with respect to any Claim due solely 

to the negligence of that Third-Party Beneficiary Indemnified Party or any of its employees. If 

any action or proceeding is brought against any of the Third-Party Beneficiary Indemnified 

Parties by reason of any Claim to which the indemnification in this Section 9 (b) (2) applies, then 

at the election of and upon written notice from the Third-Party Beneficiary Indemnified Party, 

Grantor shall defend such action or proceeding by counsel reasonably acceptable to the 

applicable Third-Party Beneficiary Indemnified Party or reimburse the Third-Party Beneficiary 

Indemnified Party for all charges incurred for services of the California Attorney General or the 

U.S. Department of Justice in defending the action or proceeding. 

(c) 

Extinguishment. 

If circumstances arise in the future that render the preservation of 

9 


Conservation Values, [include this phrase only if there are jurisdictional wetlands: including 

wetland functions and values,] or other purposes of this Conservation Easement impossible to 

accomplish, this Conservation Easement can only be terminated or extinguished, in whole or in 

part, by judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction. 

(d) Condemnation. 

[Use the appropriate paragraph:] 

[If CDFG or other state agency is Grantee:] Condemnation. This 

Conservation Easement is a "wildlife conservation easement" acquired by a State agency, the 

condemnation of which is prohibited except as provided in California Fish and Game Code 

Section 1348.3. 

[All other Grantees:] Condemnation. The purposes of this Conservation 

Easement are presumed to be the best and most necessary public use as defined at California 

Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.680 notwithstanding Code of Civil Procedure Sections 

1240.690 and 1240.700. 

10. Transfer of Conservation Easement or Bank Property. 

(a) Conservation Easement. 

This Conservation Easement may be assigned or transferred by Grantee upon written approval of 

the Signatory Agencies, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, but 

Grantee shall give Grantor and the Signatory Agencies at least sixty (60) days prior written 

notice of the proposed assignment or transfer. Grantee may assign or transfer its rights under this 

Conservation Easement only to an entity or organization: (i) authorized to acquire and hold 

conservation easements pursuant to California Civil Code Section 815.3 and Government Code 

Section 65965 (and any successor or other provision(s) then applicable), or the laws of the 

United States; and (ii) otherwise reasonably acceptable to the Signatory Agencies. Grantee shall 

require the assignee to record the assignment in the county where the Bank Property is located. 

The failure of Grantee to perform any act provided in this section shall not impair the validity of 

this Conservation Easement or limit its enforcement in any way. Any transfer under this section 

is subject to the requirements of Section 11. 

(b) Bank Property. 

Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms of this Conservation Easement by 

reference in any deed or other legal instrument by which Grantor divests itself of any interest in 

all or any portion of the Bank Property, including, without limitation, a leasehold interest. 

Grantor agrees that the deed or other legal instrument shall also incorporate by reference the 

[insert: BEI or CBEI], the Development Plan, the Management Plan, and any amendment(s) to 

those documents. Grantor further agrees to give written notice to Grantee and the Signatory 

Agencies of the intent to transfer any interest at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of such 

transfer. Grantee or the Signatory Agencies shall have the right to prevent any transfers in which 

prospective subsequent claimants or transferees are not given notice of the terms, covenants, 

conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement (including the exhibits and documents 

incorporated by reference in it). The failure of Grantor to perform any act provided in this 

section shall not impair the validity of this Conservation Easement or limit its enforceability in 

any way. Any transfer under this section is subject to the requirements of Section 11. 

10 


11. Merger. 

The doctrine of merger shall not operate to extinguish this Conservation Easement 

if the Conservation Easement and the Bank Property become vested in the same party. If, despite 

this intent, the doctrine of merger applies to extinguish the Conservation Easement then, unless 

Grantor, Grantee, and the Signatory Agencies otherwise agree in writing, a replacement 

conservation easement or restrictive covenant containing the same protections embodied in this 

Conservation Easement shall be recorded against the Bank Property. 

12. Notices. 

Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or other communication that 

Grantor or Grantee desires or is required to give to the other shall be in writing, with a copy to 

each of the Signatory Agencies, and served personally or sent by recognized overnight courier 

that guarantees next-day delivery or by first class United States mail, postage fully prepaid, 

addressed as follows: 

To Grantor: 

[Grantee name] 

[Grantee address] 

Attn:______________________ 

To Grantee: 

[insert the appropriate Grantee information:] 

[Department of Fish and Game] 

[Region name] Region 

[REGION ADDRESS] 

[Attn: Regional Manager] 

OR 

[Grantee name] 

[Grantee address] 

[Remove/modify the following blocks as appropriate when CDFG or the USFWS are not 

signatories to the BEI or CBEI or third-party beneficiaries to the CE.] 

To CDFG: 

With a copy to: 

To USFWS: 

[Department of Fish and Game] 

[Region name] Region 

[REGION ADDRESS] 

[Attn: Regional Manager] 

Department of Fish and Game 

Office of General Counsel 

1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814-2090 

Attn: General Counsel 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

[Field Office name] Field Office 

[FIELD OFFICE ADDRESS] 

11 


Attn: Field Supervisor 

[Remove/modify these blocks as appropriate when USEPA or USACE are not signatories to 

the BEI or CBEI or third-party beneficiaries to the CE.] 

To USACE: 

To USEPA: 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

[District name] District 

[DISTRICT ADDRESS] 

Attn: Chief, Regulatory Branch 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Attn: Director, Water Division 

or to such other address a party or a Signatory Agency shall designate by written notice to 

Grantor, Grantee and the Signatory Agencies. Notice shall be deemed effective upon delivery in 

the case of personal delivery or delivery by overnight courier or, in the case of delivery by first 

class mail, three (3) days after deposit into the United States mail. 

13. Amendment. 

This Conservation Easement may be amended only by mutual written agreement 

of Grantor and Grantee and written approval of the Signatory Agencies, which approval shall not 

be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Any such amendment shall be consistent with the 

purposes of this Conservation Easement and California law governing conservation easements, 

and shall not affect its perpetual duration. Any such amendment shall be recorded in the official 

records of the county in which the Bank Property is located, and Grantee shall promptly provide 

a conformed copy of the recorded amendment to the Grantor and the Signatory Agencies. 

14. Additional Provisions. 

(a) Controlling Law. 

The interpretation and performance of this Conservation Easement shall 

be governed by the laws of the United States and the State of California, disregarding the 

conflicts of law principles of such state. 

(b) Liberal Construction. 

Despite any general rule of construction to the contrary, this Conservation 

Easement shall be liberally construed to effect the purposes of this Conservation Easement and 

the policy and purpose of California Civil Code Section 815, et seq. [add if Grantee is nonprofit 

organization: and Government Code Section 65965]. If any provision in this instrument is found 

to be ambiguous, an interpretation consistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement 

that would render the provision valid shall be favored over any interpretation that would render it 

invalid. 

(c) Severability. 

If a court of competent jurisdiction voids or invalidates on its face any 

provision of this Conservation Easement, such action shall not affect the remainder of this 

12 


Conservation Easement. If a court of competent jurisdiction voids or invalidates the application 

of any provision of this Conservation Easement to a person or circumstance, such action shall not 

affect the application of the provision to any other persons or circumstances. 

(d) Entire Agreement. 

This document (including its exhibits and the [insert: BEI or CBEI], the 

Development Plan, and the Management Plan incorporated by reference in this document) sets 

forth the entire agreement of the parties and the Signatory Agencies with respect to the 

Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings, or 

agreements of the parties relating to the Conservation Easement. No alteration or variation of 

this Conservation Easement shall be valid or binding unless contained in an amendment in 

accordance with Section 13. 

(e) No Forfeiture. 

Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement will result in a forfeiture 

or reversion of Grantor's title in any respect. 

(f) Successors. 

The covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions of this Conservation 

Easement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties and their respective 

personal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall constitute a servitude running 

in perpetuity with the Bank Property. 

(g) Termination of Rights and Obligations. 

A party's rights and obligations under this Conservation Easement 

terminate upon transfer of the party's interest in the Conservation Easement or Bank Property, 

except that liability for acts, omissions or breaches occurring prior to transfer shall survive 

transfer. 

(h) Captions. 

The captions in this instrument have been inserted solely for convenience 

of reference and are not a part of this instrument and shall have no effect upon its construction or 

interpretation. 

(i) 

No Hazardous Materials Liability. 

(1) Grantor represents and warrants that it has no knowledge or notice 

of any Hazardous Materials (defined below) or underground storage tanks existing, generated, 

treated, stored, used, released, disposed of, deposited or abandoned in, on, under, or from the 

Bank Property, or transported to or from or affecting the Bank Property. 

(2) Without limiting the obligations of Grantor under Section 9 (b), 

Grantor hereby releases and agrees to indemnify, protect and hold harmless the Grantee’s 

Indemnified Parties (defined in Section 9 (b) (1)) from and against any and all Claims (defined in 

Section 9 (b)(1)) arising from or connected with any Hazardous Materials or underground 

storage tanks present, alleged to be present, released in, from or about, or otherwise associated 

with the Bank Property at any time, except any Hazardous Materials placed, disposed or released 

by Grantee or any of its employees. This release and indemnification includes, without 

13 


limitation, Claims for (A) injury to or death of any person or physical damage to any property; 

and (B) the violation or alleged violation of, or other failure to comply with, any Environmental 

Laws (defined below). If any action or proceeding is brought against any of the Grantee’s 

Indemnified Parties by reason of any such Claim, Grantor shall, at the election of and upon 

written notice from the applicable Grantee Indemnified Party, defend such action or proceeding 

by counsel reasonably acceptable to the Grantee Indemnified Party [add if CDFG is Grantee: or 

reimburse Grantee for all charges incurred for services of the California Attorney General in 

defending the action or proceeding]. 

(3) Without limiting the obligations of Grantor under Section 9 (b), 

Grantor hereby releases and agrees to indemnify, protect and hold harmless the Third-Party 

Beneficiary Indemnified Parties (defined in Section 9 (b)(2)) from and against any and all Claims 

arising from or connected with any Hazardous Materials or underground storage tanks present, 

alleged to be present, released in, from or about, or otherwise associated with the Bank Property 

at any time, except that this release and indemnification shall be inapplicable to a Third-Party 

Beneficiary Indemnified Party with respect to any Hazardous Materials placed, disposed or 

released by that Third-Party Beneficiary Indemnified Party or any of its employees. This release 

and indemnification includes, without limitation, Claims for (A) injury to or death of any person 

or physical damage to any property; and (B) the violation of alleged violation of, or other failure 

to comply with, any Environmental Laws. If any action or proceeding is brought against any of 

the Third-Party Beneficiary Indemnified Parties by reason of any such Claim, Grantor shall, at 

the election or and upon written notice from the applicable Third-Party Beneficiary Indemnified 

Party, defend such action or proceeding by counsel reasonably acceptable to the Third-Party 

Beneficiary Indemnified Party for all charges incurred for services of the California Attorney 

General or the U.S. Department of Justice in defending the action or proceeding. 

(4) Despite any contrary provision of this Conservation Easement, the 

parties do not intend this Conservation Easement to be, and this Conservation Easement shall not 

be, construed such that it creates in or gives to Grantee or any Third-Party Beneficiaries any of 

the following: 

(A) The obligations or liability of an "owner" or "operator," as 

those terms are defined and used in Environmental Laws (defined below), including, without 

limitation, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 

1980, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 9601, et seq.; hereinafter, "CERCLA"); or 

(B) The obligations or liabilities of a person described in 42 

U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3) or (4); or 

(C) 

applicable Environmental Laws; or 

The obligations of a responsible person under any 

(D) The right to investigate and remediate any Hazardous 

Materials associated with the Bank Property; or 

(E) Any control over Grantor's ability to investigate, remove, 

remediate or otherwise clean up any Hazardous Materials associated with the Bank Property. 

14 


(5) The term "Hazardous Materials" includes, without limitation, (a) 

material that is flammable, explosive or radioactive; (b) petroleum products, including byproducts 

and fractions thereof; and (c) hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, hazardous or toxic 

substances, or related materials defined in CERCLA, the Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 6901, et seq.; hereinafter, "RCRA"); the Hazardous Materials 

Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. §5101, et seq.; hereinafter, "HTA"); the Hazardous Waste Control 

Law (California Health & Safety Code § 25100, et seq.; hereinafter, "HCL"); the Carpenter- 

Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act (California Health & Safety Code § 25300, et 

seq.; hereinafter "HSA"), and in the regulations adopted and publications promulgated pursuant 

to them, or any other applicable Environmental Laws now in effect or enacted after the date of 

this Conservation Easement. 

(6) The term "Environmental Laws" includes, without limitation, 

CERCLA, RCRA, HTA, HCL, HSA, and any other federal, state, local or administrative agency 

statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, order or requirement relating to pollution, protection of 

human health or safety, the environment or Hazardous Materials. Grantor represents, warrants 

and covenants to Grantee and Third-Party Beneficiaries that activities upon and use of the Bank 

Property by Grantor, its agents, employees, invitees and contractors will comply with all 

Environmental Laws. 

(j) Warranty. 

Grantor represents and warrants that Grantor is the sole owner of the Bank 

Property. Grantor also represents and warrants that, except as specifically disclosed to and 

approved by the Signatory Agencies pursuant to the Bank Property Assessment and Warranty 

signed by Grantor and attached as an exhibit to the [insert: BEI or CBEI], [choose applicable 

statement: there are no outstanding mortgages, liens, encumbrances or other interests in the 

Bank Property (including, without limitation, mineral interests) which may conflict or are 

inconsistent with this Conservation Easement or the holder of any outstanding mortgage, lien, 

encumbrance or other interest in the Bank Property (including, without limitation, mineral 

interest) which conflicts or is inconsistent with this Conservation Easement has expressly 

subordinated such interest to this Conservation Easement by a recorded Subordination 

Agreement approved by Grantee and the Signatory Agencies]. 

(k) Additional Interests. 

Grantor shall not grant any additional easements, rights of way or other 

interests in the Bank Property (other than a security interest that is expressly subordinated to this 

Conservation Easement), nor shall Grantor grant, transfer, abandon or relinquish (each a 

“Transfer”) any mineral, air, or water right or any water associated with the Bank Property, 

without first obtaining the written consent of Grantee and the Signatory Agencies. Such consent 

may be withheld if Grantee or the Signatory Agencies determine(s) that the proposed interest or 

Transfer is inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement or will impair or 

interfere with the Conservation Values of the Bank Property. This Section 14(k) shall not limit 

the provisions of Section 2(d) or 3(n), nor prohibit transfer of a fee or leasehold interest in the 

Bank Property that is subject to this Conservation Easement and complies with Section 10. 

Grantor shall provide a copy of any recorded or unrecorded grant or Transfer document to the 

Grantee and Signatory Agencies. 

15 


(l) Recording. 

Grantee shall record this Conservation Easement in the Official Records of 

the County in which the Bank Property is located, and may re-record it at any time as Grantee 

deems necessary to preserve its rights in this Conservation Easement. 

(m) Third-Party Beneficiary. 

Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that the [include the agencies that will 

be third-party beneficiaries: CDFG, USFWS, USACE, and USEPA] (the “Third-Party 

Beneficiaries”) are third party beneficiaries of this Conservation Easement with the right of 

access to the Bank Property and the right to enforce all of the obligations of Grantor including, 

but not limited to, Grantor’s obligations under Section 14, and all other rights and remedies of 

the Grantee under this Conservation Easement. 

(n) Funding. 

Endowment funding for the perpetual management, maintenance and 

monitoring of the Bank Property is specified in and governed by the [insert: BEI or CBEI] and 

the Management Plan. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF Grantor has executed this Conservation Easement Deed the 

day and year first above written. 

GRANTOR: 

Approved as to form: 

[Remove or modify the approval block as 

appropriate, i.e., Grantee’s legal counsel if 

CDFG is not Grantee.] 

BY:_______________________________ 

NAME:____________________________ 

TITLE:____________________________ 

DATE: _____________________________ 

General Counsel 

State of California 

Department of Fish and Game 

BY:_________________________ 

Ann S. Malcolm 

General Counsel 

16 


[Delete this page if CDFG will not be Grantee. If the Grantee will be a government agency, 

that agency must include its own Certificate of Acceptance.] 

CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE 

This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the Conservation Easement Deed 

by______________, dated________, 20____, to the State of California, Grantee, acting by and 

through its Department of Fish and Game, a governmental agency (under Government Code § 

27281), is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer on behalf of the Grantee pursuant to the 

Fish and Game Code. 

GRANTEE: 

[Remove or modify the approval block as 

appropriate if CDFG is not Grantee.] 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by and through its 

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 

By: ____________________________ 

Title: ___________________________ 

Authorized Representative 

Date: ___________________________ 



The Resources Agency 


A GUIDE AND ANNOTATED OUTLINE 

FOR WRITING 

LAND MANAGEMENT PLANS 

December 2007 

(Supercedes all previous documents) 

Lands Program 

Wildlife Branch 

Resources Management and Policy Division 

1812 Ninth Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814

USING THIS OUTLINE 

This outline has been prepared to help you write a management plan that is useful and easily 

read by those who want information about Department-administered lands. It provides 

instructions and examples for writing each chapter. It also serves as an example for the 

required format. Each chapter heading (identified by a Roman numeral) should be 

addressed within the plan. The amount of information provided within each chapter will be 

determined by the intensity of management necessary to maintain the property as viable 

wildlife habitat. In some cases, it may not be necessary to use certain subheadings; 

these are listed as optional in the outline. 

Periodically, this outline will be revised to reflect additional information, style improvements, 

and streamlining efforts. Any questions and comments regarding this outline or the writing of 

management plans may be directed to the Lands and Facilities Branch, Teresa Le Blanc, (916) 

445-3499 or tleblanc@dfg.ca.gov. 

SOME TIPS AND NECESSARY FORMAT INFORMATION: 

A Table of Contents containing page numbers for chapters and sections must be provided. 

Page numbers should appear on every page of your plan, including all maps, tables, and 

figures. Chapter I, Introduction, is page one and is always unnumbered. All pages preceding 

page one should be numbered with lower case Roman numerals, starting with -i- on the Table 

of Contents page. 

Tables and figures should be placed immediately following the page where they are first 

mentioned in the text (for example, if Figure 1 is mentioned on page 3 for the first time, it 

appears as page 4). 

All figures should be prepared on 8-1/2 x 11-inch paper so that reproduction remains a simple 

task. To prepare professional-looking figures, maintain a minimum ½-inch border. Each 

figure and table should be numbered and titled. The title should reflect what the figure depicts, 

such as a location map or habitat types on the property. The numbers and titles of figures and 

tables may be listed under a separate List of Figures (or Tables); see Table of Contents for 

example. Compass direction and mileage scale should be included on all figures which 

illustrate geographical features. 

TITLE AND SIGNATURE PAGES 

The following two pages are examples of the Title Page and Signature Page which are 

required for each plan.

E X A M P L E (Title Page) 


The Resources Agency 


DRAFT LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN 

for 

(NAME OF AREA) 

Month, Year 

E X A M P L E (Signature Page) 

(NAME OF AREA) FINAL DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN

Prepared by: 

Name 

Address 

Phone 

Approved by: 

_______________________________________________ 

Regional Manager 

Date 

_______________________________________________ 

Deputy Director for Regional Operations 

Date

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

The Table of Contents of each land management plan should follow the same format as shown 

on page i of this document. All pages, starting with Chapter I, Introduction, are numbered 

consecutively, including figures, tables, and maps. Appendices have their own separate page 

numbers such as A-1, A-2,., B-1, B-2,....



Page No. 

x 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (Optional) 

LIST OF FIGURES (Optional) 

x 

x 

LIST OF TABLES (Optional) 

x 

I. INTRODUCTION x 

A. Purpose of Acquisition x 

B. Acquisition History x 

C. Purpose of This Management Plan x 

II. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION x 

A. Geographical Setting x 

B. Property Boundaries and Adjacent Lands x 

C. Geology, Soils, Climate, Hydrology x 

D. Cultural Features x 

1. Archaeology x 

2. Historic Land Use x 

3. Existing Structures x 

III. HABITAT AND SPECIES DESCRIPTION x 

A. Vegetation Communities, Habitats and Plant Species x 

B. Animal Species x 

C. Threatened, Rare or Endangered Species x 

IV. MANAGEMENT GOALS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS x 

A. Definition of Terms Used in This Plan x 

B. Biological Elements: Goals & Environmental Impacts x 

1. Operations and Maintenance Tasks (Optional) x 

C. Public Use Elements: Goals & Environmental Impacts x 

1. Operations and Maintenance Tasks (Optional) x 

D. Facility Maintenance Elements: Goals & Environmental Impacts x 

-i- 

1. Operations and Maintenance Tasks (Optional) x

E. Biological Monitoring Element 

1. Species and Habitat Monitoring 

2. Consistency with any regional planning effort 

V. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE SUMMARY 

A. Operations and Maintenance Tasks to Implement Plan 

(if not provided under IV.B.1, C.1, or D.1 above) 

x 

B. Existing Staff and Additional Personnel Needs Summary x 

C. Operations and Maintenance Summary (Optional) x 

VI. REFERENCES (For all citations within plan) x 

APPENDICES: As necessary to list: 

Legal description of property, 

Animal and plant species, 

Soil types/surveys, 

Climatic information 

Environmental Checklist and Discussion of potential impacts (CEQA) 

Additional Consultation Documents 

Public comments and our responses to them 

MOU/MA 

Site interpretive plan 

Fire plan 

Monitoring plan 

Grazing plan 

-ii-

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

(Optional) 

The author(s) may wish to thank groups or individuals who helped prepare the plan or 

provided necessary information or guidance. 

LIST OF FIGURES 

(Optional) 

If appropriate, a list of figures (which includes all maps, drawings, or charts) may be 

provided here along with their page numbers. 

LIST OF TABLES 

(Optional) 

If appropriate, a list of any tables provided in the management plan may be provided 

here along with their page numbers. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

-iii-

A. Purpose of Acquisition 

Describe the primary purpose for which this property was acquired by the Department, 

using the Land Acquisition Evaluation (LAE) or Conceptual Area Protection Plan (CAPP) 

and Wildlife Conservation Board minutes for consistency. Additional purposes should also 

be stated. Be brief, but provide summary information about the management objectives 

presented later within the plan. Describe the resources protected by this acquisition in 

very general terms. 

B. Acquisition History (This section may be combined with Section A if the description is 

straightforward) 

Describe the circumstances leading to acquisition which might include local or regional 

development pressure, environmental concerns, inholding consolidation, or other issues, 

and list any local or regional groups which had influence in promoting this acquisition. If 

this acquisition is part of a CAPP or an addition to an existing DFG property, it should be 

mentioned here. If it is an addition, then this plan would be an “addendum to the existing 

plan.” 

Give the acquisition transaction date(s) and the total number of acres acquired. This 

information is available from the Regional Lands Coordinator who should have a file for 

each property in the region. The Regional Lands Coordinator also maintains an updated 

lands inventory containing this information. If special or dedicated funds were used to 

acquire this property and, therefore, may possibly influence management objectives, name 

the source of funding here. 

C. Purpose of This Management Plan 

The following language is required to be stated in the plan to clearly delineate the 

department's purposes in preparing such plans: 

1) The plan guides the adaptive management of habitats, species, and programs 

described herein to achieve the department's mission to protect and enhance wildlife 

values. 

2) The plan serves as a guide for appropriate public uses of the property. 

3) The plan serves as a descriptive inventory of fish, wildlife and native plant habitats 

which occur on or use this property. 

-2-

4) The plan provides an overview of the property's operation and maintenance, and 

personnel requirements to implement management goals. It serves as a budget 

planning aid for annual regional budget preparation. 

5) The plan provides a description of potential and actual environmental impacts and 

subsequent mitigation which may occur during management, and contains 

environmental documentation to comply with state and federal statutes and 

regulations. 

-3-

II. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 

This chapter should provide the most current information available to describe the 

geographical, physical, and cultural site characteristics and features to promote good 

management of the area. Some of the following subsections may be combined if the subjects 

below are addressed and information is presented in a logical sequence. 

A. Geographical Setting 

Describe property location clearly, giving written instructions on how it can be reached by 

land transportation, and provide a regional map (Map 1) which identifies county and major 

state or federal highway access to the property. Local towns and crossroads should be 

shown, as well as compass direction (north), and mileage scale. This is an overview map 

which gives the unfamiliar reader a regional perspective for locating the property. The 

map may be a computer-generated schematic or high quality hand-prepared technical 

illustration; it can also be prepared using a highway map, as long as the reproduction is 

clear and understandable. The map size should be 8-1/2 x 11 inches. 

B. Property Boundaries and Adjacent Land Use 

Provide a property map (Map 2) with boundaries distinctly outlined to place it in 

perspective with adjacent lands. Boundaries should be understandable so that map-users 

can identify DFG lands. The map should contain sufficient detail to provide information on 

entrances to and any open roads within the site. Compass direction and mileage scale 

should be given on the map. Size should be 8-1/2 x 11 inches. 

Give a brief description of adjacent land use and prior land use on the property, if known, 

and provide the names of the USGS topographic map quadrangles in which the property is 

located. Provide legal property descriptions (Township/Range/Section or metes and 

bounds) in an appendix (this information is contained in the quarterly lands inventory held 

by the Regional Lands Coordinator). 

[It is strongly suggested that each region maintain a photo file of any existing indicators of 

boundaries of properties owned by DFG within that region. Old fences, rock walls, 

monuments, or other physical structures should be photographed as soon as escrow 

closes. These photographs should be kept on file with the other land inventory documents 

in each regional office.] 

C. Geology, Soils, Climate and Hydrology 

-4-

These subjects may be combined into one subheading or separated for individual 

discussion, depending upon how much information is provided. You should give the 

reader an overall assessment of geological, edaphic, climatic and hydrologic factors which 

will influence management objectives. You only need to provide information which is 

pertinent to management of the area. 

Geological information which describes how the area evolved or how it relates to the 

surrounding geological formations can be useful in describing the overall area (eg., alluvial 

valleys, volcanic outcrops, floodplains). 

Soil survey information, obtained from National Resource Conservation Service for most 

counties, may influence species distributions, water regimes and agricultural activities. 

Soil types which have significant impacts on management should be discussed here. A 

soils map may be helpful in making management decisions if soil types are important or 

complex. A detailed description is not necessary unless it relates to management. 

A discussion of local climate should include useful information such as seasonal norms for 

high and low temperatures, seasonal average precipitation, growing season, and any 

other climatic factors which influence the area, or should be considered in managing the 

property. 

On some properties, hydrological and water right information will be extremely important. 

Describe all known surface and subsurface water sources and their seasonal influences 

on management of the area. If there are wells on the area, the depth to groundwater and 

pumping rate should be provided, if known. Provide information regarding any surface 

water rights, (i.e. riparian, pre-1914, adjudicated, appropriative) and current points of 

diversion. For appropriative rights, include State Water Resources Control Board 

application permit and license numbers and identify whether use is for direct diversion, 

storage or both. Also, identify any contracts, MOU’s or other agreements related to water 

use. Please contact the Water Coordinator at (916) 323-7215 if you have further 

questions about water appropriation, contracts or water rights issues for wildlife areas or 

ecological reserves. 

D. Cultural Features 

Describe any known archeological sites without providing their specific locations on the 

property, and include a summary of the results of any site surveys/inventories, including 

who conducted them. An assessment of the impacts of management should be given for 

such sites. Check within the CEQA Guidelines for appropriate action in dealing with 

suspected or existing archeological sites. All database searches and actual field survey 

data are confidential. Check with the Lands Program on appropriate archival storage. 

At the minimum, state that an archeological survey will be initiated where appropriate, prior 

to any management activity. 

-5-

Describe all existing structures including roads, levees, fencing, and buildings, and their 

intended future use on the area. If such structures are likely to be considered "historical 

resources" of the state pursuant to Executive Order W-26-92 and historic resources 

preservation laws, all state agencies must preserve and maintain these resources to the 

extent prudent and feasible within existing budget and personnel resources. Information 

may also be obtained from the State Historical Preservation Office and the California 

Native American Heritage Commission. 

[The region should maintain a photographic inventory of all structures present on the 

property at the time of close of escrow.] 

-6-

III. HABITAT AND SPECIES DESCRIPTION 

This chapter provides a descriptive inventory of habitats and species which are located 

on or use the property. General ecological information necessary for proper 

management of habitats should be presented in this section. Ensure that the 

distinction between “potential” and “known to occur” (with reference) is documented for 

all species. This information will be included in a database developed by the Lands 

Program to catalog the biological resources occurring on the Department’s lands. This 

database is known as the Biological Resources Inventory (BRI). 

A. Vegetation Communities, Habitats and Plant Species 

Describe each major native plant community or habitat which occurs on the 

property. If helpful, a vegetation or habitat map can be included here. Be sure to 

name any special natural communities which are listed in the Natural Diversity 

Database (NDDB) which can be accessed through the "Rarefind 3" program, 

available from the Biogeographic Data Branch at (916) 324-3812 or at their 

website. General habitat descriptions should follow the “List of California 

Terrestrial Natural Communities” based on the classification described in A Manual 

of California Vegetation (Sawyer-Keeler Wolf 1995). You may also use the 

classification system employed by the Department’s Wildlife Area Habitat 

Committee for more intensively managed wetland units. 

Provide an inventory (list), if available, of native plant species which are known or 

likely to occur on the property. Include non-native vegetation as well. Generally, 

the list can be placed in an appendix, but major species affected by or targeted for 

management should be mentioned within the text. An overview of their habitat and 

management requirements should be presented here. Use proper nomenclature 

for preparing the list of species which generally includes scientific name (the 

common name should also be included). The regional plant ecologist can provide 

assistance in how to prepare these lists. If an inventory has not yet been 

completed for the property, the Department’s Habitat Conservation Branch (HCB) 

has requested that the plan adopt their recommended language for plant surveys. 

For example, make a statement to the effect that at the earliest feasible 

opportunity, and before natural habitats are manipulated, inventories will be 

conducted to determine that no rare, threatened or endangered plant or special 

plant species or communities will be negatively impacted by management activities. 

This language can be acquired by contacting HCB at (916) 653-4875 or by visiting 

their website. 

-7-

B. Animal Species 

Provide an inventory (list), if available, of animals (including fish, reptiles, 

amphibians, birds, and mammals) which are known to inhabit or seasonally use 

this property. Lists can be placed in an appendix, but species affected by or 

designated for particular management objectives should be mentioned here. An 

overview of their habitat and management requirements should be presented here. 

If inventories have not yet been completed, provide a list of species which could 

potentially inhabit or use the area based on personal field experience and the 

Department’s California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) model. Further 

information may be found by contacting the CWHR Program at (916) 327-8822. 

Make a statement to the effect that at the earliest feasible opportunity, and before 

natural habitats are manipulated, inventories will be conducted to determine that no 

animal T&E species or special species will be negatively impacted by management 

activities. 

C. Endangered, Threatened and Rare Species 

List all T&E and rare plants and animals which use the property and briefly 

describe their ecological requirements. This includes all federal or state listed 

species as well as those of special concern to the department. Mammals, birds, 

plants, invertebrates, fish, reptiles, and amphibians require separate headings if 

combined into one list. State that internal coordination has been accomplished with 

Department experts to address any management concerns for state-listed species. 

Document the internal coordination in writing and referenced in an addendum. The 

documentation may be entitled “Information on the Effects of the Implementation of 

the Management Plan on Special Status Species.” If a species is federally-listed, 

but not state-listed, at a minimum there should be consultation with the USFWS 

(pursuant to our Section 6(c) Cooperative Agreement, dated 8/26/91). This 

consultation will result in a decision on whether a Federal Biological Opinion is 

necessary. Consultation should also occur with other federal agencies where 

appropriate. 

-8-

IV. MANAGEMENT GOALS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Chapter IV defines the terms used and provides management direction and CEQA 

documentation for management actions on this property. The goals and tasks stated 

here should guide all management decisions until such time as the plan is revised and 

updated. This chapter provides documentation required by federal and state laws 

pertinent to environmental impacts and endangered species protection. 

The following terms and definitions (in boldface) should be presented at the beginning 

of this chapter to familiarize the reader with terminology used in the plan. Include 

definitions for only those terms you use in the plan. 

A. Definitions of Terms Used in This Plan 

1. Element: An element refers to any biological unit, public use activity, or 

facility maintenance program as defined below for which goals have 

been prepared and presented within this plan. 

Since the “elements” are the basis of the plan, be sure to discuss what types of 

elements are necessary with other regional staff that is familiar with the area and/or 

resources. We don't want to have so many elements, that goals become 

redundant, but we do want to discuss all elements to be affected by management 

on the property. 

2. Biological Element: These elements consist of species, habitats, or 

communities for which specific management goals have been 

developed within the plan. 

With the exception of state- or federally-listed species, biological elements should 

always be defined in terms of habitat management programs, since the 

Department's current management objectives are ecosystem or multi-species 

oriented. When appropriate, state- or federally-listed species management goals 

should also be contained within the context of a habitat management program. In 

some cases, this may not be possible and single species management programs 

should then be considered as separate biological elements. 

-9-

Within each defined biological element using the NDDB classification based on 

Sawyer-Keeler Wolf habitats, biological and public use management goals should 

be specified and described. Criteria used to identify biological elements have been 

determined by the Department and include but are not limited to the following: 

a) Protection of the element is authorized or mandated by legislation or official 

policy (e.g., furthering the goals of the North American Waterfowl Plan, Wetlands 

Policy, or Proposition 70). An example: Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh 

(NDDB type). 

b) Any listed, candidate, or sensitive species, or species of special concern 

known or suspected to occur on or to use the property must be specified within 

another element or as a separate biological element. 

c) Essential habitat for one or more listed species must be specified as a 

biological element. An example is vernal pool habitat upon which numerous 

state-listed plant species depend. 

d) Manipulated habitats which are intensively managed for fish and wildlife 

values must be specified as biological elements. An example is Coastal and 

Valley Freshwater Marsh which is created and/or enhanced on certain DFG 

lands for migratory waterfowl and other associated wetland species. 

e) Restoration efforts which may restore an extirpated species or habitat, or 

maintenance efforts which may avoid the threat of extirpation. An example is 

Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian (NDDB type). 

3. Public Use Elements: Public use elements are any recreational, 

scientific, or other use activity appropriate to and compatible with the 

purposes for which this property was acquired. 

When drafting appropriate public use activities, think about potential impacts to the 

area’s resources. The proposed public use should be related to wildlife or wild 

lands. In addition, a reasonable and defensible correlation between the proposed 

public use and how it relates to the primary mission of the Department’s land 

management policies should be articulated. If reasonable public use is justified, it 

may also be tempered with limits on actual number of public involved, lottery 

scenarios and other methods to avoid resource impacts. Be sure to coordinate 

with any existing CCR Title 14, Sections 550-552 or Section 630 regulations. 

-10-

Additionally, the USFWS may have future draft polices regarding other activities on 

federally-aided Department properties. Please contact the Federal Aid 

Coordinator, at (916) 445-3472 for further information. 

Criteria used to characterize such public use elements include but are not limited 

to: 

a) Use is authorized or mandated by legislation or official policy (e.g., uses such 

as hunting, fishing, and interpretive programs). 

b) Use is compatible with fish and wildlife requirements in the area if properly 

conducted (e.g., hunting or scientific research programs). 

c) Historical uses which may be restricted seasonally or year-round under this 

plan due to incompatibility with biological element needs (e.g., fishing or 

interpretive programs). 

4. Facility Maintenance Element: This is a general purpose element 

describing the maintenance and administrative program which helps 

maintain orderly and beneficial management of the area. 

This might also include canned language regarding the Fish and Game 

Commission’s “Interim Joint Policy on Pre, During and Post Fire Activities and 

Wildlife Habitat” with the California State Board of Forestry which may be applied to 

Department lands. In brief, the policy calls for coordination with local regional CDF 

units on wildfire suppression, staging fire fighting equipment, access points, 

identifying safety hazard areas to fire fighting personnel, post fire activities (eg. 

restoration ) and preventive fuel or fire breaks, specifically in sensitive habitat 

areas. A statement may be needed to address local vegetation clearance 

ordinances and various appropriate clearing methods (eg. mowing, discing, 

blading, etc.). In some cases, a separate prescription burn plan may be 

appropriate, described briefly under a “Biological Element” and the plan attached 

as an addendum. 

An example of a facility maintenance element is provided later in this chapter. 

5. Biological Goal: A biological goal is the statement of intended longrange 

results of management based upon the feasibility of maintaining, 

enhancing or restoring species populations and/or habitat. 

-11-

Biological goals may be, for example, restoration of riparian habitat to its predisturbed 

state or maintaining a particular habitat for optimal deer herd size. 

6. Public Use Goal: A public use goal is the statement of the desired type 

and level of public use compatible with the biological element goals 

previously specified within the plan. 

Public use goals could be to educate the public about rare species or special 

habitats on the property, or to promote hunting or fishing programs on the property. 

Examples of goals are: 

1) to provide nesting habitat for a certain species over a given period of time; 

2) to revegetate a former riparian community; 

3) to build ponds and/or levees to provide wintering waterfowl areas; 

4) to maintain roads for public access. 

7. Tasks: Tasks are the individual projects or work elements which 

implement the goal and are useful in planning operation and 

maintenance budgets. 

Examples of tasks are: 

1) grading and graveling roads; 

2) specific maintenance on existing levees; 

3) description of types of revegetation efforts; 

4) specific maintenance tasks on buildings. 

Chapter IV, Part B is the most important section, so read thoroughly: 

B. Biological Elements: Goals & Environmental Impacts 

Section B should have a subsection for every biological element described. Within 

each subsection, provide: 

1) the name and general description of biological element; 

2) general long-range goals; 

-12-

3) operations and maintenance tasks required to complete each goal (this 

information is optional). 

A description should accompany each goal which provides management 

information and direction on how to meet or exceed the goal. Tasks should be 

described sufficiently to provide information on how restoration, maintenance, or 

enhancement of this particular element will be accomplished. If O&M tasks are 

listed in a summary table, these should provide specific detail on how goals will be 

met by task performance. 

After the goals are characterized, briefly describe any internal or external 

management constraints which may affect meeting those goals. Some examples 

are: 

1) environmental factors such as the influence of local water availability (either 

surface or subsurface waters); the introduction or spread of non-native 

species; presence of T&E species; flood; drought; erosion; air pollution; 

hazardous waste materials; 

2) legal, political or social factors such as federal, legislative, or Fish and Game 

Commission policies or regulations which influence or mandate certain types 

of management; special permitting requirements (eg., COE 404, T&E 

species, archeological sites); city and/or county ordinances (eg., nuisance 

abatement); MOUs or other special agreements with private or public entities; 

water, timber, or mineral rights for the area; 

3) financial factors such as the source of funding to be used for operation and 

maintenance, personnel requirements, and overall management of the area 

(fund source may dictate management direction). 

Discuss potential environmental impacts from management decisions and 

mitigation measures which will be employed, if necessary, to avoid or significantly 

reduce such impacts. If the plan doesn't describe proposed management actions 

and consider their impacts in sufficient detail, CEQA requirements will not be 

adequately fulfilled by this plan. Any new activities will have to be addressed in 

future, stand alone CEQA documents on a project-by-project basis. The 

Department’s land management planning process is subject to CEQA based on the 

interpretation that the planning of certain management tasks with the intent of 

implementing those tasks falls under the definition of a “project”. CEQA defines 

projects as any activities which may cause a direct physical change or a 

-13-

easonably foreseeable physical change in the environment. Depending on the 

specificity of goals and /or tasks described in the plan, the Region determines whether 

or not the plan will be considered a “project” under CEQA definition. However, an 

environmental checklist shall be prepared to show that appropriate consideration 

was given to potential environmental impacts with the accompanying Negative 

Declaration. In rare cases, there may be circumstances when a proposed 

management activity(ies) may result in significant adverse impacts. That 

determination may trigger an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Regional 

personnel should consult with the Lands Program and Habitat Conservation 

Planning staff in the Region and at headquarters for further direction. 

When describing goals for T&E species elements, follow federal and state 

guidelines which include consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) or NOAA Fisheries Service for federally-listed species which use the 

property. It is the intent of the Department and Fish and Game Commission policy 

not to undertake projects that adversely impact a rare, threatened or endangered 

species or their habitats (paraphrased from DFG’s operations manual and Fish and 

Game Code, Section 2053). Internal discussion for state listed species shall be 

coordinated with the Department’s own experts either in the Region or at 

Headquarters. Although formal “Biological Opinions” are not prepared, document 

the coordination in writing that addresses any potential management actions that 

may impact state listed plants, animals or their habitats. The documentation may 

be an Addendum to the plan and may be entitled “Information on the Effects of 

Implementation of the Management Plan on Special Status Species”. If a species 

is federally-listed, but not state-listed, at a minimum there should be consultation 

with the USFWS (pursuant to our Section 6(c) Cooperative Agreement, dated 

8/26/91) or NOAA depending upon which agency has jurisdiction for the species. 

This consultation will result in a decision on whether a Federal Biological Opinion is 

necessary. 

Some examples of biological elements (using NDDB habitat types) are: 

1) Rare, threatened or endangered plant or animal species 

2) coastal brackish marsh 

3) California annual grassland 

4) coastal and valley freshwater marsh 

5) Great Valley cottonwood riparian 

6) Non-native, pasture, ag types (DFG internal descriptions) 

The following is a biological element example with goals and tasks: 

-14-

Biological Element: Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh 

Maintain optimum winter habitat for migratory waterfowl by on-going marsh 

management techniques to optimize winter food availability for migratory species. 

Goal: Continue with established flooding and drawdown timetable; maintain 

mode of dynamic experimental vernal/summer seasonal wetland 

management. 

Goal: Continue mechanical manipulation of wetland vegetation during 

summer dry period (when T&E species will not be impacted) to maintain 

adequate open water during flooded period. 

Task: Disc 100 acres of tules annually to maintain marsh in optimal 

successional stage. 

Task: Repair leaking levees to prevent premature drawdowns. 

Task: Build 4 additional nesting islands in specified units. 

Task: Clean specified water supply ditches. 

You may have several goals for each biological element. Listing individual tasks is 

optional, but increasing the amount of specific information within the plan will 

greatly increase the value of CEQA documentation. Also, if tasks are not itemized 

here, there must be a workplan/task summary in the final chapter, Operations and 

Maintenance Summary. 

If you wish to discuss the goals for each element in a narrative format, in order to 

provide more detail or to clarify certain management issues, be as succinct as 

possible while providing sufficient information to meet CEQA requirements. Don't 

forget to discuss management constraints, environmental impacts, and mitigation 

measures (if applicable). 

C. Public Use Elements: Goals & Environmental Impacts 

This Section is prepared in the same manner as Section B. It includes a narrative 

describing the program for each public use element, its goals and tasks (optional), 

management constraints, and environmental impacts and potential mitigation 

measures. In describing public use, you are asked to not use the terms, 

"consumptive" or "nonconsumptive," because of the inaccurate perception they 

-15-

promote. You may want to use terms like hunting, angling, birdwatching, nature 

observation, etc. 

If hunting programs will be managed on the property, describe each program and 

the goals and potential impacts associated with them. If an interpretive services 

program is to be conducted on the property (such as providing hiking trails, or bird 

tours, describe in sufficient detail the type of program(s) to be implemented along 

with any associated goals and potential impacts associated with them. 

As in previous sections, environmental impacts must be discussed for each public 

use program, and, if appropriate, mitigation measures to offset such impacts should 

be described in detail. If T&E species may be impacted by any public use program, 

those impacts should be discussed briefly within the public use element and 

reference made to the DFG documentation or federal consultation prepared for that 

species. 

Ask regional interpretive and other staff for their input, depending upon what type of 

public use is being considered for the area. In 1989, the Department adopted 

guidelines for interpretive plans or prospectuses and if drafted could be referenced 

as an appendix item. Conservation Planning staff should be consulted on listed 

species and potential public use conflicts. 

Some examples of public use elements are: 

1) Pheasant hunting program 

2) General public recreation (including bird watching, plant identification, other 

self-guided activities) 

3) Watchable Wildlife program (on certain wildlife areas and ecological reserves) 

4) Fishing program 

5) Scientific research, surveys or monitoring (by outside groups) 

6) Trails, blinds, boardwalks or viewing platforms 

7) Interpretive centers, educational kiosks 

D. Facility Maintenance Element: Goals & Environmental Impacts 

This Section describes the physical facility and grounds maintenance program 

which includes the administration necessary to maintain orderly and beneficial 

management of the area. (Not all properties will require this section. If access and 

boundary identification features such as roads and fences are present, this section 

is required.) 

-16-

The following examples of goals and tasks are paraphrased and excerpted from 

the Mendota plan; you may quote them if you like: 

Properly administer overall management of the property by: 

Goal: Maintain accurate business records on expenditures, staff, maintenance, 

and other administrative duties. 

Goal: Maintain regular office hours in order to respond to public requests for 

information in a timely manner and otherwise conduct the state's business in a 

normal manner. 

Goal: Maintain all equipment, vehicles, facilities, residences, office structures, 

shop and associated buildings, fuel tanks, and any related items in optimum 

working condition to maximize efficient use of operating expenses allocated to 

this area. 

Task: Regular inspection and servicing of all heavy equipment and vehicles. 

Task: Regular inspection and repair of all buildings, residences and 

structures. This may include items such as plumbing, electrical, painting, 

fixtures, and any other features necessary to protect health and safety of staff 

and visitors to the property. 

Task: Regular inspection and maintenance of fuel tanks to comply with 

federal and state laws. 

As with the other elements, you may list tasks here or in the next chapter. Don't 

forget to outline potential environmental impacts and mitigation, if appropriate, 

associated with facility maintenance goals and objectives. Briefly describe T&E 

species concerns, if appropriate, and refer reader to the specific internal CESA 

coordination document or federal consultation for further information. 

F. Biological Monitoring Element 

This Section is prepared in the same manner as Section B. It includes a narrative 

describing the program for each monitoring element, its goals and tasks (optional), the 

optimal monitoring season for special or targeted species/habitats and any known 

constraints, limitations or methodologies. In this section, you should include any standard 

-17-

or required protocols and discuss the relevance and consistency of any regional planning 

efforts (NCCPs, HCPs, watershed plans) with this area management plan. Sections within 

the regional plans relating to monitoring should be reiterated here. Regional partnerships 

or any state obligations for monitoring of “preserve design” or plan compliance should 

also be discussed. 

V. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE SUMMARY 

This chapter contains information in a summary format which will guide budget 

preparation and work plans for the property. Section A, Operations and Maintenance 

Tasks, is not necessary if the information has already been presented in Chapter IV. 

Section C is also optional. 

A. Operations and Maintenance Tasks to Implement Plan 

If you have not already listed them in the previous section, use this section to 

itemize O&M tasks required to fulfill goals for previously described biological, public 

use, and facilities maintenance elements. You should give brief descriptions of 

specific operations and maintenance tasks which are necessary to implement the 

goals of this plan. This will help provide information necessary for annual budget 

preparation for management of the property. 

B. Existing Staff and Additional Personnel Needs Summary 

Summarize the number of existing staff employed at or who spend a percentage of 

their work schedule performing tasks on the property, and any additional 

requirements for personnel, both full time and temporary. Briefly outline the 

justifications for personnel requested without going into specific task descriptions. 

Provide the position classifications required to fully implement the plan as written. 

This may be in narrative or table format. 

C. Operations and Maintenance Summary (Optional) 

This section is optional and is provided for those who desire to summarize all 

estimated operations and maintenance costs associated with management of the 

property. This summary would provide more specific information required for 

annual budget preparation. 

-18-

The following table is provided as the preferred format for such a summary: 

TABLE . OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE SUMMARY OPTIONS 

Option 1: 

Summary Table: Costs summarized by goal. 

Goals Prior- Labor Personnel On-Going One-Time 

ity* (in PYs) Class Cost $ Cost $ 

_________________________________________________________________ 

1. Preserve T&E species 1 0.17 WHS I $10,000 $5,000 

A. Conduct Surveys 

B. Avoid Impacts 

Continue until all goals are summarized. 

TOTAL: Total No. $ Total $ Total 

*Define meaning of priorities. 

Option 2: 

Summary Table: Costs summarized by goals and tasks: 

Goals and tasks Prior- Labor Personnel On-Going One-Time 

ity* (in PYs) Class Cost $ Cost $ 

_________________________________________________________________ 

1. Preserve T&E species 1 0.17 WHS I 

A. Conduct Surveys $1,000 $ 5,000 

B. Avoid Impacts 9,000 

(Continue until all goals and tasks are summarized.) 

TOTAL: Total No. $ Total $ Total 

VI. REFERENCES 

Use standard scientific reference nomenclature to cite authors and their published research. 

Be sure to add references when using information from other sources; for example, you 

should reference the WHR or Sawyer-Keeler-Wolf habitat designations. 

-19-

Example: 

Department of Fish and Game. 1999. List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities 

Recognized by the California Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento. 

Meyers, K.E. and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., Eds. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of 

California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Sacramento. 

APPENDICES 

All appendices should be preceded by a title page which uniquely identifies it (e.g., 

Appendix A - Legal Description of Property). All pages within this appendix should be 

numbered consecutively: A-1, A-2, A-3, .... 

Use Appendices as necessary to list such items as: 

1) Property descriptions 

2) Animal and plant species inventories 

3) Soil surveys 

4) Climatic information 

5) Other useful but secondary information. 

6) Environmental checklist and discussion of potential impacts (CEQA) 

7) CESA internal coordination 

8) Additional consultation documents 

9) Public Comments 

10) Our response to public comments 

11) MOU/MA 

12) Site interpretive plan 

13) fire plan 

-20-

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 

Selected Review Criteria for Section 7 Off-Site Compensation 

Revised Oct. 2009 

Property Assurances and Conservation Easement 

Title Report (preliminary at proposal, and Final Title Insurance at 

recordation), shall be no older than six months; 

Property Assessment and Warranty; 

Subordination Agreement [if there is any outstanding debt on the 

property]; 

Legal Description and Parcel Map; 

Conservation Easement (should use the current multi-agency standardized CE 

template document); or 

Non-Template Conservation Easement; 

Site Assessment and Development 

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment; 

Restoration or Development Plan; 

Construction Security [if applicable]; 

Performance Security; 

Site Management 

Interim Management Plan; 

Interim Management Security Analysis and Schedule; 

Long-Term Management Plan; 

Endowment Fund Analysis and Schedule; 

**Guidelines to assist in understanding what is required are detailed on pages 2–7.

Guidelines 

Property Assurances and Conservation Easement (CE) 

Title Report 

1. Who holds fee title to property? Should be the Project Applicant. If not, there 

may be liability and contracting issues. 

2. Are there any liens or encumbrances (existing debts or easements) on the 

property? 

a. Review necessary supporting instruments to evaluate liens and 

encumbrances. Property owner should submit a “Property Assessment 

and Warranty,” which discusses each and every exception listed on the 

Preliminary and Final Title Insurance Policies, evaluating any 

potential impacts to the conservation value that could result from the 

exceptions (see below). 

b. The Property Assessment and Warranty template is available at 

http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/cons_bank.htm, and should include 

a summary and full explanation of all exceptions remaining on the 

title, with a statement that the owner/Grantor accepts responsibility for 

all lands being placed under the CE as available for the primary 

purposes of the easement, as stated in the easement, and assures that 

these lands have a free and clear title and are available to be placed 

under the CE. 

3. Could any of these liens or encumbrances potentially interfere with either 

biological habitat values or ownership? If existing easements can potentially 

interfere with the conservation values/habitat of the property, those portions of 

the land should be deducted from the total compensation acreage (or number 

of credits) available on the site. 

4. A Subordination Agreement is necessary if there is any outstanding debt on 

the property. Review Subordination Agreement for adequacythe lending 

bank or other lien holder must agree to fully subordinate each lien or 

encumbrance. 

Legal Description and Parcel Map 

1. Ensure accuracy of map, and location and acreage protected under the CE. 

2. Both the map and the legal description should explain the boundaries of the 

individual project compensation site. The site should not have ‘leftover’ areas 

for later use. 

Conservation Easement from Template 

1. The current CE template can be found at 

http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/cons_bank.htm. 

2. Who will hold the easement? 

a. Must have third-party oversight by a qualified non-profit or government 

agency. Qualifications include: 

i. Organized under IRC 501(c)(3); 

SFWO, Selected Review Criteria for Section 7 Off-site Compensation Rev. Oct. 2009 

2

ii. Qualified under CA Civil Code § 815; 

iii. Bylaws, Articles of Incorporation, and biographies of Board of 

Directors on file at, and approved, by USFWS. 

1. Must meet requirements of USFWS, including 51% 

disinterested parties on the Board of Directors; 

b. Must have satisfactorily completed the CDFG due diligence process for 

easement/endowment holders and/or be accredited by the Land Trust 

Accreditation Commission http://www.landtrustaccreditation.org/home. 

3. If not using the multi-agency template, applicant should specify objections 

they have to the template as provided, and may substantially delay processing 

as they will require Solicitor review. Alternate CEs must be approved by the 

USFWS prior to recording. 

Non-Template Conservation Easements 

1. You must either 1) add USFWS as a third-party beneficiary, or 2) add 

language throughout the document, in all appropriate places, that will assure 

USFWS the right to enforce, inspect, and approve any and all uses and/or 

changes under the CE prior to occurrence (including land use, biological 

management or ownership). 

2. Include, at a minimum, language to: 

a. Reserve all mineral, air, and water rights under the CE as necessary to 

maintain and operate the site in perpetuity; 

b. Ensure all future development rights are forfeited; 

c. Ensure all prohibited uses contained in the multi-agency conservation 

agreement template are addressed; and 

d. Link the CE, Management Plan, and the Endowment Trust Fund within 

the document (e.g., note that each exists to support the others, and where 

each of the documents can be located if a copy is required). 

3. Insert necessary language, particularly, but not exclusively, per: (can compare 

to multi-agency CE template) 

a. Rights of Grantee 

b. Grantee’s Duties 

c. Reserved Rights 

d. Enforcement 

e. Remedies 

f. Access 

g. Costs and Liabilities 

h. Assignment and Transfer 

i. Merger 

j. Notices 


3

Site Assessment and Development 

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 

1. The Assessment must show that the compensation site is not subject to any 

recognized environmental conditions as defined by the American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E1527-05 “Standard Practice for 

Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 

Process, available at http://www.astm.org/Standards/E1527.htm, (i.e., the 

presence or likely presence of any Hazardous Substances or petroleum 

products). 

2. If the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment identifies any recognized 

environmental conditions, the Project Applicant must represent and warrant to 

the USFWS that all appropriate assessment, clean-up, remedial, or removal 

action has been completed. 

Development Plan [not required if doing preservation only] 

1. The overall plan governing construction and habitat establishment activities 

required to be conducted on the Property, including, without limitation, 

creation, restoration, and enhancement of habitat. 

a. This plan should include the baseline conditions of the Property including 

biological resources, geographic location and features, topography, 

hydrology, vegetation, past, present, and adjacent land uses, verified 

Waters of the U.S. Jurisdictional Determination, if applicable, species and 

habitats occurring on the property, a description of the activities and 

methodologies for creating, restoring, or enhancing habitat types, a map of 

the approved modifications, overall habitat establishment goals, objectives 

and Performance Standards, monitoring methodologies required to 

evaluate and meet the Performance Standards, an approved schedule for 

reporting monitoring results, a discussion of possible remedial actions, and 

any other information deemed necessary by the USFWS. 

2. Any permits and other authorizations needed to construct and maintain the site 

shall be included and in place prior to the start of construction of the habitat. 

3. Full construction plans for any habitat construction must be USFWS-approved 

prior to the start of construction of the habitat. 

Construction Security 

a. The Project Applicant shall furnish a Construction Security in the amount 

of 100% of a reasonable third party estimate or contract to create, restore, 

or enhance habitats on the property in accordance with the Development 

Plan. 

b. The Construction Security shall be in the form of an irrevocable standby 

letter of credit, or a cashier’s check. 

i. The letter of credit, if chosen, shall be issued for a period of at least 

one year, and shall provide that the expiration date will be 


4

automatically extended for at least one year on each successive 

expiration date unless, until extension is no longer necessary. 

Performance Security 

c. The Project Applicant shall furnish a Performance Security in the amount 

of 20% of the Construction Security. 

d. The Performance Security shall be in the form of an irrevocable standby 

letter of credit, or a cashier’s check. 

i. The letter of credit, if chosen, shall be issued for a period of at least 

one year, and shall provide that the expiration date will be 

automatically extended for at least one year on each successive 

expiration date unless, until extension is no longer necessary. 

4. The Construction and Performance Securities must: 

a. Be held by a qualified, Service-approved, non-profit organization or 

government agency [see requirements under CE above], and 

b. Be held according to minimum standards for assuring maximum success 

in earning potential, and will include assurances for no loss of principle, 

and 

c. Disbursements or releases from each of the funds must be for documented 

expenditures, as they occur. 

Site Management 

Interim Management Plan 

1. The Interim Management Plan should identify the short-term management, 

monitoring, and reporting activities to be conducted from the time 

construction ends until the Endowment Fund has been fully funded for one 

year and all the Performance Standards in the Development Plan have been 

met. 

Interim Management Security Analysis and Schedule 

a. The Project Applicant shall furnish an Interim Management Security (in 

the form of a standby letter of credit) in the amount equal to the estimated 

cost to implement the Interim Management Plan during the first year of 

the Interim Management Period, as set for in the Interim Management 

Security Analysis and Schedule 

b. The Interim Management Security Analysis and Schedule shall consist of 

a table and/or spreadsheet that shows all of the tasks (management, 

monitoring, reporting), task descriptions, labor (hours), cost per unit, cost 

frequency, timing or scheduling of the tasks, the total annual funding 

necessary for each task, and any associated assumptions for each task 

required by the Interim Management Plan. The total annual expenses 

should include administration and contingency costs. 

c. The Interim Management Security must: 


5

i. Be held by a qualified, Service-approved, non-profit organization 

or government agency [see requirements under CE above], and 

ii. Be held according to minimum standards for assuring maximum 

success in earning potential, and will assurances for no loss of 

principle. 

iii. Disbursements or releases from the fund must be for documented 


Long-Term Management Plan (LTMP) 

1. The LTMP template can be found at 

http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/cons_bank.htm and identifies the longterm 

management, monitoring and reporting activities to be conducted after 

the interim Management Period. 

2. The LTMP should include at minimum: 

a. Purpose of the Project and purpose of the LTMP; 

b. A baseline description of the setting, location, history, and types of land 

use activities, geology, soils, climate, hydrology, habitats present (once 

project meets Performance Standards), and species descriptions; 

c. Overall management, maintenance and monitoring goals; specific tasks 

and timing of implementation; and discussion of any constraints, which 

may affect goals; 

d. The Endowment Fund Analysis and Schedule (see below), 

e. Discussion of Adaptive Management actions for reasonably foreseeable 

events and possible thresholds for evaluating and implementing Adaptive 

Management; 

f. Rights of access to the Property and prohibited uses of the Property as 

provided in the CE; and 

g. Procedures for Property transfer, land manager replacement, amendments, 

and notices. 

3. A copy of the LTMP must be either recorded with the CE, or the CE must 

state in its body that the current management plan can be obtained upon 

request from the USFWS, if not using the CE template. 

Endowment Fund Analysis and Schedule 

a. Can use a PAR or PAR-like analysis that must be based upon the final, 

approved LTMP. 

b. The analysis and schedule shall consist of a table and/or spreadsheet that 

shows all of the tasks (management, monitoring, reporting), task 

descriptions, labor (hours), cost per unit, cost frequency, timing or 

scheduling of the tasks, the total annual funding necessary for each task, 

and any associated assumptions for each task required by the Interim 

Management Plan. The total annual expenses should include 

administration and contingency costs. 

c. The Endowment Fund must: 


6

i. Be held by a qualified, Service-approved, non-profit organization 

or government agency [see requirements under CE above], and 

ii. Be held according to minimum standards for assuring maximum 

success in earning potential, and will include assurances for no loss 

of principle. 

iii. Disbursements or releases from the fund must be for documented 



7

Appendix G 

Water Quality Objectives for Use in 

Designing and Implementing Projects 

with Impacts to Creeks or Wetlands

Water Quality Objectives for Use in Designing and Implementing Projects 

with Impacts to Creeks or Wetlands 

The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) is charged 

with maintaining the beneficial uses of waters of the state in the San Francisco Bay 

Region, as presented in the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin 

Plan), which is the Board's master water quality control planning document 

(http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/basin_planning.shtml#2004basinplan). 

If a project will impact waters of the State, project proponents are required to apply to 

the Water Board for Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), before implementing the 

project. If the project will also impact waters of the U.S., project proponents are also 

required to apply to the Water Board for Clean Water Act Section 401 certification. The 

Water Board reviews applications for WDRs and/or certifications to ensure that 

potential impacts to waters of the state have been avoided and minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

To assist project proponents in designing projects in a manner that avoids and/or 

minimizes impacts to waters of the State, the Water Board has developed a technical 

reference circular (Circular) that provides guidance for applicants on how to design 

projects that protect and restore stream and wetland system functions. Project 

proponents are encouraged to consult this Circular when developing projects with 

potential impacts to creeks or wetlands. 

(http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/stream_wetl 

and/streamprotectioncircular.pdf). The Water Board intends to periodically revise and 

update this Circular to take advantage of emerging science and management practices. 

Projects that impact creeks or wetlands should strive to achieve three water quality 

objectives—Watershed Hydrology, Stream Dynamic Equilibrium, and Stream and 

Wetland System Habitat Integrity. 

Watershed Hydrology: The hydrologic connectivity between headwaters and estuary, 

surface water and ground water, and landscape, floodplain, and stream channel should 

be protected to produce the pattern and range of flows necessary to support beneficial 

uses identified in the Basin Plan and a functional ecosystem. 

Stream Dynamic Equilibrium: Stream attributes, including hydrologic and sediment 

regimes, vegetation communities, channel forms, slopes, and floodplain areas, should 

be protected in a manner so as not to arrest natural hydrogeomorphic processes nor 

accelerate an imbalance resulting in excessive erosion or deposition of sediment, cause 

nuisance, or otherwise adversely affect beneficial uses. Watershed processes contribute 

to a dynamic balance over time between sediment loads and surface water flows which 

produce complex, fluctuating, and resilient systems. 

Stream and Wetland System Habitat Integrity: Stream and wetland system habitats 

should be maintained by protecting the type, amount, and complexity of wetland and 

1

iparian vegetation, the extent of riparian areas, and the substrate characteristics 

necessary to support aquatic life. 

Achievement of these water quality objectives protects and restores the physical 

integrity and associated functionality of stream and wetland systems, which include 

perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams and wetlands and their associated 

riparian areas. The following four principles should be used in developing projects, in 

order to achieve the water quality objectives: 

1) Water Quality Functions and Land Use: Functioning stream and wetland systems 

provide a wide range of water quality benefits that support the beneficial uses 

identified in the Basin Plan. Many land use activities have the potential to 

substantially degrade water quality functions of stream and wetland systems. 

Therefore, project proponents should recognize the intrinsic connections between 

land use activities and the structures, processes, and functions of stream and 

wetland systems. 

2) No Net Loss: Stream and wetland system areas, functions, and beneficial uses in the 

Region have been substantially degraded from historic levels as a result of human 

activities. Therefore, the remaining resources are especially valuable. Projects and 

associated mitigation measures should be consistent with the California Wetlands 

Conservation Policy (No Net Loss Policy, Executive Order W-59-93) to ensure no net 

loss and achieve a long-term net gain in the quantity, quality, and permanence of 

stream and wetland system areas, functions, and beneficial uses. 

3) Climate Change Adaptation: Stream and wetland system protection and restoration 

are a critical element of a strategy for reducing adverse impacts of greenhouse gas 

emissions and adapting the region’s water resource management to account for the 

adverse effects of climate change and sea level rise. Protecting and restoring stream 

and wetland system functions, including floodwater storage, groundwater recharge, 

carbon sequestration (e.g., in riparian vegetation and wetland soils that are rich in 

organic matter), and maintaining aquatic life and wildlife habitat connectivity are 

important to mitigate for the adverse effects of climate change. 

4) Watershed Approach: Many water quality and ecosystem problems are best 

identified, prioritized, addressed, and solved using a watershed approach. A 

watershed approach helps to address cumulative impacts on water quality, and 

encourages the development of watershed plans and partnerships that coordinate 

the planning, use, and protection of stream and wetland system resources. Project 

proponents should consider their project’s affects when multiple individual effects 

are added or interact with other effects in a watershed to create cumulative adverse 

impacts to water quality. Project proponents should include all appropriate and 

practicable measures to avoid and minimize potential direct, secondary, and 

cumulative temporary and permanent impacts to water quality and beneficial uses 

2

The following tables summarize goals for achieving the Water Quality Objectives. 

Watershed Hydrology Goals for Stream and Wetland System Functions 

Runoff flow and volume 

Maintain site runoff and transport characteristics (i.e., timing, magnitude, duration, time 

of concentration, and discharge pathways of runoff flow) such that post-project flow 

rates and durations mimic pre-project levels. Where practicable, incorporate measures 

to restore natural runoff patterns (e.g., enhance soil infiltration capacity and increase 

the storage of runoff) in watersheds that have been substantially altered from their predevelopment 

conditions. 

Hydrologic connectivity 

Maintain lateral, vertical, and longitudinal flow pathways, including connectivity 

between: stream channels, riparian areas, floodplains, and wetlands; surface water and 

groundwater; and ocean or estuary-to-headwaters at adequate levels to protect stream 

and wetland system functions and beneficial uses including the maintenance of, and 

access to, a diverse range of habitats for aquatic life and wildlife. 

Natural flow regime 

Maintain the natural variation of flows and hydrograph characteristics (i.e., timing, 

magnitude, duration, and time of concentration) such that the range of flows including 

low, channel forming, and flood flows are of a magnitude and duration to: 1) sustain 

channel morphology and balance sediment transport; 2) support riparian vegetation 

community maintenance; 3) provide adequate flows and velocities during low flow 

months to satisfy aquatic life and wildlife habitat requirements; and 4) maintain 

seasonal flows that permit the migration or free movement of migratory fish and access 

to floodplain and off-channel habitat (e.g., sloughs and permanently or seasonally 

flooded wetlands) for aquatic life. 

Stream Dynamic Equilibrium Goals for Stream and Wetland System Functions 

Channel Form and Processes 

Where channels are modified, design projects with proper channel form (e.g., channel 

shape, width/depth ratio, etc.), sinuosity, slope, and floodplain areas such that the 

balance between sediment loads and surface flows is attained for a range of low to high 

discharges. This goal promotes natural bank erosion as a desirable attribute of stream 

and wetland systems while requiring that projects avoid: causing excessive erosion or 

deposition of sediment in and around the project area; creating hydraulic constrictions 

(e.g., undersized culverts); or require ongoing channel maintenance (e.g., dredging to 

maintain channel capacity, ongoing bed and bank repair, etc.). Where practicable, 

restore channel dimensions and slopes, riparian vegetation communities, floodplain, 

meander belt, and geomorphic adjustment zone widths, and adequate side slopes from 

the top of the banks to the top of the floodplain terraces in areas where geomorphic 

dynamic equilibrium has been impacted. 

3

Drainage network 

Maintain the naturally occurring pattern and density of perennial, intermittent, and 

ephemeral streams, as well as associated aquatic habitats (e.g., wetlands) which 

transport water, materials, energy, and organisms through the watershed (i.e., the 

drainage network). Avoid changing the natural runoff pathways by filling, piping, 

ditching, or culverting. 

Gullies and headcuts 

Avoid formation or expansion of headcuts and gullies. Design projects with proper 

channel slope and avoid reducing the landscape infiltration capacity and increasing 

runoff which may lead to soil erosion and gully formation/expansion. 

Stream and Wetland System Habitat Integrity Goals for Stream and Wetland System 

Functions 

Floodplain and riparian areas 

Maintain floodplains and/or riparian areas of adequate width to provide water quality 

functions such as flood water and sediment storage, water quality enhancement, and 

maintenance of aquatic life and wildlife habitat. Establishment and protection of 

functioning riparian areas is one of the most straightforward and effective strategies to 

protect water quality and is a critical element in adapting to the effects of climate 

change including changes in rainfall and runoff patterns. 

Wetland hydrology 

Maintain the natural hydrologic regimes of wetlands, including their hydroperiods and 

levels of hydrologic connectivity to other aquatic habitats, at levels sufficient to support 

hydrophytic vegetation (where naturally present), aquatic life and wildlife habitat, and 

other associated beneficial uses. 

Wetland and riparian vegetation 

Maintain wetland and riparian vegetation (both woody and herbaceous) such that the 

type, amount, and complexity are adequate to: maintain water temperatures 

appropriate to the needs of aquatic life; withstand site-specific erosive forces; and 

supply large woody debris of sufficient quantities to maintain aquatic habitat. 

Habitat connectivity 

Avoid creating unnatural barriers between or among stream and wetland system and 

upland habitats (e.g., in-stream structures that restrict fish migration or encroachment 

on floodplains that restricts wildlife movement along a riparian corridor) that impact 

migration corridors and dispersal systems which connect aquatic life and wildlife with 

resources and refuges. Protecting stream and wetland system corridors can increase the 

resiliency of biodiversity by providing migration corridors as aquatic life and wildlife 

adapt to the effects of climate change on habitat conditions and distribution. 

4

Item 7.1 Att 4 (5) Ex A - Final_EACCS_Oct2010_Print - City of Dublin

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?