BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION General Plan Amendment/Zone Change Assessor’s Parcel Map Numbers 532-020-17 and -20 County of Kern Bakersfield, California Prepared for: Mr. Deepinder Singh Grewal 3323 Pendragon Street Bakersfield, California 9333 Prepared by: Pruett Biological Resource Consulting 8819 Latera Court Bakersfield, California 93314 661.421.0006 28 March 2023
Biological Resource Evaluation APN 532-020-17 and -20 March 2023
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pruett Biological Resource Consulting, Inc. (PruettBio) has prepared this biological resource evaluation for a proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change (ZC) of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 532-020-17 and -20. The project consists of 3.67 gross acres (1.49 hectares)(project) located in the NE ¼ of Section 14, Township 30 South, Range 27 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian; within the incorporated limits of City of Bakersfield, Kern County, California. The Owner has submitted an application to the City of Bakersfield for the reconfiguration of zoning and land uses to allow for a multi-family, duplex project that will include 38-units located at the northwest corner of Stine Road and Ryzona Drive. The project is located within the geographic range of several federal-, and state-listed, threatened and/or endangered plant and animal taxa. Several non-listed, special-status species also have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project. The purpose of this report is to document biological resources identified during a reconnaissance-level field study of the project site and include potential biological resources identified during a literature review of the site and vicinity, identify potential impacts to biological resources resulting from the project. Evaluation of potential impacts to plant and animal species are required under federal and state regulation during a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Appendix G thresholds have been used to evaluate potential impacts to the biological resources from the proposed project development. Avoidance and minimization measures for implementation prior to and during project activities are recommended as appropriate. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have not been contacted regarding the preparation of this report. Appendix B, Special-Status Plant and Animal Evaluations, satisfy the requirements for an initial determination of potential impacts under the CEQA Appendix G thresholds. If CEQA threshold determinations warrant, further consultation may be required with CDFW and USFWS. If additional consultation with the agencies results in the need for Application for a California Incidental Take Permit, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2 outlines requirements for detailed species-specific take analysis, proposed measures to minimize and fully mitigate impacts, compliance monitoring, and funding. A detailed description satisfying Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2 is not required to meet the CEQA Appendix G thresholds. A literature review was conducted of the site and vicinity, prior to the field study, of the biological resources known to occur based on recorded, direct observation, or potentially occurring in the project impact area based on current or historical habitat conditions. During the field study, existing habitat conditions, direct observations and/or species sign was recorded to assess the potential for occurrence of special-status species. This report includes an evaluation of the potential for those special-status biological resources not observed during the field study, with the potential to occur on the property based on the habitat conditions observed. The project and vicinity have historically been farmed. Urban development has increased throughout Metropolitan Bakersfield and the unincorporated areas of greater Bakersfield in the past 50 years. The project site consists of about 3.67 gross acres (1.49 hectares) currently developed with single-family homes, mobile trailers, and outbuildings. No undisturbed habitat is present on the site or adjacent parcels. The literature review and database queries yielded 21 special-status plant species and 32 special-status animal species as potentially occurring within the vicinity of the project site. Of these, 5 plant species, and 16 animal species have federal-, and/or state-listed and are afforded protection under federal or state law. The project will not conflict with existing or adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, local or regional conservation plans, or local ordinances protecting biological resources.
Biological Resource Evaluation APN 532-020-17 and -20 March 2023
Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT SETTING AND PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 1 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................................................ 2 FIELD STUDY ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND COVER ...................................................................................................... 3 SOILS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Special-Status Plant Species ................................................................................................................................ 3 Special-Status Animal Species ............................................................................................................................. 4 Designated Critical Habitat ................................................................................................................................. 4 Jurisdictional Water Resource Features .............................................................................................................. 4 Special-Status Natural Communities ................................................................................................................... 5 Wildlife Migration Corridors and Nursery Sites ................................................................................................... 5 Regional and Local Policies .................................................................................................................................. 5 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ....................................................................... 5 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................................................... 11 PROJECT VICINTY AND SITE ................................................................................................................................ 11 APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................................................................ 18 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND ANIMAL EVALUATION ........................................................................................... 18 APPENDIX C ........................................................................................................................................................ 32 PLANTS AND ANIMALS OBSERVED ON THE PROJECT .......................................................................................... 32 Biological Resource Evaluation APN 532-020-17 and -20 March 2023 1 INTRODUCTION Pruett Biological Resource Consulting, Inc. (PruettBio) has prepared this biological resource evaluation for the proposed development of APN 532-020-17 and -20, within the incorporated limits of the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, California. The report documents biological resources identified during fieldwork conducted on the project site and those identified through a literature search as potentially occurring based on known observations or historic habitat conditions. The report uses the information collected during the field study and literature search to evaluate potential impacts to biological resources, resulting from the project. The report is intended to assist in the analysis of the proposed project for a GPA and ZC. Listed plant and animal species are protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Protection of other non-listed, special-status species is afforded under additional regulation including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) impacts to non-listed, special-status species must be evaluated. Where necessary, the report recommends avoidance and minimization measures for implementation prior to and during project activities. The report is intended to provide technical information in support of a CEQA preliminary review. For the purposes of this report, potential impacts to the biological resources of the proposed project were evaluated in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (2021). PROJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION The project consists of 3.67 gross acres (1.49 hectares)(project) of APN 532-020-17 and -20 in the NE ¼ of Section 14, Township 30 South, Range 27 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. The project site is located at the northwest corner of Stine Road and Ryzona Drive, Bakersfield, California. PROJECT SETTING AND PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The project site is in the southern San Joaquin Valley; a broad, treeless plain in the rain shadow of the Inner Coast Ranges. The region’s climate can be characterized as Mediterranean; with hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. Summer high temperatures typically exceed 100 °Fahrenheit (°F); with an average of 110 days per year over 90 °F. Winter temperatures in the San Joaquin Valley are mild, with an average of only 16 days per year with frost (Twisselmann 1967). Rainfall varies, increasing from west to east, with the west side of the valley receiving an average of around 4 inches (10 centimeters) per year and the east side averaging about 6 inches (15 centimeters) per year. Winter fog, called Tule fog, sometimes forms during the months of November, December, and January, supplementing the annual precipitation. Approximately 90% of the rainfall in the region occurs between November 1 and April 1. Drought cycles occur periodically, becoming severe enough that plant and animal populations can experience large fluctuations. The vegetation communities in the San Joaquin Valley are distinguishable from the Mojave Desert to the east due to Tule fog, higher humidity, and isolation from continental climatic influences by mountain ranges (Twisselmann 1967). The general topography of the area if generally flat at about 355 feet (108 meters) The project is in south Bakersfield, an area that was generally farmed with scattered residential development going back to the early 1900s. The margins of Metropolitan Bakersfield and the unincorporated areas of greater Bakersfield have experienced an increase in urban development in the past 50 years. The project is currently developed with single-family homes, mobile trailers, and outbuildings. The Farmer’s Canal is the west border of the project. Ridgeview High School is adjacent to the south edge of the project. The project is otherwise surrounded by residential development. No undisturbed habitat is present on the site or adjacent parcels.
Biological Resource Evaluation APN 532-020-17 and -20 March 2023 2 METHODS LITERATURE REVIEW PruettBio conducted a literature review to identify known observations and potential for listed, or otherwise special-status, species to occur in the vicinity of the project site. A standard, 10-mile (16-kilometer) radius query was performed. Database records reviewed included: • United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) iPac: The iPac report generates a list of federal-listed species and other resources under the jurisdiction of the USFWS, including designated critical habitat for listed species, National Wildlife Refuge lands, and Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory. The list includes resources that are outside of the project site, but that have the potential to be impacted by project activities. • USFWS National Wetlands Inventory: The Wetlands Mapper is an online inventory integrating digital map data and other resources to provide current information regarding the status of national wetlands, riparian, and deepwater habitats. • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) WebSoil Survey: The report is an online database providing soil data produced by the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the USDA and other federal, state, and local agencies. The information drawn for the Soil Survey of Kern County, California, Northwestern Part was originally drawn from fieldwork completed in 1981 with soil names and descriptions approved in 1982. • California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB-RareFind 5): The CNDDB is a database of listed, or otherwise special-status, plant and animal species and sensitive communities maintained by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The information queried for this report included a standard 10-mile radius of the project site. • California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants: CNPS is a private, professional organization that maintains a database evaluating the current conservation status of California’s rare, threatened, and endangered plant species. The information queried for this report included a standard 10-mile radius of the project site. The list includes resources that are outside of the project site, but that have the potential to be impacted by project activities based on known historic or current habitat features. FIELD STUDY Two reconnaissance-level, biological field studies were conducted by Steven P. Pruett on 09 December 2022 and 26 February 2023. The project was surveyed by walking the perimeter and random transects to evaluate all representative habitat features of the site. The field study conducted, allowed for 100% visual coverage of the project site habitat types. Field notes included observations of all plant and wildlife species observed. Direct observations and/or species sign was recorded to assess the potential for occurrence. Land cover types and general habitat conditions were recorded and photographed. Special-status species and habitat features, such as vegetation communities or ephemeral channels, were also recorded and photographed if observed. Coordinates for important biological resource elements and direct observations of special-status species were recorded using a handheld geographic positioning system unit. If observed, San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) dens were classified as defined by the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011). All plant taxa encountered were identified to the extent possible given the diagnostic features present. Identifications were made using keys contained in The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California and online updates containing revisions to taxonomic treatments (Baldwin et al. 2012; Jepson Flora Project 2015).
Biological Resource Evaluation APN 532-020-17 and -20 March 2023 3 RESULTS This section summarizes the results of the field study conducted on the project site and evaluates those results for the known or potential for occurrence of special-status species based on the literature review and database queries and pursuant to statutory regulation. Discussions are provided describing the existing habitat conditions including vegetation communities, land cover and current use; soils; special-status biological resources potentially occurring in the vicinity of the project site; the potential for jurisdictional resources including designated critical habitat and riparian/wetland/water resource features; the potential for wildlife migration corridors and nursery sites; and regional and local policy. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND COVER The project site is located at the southern edge of urban development of Metropolitan Bakersfield. The original vegetive communities of the project site were Non-native Grassland (Holland 42200) and Valley Saltbush Scrub (Holland 36220). The project and adjacent parcels are fully developed. Invasive herbaceous species dominate the vegetative cover not cultivated. SOILS The USGS soil survey map describes the soil of the project site as Unit 127, Granoso sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (NRCS 2021). Unit 127 is alluvium derived from mixed rock sources found on alluvial fans and flood plains. It is comprised of sandy loam, loamy sand, and sand to a depth of about 62 inches. The depth to the restrictive feature is more than 80 inches and the available water storage in profile is listed as low (about 4.9 inches). BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The literature review and database queries yielded 21 special-status plant species as potentially occurring within the vicinity of the project site. Thirty-two animal species were identified as potentially occurring in the region of the project site. No evidence of any listed animal species was observed during the field study. No evidence of otherwise special-status plant or animal species, or animal species sign was observed during the field study. The evaluation of special-status species that were found during the literature review with a potential to occur in the region are included in Appendix B. Special-Status Plant Species Special-status plant species considered in this evaluation include all plant species that meet one or more of the following criteria: • Listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under ESA or candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA (50 CFR §17.12). • Listed or candidates for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under CESA (Fish and Game Code §2050 et seq.). A species, subspecies, or variety of plant is endangered when the prospects of its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over-exploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors (Fish and Game Code §2062). A plant is threatened when it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future in the absence of special protection and management measures (Fish and Game Code §2067). • Listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (Fish and Game Code §1900 et seq.). A plant is rare when, although not presently threatened with extinction, the species, Biological Resource Evaluation APN 532-020-17 and -20 March 2023 4 subspecies, or variety is found in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if its environment worsens (Fish and Game Code §1901). • Meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA §15380(b) and (d). Species that may meet the definition of rare or endangered include the following: o Species considered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to be “rare, threatened or endangered in California” (Lists 1A, 1B and 2); o Species that may warrant consideration on the basis of local significance or recent biological information. o Some species included on the California Natural Diversity Database’s (CNDDB) Special Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (California Department of Fish and Game 2008). • Considered a locally significant species, that is, a species that is not rare from a statewide perspective but is rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA §15125 (c)) or is so designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). Examples include a species at the outer limits of its known range or a species occurring on an uncommon soil type. Precipitation has been above average to date, resulting in a good year for annual plant species observations. Of the 21 special-status plant species returned during database queries for the project vicinity, 5 species are either federally- or state-listed as threatened or endangered. Although CEQA requires consideration for impacts to locally significant plant species, no mitigation is legally required to compensate for impacts to non-listed plant species. No listed, or otherwise special-status plant species was observed during the fieldwork conducted for the preparation of this report. No listed, or otherwise special-status plant species, has been recorded as occurring within the project site. Special-Status Animal Species Special-status animal species considered in this evaluation include those that may occur in the project vicinity that have statutory protections. This includes federal- and state-listed (rare, threatened, or endangered; fully protected) species and candidates for listing under the respective endangered species acts. Species that are of special concern to the CDFW or the USFWS are included in this evaluation. Special-status bird species that are afforded protection under the MBTA which may nest on or within an approximate 10-mile (16-kilometer) radius of the project site are also evaluated. No evidence of any listed animal species was observed during the field study. No evidence of otherwise special-status animal species, or animal species sign was observed during the field study Designated Critical Habitat The USFWS iPac report and USFWS Designated Critical Habitat Mapper lists no Designated Critical Habitat (USFWS 2020). Designated Critical Habitats closest to the project site include California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) approximately 22-miles south/southwest and Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) west of the project site. No suitable habitat for either species exists on the project site. Jurisdictional Water Resource Features Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates discharge of dredged and fill material into Waters of the United States. Wetlands are included under this jurisdiction. Proposed activities that may result in discharge of material into Waters of the U.S. require a permit review process by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as set forth under CWA section 404(b)(1). Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires any person, state or local governmental agency, or public utility to notify CDFW before beginning any activity that will substantially modify a river, stream, or lake.
Biological Resource Evaluation APN 532-020-17 and -20 March 2023 5 A search of the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory resulted in no riparian, wetlands, or other jurisdictional water features mapped on the project site (USFWS 2021). These results are consistent with the observed conditions within the survey area. Special-Status Natural Communities No special-status vegetation communities on the project site were identified by the USFWS iPac query, the CNDDB, or the CNPS Inventory (USFWS 2021, CDFW 2021, CNPS 2021). These results are consistent with the observed conditions within the survey area. Wildlife Migration Corridors and Nursery Sites Wildlife corridors can be defined as connections between wildlife blocks that meet specific habitat needs for species movement generally during migratory periods but seasonally as well. Wildlife corridors generally contain habitat dissimilar to the surrounding vicinity and include examples such as riparian areas along rivers and streams, washes, canyons, or otherwise undisturbed areas within urbanization. Corridor width requirements can vary based on the needs of the species utilizing them. Development of the project would not impact wildlife migration corridors or nursery sites. Regional and Local Policies The proposed, modified project will not conflict with existing or adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, local or regional conservation plans, or local ordinances protecting biological resources. The project site is located within the MBHCP, CDFW, ITP boundaries. Recommendations included in this report when implemented in concert with the MBHCP, would be expected to mitigate any project impacts to biological resources to a less-than-significant level. IMPACT ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES CEQA Appendix G thresholds have been used to evaluate potential impacts to the biological resources from the proposed project. Appendix G provides an analysis of the impacts of the proposed project following the standards of CEQA and provides recommendations that, when implemented, would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. It is important to note that potential take of any federal- or state-listed species from project activities would require contacting the appropriate wildlife agency (the USFWS and/or the CDFW). The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have not been contacted regarding the preparation of this report. Appendix B, Special-Status Plant and Animal Evaluations, satisfy the requirements for an initial determination of potential impacts under the CEQA Appendix G thresholds. If CEQA threshold determinations warrant, further consultation may be required with CDFW and USFWS. If additional consultation with the agencies results in the need for Application for a California Incidental Take Permit, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2 outlines requirements for detailed species-specific take analysis, proposed measures to minimize and fully mitigate impacts, compliance monitoring, and funding. A detailed description satisfying Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2 is not required to meet the CEQA Appendix G thresholds. The project would create a significant impact to biological resources, based on the specifications in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, if the following were to occur: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Biological Resource Evaluation APN 532-020-17 and -20 March 2023 6 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; 5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; 6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The following analysis discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides recommendations where appropriate to further reduce potential impacts. 1. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, by the CDFW, or the USFWS? Direct and indirect impacts, in the form of “incidental take” of a threatened, endangered, or otherwise protected species, are not expected as a result of the development of the proposed project. Implementation of standard measures for the protection of biological resources are recommended to avoid and minimize potential impact to general wildlife. These measures include, but may not be limited to: • A biological resource pre-activity survey conducted by a qualified biologist no more that 30-days before the start of construction activities, • Biological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance, • Compliance reporting provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted. If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) should be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance. The project is within the historic range of Tipton kangaroo rat. The most recent habitat suitability modeling (Cypher 2020) does not include the project in any of the four tiers enumerated for suitability. The project and adjacent parcels are fully-developed. No expectation of TKR presence exists. 2. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the CDFW or the USFWS? No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service exists on the project site. No adverse effect will occur as a result of the development of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are recommended.
Biological Resource Evaluation APN 532-020-17 and -20 March 2023 7 3. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No features, identified in wetland categories, appear on the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory mapping (USFWS 2021) on the proposed, modified project site. No federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act were identified during the field study conducted for the preparation of this report. No substantial adverse effect will occur as a result of the development of the project. No mitigation measures are recommended. 4. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No migratory wildlife corridors were identified during the literature search or field study. The project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native fish of wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The following recommendations are provided for the general protection of bird species that may occur on the project site or vicinity in compliance with the MBTA: If ground-disturbing activities are planned during the nesting season for migratory birds that may nest on or near the site (generally February 1 through August 31), nesting bird surveys are recommended prior to the commencement of ground disturbance for project activities. If nesting birds are present, no new construction or ground disturbance should occur within an appropriate avoidance area for that species until young have fledged, unless otherwise approved and monitored by a qualified onsite biologist. Appropriate avoidance should be determined by a qualified biologist. In general, minimum avoidance zones for active nests should be implemented as follows: 1) ground or low-shrub nesting non-raptors – 300 feet (91 meters); 2) burrowing owl – as appropriate based on nest location, existing surrounding activity, and evaluation of owl behavior. Coordination with CDFW may be warranted. 3) Sensitive raptors (e.g., prairie falcon, golden eagle) – 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers); 3) other raptors – 500 feet (152 meters). 5. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? There are no biological resources on the site which are protected by local policies. Impacts from conflicts with local policies will not occur. No additional mitigation measures are recommended. 6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The project does not conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No additional mitigation measures are recommended.
Biological Resource Evaluation APN 532-020-17 and -20 March 2023 8 REFERENCES Baldwin, B. G., Goldman, D. H., Keil, D. J., Patterson, R., Rosatti, T. J., & Wilken, D. H. (Eds.). (2012). The Jepson manual: Vascular plants of California (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1568 pp. CDFG. (2009). Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and natural communities. Sacramento, CA: Author. 7 pp. CDFG. (2012). Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Sacramento, CA: Author. CNDDB. (2021). Occurrence for U.S. Geologic Survey 7.5 minute quadrangles. Sacramento, CA: CDFW California Endangered Species Act of 1970, C.F.G.C § 2050 et seq. (2021). California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, 13 P.R.C. § 21000 et seq. (2021). California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 Guidelines, 14 C.C.R. § 15000 et seq. (2021). California Native Plant Society (CNPS). (2021). Inventory of rare and endangered plants (Online edition, v8-01a) 7.5 minute quadrangles and corresponding plant species accounts. Sacramento, CA: Author. California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977, C.F.G.C § 1904 et seq. (2021). Clean Water Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (2014). Dunn, J. L., & Alderfer, J., (Eds.). (2008). Field guide to the birds of western North America. Washington, DC: National Geographic Society. 447 pp. Ehrlich, P. R., Dobkin, D. S., & Wheye, D. (1988). The birder’s handbook: A field guide to the natural history of North American birds. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, Inc. 785 pp. Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. (2021). Harris, J. H., & Stearns, D. M. (1991). Population density, census methods, habitat relationships, and home range of the San Joaquin antelope squirrel, 1988–89. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section, Report 91-02. Oakland, CA: CDFG. Retrieved from http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2953 Jennings, M. R., Hayes, M. P., & Metro Washington Park Zoo. (1994). Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California (Final report to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Contract No. 8023). Rancho Cordova, CA: CDFG. 255 pp. Jepson Flora project (Eds.). (2015). Jepson eFlora. Retrieved from http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html Luce, B. (2005). Eumops perotis: Western mastiff bat. In C. Chambers & M. Herder, (Eds.), Species accounts. Portland, OR: Western Bat Working Group. 5 pp. Retrieved from http://www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/molossidae/eupe.pdf Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq. (2021). Nafis, G. (2000–2021a). North American legless lizards - Anniella. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Retrieved from http://www.californiaherps.com/lizards/pages/a.pulchra.html Biological Resource Evaluation APN 532-020-17 and -20 March 2023 9 Nafis, G. (2000–2021b). San Joaquin coachwhip – Coluber flagellum ruddocki. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Retrieved from http://www.californiaherps.com/snakes/pages/c.f.ruddocki.html Nafis, G. (2000–2021c). Blainville’s horned lizard – Phrynosoma blainvillii. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Retrieved from http://www.californiaherps.com/lizards/pages/p.blainvillii.html Native Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species, 32 Fed. Reg. 4001 (Mar. 11, 1967). Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr18.pdf Papenfuss, T. J., Parham, J. F. (2013). Four new species of California legless lizards (Anniella). Breviora 536, 1–17. Retrieved from http://mczbase.mcz.harvard.edu/specimen_images/publications/Breviora_536.pdf Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, C.W.A. § Section 13000 et seq. (2021). Reid, F. A. (2006). Mammals of North America (Peterson field guide). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 579 pp. Sherwin, R. (2005). Antrozous pallidus: Pallid bat. In D. A. Rambaldini, (Eds.). Species accounts. Portland, OR: Western Bat Working Group. 5 pp. Retrieved from http://www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/vespertilonidae/anpa.pdf Shuford, W. D., Gardali, T., (with Comrack, L.A.). (Eds.). (2008). California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Sacramento, CA: CDFG. Stebbins, R. C. (1985). A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians (Peterson field guide), (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 336 pp. Stebbins, R. C. (2003). A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians (Peterson field guide), (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 533 pp. Twisselmann, E. C. (1967). A flora of Kern County, California. The Wasmann Journal of Biology, 25, 1–395. Uptain, C. E. (1989). Survey for Tipton kangaroo rats (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides) on the proposed Delano prison site, Kern County, California (Prepared for the California Department of Corrections). Sacramento, CA: 11 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (1996). California condor recovery plan, third revision. Portland, OR: Author. 62 pp. USFWS. (1998). Recovery plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Portland, OR: Author. Retrieved from http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/980930a.pdf USFWS. (2011). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service standardized recommendations for protection of the endangered San Joaquin kit fox prior to or during ground disturbance. Sacramento, CA: Author. 9 pp. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Survey-Protocols-Guidelines/Documents/kitfox_standard_rec_2011.pdf USFWS. (2013). California condor recovery program population size and distribution, December 31, 2013 overview page. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_8/NWRS/Zone_1/Hopper_Mountain_Complex/Hopper_Mountain/Sections/News/News_Items/PDFs/2013-12-31.pdf Biological Resource Evaluation APN 532-020-17 and -20 March 2023 10 USFWS. (2021a). Federal endangered and threatened species that may occur in or may be affected by project in the counties and/or USGS 7 ½ minute quads you requested: quadrangle [August]. Author. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Lists/es_species_lists-form.cfm USFWS. (2021b). National Wetlands Inventory Website [August]. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ Williams, D. F. (1980). Distribution and population status of the San Joaquin antelope squirrel and giant kangaroo rat. (Nongame Wildlife Investigation Final Report E-W-4). Sacramento, CA: CDFG. 48 pp. Williams, D. F. (1986). Mammalian species of special concern in California (Prepared for the State of California, The Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game). Turlock, CA: CSUS. 112 pp. Retrieved from http://esrp.csustan.edu/resources/publications/pdf/mammalian_scc_ca_esrp5.pdf Zeiner, D. C., Laudenslayer, W. F., Jr., Mayer, K. E., & White, M., (Eds.). (1990a). California’s wildlife volume II birds (California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System). Sacramento, CA: CDFG. Zeiner, D. C., Laudenslayer, W. F., Jr., Mayer, K. E., & White, M., (Eds.). (1990b). California’s wildlife volume III mammals (California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System). Sacramento, CA: CDFG.
APPENDIX A PROJECT VICINTY AND SITE