Roseville City Council
January 18, 2023

BN 74011309v3
5 (the “December 5 Letter”) and on December 7, 2022 (the “December 7 Letter”) reiterating its same concerns.

The purpose of this letter is to address the unsubstantiated claims that LIUNA alleged in its December 5 and December 7 Letters, and to demonstrate that substantial evidence supports the City’s adoption of the IS/MND and Addendum in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.). For the reasons discussed further below, we respectfully request that the City Council find that the LIUNA appeal is without merit and reject the Appeal based on the finding that the Project approval and adoption of the Addendum are supported by substantial evidence and comply with CEQA.

Substantial evidence does not support the Appeal’s assertions that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts warranting further CEQA review.

Legal Standards
As I noted in my October 20, 2022 letter, CEQA permits a lead agency to prepare an addendum to a negative declaration “if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 [of the CEQA Guidelines]” have occurred. (14 Cal. Code Regs. (the “CEQA Guidelines”), § 15164(b).) Those conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 generally provide that: (i) no substantial changes are proposed in the project or with how it is undertaken, requiring major revisions to the CEQA document; or (ii) that new information of substantial importance has arisen, showing that the project will result in significant environmental impacts or more severe impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162.) In order to trigger a subsequent IS/MND when a lead agency previously adopted an IS/ MND or certified an EIR for the initial project, CEQA requires that new information be of substantial importance, and show: A) one or more significant effects not previously examined in the IS/MND, B) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe, C) mitigation measures previously found to be infeasible would be feasible, or D) mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those previously studied would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, and those mitigation measures were declined by the project. (Id., § 15162(a)(3).) The lead agency shall prepare an addendum to the IS/MND if none of the conditions described above have occurred. (Id., § 15164(b).) That is not the case here.

To demonstrate that the City erred in preparing the Addendum and should have instead prepared a subsequent MND, the Appellant must provide substantial evidence demonstrating that substantial changes to the project and/or its circumstances or new information occurred in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Substantial evidence is defined as “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be Mayor Krista Bernasconi and
Members of the City Council
December 21, 2022

BN 74011309v3
made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” (Id., § 15384(a).) “Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion” is expressly excluded from substantial evidence. (Id.) Substantial evidence includes “facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.” (Id., § 15384(b).) The Appellant makes several unsubstantiated claims that a subsequent IS/MND is required for the Project, because: (1) the City allegedly failed to investigate the increased size of the Project; and (2) that the Project will purportedly result in significant impacts to air quality, energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and biological resources. For the reasons detailed below, LIUNA’s unsubstantiated claims do not warrant preparation of a subsequent MND. LIUNA’s latest letters raise the same issues without any evidence, and the Appellant failed to meet its burden of proof.

The Addendum incorporated the City’s General Plan Update EIR findings, which evaluated the environmental impacts of the proposed Project on this site.

LIUNA made sweeping unfounded claims that the City had a duty to conduct additional analysis for the original warehouse/industrial project that was previously subject to the adopted IS/MND. The Addendum clearly explained that the IS/MND, which was attached to the Addendum, evaluated the environmental impacts associated with the development of the 575,505 square foot Blue Oaks Commerce Center. (Addendum, p. 3.) The Addendum also explained the changes to the Project over the years, which included eliminating retail uses, replacing industrial uses, and including office uses. Thus, this updated Project, including the 50,000 additional square feet of industrial uses, is merely a minor modification that fits within the original footprint of the Blue Oaks Commerce Center that was evaluated in the IS/MND as explained in the Addendum.

The City further explained that the Addendum relied upon the environmental analysis contained in the City’s 2035 General Plan Update EIR, the West Roseville Specific Plan, and the Subsequent EIR and the Roseville 2020 Transportation System Capital Improvements Program Update. (Addendum, pp. 6-7.) This is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, which allows incorporation of a program EIR into a later project to evaluate the project’s impacts to “regional influences, secondary effects, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors.” Thus, as explained below, the Addendum appropriately analyzed each of the environmental topics evaluated in the IS/MND and the City’s other applicable program EIRs and demonstrated that the Project would not trigger the need for subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Consistent with CEQA, the City has relied on two EIRs, the adopted IS/MND and the Addendum to document the environmental impacts of the Blue Oaks Commerce Center.

The Addendum and the IS/MND adequately analyzed air quality, energy, GHG, and purported impacts to human health.

Mayor Krista Bernasconi and
Members of the City Council
December 21, 2022

BN 74011309v3
In its December 5 Letter, LIUNA claimed without providing any evidence that the Project would result in increased impacts to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, and other human health impacts. The Addendum utilized the checklist provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines for determining whether a project will result in potentially significant impacts to the environment. LIUNA, however, ignores the extensive analysis contained in the Addendum’s “Air Quality” section. For example, the Addendum explained that the Project was evaluated in the City’s General Plan update and associated EIR, and that existing rules and regulations, such as those imposed by the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (“PCAPCD”) would reduce Project impacts. (Addendum, p. 13.) The Addendum further analyzed the change in impacts to reactive organic gases during construction which “remain[] consistent with the development scenarios outlined in the MND.” (Addendum, p. 14.) Finally, the Addendum concluded that permitting requirements under PCAPCD would subject the Project to mitigation measures which would reduce air quality impacts to a less than significant level. (Addendum, p.14.) The Addendum identified the mitigation measures detailed in the IS/MND which would be applicable to the Project addressed in the Addendum. (Addendum, pp. 14-15.) Thus, air quality impacts were adequately addressed in the Addendum.

With respect to energy use, the Addendum explained that the new CEQA requirement to evaluate energy impacts was not required at the time the City adopted the IS/MND. (Addendum, p. 21.) Nonetheless, the IS/MND evaluated the provision of utilities and services, including gas/ electric services based on the General Plan EIR, and included a discussion of EV charging stations and other energy efficient measures incorporated into the Project’s design (see e.g., IS/MND pp. 27-27). This further demonstrates that the CEQA documents prepared for the Project took into consideration information that was known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the IS/MND was adopted, and that the analysis did not indicate the Project would result in a significant energy impact. Given the Project’s consistency with the assumed development for industrial uses under both the City’s General Plan and the Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan, the Project, even with the 50,000 square foot increase remains “consistent with the current citywide assessment of energy demand, and . . . would not result in substantial unplanned demands, nor would it result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy.” This is consistent with the level of analysis advised by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, and it is consistent with CEQA’s requirements for the analysis of subsequent changes to an approved Project. For these reasons, no additional CEQA analysis is warranted.

LIUNA made an unsubstantiated assumption that the Project will result in an increase in GHG emissions which would warrant additional CEQA analysis. However, at the time that the IS/ MND was prepared in 2010, the CEQA Guidelines did not provide thresholds of significance for determining the impacts of GHG emissions. Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, which provides such thresholds, became operative on March 18, 2010. The IS/MND was published in April 2010, but the City embarked on the CEQA review process well before the publication date Mayor Krista Bernasconi and
Members of the City Council
December 21, 2022

BN 74011309v3
and operation of Section 15064.4. Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines apply prospectively only and new requirements “will apply to steps in the CEQA process not yet undertaken by the date when agencies must comply with the amendments.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15007(b).) If a document meets the requirements applicable to the project, “the document shall not need to be revised to conform to any new content requirements in guideline amendments taking effect before the document is finally approved.” (Id., § 15007(c).) Even though new GHG thresholds of significance were later adopted, the 2010 IS/MND evaluated the Project’s potential GHG effects based on the information that was known at that time. The IS/MND evaluated the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative GHG impacts and identified potential measures to reduce the Project’s contribution as explained on pages 25 and 26 of the 2010 IS/MND. Thus, the City complied with CEQA and there is no evidence that subsequent environmental review was required to address impacts that were already addressed in the adopted IS/MND and Roseville General Plan Update EIR.

Moreover, the Addendum explained why no additional CEQA analysis is required simply because minor modifications are proposed to the project, when the project was approved prior to CEQA’s requirement of GHG analysis. (Addendum, pp. 23-24.) The court in Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) explained that, despite the subsequent addition of Section 15064.4 requiring GHG analysis, an addendum need not analyze such impacts. (Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788, 806-08.) Additionally, because GHG environmental impacts have widely been known “since the 1970’s,” GHG impacts cannot constitute new information which would require additional CEQA review per Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Id., pp. 807-08.) Both the 2010 IS/MND and the Addendum explained this. Thus, no additional CEQA analysis of GHG emission impacts is required.

LIUNA claims in the December 5 Letter that the Project will have vague “human health impacts.” LIUNA provided no evidence to support this assertion. “Human health impacts” is not an environmental factor subject to CEQA review, or a factor contained in the CEQA review checklist. (See CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.) While it could be possible for other hypothetical environmental impacts to affect human health (e.g. hazardous materials, air quality, etc.), both the Addendum and the adopted IS/MND concluded that the Project would not result in any significant environmental impacts, including the environmental effects indirectly related to human health impacts. Moreover, the Addendum explained why the proposed construction and operation of the industrial commerce center buildings would not result in the exposure of individuals to toxic and/or hazardous materials as the Project includes a Risk Management and Prevention Program for those uses that handle specified quantities of toxic and/or hazardous materials (see e.g., page 25 of the Addendum). Thus, the Project will not result in impacts that could adversely affect human health.

LIUNA’s vague claim that the Project will result in “human health impacts” is unfounded.

Mayor Krista Bernasconi and
Members of the City Council
December 21, 2022

BN 74011309v3
The mitigation measures included in the IS/MND mitigate the Project’s air quality impacts to a less than significant level.

The Appellant further claims that, because California Attorney General has identified recommended mitigation measures for warehouse projects in recent years, this allegedly constitutes “new information of substantial importance” and that these mitigation measures are considerably different from those analyzed in the IS/MND, which would prohibit use of an Addendum. Section 15162(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which Appellant cites, requires these new mitigation measures to be “considerably different” than those previously analyzed in order to warrant preparation of a subsequent MND.

LIUNA’s assertion, however, fails to consider the air quality mitigation measures that were adopted as part of the IS/MND, and supported the City’s prior determination that the Project would result in a less than significant environmental impact with mitigation incorporated. (IS/MND, pp. 8-9.) The Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measures AQ#1 and AQ#2 which, among other things, imposes specified NOx, particle emission reduction measures, and the use of low sulfur fuel for all diesel-powered equipment. (Addendum, pp. 14-16.) Further, these mitigation measures require compliance with all current PCAPCD rules and regulations and also require special permits for processes that discharge 2 pounds per day or more of air contaminants. (Id.) Some of the PCAPCD regulations achieve the same goals as those identified in the Attorney General’s suggested mitigation measures, such as by limiting particulate matter emissions and limiting the emission of specific contaminants. (See PCAPCD Rules and Regulations.) Section 15162(a)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines imposes this “considerably different” requirement on new mitigation measures before a subsequent negative declaration be prepared.

The Attorney General’s suggested mitigation measures simply are not “considerably different” from the mitigation measures imposed on the Project and recommended in the IS/MND and required by PCAPCD. Appellant’s mere recitation of the Attorney General’s mitigation measures does not qualify as the substantial evidence necessary to require a subsequent negative declaration.

Finally, because the IS/MND explained how all of the Project air quality impacts have already been reduced to a less than significant level and the proposed modifications addressed in the Addendum would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant air quality impacts, there is no reason to impose different measures from those previously adopted.

The Addendum and IS/MND adequately addressed the Project’s impacts to biological resources, and the Project would not result in any new significant impacts.

In its December 5 Letter, Appellant summarizes the findings from a biologist’s review of the Project which jumbles a transportation and biological impact analysis to misleadingly suggest Mayor Krista Bernasconi and
Members of the City Council
December 21, 2022

BN 74011309v3
that the Project will result in a certain number of wildlife roadway mortality incidents. This explanation, however, ignores the Addendum’s summary of the biological resource impacts discussed in the IS/MND and the Addendum’s reference and incorporation of two additional program EIRs prepared in 2020. CEQA requires later activities to be “examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15168(c).) Later activities found within the scope of the program EIR require no further environmental documents. (Id., § 15168(c)(5).) Thus, a program EIR may be incorporated into a later project to evaluate the project’s impacts to “regional influences, secondary effects, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors.” (Id., § 15168(d)(2).) Here, the City not only relied on the 2010 IS/MND analysis of biological resources, but it also incorporated by reference into the Addendum the General Plan 2035 EIR (SCH# 2019080418) and the City’s 2020 Capital Improvements Program Update EIR (SCH# 2006062086)—both of which anticipated development of the Project site. (Addendum, p. 35.) The General Plan EIR evaluated and addressed impacts due to increases in vehicle miles travelled (VMT). (See generally General Plan 2035 EIR, pp. 4.3-6—12.) Thus, the Project’s transportation impacts, including those caused by VMT, were adequately addressed. Further, the Addendum included an additional traffic analysis prepared by Fehr and Peers, reviewing the updated Project’s trip generation impacts on adjacent roadways. (Addendum, Attachment 2.) With respect to roadway wildlife fatalities, the CEQA Guidelines do not recognize this as an environmental impact. (See CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.) Accordingly, although an analysis of this impact is unwarranted, the project biologist visited the project site on December 15, 2022 and confirmed that few bird species were observed on roads surrounding the project site, and the site is surrounded by urban development with marginal habitat. No federally or state listed bird species were observed on the property.

Habitat present on-site offers marginal foraging habitat for raptors as there is a lack of small mammal burrows secondary to site compaction and no raptors were observed during the field visit.

Thus, there is no evidence to support the Appellant’s biologist’s contention that the Project traffic associated with a 50,000 square foot increase in development area would result in 669 roadway wildlife fatalities due to additional traffic (traffic that was previously accounted for in the General Plan Update EIR).

LIUNA also claims that the Project could result in impacts to more special status species than those that were evaluated in the IS/MND. However, Appellant’s biologist only states that the site “could attract” certain species and there is a “potential” for such species to be located on the site. Appellant’s biologist provides no evidence of any special status species existing on the Project site. Without such evidence, Appellant’s argument is merely speculation or unsubstantiated opinion, which CEQA expressly excludes from substantial evidence. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384(a).)
Mayor Krista Bernasconi and
Members of the City Council
December 21, 2022

BN 74011309v3
The Applicant retained a biologist with Adema Environmental to visit the Project site on December 15, 2022. After a thorough evaluation of original project documents, species data from multiple sources, and a site visit conducted by principal biologist Carol Adema to document present day site conditions, Ms. Adema concluded that no new or significantly increased impacts to biological resources would occur with project construction on the Project site. As such, no additional mitigation measures beyond those identified in the adopted IS/MND will be necessary.

As she explains in her letter attached hereto as Attachment B and incorporated by this reference, the present day, post-grading and habitat elimination from prior grading activities demonstrates that no wetland or vernal pool features or habitat occupy the project site. Therefore, no new species with potential to occur within the site have been listed, no critical habitat has been designated that may be affected by the proposed project, and no project description changes that would change a level of potential effect were identified. Ms. Adema’s letter confirms that there is no suitable habitat present on the project site.

With respect to wetlands, waters of the U.S. and waters of the State, a wetland delineation was conducted for the entire original project area in 2005 and finalized in 2006 identifying 2.028 acres of aquatic features representing jurisdictional WOUS at that time. The feature types were comprised of 9 vernal pool features (0.708 ac), 44 seasonal wetland features (0.687 ac), 7 seasonal swale features (0.246 ac), 3 seasonal marsh features (0.139 ac), and 2 intermittent drainage features (0.248 ac). (Attachment A in Attachment B: Figure 3 - Original Wetland Delineation Map).

All features were permanently impacted as a result of site grading which occurred in 2014 through 2017. Present day site conditions indicate no wetland features have re-established within the project area. Therefore, the only “aquatic” features on-site are the man-made stormwater treatment swales that lie along the western border of the property, which will not be impacted by project work and are not jurisdictional. Thus, as documented in the Addendum and further confirmed in Attachment B, the Project would not result in any new significant or substantially greater impacts to biological resources that would warrant further environmental review.

The Addendum determined that the Project would not result in any air quality impacts.

In its December 7 Letter, Appellant erroneously claims that the Project’s air quality analysis was deficient because the Addendum did not include a CalEEMod file that was relied upon as part of the General Plan 2035’s environmental analysis. As explained previously, the Addendum incorporated the analysis contained in the General Plan 2035 EIR, consistent with Section 15168(d)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. That EIR evaluated over 2,300 acres of industrial uses across the City, including on the Project site. (General Plan 2035 EIR, p. 2-30.) This analysis included an assumption of over 370,000 square feet of development capacity with buildout of the General Plan update. Thus, the Project’s impacts, including the 50,000 square foot addition, were Mayor Krista Bernasconi and
Members of the City Council
December 21, 2022

BN 74011309v3
adequately analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, which the Addendum relies upon, and there was no basis to require another air quality analysis or further CEQA review. (Addendum, p. 6.) Conclusion
The Applicant team appreciates the City’s thorough and comprehensive analysis of the Project’s environmental impacts in the Blue Oaks Commerce Center IS/MND and Addendum. As we have extensively demonstrated, the Project does not constitute substantial changes from what was analyzed in the IS/MND, and the Project will not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Accordingly, the Addendum complies with CEQA. We respectfully request that the City reject the LIUNA Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s adoption of the Addendum and Project approval.

Regards,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
By
Alicia Guerra
AG:nj
cc: Carmen Avalos, City Clerk
Joseph Speaker
Greg Bitter
Derek Ogden
Escarlet Mar
Ryan Schera
Wes Raborn
BN 74011309v3

ATTACHMENT A
425 Market Street
Suite 2900
San Francisco, CA 94105
415.227.0900 Phone
415.227.0770 Fax
BN 73239887v1
415.227.3508 Direct October 20, 2022 [email protected] Joseph Speaker
Assistant City Attorney
City of Roseville
311 Vernon Street
Roseville, California 95678
Re: File Number PL 22-0101; Blue Oaks Commerce Center
Dear Joe:

I am writing on behalf of my client, Schnitzer Properties, project applicant (“Applicant”) for Blue Oaks Commerce Center, File Number 22-0101. Blue Oaks Commerce Center consists of the development of four industrial buildings totaling approximately 310,000 square feet (“Project”), located on two parcels totaling 23.94 acres at 2200, 2301, and 2201 Freedom Way (“Property” or “Project Site”) in the City of Roseville (“City”). On September 22, 2022, the Roseville Planning Commission adopted an addendum (“Addendum”) to a previously adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) and approved a Major Project Permit Stage 1 Modification and Major Project Permit Stage 2 Modification for the Project.

Lozeau Drury, LLP, on behalf of Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 185 (“LIUNA” or “Appellant”), filed an appeal challenging the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project (“Appeal”). LIUNA never submitted any comments on the IS/MND in 2011, nor did it submit any comments before or at the Planning Commission meeting on the Project. LIUNA first questioned the City’s adoption of the Addendum and the approval of the Project for the first time in its generic Appeal contending that there were different unspecified mitigation measures compared to those identified in the IS/MND that would reduce significant cumulative air quality impacts. LIUNA also suggested the Project’s increased size required major revisions to the IS/MND under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) without any evidence.

The purpose of this letter is to address LIUNA’s unsubstantiated assertions, and explain that contrary to LIUNA’s assertions, substantial evidence supports the City’s reliance on the Joseph Speaker
October 20, 2022

BN 73239887v1
IS/MND and Addendum. For the reasons discussed further below, we respectfully request that the City Council find that the LIUNA appeal is without merit and should be rejected, based on the finding that the Project approval and adoption of the Addendum are supported by substantial evidence and comply with CEQA.

The Appeal Does Not Provide Substantial Evidence that the Project May Result in Significant Impact(s) on the Environment
Legal Standards for Addendum and Substantial Evidence
When an IS/MND has been prepared and adopted, no further environmental analysis is required unless there are substantial changes to the project and/or the circumstances in which it is being undertaken which require major revisions to the earlier analysis, or new information becomes available at the time of the next discretionary action which was not or could not have been known at the time of the earlier analysis. (Public Resources Code (PRC) § 21166.) The CEQA Guidelines further define substantial changes to the project and/or its circumstances as changes that result in “new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.” (14 CCR § 15162(a).) To trigger an MND, CEQA requires that new information be of substantial importance, and show: A) one or more significant effects not previously examined in the IS/MND, B) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe, C) mitigation measures previously found to be infeasible would be feasible, or D) mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those previously studied would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, and those mitigation measures were declined by the project. (14 CCR § 15162(a)(3).) The City shall prepare an addendum to the IS/MND if none of the conditions described above have occurred. (14 CCR § 15164(b).)
To demonstrate that the City erred in preparing the Addendum and should have instead prepared a subsequent MND, the Appellant must provide substantial evidence demonstrating substantial changes to the project and/or its circumstances or new information, as defined above by 14 CCR § 15162. Substantial evidence is defined as “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” (14 CCR § 15384(a).) “Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion” is expressly excluded from substantial evidence. (Id.) Substantial evidence includes “facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.” (14 CCR § 15384(b).) LIUNA’s Appeal contends that the City should require a subsequent MND for the Project because: 1) new unspecified air quality mitigation measures for distribution centers and warehouses exist which are more robust than those identified in the IS/MND, and 2) because the Joseph Speaker
October 20, 2022

BN 73239887v1
project is larger, it results in greater emissions and energy usage that would require further environmental review. LIUNA does not provide any substantial evidence to support either of these arguments, while the analysis provided in the Addendum and the entirety of the record provide substantial evidence that a subsequent MND is not required.

Air Quality Mitigation Measures
As noted above, new information of substantial importance includes mitigation measures which are considerably different from those previously analyzed which would substantially reduce significant effect(s) on the environment but are declined by the project proponents. (14 CCR § 15162(a)(3)(D).) The Appellant asserts that new air quality mitigation measures exist specific to distribution centers and warehouses, but does not identify these measures. Without providing any applicable mitigation measures that purportedly exist (let alone any technical documentation demonstrating that such measures would actually reduce the Project’s potential air quality impacts beyond the Project’s existing mitigation measures and regulatory compliance), LIUNA is merely speculating that other mitigation measures exist. Under CEQA, such speculation does not constitute substantial evidence.

Even if there were other measures, that alone does not trigger the requirement for subsequent environmental review. If a commenter requests that other mitigation measures be adopted, the CEQA Guidelines require the Project to “decline to adopt the [new] mitigation measure” in order to trigger the preparation of a revised and recirculated IS/MND. (14 CCR § 15162(a)(3).) Even if the Appellant could demonstrate that a new, more effective mitigation measure has been identified, which it has not done, there is no evidence in the Addendum or elsewhere in the record that the Project has declined any new mitigation measures. The Project has accepted and agreed to implement all mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND. Thus, there is no basis to require recirculation of the IS/MND.

By contrast, the Addendum, the IS/MND and the Project technical studies prepared as part of the IS/MND provide extensive analysis demonstrating 1) potential air quality impacts were previously analyzed in the IS/MND which identified mitigation measures to address those potential impacts and mitigate them to a less than significant level; and 2) those mitigation measures are still applicable and were incorporated into the Project. (Addendum, pages 13-16.) The Addendum further incorporates information from the City’s 2035 General Plan Update (“GPU”) the GPU Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) that the City certified in August 2020.1

1 Though the EIR found that impacts would be reduced through compliance with PCAPCD and GPU policies, implementation of the GPU would result in a significant unavoidable environmental impact by generating emissions in excess of PCAPCD significance thresholds. The City adopted a statement of overriding considerations when it adopted the GPU. (Addendum, page 13.)
Joseph Speaker
October 20, 2022

BN 73239887v1
The Addendum states that the Project would be consistent with the GPU, and would comply with Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and GPU policies, regulations, and permitting requirements. The analysis included in the Addendum concludes that 1) the Project “remains consistent with development scenarios outlined in the MND,” 2) any changes to the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts, and 3) implementation of the air quality mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND would result in less than significant impacts. (Addendum, page 14.) Accordingly, the Addendum is based on substantial evidence and found that the Project does not constitute a substantial change from that analyzed in the IS/MND.

Moreover, the City concluded that the adopted IS/MND air quality mitigation measures continue to ensure that the Project would not result in a significant impact. There is no new significant air quality impact, nor is there a substantial increase in the severity of prior identified air quality impacts warranting further environmental review. For this reason, the City Council should reject the LIUNA Appeal.

The Project Does Not Result in Changes that would result in New Significant Impacts or in a Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Prior Impact Warranting Major Revisions to the IS/MND.

The Appellant’s second argument is that because the Project is larger and may result in greater emissions and energy usage, that this alone means that the Project warrants major revisions in the prior IS/MND triggering a subsequent MND. This claim misstates CEQA’s requirements.

CEQA defines substantial changes to the Project warranting major revisions to a prior MND as changes causing the involvement of “new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.” (14 CCR § 15162(a).) In other words, just because there is a change to the Project, that change may not trigger the need for a major revision to the prior IS/MND.

The Project Addendum extensively analyzes air quality and traffic impacts in support of the conclusion that changes to the Project (even if the size of the buildings have increased) would not result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. The Addendum also properly addresses energy usage, noting that the IS/MND was not required to analyze energy effects of the Project because the industrial use was consistent with the existing General Plan’s land use designation, and therefore development with industrial uses, and their associated energy usage, was already anticipated as future development under the existing General Plan for that that location. The Addendum further explains that the Project is consistent with subsequent General Plan Update, including citywide assessments of energy demand associated with those changes. As the Project would not result in substantial unplanned demands or in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy, energy impacts would be less than significant, and thus would not constitute a substantial change to the Project warranting a major revision to the adopted IS/MND. LIUNA did not provide any evidence to the contrary. For that reason, the City Council Joseph Speaker
October 20, 2022

BN 73239887v1
should reject the LIUNA Appeal on the basis that there is no evidence that the IS/MND required further revision and recirculation. The City fully evaluated all significant impacts in the IS/MND and concluded that the proposed Project would not result in any new significant or substantially more severe air quality, traffic (including truck traffic) and energy impacts.

Conclusion
We appreciate the City’s thorough and comprehensive analysis of the Project’s environmental impacts in the Blue Oaks Commerce Center IS/MND and Addendum. As we have demonstrated, the Project and its circumstances do not constitute substantial changes, since they do not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Accordingly, the Addendum is appropriate and there is no basis for the City to require a subsequent MND. We respectfully request that the City reject the LIUNA Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s adoption of the Addendum and Project approval.

Please let us know if you have any questions regarding our responses to LIUNA’s letter.

Regards,

BUCHALTER
A Professional Corporation
By Alicia Guerra
Shareholder
AG:eg
cc: Greg Bitter
Derek Ogden
Escarlet Mar
Ryan Schera
Wes Raborn

BN 74011309v3

ATTACHMENT B
Biological Resources Letter Report
Blue Oaks Commerce Center ‐ 2200 Freedom Way
December 2022

SUMMARY
Schnitzer Properties(Owner) is proposing to complete development of the 575,505 square foot Blue Oaks Commerce Center office, industrial and retail complex (project). The City of Roseville approved the Blue Oaks Commerce Center in 2010. The Owner constructed the first project building in 2015/2016. The Owner proposes to modify the Project to complete the development of four buildings totaling approximately 310,000 square feet. Project activities would occur within Sections 21 & 22, Township 11N, Range 06E, within the Roseville USGS 7.5' Quad, Placer County Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 017‐123‐ 090. (Attachment A: Figure 1 – Location Map)
Original project activities were evaluated and approved under an Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration (IS/MND). The IS/MND identified three biological Mitigation Measures(MMs) to mitigate potential project impacts.  The mitigation measures generally included the requirement to obtain regulatory permits for habitat elimination, issuance of a grading permit and coverage under the CA Construction General Permit (CGP), and pre‐construction presence/absence species surveys prior to construction.

After a thorough evaluation of original project documents, species data from multiple sources, and a site visit conducted by principal biologist Carol Adema to document present day site conditions; the Project biologist concluded that no new or significantly increased environmental impacts would occur secondary to the re‐initiation of project activities. As such, no additional MMs beyond those identified in the original project IS/MND will be necessary, though the timing windows mentioned in MM BIO#3 have been updated to reflect present day standards, as discussed in the Conclusions and Recommendations Section.

PROJECT HISTORY & DESCRIPTION
The City of Roseville circulated the IS/MND for public review on April 29, 2010 (SCH# 2010042089), closing for comment on May 29, 2010. Project activities commenced in September 2014 with initial site preparation and grading, including the removal of naturally occurring aquatic features within the entirety of the site, removal of a portion of roadway located on the northwest corner of the project area, installation of stormwater treatment swales along the western border of the property, and concluding in 2017 with the construction of a Federal Bureau of Investigation campus on the southeast corner of the property.

As required by the MMs, the Owner obtained regulatory permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), the CA Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (for both Clean Water Act (CWA) and CGP), and the CA Department of Fish and Wildlife. Mitigation credits were then purchased, as stipulated by agency permits. (Appendix A: Regulatory Permits and Proof of RE:   Biological Resources Letter Report – December 2022 Blue Oaks Commerce Center (APN 017‐123‐090)

Mitigation Purchase) Prior to re‐initiation of ground disturbing activities during the migratory bird breeding season, a pre‐construction survey was conducted by a qualified biologist with negative findings. (Appendix B: Pre‐construction Survey Report)
Initial grading and compaction of the undeveloped portion of the site eliminated all 2.028 acres of naturally occurring on‐site aquatic features and resulted in the installation of stormwater treatment swales along the western border of the property.

The proposed project will allow the development of four industrial buildings totaling approximately 310,000 square feet in size with associated parking, lighting, and landscaping.

PROJECT SPECIFIC IS/MND BIOLOGICAL MITIGATION MEASURES
 MITIGATION MEASURE BIO#1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or approval of improvement plans and prior to the filling of any potential wetlands or waters of the US as identified in the wetland delineation, the applicant shall obtain appropriate permits from the US Army Corps (anticipated to be an Individual Permit). Additionally, a Clean Water Act Section 401 permit shall be obtained from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) to ensure the proposed discharge complies with all State water quality requirements. Additionally, a Fish and Game Section 1601 permit shall be obtained for streambed alterations that are regulated by Fish & Game. The project shall implement the mitigation requirements of these permits to ensure no net loss of wetlands/waters of the US.
 MITIGATION MEASURE BIO#2: Prior to grading and excavation activities on‐site, the developer shall obtain a grading permit to ensure that the project is in compliance with the City’s (Roseville) best management practices for water quality control and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
 MITIGATION MEASURE BIO#3: A qualified biologistshall perform pre‐construction surveysfor nesting birds and raptors at least 30 days in advance of construction if construction is planned during January to July. If the survey does not identify any special‐status birds or raptors species, no further mitigation is required. If nesting is found to be occurring, avoid disturbance of the nest site with a suitable buffer zone. The on‐site biologist shall consult with the California Department of Fish & Game to determine the size of the no‐disturbance buffer (typically between 150 to 200 feet). Additionally, if Swainson’s hawk are found to be using the site in any capacity, off‐site mitigation would be required at a ratio deemed suitable by the CDFG.

METHODS
On December 15, 2022, principal biologist Carol Adema conducted a survey for biological and aquatic resources present on‐site within the Biological Survey Area (BSA). The nearly 26‐acre BSA was created by buffering the project area a distance sufficient to analyze project impacts on adjacent resources (approximately 250‐500 feet). The survey took place from approximately 1200‐1600; conditions were cold and sunny with temperatures ranging from the mid‐ to upper‐50’s with a very slight north breeze. The results of the site survey and data analysis are provided and discussed on pages 4‐9 of this letter report.

RE:   Biological Resources Letter Report – December 2022 Blue Oaks Commerce Center (APN 017‐123‐090)

Prior to conducting the surveys, past environmental survey reports, maps and documents, existing databases, topographic maps, soil reports, and multiple years of aerial imagery of the BSA were reviewed, and areas of potential habitat noted. Additionally, after conducting the surveys, agency special‐status species lists were reviewed, considering existing conditions observed within the BSA both during the season surveyed as well as all other times of year.

Ms. Wallen obtained lists of special‐status habitats and/or species potentially occurring in the vicinity of the BSA from the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPac) as well as the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Additionally, a 5‐mile project buffer was applied to execute a search of the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), while a 9‐quad search (Sheridan, Pleasant Grove, Lincoln, Gold Hill, Rocklin, Citrus Heights, Roseville, Rio Linda, and Folsom) was utilized to query the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Online Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory. The agency lists are provided as Appendix C: Supporting Agency Species Lists. A map of CNDDB occurrences within 5 miles of the project area may be found as Attachment A: Figure 2 ‐ CNDDB Map.

Ms. Wallen conducted a biological survey of the project area and surrounding habitat to examine the site for potentially sensitive biological resources. Survey methodology involved traversing meandering transects through the project area and surrounding habitat where accessible. The surveys were general in nature and were conducted to determine the presence/absence of special‐status species and/or habitats within the BSA and to determine if these resources would be impacted by proposed project activities. After reviewing the original wetland delineation map, areas which had been identified as aquatic habitat prior to site alteration were specifically inspected and evaluated to ensure past features had reestablished. (Attachment A: Figure 3 – Original Wetland Delineation Map) A list of species encountered during the survey is included as Attachment B: Observed Species List and are discussed in the “Results” section.

Following the field survey, the “potential for occurrence” was determined based on the quality and types of habitats observed on‐site. This discussion may be found in the “Results” Section. For plants, assuming suitable habitat is on‐site, potential for occurrence is considered during the appropriate flowering period.

For birds and bats, the potential for occurrence is considered during the appropriate timeframes when these species breed, forage, roost, over‐winter, or stop‐over in the BSA during migration. Any bird or bat species could fly over the BSA; however, this is not considered a potential for occurrence as it would not result in any impact. The categories for the potential for occurrence include:
 None:  The species or natural community is not known to occur and has no potential to occur in the BSA based on sufficient surveys, the lack of suitable habitat (including soil, vegetation, connectivity, etc.), and/or the BSA is well outside of the known distribution of the species.  Low: Potential habitat in the BSA is sub‐marginal and the species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the BSA. Protocol‐level surveys are not recommended.  Moderate: Suitable habitat is present in the BSA and the species is known to occur in the vicinity of the BSA.
 High: Habitat in the BSA is highly suitable for the species and there are reliable records close to the BSA, but the species was not observed.
 Known: The species or natural community was detected in the BSA or a recent reliable record exists for the BSA.

RE:   Biological Resources Letter Report – December 2022 Blue Oaks Commerce Center (APN 017‐123‐090)

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The proposed project area is characterized as vacant, undeveloped land in the southwestern portion of the City of Roseville. The project area is located on the southeast corner of Blue Oaks Blvd. and Industrial Ave. and is bisected by Freedom Way; all observed to have consistent traffic moving quickly during the time of survey. The project area is bordered to the south by an industrial complex and to the east by an office complex and undeveloped field. There is also a rail line located immediately to the west of the site.

There are four man‐made vegetated stormwater receiving swaleslocated along the western border of the project area. These areas appear to be in the process of establishing some riparian vegetation, as designed, to treat site runoff water. Additionally, the swale areas are lined with an erosion control fabric that allows root establishment but prevents rodent burrows. As such, no burrows were observed within the stormwater swale areas.

The topography within the project area is characterized as nearly flat, with a gently sloped landscape south and north toward Freedom Way then heading westtoward the stormwater receiving swale systems.

Secondary to site grading, habitat elimination, and compaction, no wetland features occupy the project site. Additionally, no small mammal burrows or residual soil/spoil mounds were observed anywhere within the site boundaries.

California habitat types are described in the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships(CWHR)system based on classifications created by Mayer and Laudenslayer (1988). The CWHR system was designed to aid in the mapping of habitats utilized by California’s commonly occurring birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Aside from the created stormwater drainage swale areas, a single habitat type is present within the project area: Annual Grassland, which is described in further detail below. Representative site photos may be found in Attachment C: Site Photos.

Annual Grassland:

Annual Grassland habitat occurs throughout the entire project area. It is comprised mostly of sparse non‐ native annual grasses and herbaceous plant species; likely due to drought conditions combined with the compacted nature of the on‐site soil post‐grading. Annual grassland habitats can be found throughout California and are found on flat plains to gently rolling foothills. Annual grasslands are described as open grasslands composed primarily of annual plantspecies and often consist of a variety of introduced invasive species. Species composition isstrongly influenced by abiotic factors and compositional changesfluctuate seasonally due to the phenology of plants found within an area. Species commonly found within annual grasslands include wild oats (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromis diandrus), red brome (Bromus madritensis), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), wild barely (Hordeum spp.), foxtail fescue (Vulpia myuros), filaree (Erodium spp.), and various clovers (Trifolium spp.) among others.

A number of wildlife species may use annual grasslands for breeding and foraging if the habitat issuitable.

RESULTS
A table analyzing the potential for presence of a special‐status species identified by resources agencies within the project area can be found in Attachment D: Special Status Species Table. As stated before, a list of species observed during the survey may be found in Attachment C: Observed Species List. Only RE:   Biological Resources Letter Report – December 2022 Blue Oaks Commerce Center (APN 017‐123‐090)

species with a known or historical presence on‐site, that are state or federally listed, or with a moderate or high potential to occur on‐site are analyzed below as part of the Results Section.

The following narrative focuses on a combination of site observations as well as the species identified in agency lists and their potential to occur within the project area. Species and habitat which originally occurred within the project area have been accounted and mitigated for as part of the original Project permitting effort. The IS/MND included applicable MMsthat addressspecial‐status migratory bird species with potential to occur within the project area. There are no critical habitats within the project area.

Sensitive Natural Communities
No sensitive natural communities(SNCs) were determined to occur within the BSA. Prior to alteration, the projectsite hosted vernal pool, wetland, intermittent drainage, and marsh areas. However, grading of the site in 2014 successfully eliminated these features, in accordance with applicable regulatory permits. (Appendix A ‐ Regulatory Permits) Additionally, though listed as having once occurred within 5 miles of the project area in the CNDDB list, the site does not contain Alkali SNCs, nor is it adjacent to any Alkali sources/influences.

Secondary to site grading, habitat elimination, and compaction, the site has not re‐established any wetland features or any other type of SNC.

Plants
The USFWS IPac listed no potential for federally listed plants within the project area, however, the CNPS list does include Sacramento orcutt grass.

Prior to site alteration, special status plant surveys were conducted on May 15 and June 26, 2006 with negative results for listed species. The December 2022 site visit, though not during the flowering window, shows the site to be inundated with the skeletal remains of invasive species such as medusahead (Elymus caput‐medusae) and star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Other species observed on‐site included common tarweed (Hemizonia pungens) and hairy hawkbit (Leontodon saxatilis). No wetland plant species were detected within the project area.

The USFWS evaluated the site for occurrence potential for Sacramento orcutt grass (Orcuttia viscida) and slender orcutt grass (Orcuttia tenuis). (Appendix A5: USFWS Concurrence) On March 18, 2008 the USFWS concluded that,
“The Special‐Status Plant Survey did not identify either species occurring on the site, and the Service has determined that the survey was done adequately to demonstrate absence of these species. Therefore, the Service concurs that the proposed project as proposed is not likely to adversely affect the Sacramento orcutt grass and slender orcutt grass.” The present day, post‐grading and habitat elimination yields site conditions consisting of no wetland or vernal pool features. Therefore, in accordance with the USFWS, as no new information has revealed effects of the proposed action that may affect listed species in a manner or to an extent not considered, no new species with potential to occur within the site have been listed, no critical habitat has been designated that may be affected by the proposed project.  There are no project description changes that would change a level of potential effect on biological resources.   No further action pursuant to the Endangered Species Act is necessary. Similar to the federal ESA, with no habitat or individuals occurring historically and with habitat elimination in 2014 with present day‐maintenance, there is no potential for RE:   Biological Resources Letter Report – December 2022 Blue Oaks Commerce Center (APN 017‐123‐090)

state‐listed endangered or threatened species to occur on‐site, and as such coverage under Section 2080 or 2081 of CESA is not warranted.

Invertebrates
Five federally listed invertebrates were found on the official USFWS IPac list: Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) [Candidate], valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB) (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) [Threatened], conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio) [Endangered], vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) [Threatened], and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) [Endangered], collectively, vernal pool crustaceans.
 Monarch butterfly: The Monarch overwintersin the coastal CA region and may passthrough the region during migrations. The Monarch relies heavily on milkweed and flowering species during migration and breeding. While the site may have provided some flowering plants priorto wetland feature elimination, in its currently maintained state, there is no potential habitat for breeding or foraging monarchs.  Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle: The VELB is found exclusively in blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra spp. caerulea) shrubs in California’s Central Valley where the species utilizes the shrubs for all life stages. Females will lay eggs on the bark of the shrub where they hatch and the larvae will bore into a stem where it will live for one to two years, feeding on the pith. After developing, an adult beetle will exit the stem and emerge to seek a mate. The adults are not particularly strong fliers and do not appear to disperse very far.

There are no elderberry shrubs are present within the BSA, nor within a distance of work to be impacted. The nearest occurrence of VELB occurrence to the project area is approximately 3.8 miles to the west in the foothill canyon areas. Both historically and in its currently maintained state, there is no potential habitat for VELB in any life stage and therefore no potential for impact.  Vernal Pool Crustaceans: Vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and conservation fairy shrimp are federally listed and as their name suggests, are dependent upon vernal pool environments.

According to a March 18, 2008 USFWS Letter (Appendix A5 – USFWS Concurrence), “Service guideline‐level wet season surveys were completed during the 2005‐2006 and 2006‐ 2007 seasons to determine the status of the vernal pool crustaceans on the project site. The Service has determined that, based on the methods and results outlined in the 90‐day reports, the surveys were performed adequately and the conditions on the site were appropriate to demonstrate absence of these species on the project site. Therefore, the Service concurs that the proposed project as proposed is not likely to adversely affect the vernal pool crustaceans.” The above pre‐construction USFWS designation combined with post‐site alteration conditions that yield no vernal features on‐site, confirm there is no potential for vernal pool crustaceans within the project area. Furthermore, now that all vernal features have been removed, there is no potential for vernal pool crustaceans within the site.

Fish
The only federally listed fish species found on the official USFWS list is delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus). Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) is found on the CDFW CNDDB list. Delta RE:   Biological Resources Letter Report – December 2022 Blue Oaks Commerce Center (APN 017‐123‐090)

smelt are confined to the Delta region of CA in estuary habitats. Central valley steelhead are found on the Sacramento River and its tributaries, favoring cold and clean water for holding and spawning.

An original feature on‐site was an intermittent drainage, but it was incapable of supporting Central valley steelhead. Present day conditions, where the intermittent drainage has been converted to man‐made stormwater treatment swales, has further eliminated this area as potential habitat for the lone federally listed species found on the agency lists. Therefore, there is no potential for the species to be affected by the proposed project.

Reptiles and Amphibians
No federally listed species were found on the official USFWS IPac list. One special‐status species was returned by the CNDDB search: the western spadefoot toad (WST) (Spea hammondii).

The WST is a relatively small, smooth skinned toad, with white and orange tipped turbercles on its back, and distinctive vertical pupils. It is named for the sharp‐edged “spades” on its hind feet utilized for digging.

The species occupies grassland, sage scrub, and woodland habitats from Tehama County to Baja. The species is dependent on ephemeral pools or slow‐moving water courses that are predator free for breeding. Larval development can be rapid (approximately 30 days) if vernal pools are drying.

There are no vernal features or ephemeral waters found within the project area suitable to support the WST. Additionally, compacted soil would be difficult if not impossible for the WST to dig in, as noted by the absence ofsmall mammal burrows post‐grading and compaction. Therefore, the site does not provide suitable WST habitat.

Birds
No federally listed bird species were identified in the IPaC database search though it identified several listed as Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) which are addressed in Attachment D. According to The USFWS, “Although the bird taxa included in the BCC 2021 are priorities for conservation action, this list makes no finding with regard to whether they warrant consideration for ESA listing.” (USFWS, 2021) A search of CDFW’s CNDDB identified occurrences of three state‐listed threatened species: the CA black rail (CBRA) (Laterallusjamaicensis coturniculus), the tricolored blackbird (TRBL) (Agelaiustricolor), and the Swainson’s Hawk (SWHA) (Buteo swainsoni).
 CA Black Rail: The CBRA is known to inhabit saltwater, brackish, and freshwater marshes. In California, the San Francisco Bay/Delta region has all three types of marshes. Vegetation of CBRA marshes varies from almost pure pickleweed (Salicornia sp.) to sedges (Carex sp.) and saltgrass (Distichlis sp.) to bulrush (Scirpus sp.) and cattails (Typha sp.). In San Francisco Bay marshes the presence of the CBRA is associated with relatively high values for vegetation height, Frankenia (alkali‐heath) abundance, and insect abundance, but with low values of amphipod abundance (Evens et al. 1986).

The lone occurrence of CBRA within 5 miles of the project area was a single adult male in 2006 located 4.9 miles west of the project area adjacent to Clover creek. Based on the lack of suitable foraging or breeding habitat combined with a lack of known occurrences adjacent to the site, project activities would not result in impacts to the CBRA.

RE:   Biological Resources Letter Report – December 2022 Blue Oaks Commerce Center (APN 017‐123‐090)

 Tricolored Blackbird: Current TRBL species studies indicate that primary foraging habitats for TRBL during the breeding season include grasslands, low density shrublands (e.g., alkali scrub), pastures, dry seasonal pools, and certain agricultural crops including alfalfa and rice”. (CDFW, 2018) Tricolors will not settle without access to open water and dominant nest substrate species for TRBL include cattails, bulrushes, Himalaya blackberry, and agricultural silage. Although other plant species are used as nesting substrate, all are either flooded, spinous or otherwise defended against easy access by predators. Strips of emergent vegetation along canals are typically avoided as nest sites. If sites are hard for an observer to reach, the site it is relatively suitable. (Hamilton, 2004) Studies have also found that, “While breeding, most foraging occurs within 2–3 miles (3.2 ‐ 4.8 km) of colony sites.” (Orians 1961, Hamilton et al. 1992)
Current site conditions do not support nesting or suitable foraging habitat and no suitable nesting habitat or open water exists within 3 miles of the project area. The nearest known occurrence of TRBL to the site is approximately 4 miles to the north. The fact that the site lacks suitable nesting or foraging habitat combined with the distance to the nearest known siting which has not been active since 2015 indicate there is no potential for TRBL, and therefore no potential for project impacts to TRBL.
 Swainson’s Hawk: SWHA breeding habitat includes annual grassland areas with scattered trees, large shrubs and is found peripheral to riparian areas. They will often feed in agricultural areas (Goodrich and Smith 2008, p. 120). Young are fed rodents, rabbits, and reptiles. However, when not breeding, adults feed almost exclusively on insects, primarily grasshoppers (Bechard et al. 2010).

Areas they inhabit require at least small tracks of adjacent land containing lightly irrigated agricultural areas particularly with alfalfa and grass hay, or non‐agricultural areas with low or moderate height vegetated areas (Wheeler 2003, p. 274).

Current site conditions are not conducive to breeding rodent populations and are not adjacent to agricultural areas. No rodents or other small mammals were observed during the site visit and no evidence of established populations (burrows) were noted on‐site. This is likely due to soil compaction, which does not allow for burrowing or solid cover plant growth.

Due to a lack of suitable nesting trees or foraging habitat adjacent to or within the site, potential impacts to SWHA are unlikely.

Unlike the species listed above, the BSA may seasonally provide marginal foraging habitat for other avian species protected under the coverage offered by the MTBA. Although a few such species were observed during the survey (Attachment C: Observed Species), there was very little avian activity considering the time of day. This is likely due to consistent noise/disturbance from traffic and active railway to the west combined with the sparsely vegetated (and therefore highly exposed) nature of the site, which provides marginal to poor quality foraging habitat for smaller passerine species. This is likely due to the post‐site compaction nature of the site which contributes to sparsely vegetated landscape, as seeds have a hard time taking in compacted soil on exposed areas. The site offers poor quality foraging habitat for raptors in general as well; likely due to the lack of small mammal burrows, secondary to site compaction. No raptors nor any prey sourcesfor them (including roadkill) were observed during the field visit. No evidence of raptors utilizing the site for prey was detected (i.e. owl pellets, whitewash, down feathers, etc.).

RE:   Biological Resources Letter Report – December 2022 Blue Oaks Commerce Center (APN 017‐123‐090)

Mammals
There were no special‐status mammalsfound on any of the agency lists. Some that have potential to occur within the general region, but outside the 5‐mile primarily consist of bat species such as hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), silver‐haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivangans), western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis), and Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis).

There is no potential roosting habitat on‐site and minimal potential roosting habitat located on properties adjacent to the project area for any of these species with the exception of building ledges as there are few trees, all of which are ornamental in nature, and no rocky cliffs found.

There is potential marginal to poor foraging habitat above the grassland within the BSA, however, it is of lower quality than the greater undeveloped areas to the north and wooded foothill areas to the east where a variety of habitats are present providing a more robust prey base.

Aquatic Resources
A wetland delineation was conducted for the entire original project area in 2005 and finalized in 2006 identifying 2.028 acres of aquatic features representing jurisdictional WOUS. The feature types were comprised of 9 vernal pool features (0.708 ac), 44 seasonal wetland features (0.687 ac), 7 seasonal swale features (0.246 ac), 3 seasonal marsh features (0.139 ac), and 2 intermittent drainage features (0.248 ac). (Attachment A: Figure 3 ‐ Original Wetland Delineation Map).

All features were permanently removed as a result of site grading which occurred in 2014 through 2017.

Present day site conditions indicate no wetland features have re‐established within the project area. Only man‐made stormwater treatment swales lie along the western border of the property, which will not be impacted by project work and are not jurisdictional.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Present day recommendations from various regulatory agencies suggest that for the northern CA region, pre‐construction avian surveys should be conducted during the typical migratory bird breeding season from February 1 through August 31 to ensure nesting activities are not disturbed by construction activities. Additionally, surveys should be conducted no more than two weeks in advance of commencement of construction and should be repeated if a lapse in construction of two weeks or greater occurs.

With adherence to the MMs from the original IS/MND including minor modifications to the timing of surveys; impacts to special status species would be eliminated, minimized, and sufficiently mitigated.

Consequently, the proposed project would not result in any new significant biological resource impacts or in a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified biological resource impacts described in the IS/MND.  No additional mitigation measures are required.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this letter report via email at [email protected].

Carol Adema
Principal Biologist

RE:   Biological Resources Letter Report – December 2022 Blue Oaks Commerce Center (APN 017‐123‐090)

Attachments
Attachment A: Figures
 Figure 1 ‐ Location Map (with Project and Biological Survey Areas)  Figure 2 ‐ CNDDB Map
 Figure 3 ‐ Original Wetland Delineation Map
Attachment B: Observed Species List
Attachment C: Site Photo
Attachment D: Special Status Species Table
Appendices
Appendix A: Regulatory Permits and Proof of Mitigation Purchase  A1 ‐ USACE Section 404 Individual Permit
 A2 ‐ RWQCB Section 401 Water Quality Certification
 A3 ‐ RWQCB CGP Notice of Intent
 A4 ‐ CDFW Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement  A5 ‐ USFWS Concurrence
 A6 ‐ Proof of Mitigation Purchase
Appendix B: Pre‐construction Survey Report (ECORPS: March 19, 2015) Appendix C:  Supporting Agency Species Lists
 C1 ‐ USFWS IPac
 C2 ‐ USFWS NWI Map
 C3 ‐ CDFW CNDDB 5‐Mile Occurrence List
 C4 ‐ CNPS 9‐Quad Query Results

RE:   Biological Resources Letter Report – December 2022 Blue Oaks Commerce Center (APN 017‐123‐090)

REFERENCES
Bechard, Marc J., C. Stuart Houston, Jose H. Sarasola and A. Sidney England. 2010. Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/265
CA Department of Fish and Game. 1987. Five Year Status Report for the CA Black Rail. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov › FileHandler
CA Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. CA Natural Diversity Database; Agelaius tricolor, Element Occurrence Index No. 581.
__. 2018. Report to the Fish and Game Commission: A Status Review of the Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) in California.
https://meridian.allenpress.com/jfwm/articlesupplement/436156/pdf/10.3996102019‐jfwm‐083.s4/ California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2022. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9‐01

1.5). Website https://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 19 December 2022].

Evens, J.G., Page, G.W., Laymon, S.A. and Stallcup, R.W., 1991. Distribution, relative abundance and status of the California black rail in western North America. The Condor, 93(4), pp.952-966.

Goodrich, L.J., and J.P. Smith. 2008. Raptor migration in North America. Pp. 37‐149 in K.L. Bildstein, J.P.

Smith, E. Ruelas Inzunza, and R.R. Veit (eds.), State of North America's birds of prey Nuttall Ornithological Club, Cambridge, MA, and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C Hamilton, W. J. 2004. Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). In The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan: A strategy for reversing the decline of riparian‐associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v‐2.html Hamilton, W. J., III, R. Bowen, and L. Cook. 1992. Nesting activities of tricolored blackbirds, Agelaius tricolor, in the Central Valley, California, 1992. Report prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 23 pp. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1370263
Orians, G.H. 1961. The ecology of blackbird (Agelaius) social systems. Ecological Monographs 31:285‐ 312. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1948556
Sibley, D.A. 2003. Field Guide to Birds of Western and North America.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. Birds of Conservation Concern 2021. United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds, Falls Church, Virginia. http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/ managed‐species/birds‐of‐conservation‐concern.php Wheeler, B.K., C.M. White and J.M. Economidy. 2003. Raptors of Western North America: The Wheeler Guide.

Biological Resources Letter Report – December 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center
(APN 017‐123‐090)
ATTACHMENT A ‐ FIGURES:

FIGURE 1 ‐ BLUE OAKS COMMERCE CENTER LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2 ‐ BLUE OAKS COMMERCE CENTER CNDDB MAP
FIGURE 3 ‐ ORIGINAL WETLAND DELINEATION MAP
Imagery Sources: ESRI
- Maxar (4/26/2022)
- USGS Topo
Inset Imagery: ESRI
- National Geographic
Project Location Map with BSA
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
Project Area
I!
Map Date: 12/16/2022 Drawn By: CJWA
Legend
!( Project Center Point
BOCC Project Parcels
Biological Survey Area
(BSA) (25.9 AC)
Placer County Parcels
Placer County Road
Centerline
CA Counties
1 inch = 500 ft (printed at 8.5 x 11)
Within Sections 21 & 22,
Township 11N, Range 06E,
ROSEVILLE USGS 7.5' Quad
APN: 017-123-090
* All Parcel and boundary linework depicted are for general reference only and do not represent legal survey boundaries. !(
Industrial
Ramp
Highway 65
Blue Oaks
Washington
Alley
Alantown
Wahington
Robb
Old Hwy 65
Ramp
PLACER
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community, Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
YOLO
SUTTER
PLACER

SACRAMENTO
YUBA
NEVADA
SOLANO

EL DORADO
COLUSA
AMADOR National Geographic, Esri, Garmin,

HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA,

ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA,
increment P Corp.

Project
Area
Blue Oaks Commerce Center
Schnitzer Properties
2200 Freedom Way
Roseville, Placer County, CA
PLACER

SACRAMENTO
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community CNDDB Occurences within 5 miles
Legend
Biological Survey
5-Mile Project Area Buffer
5-Mile CDFW CNDDB
Selection
Common Name
Alkali Meadow
Alkali Seep
Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool
Northern Volcanic Mud Flow
Vernal Pool
Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop
big-scale balsamroot
dwarf downingia
hispid salty bird's-beak
legenere
Red Bluff dwarf rush
Sanford's arrowhead
stinkbells
An andrenid bee
Ricksecker's water scavenger
beetle
valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
California linderiella
vernal pool fairy shrimp
vernal pool tadpole shrimp
western spadefoot
steelhead - Central Valley DPS
burrowing owl
California black rail
grasshopper sparrow
purple martin
Swainson's hawk
tricolored blackbird
white-tailed kite
Imagery/Data Sources:

ESRI, Maxar (4/26/2022)
CNDDB Data: CDFW (May 2021)
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles
1 inch = 1.5 miles
I!
Map Date:
12/20/2022
Drawn By:

CJWA
(printed at 8.5 x 11) Blue Oaks Commerce Center
Schnitzer Properties
APN: 017-123-090 - City of Roseville, Placer County, CA - Within Sections 21 & 22,
Township 11N, Range 06E,
ROSEVILLE USGS 7.5' Quad

Biological Resources Letter Report – December 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center
(APN 017‐123‐090)
ATTACHMENT B:

OBSERVED SPECIES LIST: 12/15/2022
Plants
common tarweed      Hemizonia pungens
hairy hawkbit        Leontodon saxatilis
Medusa head       Elymus caput‐medusae
Yellow star thistle     Centaurea solstitialis
Birds
Ring‐billed gull      Larus delawarensis
Rock dove       Columba livia
Turkey vulture       Carthartes aura
Western kingbird     Tyrannus verticalis
Wood Duck       Aix sponsa
Biological Resources Letter Report – December 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center
(APN 017‐123‐090)
ATTACHMENT C:

SITE PHOTOS
Site Photos
(12/15/2022)
Blue Oaks Commerce Center Project:

Biological Resources Letter Report
December 2022
PHOTO 1: General overview of the property
showing dry ground (no wetland features) within
the BSA.
‐ Standing centrally on the east side of the
northern portion of the project area facing north.

PAGE 1 OF 5
1 4
3 2
PHOTO 3: General overview of the property
showing dry ground (no wetland features) within
the BSA.
‐ Standing centrally on the east side of the
northern portion of the project area facing north.

PHOTO 2: General overview of the property
showing dry ground (no wetland features) within
the BSA. FBI Campus visible in background.
‐ Standing centrally on the east side of the
northern portion of the project area facing
southeast.

PHOTO 3: General overview of the property
showing dry ground (no wetland features) within
the BSA.
‐ Standing centrally on the east side of the
northern portion of the project area facing south.

PHOTO 4: Evidence of sediment deposition
secondary of water moving across site (red
arrow) toward drainage features; not ponding.

PAGE 2 OF 5
7 PHOTO 7: Photo of stormwater treatment swale
located along western edge of property just
north of Freedom Way. Industrial way and rail
line visible in background (red arrow)
‐Standing centrally on the west side of the
project area looking due south.

Site Photos
(12/15/2022)
Blue Oaks Commerce Center Project:

Biological Resources Letter Report
December 2022
5 6
8 PHOTOS 5‐6: General overview of
the property showing dry ground (no
wetland features) within the BSA.

PHOTO 8: Photo of stormwater treatment
swale located along western edge of
property just north of Freedom Way. Blue
Oaks Blvd. overpass visible in background
(red arrow).
‐Standing centrally on the west side of the
project area looking due north.

PHOTO 9: General overview of the
property showing dry ground (no wetland
features) within the BSA. FBI Campus
visible in background. Traffic visible in
photo.
‐ Standing centrally in the northern portion
of the project area facing southeast.

PAGE 3 OF 5
11 Site Photos
(12/15/2022)
Blue Oaks Commerce Center Project:

Biological Resources Letter Report
December 2022
9 10
12 PHOTO 10: General overview of the property
showing dry ground (no wetland features) within
the BSA. Blue Oaks Blvd. with traffic visible in
background.
‐ Standing centrally in the northern portion of the
project area facing northwest.

PHOTOS 11‐12: General overview of the property
showing dry ground (no wetland features) within
the BSA. Industrial campus to south of project
area visible in background. Traffic visible in photo.
‐ Standing centrally in the southern portion of the
project area facing southeast and south,
respectively.

PAGE 4 OF 5
Site Photos
(12/15/2022)
Blue Oaks Commerce Center Project:

Biological Resources Letter Report
December 2022
15 14
13 PHOTO 13: General overview of the adjacent
property to the east of the project area, north
of Freedom way and the FBI Campus. Area is
not part of project area. Traffic visible in
photo.
‐ Standing centrally in the northern portion of
the project area facing southeast.

PHOTO 14: General overview of the property
showing dry ground (no wetland features) within
the BSA. Industrial campus to north of project area
visible in background in addition to the Blue Oaks
Blvd. overpass. Traffic visible in photo.
‐ Standing centrally in the southern portion of the
project area facing north.

PHOTO 15: General overview of the property
drainage ditch located along southern edge of
northern portion of the project area. Ditch
parallels Freedom way which lies immediately to
the south. Traffic visible in photo.
‐ Standing along the southern edge of the
northern portion of the project area facing east.

PHOTOS 16‐18: Views of 3 stormwater treatment swales located along western edge of property: 18 just south of and 17 just north of Freedom Way. 16 is the southern most swale. Industrial Ave. and/or Freedom way visible in backgrounds as is traffic.

PAGE 5 OF 5
Site Photos
(12/15/2022)
Blue Oaks Commerce Center Project:

Biological Resources Letter Report
December 2022
19 18
17 16
PHOTO 19: View of a Western kingbird (red arrow)
foraging along the northern most stormwater treatment
swale. Photo taken through binoculars.

Biological Resources Letter Report – December 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center (APN 017‐123‐090)
ATTACHMENT D:

SPECIAL‐STATUS SPECIES AND SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITY EVALUATION An analysis of special‐status species listed by various agency sources with potential to occur in the survey area.

Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Fed/State/
CNPS
Associated
Habitats
Potential for
Occurrence*

SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES
Alkali Meadow _/SNC/_
Characterized by fine‐grained soils that
have a high residual salt content
supporting a distinctive, salt tolerant plant
community.

None:  Does not occur
within the BSA.

Alkali Seep _/SNC/_
A seep of saline water with an area of
alkali salt crystals that form when the salty
water reaches the surface and evaporates.

None: Does not occur within
the BSA.

Northern Hardpan
Vernal Pool __/SNC/_ Seasonally flooded depressions on
impermeable soils or rock.

None:  Any potential habitat
removed (filled) 9/2014.

Northern Volcanic Mud Flow
Vernal Pool __/SNC/_ Seasonally flooded depressions on
impermeable soils or rock.

None:  Any potential habitat
removed (filled) 9/2014.

PLANTS
Ahart’s dwarf rush
(Juncus leiospermus var. ahartii) __/__/S1 Valley and foothill grassland (mesic). None:  Any potential habitat removed (filled) 9/2014.

Big‐scale Balsam Root
(Balsamorhiza macrolepis) __/__/S2
Cismontane woodlands and chaparral.

Valley and Foothill grasslands.  Sometimes
serpentinite.  (Mar‐June)
None:  No suitable habitat
within the BSA.

Boggs Lake hedge‐hyssop
(Gratiola heterosepala) __/__/S2 Marshes and swamps (shallow freshwater) and vernal pools.  (Apr‐Aug)
None:  Any potential habitat
removed (filled) 9/2014.

Brandegee's clarkia
(Clarkia biloba spp. brandegeeae) __/__/S4
Chaparral, cismontane woodland.

Lower montane coniferous forest. (May‐
Jun)
None:  No suitable habitat
within the BSA.
bristly leptosiphon
(Leptosiphon aureus) __/__/S4
Chaparral, cismontane woodland.

Coastal prairie. Valley and foothill
grassland. (Apr‐Jun)
None:  No suitable habitat
within the BSA.

Dwarf downingia
(Downingia pusilla) __/__/S2 Valley and foothill grassland (mesic).

Vernal pools. (Mar‐May)
None:  Any potential habitat
removed (filled) 9/2014.
hispid salty bird's‐beak
(Chloropyron mole ssp.
hispidum)
__/__/S1 Meadows and seeps. Playas.

Valley and foothill grassland (Jun‐Sep)
None:  Any potential habitat
removed (filled) 9/2014.
legenere
(Legenere limosa) __/__/S2 Vernal Pools. (Apr‐Jun) None:  Any potential habitat removed (filled) 9/2014.
pincushion navarretia
(Navarretia myersii ssp. myersii) __/__/S2 Vernal Pools. (Apr‐Jun) None:  Any potential habitat removed (filled) 9/2014.

ATTACHMENT D ‐ SPECIAL‐STATUS SPECIES AND SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITY EVALUATION Biological Resources Letter Report – December 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center (APN 017‐123‐090)
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Fed/State/
CNPS
Associated
Habitats
Potential for
Occurrence*
Red Bluff Dwarf Rush
(Juncus leiospermus var.
leiospermus)
__/__/1B.1
Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
meadows and seeps, valley and foothill
grassland and vernal pools/vernally mesic
habitats.  (Mar‐May)
None:  No mesic habitat
present within the BSA.

Sacramento Orcutt grass
(Orcuttia viscida) FE/CE/S1 Vernal Pools. (Apr‐Jul) None:  Any potential habitat removed (filled) 9/2014.

Sanford’s arrowhead
(Sagittaria sanfordii) _/__/S3 Marshes and swamps (shallow freshwater).  (May‐Oct)
None:  No suitable habitat
present within the BSA.
stinkbells
(Fritillaria agrestis) __/__/S3
Chaparral, cismontane woodland.

Pinyon and juniper woodland.

Valley and foothill grassland. (Mar‐Jun)
None:  No suitable marsh
habitat present within the
BSA.
valley brodiaea
(Brodiaea rosea ssp. Vallicola) __/__/S3 Valley and foothill grassland; vernal pools. (Apr‐May)
None:  Any potential habitat
removed (filled) 9/2014.

INVERTEBRATES
Andrenid bee
(Andrena subapasta) __/__/S1S2 Solitary ground nesters found where the flowering plants they pollinate occur.

None:  Compacted soil and
removal of vernal features
eliminates suitable habitat
within the BSA.

California Linderiella
(Linderiella occidentalis) __/__/__ Vernal pools, swales, and ephemeral freshwater habitat.

None:  Any potential habitat
removed (filled) 9/2014.

Conservancy Fairy Shrimp
(Branchinecta conservatio) FE/__/__ Moderately turbid, deep, cool‐water vernal pool
None:  Any potential habitat
removed (filled) 9/2014.

Monarch Butterfly
(Danaus plexippus)
Candidate/
_/S2S3
Overwinters on CA coast, migrates
through valley feeding on milkweed.

Low: No milkweed or
historical occurrences on‐
site. Individuals may pass
through, but no potential
habitat is found in the BSA.

Ricksecker’s water scavenger
beetle
(Hydrochara rickseckeri)
__/__/__ Vernal pools and other aquatic habitats in
the Central Valley.

None:  Any potential habitat
removed (filled) 9/2014.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn
Beetle
(Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus)
FT/__/__ Blue elderberry shrubs usually associated
with riparian areas.

None:  No elderberry plants
(the sole host plant of this
beetle) occur within or
adjacent to the BSA.

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp
(Branchinecta lynchi) FT/__/__ Vernal pools, swales, and ephemeral freshwater habitat.

None:  Any potential habitat
removed (filled) 9/2014.

Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp
(Lepidurus packardi) FE/__/__ Vernal pools, swales, and ephemeral freshwater habitat.

None:  Any potential habitat
removed (filled) 9/2014.

FISH
Delta Smelt
(Hypomesus transpacificus) FT/ST/__ Sacramento River Delta and tributaries.

None:  No suitable or critical
habitat within the BSA.

Central Valley Steelhead
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) FT/__/__ Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries.

None:  No suitable or critical
habitat within the BSA.

ATTACHMENT D ‐ SPECIAL‐STATUS SPECIES AND SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITY EVALUATION Biological Resources Letter Report – December 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center (APN 017‐123‐090)
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Fed/State/
CNPS
Associated
Habitats
Potential for
Occurrence*

AMPHIBIANS
Western Spadefoot
(Spea hammondii) __/SSC/__ Grassland and woodland and vernal pools without aquatic predators for breeding.

None:  Any potential habitat
removed (filled) 9/2014.

BIRDS
Bald Eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
MBTA &
EA/SE/_
Lakes, rivers, estuaries, reservoirs, and
some coastal habitats.

None:  No suitable habitat
present within the BSA.

Belding’s Savannah Sparrow
(Passerculus
sandwichensisbeldingi)
BCR/__/__ Uncommon and local in saltmarshes of
coastal southern CA.

None:  No suitable nesting
habitat present within the
BSA.

Burrowing Owl
(Athene cunicularia) __/SSC/__
Nests in burrows in the ground, often in
old ground squirrel or badger burrows,
w/in open dry grassland & desert habitat.

None:  Any potential habitat
removed (filled) 9/2014.

Bullock's Oriole
(Icterus bullockii)
BCR/__/__ Breed in riparian and open woodlands,
including urban parks.

None: Species may pass
through site, but no suitable
nesting or foraging habitat
exists w/in the project area.

California Black Rail
(Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus)
MBTA/ST/_
Yearlong resident of saline, brackish, &
fresh emergent wetlands in the San
Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento‐San
Joaquin Delta, coastal Southern CA, the
Salton Sea, & lower Colorado River area.

None:  No suitable habitat
present within the BSA.

California Gull
(Larus californicus) BCC/__/__
Common on ponds, lakes, and coastlines.

Often also seen foraging on ag lands or
loitering around restaurants, parking lots,
and city parking lots looking for food.

Low. Species may pass over
site, but no suitable nesting
or foraging habitat exists
within the project area.

Common Yellowthroat
(Geothlypis trichas sinuosa) BCR/__/__
Common in a wide variety of weedy,
brushy, and marshy habitats; nearly
always in low wet areas.

None:  Any potential habitat
removed (filled) 9/2014.

Golden Eagle
(Aquila chrysaetos)
MBTA &
EA/SE/_
Rare in grasslands, deserts, and other
open country relatively far from people,
usually in mountainous areas.

None:  Suitable habitat is
not present within the BSA.
grasshopper sparrow
(Ammodramus savannarum) __/SSC/__
Common locally in grasslands w/scattered
shrubs or weeds. Solitary and secretive;
difficult to see except when singing.

None:  Any potential habitat
removed (filled) 9/2014.

Lawrence's Goldfinch
(Carduelis lawrencei) BCC/__/__ Remote, arid habitats of California and the Desert Southwest.

None:  Suitable habitat is
not present within the BSA.

Long‐eared Owl
(asio otus) BCC/__/__ Uncommon. Nests in old barns and other structures. Strictly nocturnal.

None:  Suitable habitat is
not present within the BSA.

Nuttall's Woodpecker
(Picoides nuttallii) BCR/__/__ Uncommon. Oak and riparian woodlands.

None:  Any potential habitat
removed (filled) 9/2014.

Oak Titmouse
(Baeolophus inornatus) BCC/__/__ Common in open oak woods or nearby trees. Feeds on seeds and insects.

None:  Suitable habitat is
not present within the BSA.

ATTACHMENT D ‐ SPECIAL‐STATUS SPECIES AND SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITY EVALUATION Biological Resources Letter Report – December 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center (APN 017‐123‐090)
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Fed/State/
CNPS
Associated
Habitats
Potential for
Occurrence*
Olive‐sided Flycatcher
(Contopus cooperi) BCC/__/__ Uncommon. Found in boreal forests. None:  Suitable habitat is not present within the BSA.

Purple Martin
(Progne subis) __/SSC/__
Uncommon and local. Nests almost
exclusively in man‐made martin boxes
placed in the open near water; also nests
in tree cavities.

None:  Suitable habitat is
not present within the BSA.

Short‐billed Dowitcher
(Limnodromus griseus) BCC/__/__
Common on mudflats and shallow muddy
ponds along coast; uncommon to rare
inland.

None:  Suitable habitat is
not present within the BSA.

Swainson’s Hawk
(Buteo swainsoni) __/ST/__
Nests in isolated trees or riparian
woodlands adjacent to suitable foraging
habitat including grasslands or suitable
grain or alfalfa fields, or livestock pastures.

Low: Species may pass over
site, but no suitable nesting
habitat exists within the
project area.

Tri‐colored Blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor) BCC/SSC/__
Nests in dense blackberry, cattail, tules,
willow, or wild rose within emergent
wetlands throughout the Central valley
and foothills surrounding the valley.

None:  No suitable nesting
habitat present within the
BSA.

Wrentit
(Chamaea fasciata) BCC/__/__ Common but difficult to see in chaparral and other dense brushy habitats.

None:  Suitable habitat is
not present within the BSA.

Yellow‐billed Magpie
(Pica nuttalli) BCC/__/__ Common in oak savannas within limited range.

None:  Suitable habitat is
not present within the BSA.

Migratory Birds and Raptors MBTA
Nest and forage in a variety of habitats
including hardwood woodlands,
coniferous forests, meadows, grasslands,
and riparian.

Low:  Birds protected by the
MBTA were observed on‐
site, however, site provides
poor nesting habitat and
marginal foraging habitat.

CODE DESIGNATIONS
CE = Candidate Endangered
FE = Federally‐listed Endangered
FT = Federally‐listed Threatened
FC = Federal Candidate Species
BCC = Federal Bird of Conservation Concern
MBTA = protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty
Act
SE = State‐listed Endangered
ST = State‐listed Threatened
SH = Presumed extinct in California
SSC = CDFW Species of Special Concern
FP = CDFW Fully Protected Species
SNC= CDFW Sensitive Natural Community
CNPS 1B = Rare or Endangered in California or elsewhere CNPS 2 = rare or Endangered in California, more common
elsewhere
CNPS 3 = More information is needed
CNPS 4 = Plants with limited distribution
BCC = Birds of Conservation Concern
BCR = Bird of Conservation Concern only in particularly Bird Conservation Regions in the continental USA
*Potential for occurrence: for plants it is considered the potential to occur during the survey period; for birds and bats it is considered the potential to breed, forage, roost, over‐winter, or stop‐over in the BSA during migration.  Any bird or bat species could fly over the BSA, but this is not considered a potential for occurrence.  The categories for the potential for occurrence include:

ATTACHMENT D ‐ SPECIAL‐STATUS SPECIES AND SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITY EVALUATION Biological Resources Letter Report – December 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center (APN 017‐123‐090)
Common Name
(Scientific Name)
Status
Fed/State/
CNPS
Associated
Habitats
Potential for
Occurrence*
None:  The species or natural community is known not to occur, and has no potential to occur in the BSA based on sufficient surveys, the lack of suitable habitat, and/or the BSA is well outside of the known distribution of the species.

Low: Potential habitat in the BSA is sub‐marginal and the species is not known to occur in the vicinity of the BSA.

Protocol‐level surveys are not recommended.

Moderate: Suitable habitat is present in the BSA and the species is known to occur in the vicinity of the BSA.

High: Habitat in the BSA is highly suitable for the species and there are reliable records close to the BSA, but the species was not observed.

Known: Species was detected in the BSA or a recent reliable record exists for the BSA.

Biological Resources Letter Report – December 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center, City of Roseville, CA
(APN 002‐180‐198)
APPENDIX A:

REGULATORY PERMITS AND PROOF OF MITIGATION PURCHASE
 A1 ‐ USACE Section 404 Individual Permit
 A2 ‐ RWQCB Section 401 Water Quality Certification
 A3 ‐ RWQCB CGP Notice of Intent
 A4 ‐ CDFW Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement  A5 ‐ USFWS Concurrence
 A6 ‐ Proof of Mitigation Purchase

Approved Date:

RECEIPT OF YOUR NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI)
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) has received and processed your NOI to comply with the terms of the General Permit to Discharger Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. Accordingly, you are required to comply with the permit requirements.

The Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number is: . Please use this number in any future communication regarding this permit.

SITE DESCRIPTION
OWNER:

DEVELOPER:

SITE INFORMATION:

TOTAL DISTURBED ACRES:

START DATE:

COMPLETION DATE:

COUNTY:

When the Owner changes , a new NOI, site map, and fee must be submitted by the new Owner. As the previous owner, you are required to submit a Notice of Termination (NOT) to the local Regional Water Board stating you no longer own or operate the Site and coverage under the General Permit is not required. Unless notified, you will continue and are responsible to pay the annual fee invoiced each

If you have any questions regarding permit requirements, please contact your Regional Water Board at . Please visit the storm water web site at
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/ to obtain an NOT and other storm water related information and forms.

Sincerely,
Storm Water Section
Division of Water Quality
5S31C370715 Roseville www.waterboards.ca.gov, ph:1-866-563-3107, fax:(916) 341-5543 Harsch Investment Properties II LLC 1001 I Street, PO Box 1977, Sacramento, California, 95812 GAVIN NEWSOM JOAQUIN ESQUIVEL, CHAIR Harsch Investment Properties II LLC August 28, 2014Blue Oaks Commerce Center 38.85 916-464-3291 EILEEN SOBECK, EXECUTIVE OFFICER JARED BLUMENFELD John Gordon Harsch Investment Properties II LLC8950 Industrial Avenue Portland OR 97205 December 30, 2016 1121 SW Salmon Street Placer July. State Water Resources Control Board September 01, 2014

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
In reply refer to:
81420-2008-I-0286-l
Mr. Michael S. Jewell
Chief, Regulatory Branch
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, California 95825-1846
1325 J Street, Room 1480
Sacramento, California 95814-2922
MAR 18 2008
v.s. ·t'l!'ill & WILDl.lt't!. SlffiV1CII:
~
Subject: Request for Concurrence on the Blue Oaks-Washington Project in Roseville, Placer County, California
Dear Mr. Jewell:

This letter aclrnowledges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) November 6, 2007, receipt of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) November 1, 2007, letter requesting initiation of section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act). The consultation concerns the possible effects of the proposed Blue Oaks-Washington project (proposed project) on two federally-listed species, the endangered vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) and the threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) (collectively, the vernal pool crustaceans).

The findings and recommendations in this consultation are based on: O) the March 31, 2006, Information to Support Formal Section 7 Consultation, Blue Oaks-Washington Property, Placer County, California, prepared by ECORP Consulting, Inc. (ECORP); (2) the July 6, 2007, and July 24, 2007, Wet Season 90-day Reports of Findings Regarding Federally Listed Branchiopods for the proposed project; (3) the October 10, 2006, Special-Status Plant Survey for the proposed project; (4) various e-mails between Cynthia Hertzog ofECORP and Jana Milliken of the Service; and (5) other information available to the Service. A complete administrative record is on file at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.

The proposed project involves construction of a mixed commercial and industrial business park south of Blue Oaks Boulevard, between Washington Boulevard and Industrial Avenue ·near Roseville. According to the information provided, construction will necessitate the filling of

1.953 acres of seasonal wetland habitat.

Mr. Michael S. Jewell 2
Service guideline-level wet season surveys were completed during the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 seasons to determine the status of the vernal pool crustaceans on the project site. The Service has determined that, based on the methods and results outlined in the 90-day reports, the surveys were performed adequately and the conditions on the site were appropriate to demonstrate absence of these species on the project site. Therefore, the Service concurs that the proposed project as proposed is not likely to adversely affect the vernal pool crustaceans.

Although not included in y.our initiation request, the proposed project site is within the range of ~d contains suitable habitat for the Sacramento orcutt grass ( Orcuttia viscida) and slender orcutt grass (Orcuttia tenuis). The Special-Status Plant Survey did not identify either species occurring on the site, and the Service has determined that the survey was done adequately to demonstrate absence of these species. Therefore, the Service concurs that the proposed project as proposed is not likely to adversely affect the Sacramento orcutt grass and slender orcutt grass.

Unless new information reveals effects of the proposed action that may affect listed species in a manner or to an extent not considered, a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated that may be affected by the proposed project, or if the project description changes, no further action pursuant to the Act is necessary.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this consultation, please contact Jana Milliken or the Acting Sacramento Valley Branch Chief, at (916) 414-6645.

Sincerely,
Peter A. Cross
Deputy Assistant Field Supervisor
cc:

Ms. Cynthia Hertzog, ECORP Consulting, Inc., Rocklin, California

Biological Resources Letter Report – December 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center, City of Roseville, CA
(APN 002‐180‐198)
APPENDIX B:

PRE‐CONSTRUCTION SURVEY REPORT (ECORPS: MARCH 19, 2015) 2525 Warren Drive Rocklin, California 95677 Phone: (916) 782-9100 Fax: (916) 782-9134 Web: www.ecorpconsulting.com March 19, 2015
Ms. Erica Gray
Development Coordinator
Harsch Investment Properties
1121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 500
Portland, Oregon 97205
RE: Blue Oaks Commerce Center, City of Roseville, Placer County, California – Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey
Dear Ms. Gray:

At your request, ECORP Consulting, Inc. (ECORP) conducted a nesting bird survey for the Blue Oaks Commerce Center project site located in the City of Roseville, Placer County, California.

The project site is bounded by Blue Oaks Boulevard on the north, Industrial Avenue on the west, and Washington Boulevard on the east. This survey included all trees and open areas located within the project site, and all suitable habitats within publicly accessible areas within 300 feet of the project.

The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects most naturally occurring birds (including common species) and makes it illegal to take, possess, 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 permits issued pursuant to Federal regulations. The California Fish and Game Code §3503 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation pursuant thereto. All raptors (owls, hawks, eagles, and falcons), including their nests, are protected from take pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code §3503.5, and the MBTA, among other federal and state regulations. Potential tree-nesting raptors within this region include Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus), Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus), Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii), and American Kestrel (Falco sparverius), among others. Potential ground-nesting raptors include Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) and Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia).

This survey was conducted via visual observation on March 19, 2015 by ECORP senior biologist Keith Kwan. Binoculars (10x40 magnification) and a spotting scope (20-60x magnification) were used to assist with field identification and observations. Trees were visually inspected from multiple angles for active nests, and transects were walked through open areas to locate potential ground-nesting species. Transects were spaced approximately 50 feet apart to ensure complete coverage.

During this survey, no active bird nests were found within the project site and the 300-foot survey area. The project site has been previously graded and treated with hydroseed erosion control. There are no trees on the project site, but several are located offsite, along Industrial Avenue in the industrial development to the south. A list of birds observed is included as Attachment A.

Cliff Swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) are beginning to nest under the Blue Oaks Boulevard overpass at Industrial Avenue, but these should not be affected by site construction, which is over 300 feet away.

In conclusion, no active bird nests were found during the survey conducted on March 19, 2015.

It is recommended that a follow up survey be conducted if no construction activity occurs within 14 days of this survey, as new nests could be built within the survey area at any time during this period.

If you have any questions feel free to contact me at (916) 782-9100.

Sincerely,
IL-£,__.

Keith Kwan
Senior Biologist
Attachment
Cc: Mr. Edwin K. Yu / Morton & Pitalo
March 19, 2015
2015-xxx (PlS-114)
2 Blue Oaks Commerce Center
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

ATTACHMENT A
Birds Species Observed (March 19, 2015)
Bird Species Observed (March 19, 2015)
Common Name Scientific Name
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis
Rock Pigeon Columba livia
Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura
Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus
Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos
European Starling Sturnus vulgaris
Yellow-rumped Warbler Setophaga coronata
White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys
Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus
Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus
House Finch Haemorhous mexicanus
House Sparrow Passer domesticus
Biological Resources Letter Report – December 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center, City of Roseville, CA
(APN 002‐180‐198)
APPENDIX C:

SUPPORTING AGENCY SPECIES LISTS
 C1 ‐ USFWS IPAC
 C2 ‐ USFWS NWI MAP
 C3 ‐ CDFW CNDDB 5‐MILE OCCURRENCE LIST
 C4 ‐ CNPS 9‐QUAD QUERY RESULTS
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area.

However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.

Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Location
Placer County, California
Local office
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
 (916) 414-6600
 (916) 414-6713
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often required.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly.

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following:

1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.

2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.

3. Log in (if directed to do so).

4. Provide a name and description for your project.

5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.

Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).

Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.

1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ). 1 2

2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:

Fishes
Insects
Crustaceans

NAME STATUS
Delta Smelt Hypomesus transpacificus
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/321
Threatened

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7850
Threatened

NAME STATUS
Conservancy Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta conservatio
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8246
Endangered
Critical habitats
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.

There are no critical habitats at this location.

Migratory birds
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Lepidurus packardi
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2246
Endangered
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.

1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.

Additional information can be found using the following links:

Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds/species Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-takemigratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservationmeasures.pdf 1 2
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.

For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

NAME BREEDING SEASON
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.

Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Belding's Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis
beldingi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8
Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 15
Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds Mar 21 to Jul 25
California Gull Larus californicus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2084
Breeds May 20 to Jul 31
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Lawrence's Goldfinch Carduelis lawrencei
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9464
Breeds Mar 20 to Sep 20
Long-eared Owl asio otus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3631
Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 15
Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20
Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9656
Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15
Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914
Breeds May 20 to Aug 31
Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9480
Breeds elsewhere
Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3910
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4- week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Wrentit Chamaea fasciata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
Yellow-billed Magpie Pica nuttalli
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9726
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31
probability of presence  breeding season  survey effort  no data Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Belding's
Savannah
Sparrow

BCC - BCR
Bullock's Oriole

BCC - BCR
California Gull
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Common
Yellowthroat

BCC - BCR
Golden Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Lawrence's
Goldfinch
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Long-eared
Owl
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Nuttall's
Woodpecker

BCC - BCR
Oak Titmouse
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Olive-sided
Flycatcher
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Short-billed
Dowitcher
BCC Rangewide
(CON)

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Tricolored
Blackbird
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Wrentit
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Yellow-billed
Magpie
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.

Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure.

To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.

What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area.

It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.

How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:

1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);

2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and

3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).

Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.

Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.

Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

There are no refuge lands at this location.

Fish hatcheries
There are no fish hatcheries at this location.

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

Wetland information is not available at this time
This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or for very large projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI map to view wetlands at this location.

Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies.

Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.

Blue Oaks Commerce Center
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team, [email protected]
Wetlands
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Other
Riverine
December 19, 2022
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 mi
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 km
1:7,523
This page was produced by the NWI mapper
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site.

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB 5 mile search results:

SNAME CNAME

ELMCODE

OCCNUMBER
MAPNDX
EONDX

KEYQUAD

KQUADNAME

KEYCOUNTY
PLSS

ELEVATION

TAXONGROUP

EOCOUNT

ACCURACY

PRESENCE

OCCTYPE

OCCRANK

SENSITIVE

SITEDATE

ELMDATE

OWNERMGT

FEDLIST

CALLIST
GRANK
SRANK

RPLANTRANK

CDFWSTATUS

OTHRSTATUS

LOCATION

LOCDETAILS

ECOLOGICAL

GENERAL
THREAT

THREATLIST

LASTUPDATE
Alkali Meadow Alkali Meadow
CTT45310CA 1
11773
22568
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 12,S (M)
175
Herbaceous 2
1/5 mile
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown N
19820823
19820823

UNKNOWN
None
None
G3
S2.1
NORTH OF ROSEVILLE ON HWY 65, EAST ON
PLACER BLVD, EAST ON PRIVATE DIRT ROAD.

LOW DISTICHLIS MEADOWS W/PATCHES OF BARE
WHITE SALT ENCRUSTED SOIL. OCCURS BETWEEN
SEEPS DOMINATED BY OLNEY BULLRUSH. MOSAIC

OF DIFF COVE
R TYPES. SPECIES LIST ON FILE AT
CNDDB.

SEE
WWW.DFG.CA.GOV/BIOGEODATA/VEGCAMP/NAT
URAL_COMM_BACKGROUND.ASP TO INTERPRET AND ADDRESS THE PRESENCE OF RARE COMMUNITIES.

GRAZED IN WINTER. DEVEL PLANNED FOR THE AREA.

Grazing
19980715
Alkali Seep Alkali Seep
CTT45320CA 2
11773
13316
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 12,S (M)
150
Herbaceous 2
1/5 mile
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown N
19890419
19820823

UNKNOWN
None
None
G3
S2.1

0.5 MILE EAST OF PLEASANT GROVE CREEK, APPROX 2.5 MILES NORTH OF ROCKLIN. ACCESS VIA HWY 65.

SEEPS AND OLNEY BULLRUSH DOM. OCCURS IN

PATCHES W/ALKALI MEADOW BTWNA
HOMOGENEOUS STAND OF VEG APPROX1M TALL.

FRESHWATER SEEP OCCURS ABOVE ALKALINE‐
SEEP. FILL HAS BEEN ILLEGALLY DISCHARGED INTO
SITE AS OF 1989. ARMY CORPS INVOLVED IN RESTORATION AND MITIGATION. SEE
WWW.DFG.CA.GOV/BIOGEODATA/VEGCAMP/NAT
URAL_COMM_BACKGROUND.ASP TO INTERPRET AND ADDRESS THE PRESENCE OF RARE COMMUNITIES.

GRAZED IN WINTER. DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR
SITE.

Grazing; Vandalism/dumping/litter
19980720
Northern Hardpan
Vernal Pool
Northern Hardpan
Vernal Pool
CTT44110CA
23 11651
16254
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 33, NW (M)
125
Herbaceous 1
specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown N
1980XXXX
1980XXXX

UNKNOWN
None
None
G3
S3.1
SOUTH OF LINCOLN2‐3 MILES WEST OF HWY 65.

POOLS IN TREELESS ANNUAL GRASSLAND.

BOUNDARIES INDICATE EXTENT OF UNDEVELOPED AREA.

DIVERSE POOL FLORA. UNABLE TO CONVERT TO
FLORISTIC CLASSIFICATION, LACKS SPP. INFO.

SEVERAL POOLS KNOWN FOR THEIR
INVERTEBRATE FAUNA. SEE
WWW.DFG.CA.GOV/BIOGEODATA/VEGCAMP/NAT
URAL_COMM_BACKGROUND.ASP TO INTERPRET AND ADDRESS THE PRESENCE OF RARE COMMUNITIES.

THREAT OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.
19980715

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Northern Volcanic
Mud Flow Vernal
Pool
Northern Volcanic
Mud Flow Vernal
Pool
CTT44132CA
1 11782
16218
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T10N, R07E, Sec. 06 (M)
240
Herbaceous
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
1982XXXX
1982XXXX

UNKNOWN
None
None
G1
S1.1

BETWEEN DOUGLAS BLVD & MINERS RAVINE JUST
EAST OF ROSEVILLE.

DIVERSITY OF POOL TAXA PRESENT INCLUDES
DICHELOSTEMMA LACUNA‐VERNALIS. MOST OF
THIS LARGE AREA IS ON VOLCANIC SUBSTRATE. <50

ACRES IN THE NW PORTION OF THE BOUNDED

AREA IS LOW TERRACE FORMATION W/HARDPAN
VERNAL POOLS.

UNABLE TO CONVERT TO FLORISTIC
CLASSIFICATION, LACKS SPP. INFO. SEE
WWW.DFG.CA.GOV/BIOGEODATA/VEGCAMP/NAT
URAL_COMM_BACKGROUND.ASP TO INTERPRET

AND ADDRESS THE PRESENCE OF RARE
COMMUNITIES.
19980716
Balsamorhiza
macrolepis
big‐scale
balsamroot
PDAST11061
9 32045
3757
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 21, E (M)
125
Dicots
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
19580707
19580707

UNKNOWN
None
None
G2
S2
1B.2
BLM_S; USFS_S

UNCULTIVATED STRIP ALONG RAILROAD AND US
HIGHWAY 99E, 3.2 MILES NORTH OF ROSEVILLE.

US HWY 99E WAS REPLACED BY CA HWY 65. HWY
65 WAS BUILT PARALLEL TO THE ROUTE OF HWY
99E, ABOUT 0.4 MILE EAST OF THE RAILROAD.

MAPPED BY CNDDB NON‐SPECIFICALLY ALONG

INDUSTRIAL AVE AND THE RAILROAD TRACKS AS A
BEST GUESS.

OPEN VALLEY PLAIN.

MAIN SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR THIS SITE IS
A 1957 CRAMPTON COLLECTION FROM 3.2 MILES
NORTH OF ROSEVILLE ALONG HWY 99E. 1957 &
1958 FULLER COLLECTIONS FROM 2 MILES NORTH
OF ROSEVILLE ALONG HWY 99E ALSO ATTRIBUTED
HERE. NEEDS FIELDWORK.

MUCH OF THIS AREA HAS BEEN DEVELOPED SINCE
THE COLLECTIONS WERE MADE.

Development
20130813
Gratiola
heterosepala
Boggs Lake hedge‐
hyssop
PDSCR0R060
16 11749
7258
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 25, SW (M)
230
Dicots
1 specific area
Extirpated
Natural/Native occurrence
None
N
19970618
19870422
PVT
None
Endangered
G2
S2
1B.2
BLM_S

NORTH OF ROSEVILLE, WEST OF ANTELOPE CREEK,
WSW OF ROCKLIN.

THIS VERNAL POOL COMPLEX IS THE BEST

EXAMPLE OF VOLCANIC MUDFLOW VERNAL POOLS
IN ROSEVILLE (STROMBERG 1987). INCLUDES
FORMER OCCURRENCE #17.

NORTHERN HARDPAN VERNAL POOL ON
EXCHEQUER VERY STONY LOAM SOIL. ASSOCIATED

VEGETATION INCLUDES ERYNGIUM VASEYI,

ALLOCARYA STIPATATA MICRANTHA, CALLITRICHE

LONGIPEDUNCULATA, DOWNINGIA ORNATISSIMA,
ISOETES SP, GRATIOLA EBRACTEATA, ETC.

OVER 40 PLANTS IN 2 SUBPOPULATIONS IN 1987.

NOT OBSERVED IN 1997 (TOO LATE IN YEAR?).

DEVELOPMENT IMMINENT IN 1997; ROSEVILLE

BLVD EXPANSION HAS/WILL PROBABLY WIPE OUT
MOST OF THIS OCCURRENCE. 2009 AERIAL
IMAGERY SHOWS SITE EXTIRPATED.

AREA GRAZED AND PROPOSED FOR REGIONAL
SHOPPING CENTER. 2009 AERIAL IMAGERY SHOWS
SITE EXTIRPATED BY DEVELOPMENT.

Development; Grazing
20110118
Gratiola
heterosepala
Boggs Lake hedge‐
hyssop
PDSCR0R060
15 11792
17776
3812172
Rocklin
PLA
T11N, R07E, Sec. 31, NW (M)
290
Dicots
1 specific area
Extirpated
Natural/Native occurrence
None
N
19870417
19870417
PVT
None
Endangered
G2
S2
1B.2
BLM_S
JOHNSON RANCH, APPROXIMATELY 0.75 MILE
SOUTH OF HWY 80 BETWEEN ROCKLIN &
ROSEVILLE.

MAPPED AS 2 POLYGONS IN SW1/4 OF NW1/4 SEC

31. NORTHERN MUDFLOW VERNAL POOL IN OPEN

ANNUAL GRASSLAND NEAR EDGE OF OAK
WOODLAND. GRATIOLA EBRACTEATA ALSO FOUND
IN DEEPER VERNAL POOLS IN THE AREA.

MORE THAN 500 PLANTS IN 1986. SOUTHERN

POLYGON IS PROBABLY EXTIRPATED ACCORDING
TO WITHAM'S 2008 AERIAL PHOTO
INTERPRETATION; A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
NOW EXISTS THERE. BY 2016, ENTIRE AREA HAS
BEEN DEVELOPED, SITE EXTIRPATED.

LAND USE FOR LIVESTOCK, DEVELOPMENT.

Development; Grazing
20171213

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Gratiola
heterosepala
Boggs Lake hedge‐
hyssop
PDSCR0R060
96 74381
75373
3812174
Pleasant Grove
PLA
T11N, R05E, Sec. 14, NW (M)
88 Dicots
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20080506
20080506
PVT
None
Endangered
G2
S2
1B.2
BLM_S
NORTH OF PLEASANT GROVE CREEK, APPROX. 1.5
AIR MILES NW OF R. F. FIDDYMENT RANCH, NW OF
ROSEVILLE.

MAPPED IN THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF
SECTION 14 ACCORDING TO LAT/LONG
COORDINATES PROVIDED BY FISHER.

OCCURS IN ONE OF THE DEEPER BASIN VERNAL
POOLS IN THE AREA; ONLY VERNAL POOL WITH
STANDING WATER AT TIME OF SURVEY (1‐2").

ASSOCIATED WITH ERYNGIUM VASEYI,

NAVARRETIA LEUCOCEPHALA, DOWNINGIA
BICORNUTA, AND THE RARE DOWNINGIA PUSILLA.
1000‐1500 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2006. 1000

PLANTS OBSERVED IN A SUBSEQUENT VISIT IN
2008.

RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

Development
20090406
Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia
PDCAM060C0
33 11696
17398
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 03, SE (M)
145
Dicots
1 1/5 mile
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
19850419
19850419

PVT, CALTRANS
None
None
GU
S2
2B.2

0.75 MILE SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF
HIGHWAY 65 AND PLEASANT GROVE ROAD, EAST
OF HIGHWAY 65.

VERNAL POOL ON CLAYPAN SUBSTRATE.

ASSOCIATED WITH DOWNINGIA BICORNUTA, D.

ORNATISSIMA, ALLOCARYA STIPITATA
MICRANTHA.

MORE THAN 30 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 1985.

AREA GRAZED, BUT LITTLE DISTURBANCE. PARCEL
TO EAST BEING DEVELOPED.

Grazing
19890811
Chloropyron molle
ssp. hispidum
hispid salty bird's‐
beak
PDSCR0J0D1
11 11763
17846
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 12, SW (M)
150
Dicots
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
19970618
19970618
PVT
None
None
G2T1
S1
1B.1
APPROXIMATELY 4 MILES NE OF ROSEVILLE.

WITHIN STANFORD RANCH ALKALI SEEP PRESERVE,
SPRING VALLEY. SITE IS NEAR PARK DRIVE AND
STANFORD RANCH ROAD INTERSECTION. IN THE
SW 1/4 SECTION 12. NEAR 3 SEEPS.

SPRING FED ALKALI MEADOW WITH DISTICHLIS

SPICATA, SCIRPUS OLNEYI, FRANKENIA
GRANDIFOLIA VAR. CAMPESTRIS, CRESSA

TRUXILLENSIS, MONERMA CYLINDRICA, AND LIPPIA
NODIFLORA. AREA SURROUNDED BY ALAMO
VARIANT CLAY, BUT SOIL AT SITE IS UNCLASSIFIED.

OVER 10,000 PLANTS SEEN IN 1982, 2000‐5000
SEEN IN 1989, AND ~2500 IN 1991. ACCORDING TO

DAINS, DECLINE IN POP PROBABLY DUE TO
WEATHER, NOT MANAGEMENT. SITE FENCED,

HABITAT LOOKED GOOD IN LATE SEASON (JUNE)
1997 WINDSHIELD SURVEY.

GRAZING REMOVED BY 1991, FILL HAD BEEN
DUMPED ON SITE IN 1989; SUBSEQUENTLY
REMOVED TO RESOLVE WETLANDS VIOLATIONS.

Grazing; Other
20110804
Legenere limosa legenere
PDCAM0C010
14 11739
17380
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 11, SE (M)
150
Dicots
1 1/5 mile
Extirpated
Natural/Native occurrence
None
N
19970618
19840405
PVT
None
None
G2
S2
1B.1
BLM_S; SB_UCBG

FLOODPLAIN OF PLEASANT GROVE CREEK, APPROX

2.2 AIR MILES E OF JCT PLACER BLVD & SPRR
TRACKS.

WHEN VISITED IN 1997, WHAT APPEARS TO BE

DEDICATED OPEN SPACE WAS SEEN JUST TO THE
EAST OF MAPPED LOCATION FOR THIS SITE.

FUTURE SURVEYS SHOULD TARGET THIS AREA.

VERNAL POOL AREA IN FLOODPLAIN OF
INTERMITTENT STREAM. ASSOCIATED WITH
RANUNCULUS BONARIENSIS TRISEPALUS.

ABOUT 100 PLANTS IN 1984. WINDSHIELD SURVEY
CONDUCTED IN 1997 TO CONFIRM PRESENCE OR
ABSENCE OF HABITAT; IF MAPS ARE ACCURATE,

THIS SITE IS NOW UNDER THE PAVEMENT AT

DEVON DR, FARRIER RD & RACHEL CT IN THE
STANFORD RANCH SUBDIVISION.
19970811

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Linderiella
occidentalis California linderiella
ICBRA06010
145
34816
5003
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 20, SE (M)
115
Crustaceans
1 non‐specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
19960429
19960402
PVT‐HEWLETT PACKARD
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
IUCN_NT
NORTHWEST OF ROSEVILLE, 2.0 KM NORTHWEST
OF HIGHWAY 65 AT INDUSTRIAL BLVD.

HEWLETT PACKARD‐210 ACRE PROPERTY. 1996:

TOTAL OF 43 WATERBODIES SURVEYED.

SEASONAL WATERBODIES (VERNAL POOLS,
SEASONAL WETLANDS) WITHIN NON‐NATIVE
ANNUAL GRASSLAND.
1996: 50+ ADULTS OBSERVED IN 6 POOLS (148,
149, 150, 151, 152 & 153), AND <50 ADULTS
OBSERVED IN POOL #129.
19960716
Linderiella
occidentalis California linderiella
ICBRA06010
199
64299
48405
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 31, NW (M)
110
Crustaceans
1 non‐specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
20050302
20050302

MOORE RANCH CONSERVANCY
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
IUCN_NT

IN THE GENERAL AREA NW OF FIDDYMENT RD AT E
CATLETT RD, S OF ORCHARD CREEK, 4.5 MILES SW
OF LINCOLN PO.

MOORE RANCH. LOCATED IN NW1/4 SEC 31 &
NE1/4 SEC 36.

HABITAT CONSISTS OF VERNAL POOLS (WITHIN A

VERNAL POOL COMPLEX) SURROUNDED BY
ANNUAL GRASSLAND. POOL DEPTH AT SAMPLING:
13 CM. SURFACE AREA AT SAMPLING: 30 M X 7 M.

AREA IS A WETLAND MITIGATION SITE.
10'S OBS IN 1 POOL 13 FEB 1997. 10'S OBS IN ONE
POOL IN THE WESTERN AREA 28 FEB 2002. OBS IN
2 OF 46 SAMPLED POOLS IN EASTERN AREA JAN &
FEB 2002. OBS IN 3 OF 47 SAMPLED POOLS JAN &
MAR 2003. 10'S TO 1000'S OBS IN 16 POOLS FEB &
MAR 2005.
20110425
Linderiella
occidentalis California linderiella
ICBRA06010
184
42742
42742
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 33 (M)
120
Crustaceans
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
19970212
19970212

UNKNOWN
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
IUCN_NT
1 MILE NW OF PLEASANT GROVE ROAD & SP
RAILROAD, 1 MILE E OF ORCHARD CREEK &

INGRAM SLOUGH CONFLUENCE, NNW OF
ROSEVILLE.

MOST OF THE NW AND BOTTOM HALF NE
PORTIONS OF ORCHARD CREEK MITIGATION BANK.

MAJORITY OF VERNAL POOLS ARE ON SAN
JOAQUIN SANDY LOAM AND ALAMO‐FIDDYMENT
COMPLEX SOILS. MORE MAP DETAIL IN REPORT.
170 OF THE 694 EXISTING POOLS WERE SAMPLED.

ENDEMIC VEGETATION: RANUNCULUS

ALVEOLATUS, ERYNGIUM VASEYI, PLAGIOBOTHRYS

STIPITAUS, PSILICARPHUS ZIZYPHOROIDES,

DESCHAMPSIA DAMTHONIOIDES, NAVARRETIA
LEUCOCEPHALA.

OBSERVED LINDERIELLA IN 82 OF THE 170 POOLS
SAMPLED, 81 AT THIS LOCATION, FOR AN
APPROXIMATE OCCURRENCE RATE OF 48 PERCENT,
WITH ABUNDANCE RANGING FROM LOW TO HIGH.
20000412
Linderiella
occidentalis California linderiella
ICBRA06010
146
34817
3450
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 29 (M)
125
Crustaceans
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
19980302
19980302
PVT‐STERLING PACIFIC ASSETS
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
IUCN_NT
LARGE AREA W OF HWY 65 (NOW BISECTED BY
NEW HWY 65 ROUTE) AND S OF AUBURN RAVINE,
CENTERED 1.7 MI SW LINCOLN PO.

LINCOLN CROSSING MITIGATION SITE. COVERS
PORTIONS OF SEVERAL SECTIONS. 1995: 10 TOTAL
WATERBODIES SURVEYED. 1996: 42 TOTAL
WATERBODIES SURVEYED. 1997: 49 TOTAL
WATERBODIES SURVEYED. 1998: 20 TOTAL
WATERBODIES SURVEYED.

SEASONALLY INUNDATED WATERBODIES (VERNAL
POOLS, SEASONAL WETLANDS) W/IN NON‐NATIVE
ANNUAL GRASSLAND. WETLAND
COMPENSATION/MITIGATION PRESERVE.

ADJACENT AREAS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED FOR
RESIDENTIAL HOUSING BY 2010.
1995: UNKNOWN NUMBER OBS. 1996: 50+
ADULTS OBS IN 28 POOLS, FEWER THAN 50 OBS IN
4 POOLS; B. LYNCHI IN SOME POOLS. 1997: 10‐100
OBS IN 27 POOLS. 1998: 1000S OBS IN 13 POOLS
AND 100S OBS IN 1 POOL.
20110422
Page
4 of 31
Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Linderiella
occidentalis California linderiella
ICBRA06010
143
34815
29309
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 21, NW (M)
125
Crustaceans
1 non‐specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
19960429
19960205
PVT‐HEWLETT PACKARD
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
IUCN_NT
NNW OF ROSEVILLE, 1.8 KM SOUTHWEST OF

SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD AT PLEASANT
GROVE CREEK.

HEWLETT PACKARD‐90 ACRE PARCEL. 1995 AND
1996: TOTAL OF 103 WATERBODIES SURVEYED
EACH YEAR.

SEASONAL WATERBODIES WITHIN NON‐NATIVE
ANNUAL GRASSLAND.
1995: LINDERIELLA OBSERVED IN 8 POOLS (#10, 16,
29, 59, 65, 69, 76 & 78) BETWEEN 12/22/1994 AND
3/7/1995. 1996: LINDERIELLA OBSERVED IN 3
POOLS (#10, 16 & 29) BETWEEN 12/26/1995 AND
2/5/1996.
19960906
Linderiella
occidentalis California linderiella
ICBRA06010
150
32516
1882
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 27, NW (M)
140
Crustaceans
1 non‐specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Excellent
N
19960313
19960209
PVT‐PLACER HOLDINGS
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
IUCN_NT

EASTRIDGE PROJECT SOUTHERN WETLAND
PRESERVE, 1.0 KM EAST OF HIGHWAY 65, 2.2 KM
SOUTH OF LINCOLN.

NORTHERN HARDPAN VERNAL POOL HABITAT
WITH CONSTRUCTED VERNAL POOLS (3.95 ACRES),
CONSTRUCTED SEASONAL WETLANDS (1.95

ACRES), AND REFERENCE VERNAL POOLS IN
ANNUAL GRASSAND.
1996 (THIRD MONITORING YEAR): 1/11‐LOW

DENSITIES OF LINDERIELLA OBSERVED IN POOL
#SW4, B. LYNCHI ALSO PRESENT. 2/9‐LOW

DENSITIES OF LINDERIELLAS OBSERVED IN POOLS
#7 AND 8.

FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNED IN
ADJACENT AREA; DIRT ROADS BISECT PRESERVE;
GRAZING; RODEO GROUNDS TO THE NW.

Development; Grazing; Other
19960905
Linderiella
occidentalis California linderiella
ICBRA06010
142
34814
1863
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 16 (M)
100
Crustaceans
1 non‐specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
20050126
20050126
PVT‐STANFORD RANCH
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
IUCN_NT
NORTH OF ROSEVILLE; WEST OF HWY 65, SOUTH
OF PLEASANT GROVE CREEK AND 0.8 KM NORTH
OF SCOW ROAD.

FOOTHILL BUSINESS PARK MITIGATION SITE,
PARCELS 1, 6. POOL LOCATIONS NOT GIVEN FOR
LINDERIELLA OCCIDENTALIS. 1995:12 POOLS
SURVEYED. 1996:14 POOLS SURVEYED. 1998:13
POOLS SAMPLED. 2003:4 POOLS SAMPLED,OBS IN
POOL 8. 2005: 10 POOLS SAMPLED.

CONSTRUCTED AND HISTORIC WETLANDS (VERNAL

POOLS, SEASONAL WETLANDS) ARE INTERSPERSED
WITHIN NON‐NATIVE ANNUAL GRASSLAND.
1995:NONE OBS. 1/30/1996: 50+ ADULTS IN 4
POOLS. 3/11/1996: 50+ ADULTS IN 2 POOLS.
1/14/97:OBS IN 12 POOLS. 1/13/98:100S IN 2
POOLS. 3/2/98:1000S IN 5 POOLS. 01/27/05:1000'S
IN POOL 16, 100'S IN POOL 26. 2006:1000S IN
POOL 18.
20060327
Linderiella
occidentalis California linderiella
ICBRA06010
90 32457
1898
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 29, SE (M)
130
Crustaceans
2 1/5 mile
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
19950209
19950209
PVT‐SARES REGIS GROUP
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
IUCN_NT

BETWEEN KASEBERG CREEK & SOUTH BRANCH
PLEASANT GROVE CREEK; 1.8 KM WEST OF
SOUTHERN PACIFIC RR AT HWY 65.
14 WATER BODIES WERE SAMPLED ON 2/9,10,27 &
3/14/95. LINDERIELLA WAS FOUND IN THIS POOL
& 2 OTHERS ON 2/9/95. IN 5 POOLS ON 2/10, IN 1
POOL ON 2/27 & 1 POOL ON 3/14/95. THE

LOCATIONS OF THE OTHER POOLS WAS NOT
GIVEN.

HARDPAN VERAL POOL IN ANNUAL NON‐NATIVE
GRASSLAND. ON 2/9/95 THE SURFACE AREA WAS
129 SQ METERS & THE DEPTH WAS 16 CM.

WETLAND COMPENSATION/MITIGATION
PRESERVE.

POOL #C2: >50 ADULTS OBSERVED. ALSO FOUND
IN POOLS 49, C1, 06, 26, E2, N2, 102, 15, & 30. THE

INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CONSULTANT

HAS CONFLICTING DATA ON LOCATION OF THIS
POOL; SITE WAS MAPPED ACCORDING TO THEIR
MAP, NOT THEIR T‐R‐S.
19951011

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Linderiella
occidentalis California linderiella
ICBRA06010
201
48420
48420
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 31, N (M)
125
Crustaceans
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
20060109
20060109

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
IUCN_NT
3 MILES NW OF ROSEVILLE, ALONG POWER LINES,

0.1 TO 0.8 MILE EAST OF FIDDYMENT ROAD.

WOODCREEK WEST WETLAND COMPENSATION
AREA. ABOUT 25% OF THE POOLS WERE SAMPLED
(22 IN 2001, 23 IN 2002, 22 IN 2005, 25 IN 2006 ‐
BOTH CONSTRUCTED & HISTORIC). L.

OCCIDENTALIS FOUND IN 14 OF 23 POOLS IN 2002
& 13 OF 22 POOLS IN 2005.

HABITAT CONSISTS OF CONSTRUCTED AND

HISTORIC VERNAL POOLS WITHIN AN ANNUAL
GRASSLAND HABITAT; WETLAND COMPENSATION
AREA. SITE IS UNDER POWER LINES.
2001: 10'S OBS IN POOLS 45 AND 55. 2002: 10'S
OBS IN POOLS 21, 48, 51 AND 85; 100'S OBS IN
POOLS 44, 70, 74 AND 86; 1000'S OBS IN POOLS 10,
17, 28, 46, 82 AND N2. 2005: 10'S‐1000'S OBS IN 13
POOLS. 2006: 10'S‐100'S OBS IN 19 POOLS.
20060327
Linderiella
occidentalis California linderiella
ICBRA06010
111
32456
4988
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 32, NW (M)
120
Crustaceans
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Fair
N
19970225
19970225

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
IUCN_NT

SILVERADO OAKS MITIGATION SITE, NW OF THE

WOODCREEK OAKS BLVD & JUNCTION BLVD JCT,
ABOUT 3 MI WNW OF ROSEVILLE PO.
1995: 15 TOTAL WETLANDS SAMPLED BETWEEN
PARCELS 32 (EO #390) & 72 (EO#111, THIS
OCCURRENCE). 1996: 10 SAMPLED. 1997: 13
SAMPLED. PROVIDED MAP GRAPHIC APPEARED
SHIFTED WEST OF TRUE LOCATION; MAPPED TO
AERIAL IMAGE MATCHING PRESERVED HABITAT.

CONSTRUCTED AND SEASONAL HARDPAN VERNAL
POOLS WITHIN NON‐NATIVE ANNUAL GRASSLAND.

BRANCHINECTA LYNCHI ALSO OBSERVED IN AREA
IN 1995, BUT NOT IN 1996 OR 1997.
1995: UNKNOWN NUMBERS OF LINDERIELLA
OBSERVED IN CONSTRUCTED POOLS IN PARCELS 32
& 72. 1996: >50 ADULTS OBSERVED IN
CONSTRUCTED POOLS (VP106 & VP108). 1997: 10'S
OBSERVED IN HVE & VP107, 1000'S OBSERVED IN
VP106.
20110708
Linderiella
occidentalis California linderiella
ICBRA06010
194
47451
47451
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 26 (M)
155
Crustaceans
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20050111
20050111

PVT, CITY OF ROSEVILLE
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
IUCN_NT

ALONG CREEK ON N EDGE OF DIAMOND OAKS
MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE, 1.7 MI N OF ROSEVILLE
PO.
1997: SPECIES OBS IN 9 OF 17 POOLS SAMPLED.
1998: SP OBS IN 2 OF 9 POOLS SAMPLED. 1999: SP
OBS IN 2 OF 11 POOLS SAMPLED. 2004: SP OBS IN
1 OF 11 POOLS SAMPLED. 2005: SP OBS IN 2 OF 10
POOLS SAMPLED. 2006: SP OBS IN 1 OF 12 POOLS
SAMPLED.

CONSTRUCTED VERNAL POOLS (1.5 ACRES) IN
AREA DOMINATED BY NON‐NATIVE ANNUAL
GRASSLAND SURROUNDED BY DEVELOPMENT.
1/8/98: VP7 SURFACE AREA 4X12 M, DEPTH 10
CM; VP10 SURFACE AREA 4X8 M, DEPTH 10 CM.
2/27/98: VP7 SURFACE AREA 4X16 M, DEPTH 16.

JAN 1997: 10S OBS IN 3 POOLS, 100S IN 3 POOLS,
1000S IN 3 POOLS. JAN & FEB 1998: 100S IN VP77,
VP10 & VP7. MAR 1999: 1000S IN VP7 & VP16. FEB
2004: 100S IN POOL U15. JAN 2005: 100S IN POOL
U18, 10S IN POOL U47. JAN 2006: 100S IN POOL
U80.
20110708
Linderiella
occidentalis California linderiella
ICBRA06010
249
64329
64408
3812174
Pleasant Grove
PLA
T11N, R05E, Sec. 23, SE (M)
96 Crustaceans
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20060131
20060131
PVT
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
IUCN_NT
NORTH SIDE OF PHILLIPS ROAD, ABOUT 1.3 MILES

WEST OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH FIDDYMENT
ROAD.

VERNAL POOLS.

COMPLEX OF 7 CLOSELY‐SPACED VERNAL POOLS.
10'S TO 100'S OBSERVED.
20060327
Page
6 of 31
Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Linderiella
occidentalis California linderiella
ICBRA06010
200
48410
48410
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 22, NE (M)
130
Crustaceans
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
20050121
20050121

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
IUCN_NT

2.5 MILES NORTH ROSEVILLE, 0.4 MILE EAST OF

INTERSECTION OF EAST ROSEVILLE PARKWAY AND
WASHINGTON BLVD, WEST OF HWY 65.

HIGHLAND RESERVE SOUTH.

HABITAT CONSISTS OF PRESERVE WITH

CONSTRUCTED AND HISTORIC VERNAL POOLS
WITHIN A NON‐NATIVE ANNUAL GRASSLAND.

SURROUNDED BY URBAN AREAS AND
DEVELOPMENT.
100'S OF INDIVIDUALS OBSERVED WITHIN POOL
#ND ON 4 JAN 2002, AND AN UNKNOWN NUMBER
WERE OBSERVED IN POOLS #N92, N108, AND NL
ON 12 AND 16 FEB 2004. 10'S OBS IN POOLS ND,
N82, N87 ON 21 JAN 2005.
20051017
Linderiella
occidentalis California linderiella
ICBRA06010
187
46106
46109
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 20, NW (M)
115
Crustaceans
2 non‐specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
20060109
20060109

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
IUCN_NT
1 MILE SW OF THE INTERSECTION OF FIDDYMENT
ROAD AND PLEASANT GROVE CREEK, ROSEVILLE.

WOODCREEK NORTH OPEN SPACE
PRESERVE/WETLAND COMPENSATION AREA.

HABITAT CONSISTS OF ANNUAL GRASSLAND WITH

CONSTRUCTED AND HISTORIC VERNAL POOLS
SURROUNDED BY OAK WOODLAND.

BRANCH NECTA I LYNCHI ALSO FOUND HERE.

UNKNOWN # OBS 7 MAR 2001. 1000'S OBS 28 FEB
2002 IN POOL C. FOUND IN POOLS 2, 3, 5, & 7 IN
JAN 2003. 1000'S OBS. 17 FEB 2004 IN POOL #5. 7
JAN 2005: 1000'S IN POOLS SWB, SWC, SWE; 100'S
IN POOL SWF. JAN 2006: 10S‐1000S IN 7 POOLS.
20060327
Linderiella
occidentalis California linderiella
ICBRA06010
250
64330
64409
3812174
Pleasant Grove
PLA
T11N, R05E, Sec. 22, NE (M)
90 Crustaceans
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20060131
20060131
PVT
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
IUCN_NT
SOUTH SIDE OF PHILLIP ROAD ABOUT 3 MILES

EAST OF BREWER ROAD, NORTHWEST OF
ROSEVILLE.

POOL NUMBERS 321, 330, 342, 357, 396, AND 401.

VERNAL POOL COMPLEX.
10'S TO 100'S IN EACH POOL.
20060620
Linderiella
occidentalis California linderiella
ICBRA06010
390
82419
83442
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 33, NW (M)
130
Crustaceans
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
19950302
19950206

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
IUCN_NT

OPEN AREA BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL HOUSING NE

OF COUNTRY CLUB DR AT ACTON WAY, CENTERED
ABOUT 2.2 MI NW OF ROSEVILLE PO.
1995: 15 TOTAL WETLANDS SAMPLED BETWEEN
PARCELS 32 (EO#390, THIS OCCURRENCE) & 72
(EO#111). PROVIDED MAP GRAPHIC APPEARED
SHIFTED WEST OF TRUE LOCATION; MAPPED TO
AERIAL IMAGE MATCHING PRESERVED HABITAT.

CONSTRUCTED AND SEASONAL HARDPAN VERNAL
POOLS WITH NON‐NATIVE ANNUAL GRASSLAND.

LINDERIELLA OCCIDENTALIS OBSERVED IN

CONSTRUCTED VERNAL POOLS SOMETIME
BETWEEN 6 FEB AND 2 MAR 1995.
20110429
Page
7 of 31
Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Linderiella
occidentalis California linderiella
ICBRA06010
185
42747
42747
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 33, SW (M)
115
Crustaceans
1 80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
19970212
19970212

UNKNOWN
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
IUCN_NT

0.6 MILE NW OF PLEASANT GROVE RD &
SPRR, 1.4 MILE ESE OF ORCHARD CREEK
& INGRAM SLOUGH CONFLUENCE, NNW
OF ROSEVILLE.

JUST SOUTH OF ORCHARD CREEK,
ORCHARD CREEK MITIGATION BANK.

MAJORITY OF VERNAL POOLS ARE ON
SAN JOAQUIN SANDY LOAM AND ALAMO‐
FIDDYMENT COMPLEX SOILS. MORE MAP
DETAIL IN REPORT.

ENDEMIC VEGETATION: RANUNCULUS

ALVEOLATUS, ERYNGIUM VASEYI,

PLAGIOBOTHRYS STIPITAUS,

PSILICARPHUS ZIZYPHOROIDES,

DESCHAMPSIA DAMTHONIOIDES,
NAVARRETIA LEUCOCEPHALA.

OBSERVED LINDERIELLA THIS POOL WAS
RATED HIGH IN ABUNDANCE.
20000412
Linderiella
occidentalis California linderiella
ICBRA06010
227
56433
56449
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 23, SW (M)
160
Crustaceans
1 80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
20010220
20010220

UNKNOWN
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
IUCN_NT
LOCATED BETWEEN HIGHWAY 65 AND

ROSEVILLE PARKWAY, NW OF GIBSON
DRIVE, ROSEVILLE.

HIGHLAND RESERVE SOUTH OPEN SPACE
AREAS. POOLS LOCATED 0.28 MILE

NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF

ROSEVILLE PARKWAY AND GIBSON
DRIVE, SOUTH SIDE OF DRAINAGE.

HABITAT CONSISTS OF A COMPENSATION
(CONSTRUCTED) VERNAL POOL.
10'S OBSERVED IN POOL E16 ON 20 FEB
2001.
20040819
Linderiella
occidentalis California linderiella
ICBRA06010
246
62823
62877
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 27, NE (M)
150
Crustaceans
1 80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
20050121
20050121

UNKNOWN
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
IUCN_NT

NW OF THE JUNCTION OF

PLEASANT GROVE BLVD

AND ROSEVILLE PARKWAY,
SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 65,
ROSEVILLE.

HIGHLAND RESERVE SOUTH.

HABITAT CONSISTS OF A
HISTORIC VERNAL POOL.
100'S OBSERVED IN POOL
WRR ON 21 JAN 2005.
20051018
Linderiella
occidentalis California linderiella
ICBRA06010
419
93322
94459
3812174
Pleasant Grove
PLA
T10N, R05E, Sec. 01, N (M)
100
Crustaceans
1 80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
20061118
20061118
PVT
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
IUCN_NT
SOUTH SIDE OF BASE LINE ROAD ABOUT 0.5 MILE

EAST OF THE WATT AVENUE JUNCTION, WEST OF
ROSEVILLE.

MAPPED TO LOCATIONS OF POOL HBC4C FROM
2007 REPORT. PART OF 1,800‐ACRE LINEAR
SURVEY AREA FOR PGE LINE 123 EXTENSION/LINE
407 (PHASE 1)/METRO AIR PARK DISTRIBUTION
FEEDER PROJECT.

POTENTIAL BRANCHIOPOD HABITAT PER 2007
REPORT.
1 CYST FOUND IN DRY‐SEASON SAMPLES TAKEN
NOV 2006.

ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE
MAINTENANCE/CONSTRUCTION.

Other
20140730
Page
8 of 31
Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Linderiella
occidentalis California linderiella
ICBRA06010
257
64342
64421
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R05E, Sec. 24, SW (M)
95 Crustaceans
1 80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
20060131
20060131
PVT
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
IUCN_NT

NEAR UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO PLEASANT GROVE

CREEK NORTH AND EAST OF PHILLIP ROAD, NW OF
ROSEVILLE.

POOL #567, WEST OF HAYDEN PARKWAY. MAPPED

0.2 MILE WEST OF FIDDYMENT RANCH.

NUMBERS FOUND NOT GIVEN FOR THIS POOL.
20060327
Juncus leiospermus
var. leiospermus
Red Bluff dwarf
rush
PMJUN011L2
10 11642
22188
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 16, NE (M)
110
Monocots
1 1/5 mile
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
19970618
19820428
PVT
None
None
G2T2
S2
1B.1
BLM_S; USFS_S
APPROX 0.5 MI N OF SCOW RD INDUSTRIAL BLVD,
ROSEVILLE.

WEST OF RR TRACKS, SOUTH OF INDUSTRIAL
WASTE PONDS AND EAST OF A POWERLINE.

MARGINS OF VERNAL POOLS, LARGELY ON KILAGA
LOAM SOILS.

NO PLANTS SEEN IN 1997 WINDSHIELD SURVEY;
HABITAT APPEARED INTACT. WITHAM CONSIDERS
THIS SITE TO BE ERROUNEOUS; IT IS WELL OUTSIDE
THE REPORTED RANGE OF THIS SPECIES. IT MAY BE
VAR. AHARTII OR A MISIDENTIFICATION. NEEDS
FIELDWORK.

THREATS INCLUDE HOUSING OR LIGHT INDUSTRY
DEVELOPMENT.

Development
20030408
Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia
PDCAM060C0
36 11732
13217
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 26, SE (M)
210
Dicots
1 1/5 mile
Possibly Extirpated
Natural/Native occurrence
None
N
19970618
19870415

UNKNOWN
None
None
GU
S2
2B.2

NE OF ROSEVILLE AND SW OF ROCKLIN POWER
LINE.

VERNAL POOL ON INKS‐EXCHEQUER SOILS.

ASSOCIATED WITH ALLOCARYA STIPITATA

MICRANTHA, ALOPECURUS HOWELLII, LASTHENIA
CHRYSOSTOMA, AND ERYNGIUM VASEYI.
1000‐1500 PLANTS IN 1987. THIS AREA WAS
GRADED WHEN VISITED IN 1997. SITE IS NOW

LOCATED SOUTH OF ROSEVILLE PARKWAY AT
DIAMOND OAKS ROAD.

SITE GRAZED AND RUTTED BY VEHICLE TRACKS.

ROSEVILLE PLANS TO RETAIN AS URBAN RESERVE,
BUT DEVELOPMENT SURROUNDS.
19970811
Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia
PDCAM060C0
101
43409
43409
3812174
Pleasant Grove
PLA
T11N, R05E, Sec. 23, SW (M)
100
Dicots
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20020501
20020501
PVT
None
None
GU
S2
2B.2
SOUTH OF PHILLIP ROAD ABOUT 3.5 MILES EAST
OF BREWER ROAD, NORTHWEST OF ROSEVILLE.

SEVERAL POOLS MAPPED IN SEVEN POLYGONS AT
CNDDB, ABOUT 0.5 MILE SOUTH OF PHILIP ROAD.

POOLS ARE NEAR THE CENTER OF THE SOUTH HALF
OF SECTION 23 AND SOUTH INTO THE NORTH HALF
OF SECTION 26.

VERNAL POOLS DOMINATED BY PLAGIOBOTHRYS

STIPITATUS, POGOGYNE ZIZIPHOROIDES,

PSILOCARPHUS BREVISSIMUS, NAVARETTIA
LEUCOCEPHALA, AND HORDEUM MURINUM SSP.

GOSSONEANUM.

UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PLANTS OBSERVED IN
FIVE POOLS IN 2000. FEWER THAN 10 PLANTS
OBSERVED IN 2002 AT TWO NEW LOCATIONS.

INCLUDES FORMER OCCURRENCE #102.

SITE IS GRAZED AND RECEIVES RUNOFF FROM
ADJACENT HOUSING. AREA IS SLATED FOR
DEVELOPMENT.

Development; Erosion/runoff; Grazing
20030304
Page
9 of 31
Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia
PDCAM060C0
60 26041
5230
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 28, SE (M)
130
Dicots
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Excellent
N
19900414
19900414
PVT
None
None
GU
S2
2B.2
BETWEEN HIGHWAY 65 AND INDUSTRIAL BLVD
NORTH OF ORCHARD CREEK, 2.2 MILES SOUTH OF
LINCOLN.

MAPPED ABOUT 0.6 AIR MILE SSW OF THE
LINCOLN RODEO GROUNDS. WITHIN THE NE 1/4
OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 28 AND THE NW 1/4 OF
THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 27.

NORTHERN CLAYPAN VERNAL POOLS ON SAN

JOAQUIN SOIL SERIES AND NORTHERN VOLCANIC

MUDFLOW VERNAL POOLS ON EXCHEQUER SERIES
SOILS. ASSOCIATED WITH PLAGIOBOTHRYS

STIPITATUS, DOWNINGIA BICORNUTA, LASTHENIA
FREMONTII, NAVARRETIA LEUCOCEPHALA, ETC.

MORE THAN 1000 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 1989. 237
PLANTS OBSERVED IN 1990. SITE HAS MANY LARGE
POOLS, SWALES AND VERNAL FLATS. SAN JOAQUIN
SERIES AND MUDFLOW POOLS BOTH PRESENT.

AREA SHOULD BE EVALUATED FOR REGIONAL
POOL PRESERVE.

SITE IS CURRENTLY GRAZED BY CATTLE. GENERAL
AREA IS BEING DEVELOPED RAPIDLY.

Development; Grazing
19940808
Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia
PDCAM060C0
100
43408
43408
3812174
Pleasant Grove
PLA
T11N, R05E, Sec. 23, NW (M)
90 Dicots
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20000412
20000412
PVT
None
None
GU
S2
2B.2
SOUTH SIDE OF PHILLIP ROAD ABOUT 3 MILES

EAST OF BREWER ROAD, NORTHWEST OF
ROSEVILLE.

FIVE POOLS MAPPED IN THREE POLYGONS AT
CNDDB, JUST SOUTH OF PHILIP ROAD. POOLS ARE
WITHIN THE NW 1/4 NW 1/4 SECTION 23 AND THE
NE CORNER OF SECTION 22.

VERNAL POOLS DOMINATED BY PLAGIOBOTHRYS

STIPITATUS, POGOGYNE ZIZIPHOROIDES,

PSILOCARPHUS BREVISSIMUS, NAVARETTIA
LEUCOCEPHALA, AND HORDEUM MURINUM SSP.

GOSSONEANUM.

UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PLANTS OBSERVED IN
FIVE POOLS IN 2000.

SITE IS GRAZED AND RECEIVES RUNOFF FROM
ADJACENT HOUSING. AREA IS SLATED FOR
DEVELOPMENT.

Development; Erosion/runoff; Grazing
20000810
Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia
PDCAM060C0
98 43406
43406
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R05E, Sec. 24, NW (M)
90 Dicots
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20000412
20000412
PVT
None
None
GU
S2
2B.2
ABOUT 0.7 MILE WEST OF CONFLUENCE OF

KASEBERG CREEK AND PLEASANT GROVE CREEK,
NORTHWEST OF ROSEVILLE.

FOUR POOLS MAPPED WITHIN THREE POLYGONS
AT CNDDB, ABOUT 1 MILE WEST OF ELBOW IN
FIDDYMENT ROAD. POOLS ARE WITHIN THE WEST
HALF OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 24.

VERNAL POOLS DOMINATED BY PLAGIOBOTHRYS

STIPITATUS, POGOGYNE ZIZIPHOROIDES,

PSILOCARPHUS BREVISSIMUS, NAVARETTIA
LEUCOCEPHALA, AND HORDEUM MURINUM SSP.

GOSSONEANUM.

UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PLANTS OBSERVED IN
FOUR POOLS IN 2000.

SITE IS GRAZED AND RECEIVES RUNOFF FROM
ADJACENT HOUSING. AREA IS SLATED FOR
DEVELOPMENT.

Development; Erosion/runoff; Grazing
20000810
Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia
PDCAM060C0
37 11676
17396
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 22 (M)
135
Dicots
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Poor
N
20130401
20130401

PVT, CITY OF ROSEVILLE
None
None
GU
S2
2B.2
WEST OF HIGHWAY 65, ABOUT 0.5 AND 0.8 AIR

MILE WEST OF JUNCTION WITH PLEASANT GROVE
BLVD, NORTH OF ROSEVILLE.
3 POLYGONS MAPPED ACCORDING TO 1987
STROMBERG MAPS AND 2013 VOLLMAR DIGITAL
DATA.

SHALLOW VERNAL POOLS ON COMETA‐
FIDDYMENT SOILS COMPLEX. ASSOCIATED WITH

ALLOCARYA STIPITATA MICRANTHA, CRASSULA

AQUATICA, DOWNINGIA ORNATISSIMA, AND
GRATIOLA EBRACTEATA.

WESTERN POLYGON: 7000+ PLANTS IN THREE
VERNAL POOLS IN 1987, SITE WAS GRADED WHEN
VISITED IN 1997. SEEN IN TWO EASTERN
POLYGONS IN 2013.

W POLYGON: SITE GRAZED, EXTIRPATED BY
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ACCORDING TO 2017
AERIAL IMAGERY.

Development; Grazing
20180724

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia
PDCAM060C0
110
50379
50379
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 32, NE (M)
118
Dicots
1 80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Excellent
N
20020503
20020503
PVT‐WILDLANDS INC
None
None
GU
S2
2B.2
NORTH SIDE OF ORCHARD CREEK, 3 MILES SW OF
LINCOLN, 1.4 MILES NW OF INDUSTRIAL AVE AT
ATHENS AVE, NORTH OF ROSEVILLE.

MAPPED WITHIN THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF
SECTION 32.

LARGE VERNAL POOLS WITH DOWNINGIA

BICORNUTA, LASTHENIA FREMONTII,

PSILOCARPHUS BREVISSIMUS, GRATIOLA
EBRACTEATA, AND PLAGIOBOTHRYS STIPITATUS.

LEGENERE LIMOSA ALSO PRESENT.

FEWER THAN 100 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2002 IN

TWO POOLS, LIKELY TO OCCUR IN OTHER
ADJACENT POOLS AS WELL. WITHIN
CONSERVATION BANK.

LIGHT GRAZING.

Grazing
20110914
Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia
PDCAM060C0
99 43407
43407
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R05E, Sec. 24, SW (M)
100
Dicots
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20000412
20000412
PVT
None
None
GU
S2
2B.2
ABOUT 1 MILE SOUTHWEST OF CONFLUENCE OF

KASEBERG CREEK AND PLEASANT GROVE CREEK,
NORTHWEST OF ROSEVILLE.

TWO POOLS MAPPED BY CNDDB; JUST NORTH OF
PHILIP ROAD ABOUT 0.9 MILE WEST OF
FIDDYMENT ROAD. POOLS ARE WITHIN THE SW
1/4 SW 1/4 SECTION 24.

VERNAL POOLS DOMINATED BY PLAGIOBOTHRYS

STIPITATUS, POGOGYNE ZIZYPHOROIDES,

PSILOCARPHUS BREVISSIMUS, NAVARRETIA
LEUCOCEPHALA, AND HORDEUM MURINUM SSP.

GOSSONEANUM.

UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PLANTS OBSERVED IN
2000. 2010 AERIAL PHOTO SHOWS DEVELOPMENT
AT SOUTHERN POOL; SOUTHERN COLONY IS
PROBABLY EXTIRPATED.

SITE IS GRAZED AND RECEIVES RUNOFF FROM
ADJACENT HOUSING. AREA IS SLATED FOR
DEVELOPMENT.

Development; Erosion/runoff; Grazing
20110914
Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia
PDCAM060C0
131
83692
84720
3812174
Pleasant Grove
PLA
T11N, R05E, Sec. 14, SE (M)
80 Dicots
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20060428
20060428
PVT
None
None
GU
S2
2B.2

NORTH SIDE OF PLEASANT GROVE CREEK, ABOUT

1.1 AIR MILES NORTHWEST OF R F FIDDYMENT
RANCH.

MAPPED IN THE NORTH HALF OF THE SE 1/4 OF
SECTION 14 ACCORDING TO A 2006 MAP BY
FISHER.

WETLAND SWALE. ASSOCIATED W/ RANUNCULUS

BONARIENSIS TRISEPALUS, PLAGIOBOTHRYS
STIPITATUS, AND ERYNGIUM VASEYI.

SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE CONSISTS OF

UNDULATING GRASSLAND WITH VERNAL POOLS,
SWALES, AND PLEASANT GROVE CREEK.

SEVERAL THOUSAND PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2006.

THREATENED BY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT.

Development
20110914
Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia
PDCAM060C0
142
B0120
111979
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 32, NW (M)
125
Dicots
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
20130401
20130401

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
None
None
GU
S2
2B.2

JUST NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF

WOODCREEK OAKS BLVD AND JUNCTION BLVD,
ROSEVILLE.
3 POLYGONS MAPPED ACCORDING TO 2013
VOLLMAR DIGITAL DATA, IN THE SOUTH 1/2 OF
THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 32.

VERNAL POOL. ASSOCIATED WITH DOWNINGIA
BICORNUTA, PSILOCARPHUS BREVISSIMUS VAR.

BREVISSIMUS, PLAGIOBOTHRYS STIPITATUS VAR.

MICRANTHUS, RANUNCULUS BONARIENSIS, ETC.
2010 POPULATION NUMBERS FOR POLYGONS
FROM NORTH TO SOUTH: 1000, 50, AND 500+
PLANTS SEEN IN 2010. 100‐500 PLANTS SEEN IN
MIDDLE POLYGON IN 2013.
20180724

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia
PDCAM060C0
97 43402
43402
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R05E, Sec. 24, NE (M)
95 Dicots
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20000412
20000412
PVT
None
None
GU
S2
2B.2

JUST WEST OF CONFLUENCE OF KASEBERG CREEK

AND PLEASANT GROVE CREEK, NORTHWEST OF
ROSEVILLE.

MAPPED IN SINGLE POOL ABOUT 0.35 MILE WEST
OF ELBOW IN FIDDYMENT ROAD. WITHIN THE NW
1/4 NE 1/4 SECTION 24.

VERNAL POOLS DOMINATED BY PLAGIOBOTHRYS

STIPITATUS, POGOGYNE ZIZIPHOROIDES,

PSILOCARPHUS BREVISSIMUS, NAVARETTIA
LEUCOCEPHALA, AND HORDEUM MURINUM SSP.

GOSSONEANUM.

UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PLANTS OBSERVED IN
SINGLE POOL IN 2000.

SITE IS GRAZED AND RECEIVES RUNOFF FROM
ADJACENT HOUSING. AREA IS SLATED FOR
DEVELOPMENT.

Development; Erosion/runoff; Grazing
20000810
Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia
PDCAM060C0
141
B0119
111978
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 33, NW (M)
135
Dicots
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20140519
20140519

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
None
None
GU
S2
2B.2
SOUTH OF PLEASANT GROVE BLVD, ABOUT 300 FT
EAST OF COUNTY CLUB DRIVE, ROSEVILLE.

UNDERNEATH TRANSMISSION LINES, 180 FT
SOUTH OF THE EAST‐WEST BIKE PATH THROUGH
THE OPEN SPACE. MAPPED ACCORDING TO 2013
PIMENTEL COORDINATES AND 2014 HUDDLESTON
COORDINATES, WITHIN THE FAR NW 1/4 OF
SECTION 33.

POOL DOMINATED BY ELEOCHARIS
MACROSTACHYA. ASSOCIATED WITH DOWNINGIA

BICORNUTA, POLYPOGON MONSPELIENSIS,

FESTUCA PERENNIS, CALLITRICHE MARGINATA,

PILULARIA AMERICANA, CRASSULA AQUATICA,

PSILOCARPHUS BREVISSIMUS, ERYNGIUM
CASTRENSE, ETC.
14,000 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2013. FEWER THAN
100 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2014; POPULATION

DECLINE PRESUMABLY DUE TO THE UNUSUALLY
DRY OVERALL SEASONAL CONDITIONS.

HUMAN VISITATION, FERAL ANIMALS, RUNOFF
FROM SURROUNDING HOMES.

Erosion/runoff; Foot traffic/trampling; Other
20180724
Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia
PDCAM060C0
132
83693
84721
3812174
Pleasant Grove
PLA
T11N, R05E, Sec. 14, SE (M)
80 Dicots
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Poor
N
20060428
20060428
PVT
None
None
GU
S2
2B.2
SOUTH SIDE OF PLEASANT GROVE CREEK, ABOUT 1
AIR MILE WNW OF R F FIDDYMENT RANCH.

MAPPED IN THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION
14 ACCORDING TO A 2006 MAP BY FISHER.

MAN‐MADE DITCH. ASSOC W/ RANUNCULUS

BONARIENSIS TRISEPALUS, PLAGIOBOTHRYS
STIPITATUS, AND ERYNGIUM VASEYI.

SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE CONSISTS OF

UNDULATING GRASSLAND WITH VERNAL POOLS,
SWALES, AND PLEASANT GROVE CREEK.

ONE PLANT OBSERVED IN 2006.

THREATENED BY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT.

Development
20110921
Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia
PDCAM060C0
130
83688
84716
3812174
Pleasant Grove
PLA
T11N, R05E, Sec. 14, NE (M)
80 Dicots
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20060428
20060428
PVT
None
None
GU
S2
2B.2
NORTH OF PLEASANT GROVE CREEK, ABOUT 1.5

AIR MILES NORTHWEST OF R F FIDDYMENT
RANCH.

MAPPED IN THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF
SECTION 14 ACCORDING TO A 2006 MAP BY
FISHER.

VERNAL POOL. ASSOCIATED WITH RANUNCULUS

BONARIENSIS TRISEPALUS, PLAGIOBOTHRYS
STIPITATUS, AND ERYNGIUM VASEYI.

SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE CONSISTS OF

UNDULATING GRASSLAND WITH VERNAL POOLS,
SWALES, AND PLEASANT GROVE CREEK.

APPROXIMATELY 100 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2006.

THREATENED BY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT.

Development
20110914

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia
PDCAM060C0
140
B0117
111976
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 27, NE (M)
160
Dicots
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
20100429
20100429

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
None
None
GU
S2
2B.2

SOUTHWEST SIDE OF ROSEVILLE PARKWAY,
APPROXIMATELY 0.15 MILE NORTHWEST OF
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD, ROSEVILLE.

MAPPPED ACCORDING TO 2013 VOLLMAR DIGITAL
DATA, WITHIN THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF
SECTION 27.

VERNAL POOL. ASSOCIATED WITH LASTHENIA

FREMONTII, ERYNGIUM CASTRENSE,
PLAGIOBOTHRYS STIPITATUS VAR. MICRANTHUS,
AND LEONTODON TARAXACUM.

FEWER THAN 10 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2010.
20180724
Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford's arrowhead
PMALI040Q0
49 37753
32760
3812163
Citrus Heights
SAC
T10N, R06E, Sec. 15, NW (M)
150
Monocots
1 80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
19970618
19970618

UNKNOWN
None
None
G3
S3
1B.2
BLM_S

ROSEVILLE ROAD AT WHYTE AVE, JUST SOUTH OF
SAC/PLA COUNTY LINE, ANTELOPE.

WEST OF ROSEVILLE ROAD IN CHANNEL BETWEEN
ROAD AND RR TRACKS. NEAR CENTER OF SECTION.

FRESHWATER MARSH WITH TYPHA.

ABOUT 1000 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 1997. MOST
PLANTS OCCUR WITHIN TWO 10X10 OPENINGS
WITHIN THICK TYPHA STAND. SITE APPEARS TO BE
UNMAINTAINED CHANNEL, FEW VISITORS. NO
OBVIOUS THREATS.
19971223
Fritillaria agrestis stinkbells
PMLIL0V010
12 20958
9075
3812163
Citrus Heights
PLA
T10N, R06E, Sec. 16, NW (M)
130
Monocots
1 80 meters
Possibly Extirpated
Natural/Native occurrence
None
N
19970618
19790322

UNKNOWN
None
None
G3
S3

4.2 W SIDE OF NORTH ANTELOPE RD, 28 YARDS N OF
PLACER/SACRAMENTO COUNTY LINE.

COMMERCIAL BUSINESS ACROSS THE ROAD.

AT TOP OF CUT SLOPE IN PASTURE.
2 PLANTS SEEN IN 1979. NOT FOUND IN 1994;
ADJACENT PASTURE DISKED IN THE PAST YEAR.

THIS SITE WAS DISKED WHEN VISITED IN 1997;
PLANTS MAY BE EXTIRPATED AT THIS SITE.

DEVELOPMENT, DISKING.

Development; Disking
20080804
Andrena subapasta An andrenid bee
IIHYM35210
3 59353
59389
3812163
Citrus Heights
PLA
T10N, R06E, Sec. 02 (M)
160
Insects
1 1 mile
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
19320312
19320312

UNKNOWN
None
None
G1G2
S1S2
ROSEVILLE.

RECORD DATES FROM 1932, SO OLDER AREA OF
ROSEVILLE MAPPED.

FEMALES OF THIS SPECIES COLLECT POLLEN

PRIMARILY FROM ARENARIA, BUT ALSO
ORTHOCARPUS ERIANTHUS AND LASTHENIA SP.

FEMALE COLLECTED 12 MAR 1932 BY E. FOURNESS,

IN COLLECTION OF AMERICAN MUSEUM OF
NATURAL HISTORY.
20120509

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Legenere limosa legenere
PDCAM0C010
11 11680
28357
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 10, SW (M)
120
Dicots
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
19970618
198404XX
PVT
None
None
G2
S2
1B.1
BLM_S; SB_UCBG

N TRIBUTARY OF PLEASANT GROVE CREEK, N OF

PLEASANT GROVE CREEK, S OF PLACER BLVD, E OF
HWY 65.

VERNAL POOL AREA ON FLOODPLAIN OF
INTERMITTENT STREAM.

ABOUT 200 PLANTS IN 1984. NONE FOUND IN
1997 (TOO LATE IN SEASON). THE NORTHERN
POOLS WHICH WERE MAPPED HERE IN 1984
APPEAR TO BE EXTIRPATED. S POOLS
UNDISTURBED IN 1997.

PART OF AREA PLANNED FOR INDUSTRIAL PARK
USE (AREA GRADED IN 1983). GRAVEL PIT TO
SOUTH.

Development; Mining
19970811
Legenere limosa legenere
PDCAM0C010
58 48978
48978
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 32, NE (M)
118
Dicots
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20020503
20020503
PVT‐WILDLANDS INC
None
None
G2
S2
1B.1
BLM_S; SB_UCBG
NORTH SIDE OF ORCHARD CREEK, 1.4 MILES NW

OF INTERSECTION OF INDUSTRIAL AND ATHENS
AVE, 3 MILES SOUTHWEST OF LINCOLN.

MAPPED WITHIN THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF
SECTION 32.

SCATTERED MARGINS OF LARGE VERNAL POOL
WITH PLAGIOBOTHRYS UNDULATUS, P.

STIPITATUS, LASTHENIA FREMONTII, L.

GLABERRIMA, DOWNINGIA BICORNUTA,

NAVARRETIA LEUCOCEPHALA, AND CALLITRICHE
MARGINATA.

IN 2002 HUNDREDS OF PLANTS OBSERVED IN
FOUR POOLS; LIKELY TO OCCUR IN OTHER
ADJACENT POOLS.

LIGHT DISTURBANCE FROM GRAZING.

Grazing
20100429
Legenere limosa legenere
PDCAM0C010
84 A7923
109709
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 28, SW (M)
130
Dicots
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20140522
20140522
PVT
None
None
G2
S2
1B.1
BLM_S; SB_UCBG
SW SIDE OF THE CITY OF LINCOLN; WEST OF THE

JUNCTION OF EAGLESFIELD LANE AND REDCLIFFE
LANE.

MAPPED AS 2 POLYGONS ACCORDING TO 2014
HUDDLESTON COORDINATES, IN THE NORTH 1/2
OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 28.

OPEN GRASSLAND WITH VERNAL POOLS. LARGE

VERNAL POOLS ON SOILS MAPPED AS SAN
JOAQUIN SANDY LOAM SOILS. ASSOCIATED WITH

ELEOCHARIS MACROSTACHYA, LASTHENIA

GLABERRIMA, DOWNINGIA ORNATISSIMA,

PLAGIOBOTHRYS, DESCHAMPSIA DANTHONIOIDES,
ETC.

IN 2014, NW POLYGON HAD 1000+ PLANTS AND SE
POLYGON HAD 50+ PLANTS.

NO VISIBLE THREATS AT THE TIME OF SURVEY.
20180103
Linderiella
occidentalis California linderiella
ICBRA06010
157
38256
33921
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 30 (M)
120
Crustaceans
1 non‐specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
19970116
19970116
PVT
None
None
G2G3
S2S3
IUCN_NT

EAST OF FIDDYMENT ROAD, WEST OF FOOTHILLS

BLVD, AND NORTH OF BASELINE ROAD, NW OF
ROSEVILLE.

HABITAT CONSISTS OF SEASONAL WETLANDS,

REFERENCE VERNAL POOLS, AND CONSTRUCTED

VERNAL POOLS WITHIN A DESIGNATED WETLAND
MITIGATION AREA. SURROUNDING UPLAND
CONSISTS OF NON‐NATIVE ANNUAL
GRASSLAND/MIXED OAK WOODLAND.

CALIFORNIA LINDERIELLA WERE IDENTIFIED
WITHIN 83 (44%) OF THE CONSTRUCTED VERNAL
POOLS & SEASONAL WETLANDS AND 4 (21%) OF

THE REFERENCE VERNAL POOLS SEASONAL
WETLANDS. BRANCHINECTA LYNCHI ALSO
OBSERVED.

THREATENED BY SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT
(GOLF COURSES AND RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT).

Development
19980610

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Northern Hardpan
Vernal Pool
Northern Hardpan
Vernal Pool
CTT44110CA
66 11800
16249
3812162
Folsom
PLA
T10N, R07E, Sec. 08, NW (M)
230
Herbaceous
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
1982XXXX
1982XXXX

UNKNOWN
None
None
G3
S3.1
BOTH SIDES DOUGLAS BLVD <1 MILE WEST OF

JUNCTION WITH SIERRA COLLEGE BLVD,
ROSEVILLE.
4 AREAS; 14 ACRES HIGH QUALITY POOLS ON HIGH
TERRACE HARDPAN, ZONED AG; 50 AC HIGH

QUALITY LOW TERRACE HARDPAN POOLS, ZONED
RESID; 22 AC MED QUALITY VOLCANIC MUDFLOW
POOLS, ZONED AG; 14 AC LOW QUALITY LOW
TERRACE HARDPAN POOLS ZONED RESID.

RANKINGS AND 1977 ZONING FROM WESCO, 1982.

UNABLE TO CONVERT TO FLORISTIC
CLASSIFICATION, LACKS SPP. INFO. SEE
WWW.DFG.CA.GOV/BIOGEODATA/VEGCAMP/NAT
URAL_COMM_BACKGROUND.ASP TO INTERPRET

AND ADDRESS THE PRESENCE OF RARE
COMMUNITIES.
19980715
Northern Hardpan
Vernal Pool
Northern Hardpan
Vernal Pool
CTT44110CA
67 11713
16248
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 26, SW (M)
180
Herbaceous
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
1982XXXX
1982XXXX
PVT‐ROSEVILLE PROPERTIES
None
None
G3
S3.1

JUST NORTH & EAST OF DIAMOND OAKS

MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE, ROSEVILLE, SOUTH
BRANCH PLEASANT GROVE CREEK.

POOLS ON LOW TERRACE HARDPAN SUBSTRATE.

HIGH QUALITY POOLS W/ VARIETY OF POOL TAXA
PRESENT, 1982. UNABLE TO CONVERT TO
FLORISTIC CLASSIFICATION, LACKS SPP. INFO.

ZONED AS RESIDENTIAL IN 1977 ROSEVILLE
GENERAL PLAN. SEE
WWW.DFG.CA.GOV/BIOGEODATA/VEGCAMP/NAT
URAL_COMM_BACKGROUND.ASP TO NTERPRET I

AND ADDRESS THE PRESENCE OF RARE
COMMUNITIES.
20010524
Northern Hardpan
Vernal Pool
Northern Hardpan
Vernal Pool
CTT44110CA
68 11613
16247
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 20, S (M)
110
Herbaceous
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
1982XXXX
1982XXXX

UNKNOWN
None
None
G3
S3.1

ADJACENT TO SOUTH BRANCH (PLEASANT GROVE
CREEK) ABOUT 1 MILE SW OF FIDDYMENT RANCH,
ROSEVILLE.

TWO AREAS; 38 AC RANKED AS MEDIUM QUALITY
BY WESCO, 1982, ZONED FORM AG IN 1977
ROSEVILLE GENERAL PLAN; 13 AC OF LOW QUALITY
POOLS, ZONED RESIDENTIAL.

LOW TERRACE HARDPAN SUBSTRATE. UNABLE TO

CONVERT TO FLORISTIC CLASSIFICATION, LACKS
SPP. INFO.

SEE
WWW.DFG.CA.GOV/BIOGEODATA/VEGCAMP/NAT
URAL_COMM_BACKGROUND.ASP TO INTERPRET

AND ADDRESS THE PRESENCE OF RARE
COMMUNITIES.
19980715
Hydrochara
rickseckeri
Ricksecker's water
scavenger beetle
IICOL5V010
11 60753
60789
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 27 (M)
140
Insects
1 4/5 mile
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N

XXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXX

UNKNOWN
None
None
G2?
S2?
TWELVE BRIDGES PRESERVE, SOUTH OF LINCOLN.

PRESERVE IS WEST AND SOUTH OF TWELVE
BRIDGES HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS; MAPPED

FROM APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TWELVE
BRIDGES ROAD.

ROGERS SAYS THAT THE POOL THE BEETLE WAS

COLLECTED IN WAS DESTROYED WHEN THE

DEVELOPMENT WAS BUILT, BUT THAT THE SPECIES
ALSO OCCURS IN THE ADJACENT PRESERVE.
20050330

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Northern Volcanic
Mud Flow Vernal
Pool
Northern Volcanic
Mud Flow Vernal
Pool
CTT44132CA
4 11746
16214
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 25, NW (M)
225
Herbaceous
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
19870422
19870422

UNKNOWN
None
None
G1
S1.1

WEST OF ANTELOPE CREEK ON HILL EAST OF
DIAMOND OAKS MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE.

ROCKLIN‐ROSEVILLE BOUNDARY.
330 AC IN ROSEVILLE; ZONED AG IN 1977 GENERAL
PLAN.

LARGE AREA OF POOLS ON MEHRTEN FORMATION,
EXCHEQUER VERY STONY LOAM. SPP INCL
GRATIOLA HETEROSEPALA. PORTION SEEN IN 1987

EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF VOLCAN CI MUDFLOW
POOLS. UNABLE TO CONVERT FLORISTIC
CLASSIFICATION, LACKS SPP. INFO.

SEE
WWW.DFG.CA.GOV/BIOGEODATA/VEGCAMP/NAT
URAL_COMM_BACKGROUND.ASP TO INTERPRET

AND ADDRESS THE PRESENCE OF RARE
COMMUNITIES.

PROPOSED FOR REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER.
19980716
Northern Volcanic
Mud Flow Vernal
Pool
Northern Volcanic
Mud Flow Vernal
Pool
CTT44132CA
2 11828
16215
3812172
Rocklin
PLA
T11N, R07E, Sec. 32, NW (M)
400
Herbaceous
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
19860414
19860414

UNKNOWN
None
None
G1
S1.1

RIDGE BETWEEN MINERS RAVINE & SECRET
RAVINE, VICINITY OF ROCKLIN‐ROSEVILLE
CORPORATE BOUNDARIES.

WESCO SURVEYED 70 AC W/IN ROSEVILLE CITY

LIMITS BUT TOTAL POOL AREA MUCH LARGER
(ALONG SIERRA COLLEGE BLVD).

POOLS ON VOLCANIC SUBSTRATE. MANY POOL
TAXA PRESENT INCL DICHELOSTEMMA LACUNA‐
VERNALIS. UNABLE TO CONVERT TO FLORISTIC
CLASSIFICATION, LACKS SPP. INFO.

SEE
WWW.DFG.CA.GOV/BIOGEODATA/VEGCAMP/NAT
URAL_COMM_BACKGROUND.ASP TO INTERPRET

AND ADDRESS THE PRESENCE OF RARE
COMMUNITIES.

ROSEVILLE PORTION ZONED FOR AGRICULTURE
W/2 AC MIN IN 1977 GENERAL PLAN.

Agriculture; Development
19980716
Northern Volcanic
Mud Flow Vernal
Pool
Northern Volcanic
Mud Flow Vernal
Pool
CTT44132CA
3 11798
13419
3812172
Rocklin
PLA
T11N, R07E, Sec. 30, S (M)
280
Herbaceous
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
1982XXXX
1982XXXX

UNKNOWN
None
None
G1
S1.1

NORTH & WEST OF ROSEVILLE RESERVOIR, SE OF
SECRET RAVINE, ROSEVILLE‐ROCKLIN CORPORATE
BOUNDARY.

BOUNDARY INCL 2 POOL AREAS; ONE AREA HAS 48
ACRES OF POOLS (WESCO, 1982); THE OTHER AREA
HAS 30 ACRES OF LOWER QUALITY POOLS.

ON VOLCANIC SUBSTRATE. UNABLE TO CONVERT
TO FLORISTIC CLASSIFICATION, LACKS SPP. INFO.

SEE
WWW.DFG.CA.GOV/BIOGEODATA/VEGCAMP/NAT
URAL_COMM_BACKGROUND.ASP TO INTERPRET

AND ADDRESS THE PRESENCE OF RARE
COMMUNITIES.

BOTH AREAS ZONED FOR AGRICULTURE.
19980716
Northern Volcanic
Mud Flow Vernal
Pool
Northern Volcanic
Mud Flow Vernal
Pool
CTT44132CA
5 11695
16213
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 27, NE (M)
165
Herbaceous
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
1982XXXX
1982XXXX

UNKNOWN
None
None
G1
S1.1
LESS THAN 1 MILE NORTH OF DIAMOND OAKS
MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE, EAST OF HIGHWAY 65,
ROCKLIN.
51 ACRES.

ON VOLCANIC SUBSTRATE. DICHLOSTEMMA
LACUNA‐VERNALIS PRESENT. UNABLE TO CONVERT
TO FLORISTIC CLASSIFICATION, LACKS SPP. INFO.

SEE
WWW.DFG.CA.GOV/BIOGEODATA/VEGCAMP/NAT
URAL_COMM_BACKGROUND.ASP TO INTERPRET

AND ADDRESS THE PRESENCE OF RARE
COMMUNITIES.

ZONED AS RESIDENTIAL IN 1977 ROSEVILLE
GENERAL PLAN.
19980716

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus
valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
IICOL48011
270
95167
96300
3812172
Rocklin
PLA
T11N, R07E, Sec. 29 (M)
330
Insects
1 specific area
Possibly Extirpated
Natural/Native occurrence
None
N
20110622
200104XX
PVT
Threatened
None
G3T2
S3
VICINITY OF BOARDMAN CANAL, BETWEEN I‐80

AND SIERRA COLLEGE BLVD, N OF SECRET RAVINE
PKWY, 1 MILE SE OF ROCKLIN PO.

MAPPED TO PROVIDED PROJECT BOUNDARY FOR
THE HIGHLANDS. 10 YEAR MONITORING
CONDUCTED BY ECORP CONSULTING INC.

MONITORING BEGAN IN 2002. CNDDB DID NOT
HAVE RECORDS FOR 2002‐2004 & 2009. VELB

CONSERVATION AREA ALONG N MOST END OF
SITE.

OAK WOODLAND AND SAVANNAH, VERNAL

POOLS, AND SEASONAL WETLANDS ARE

INTERSPERSED WITHIN THE GREATER GRASSLAND
AREA. ASSOCIATED SPECIES INCLUDED CALIFORNIA

BUCKEYE, TOYON, COYOTE BRUSH, BUCK BRUSH,
GRAY PINE, BLUE OAK, AND VALLEY OAK.
5 VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONGHORN BEETLE EXIT
HOLES OBSERVED IN APR 2001. NO EVIDENCE OF
VELB OCCUPANCY DETECTED IN 2005‐2011.

ELDERBERRY SHRUBS TRANSPLANTED TO

CONSERVATION AREA AT NORTHERN PORTION OF
SITE.

DEVELOPMENT. MASS GRADING FOR BUILDING OF
ROADS, BRIDGES, & RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE;
PREDOMINANTLY ON EAST SIDE OF SITE.

Development
20150311
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
155
33674
30808
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 19 (M)
100
Crustaceans
1 non‐specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
19970116
19970116

UNKNOWN
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU

VICINITY OF FIDDYMENT RD, FROM PLEASANT
GROVE BLVD TO ABOUT 3 MILES NORTH,
ROSEVILLE.

MAPPED TO INCLUDE 1993 DETECTION LOCATIONS
GIVEN AS T11N R6E SECTION 18 (SUGNET ID #91),
T11N R5E SECTION 25 (SUGNET ID #89), AND
BOUNDARY OF AREA SURVEYED IN 1997 IN
SECTIONS 19 AND 30. EXACT LOCATIONS
UNKNOWN.

AERIAL PHOTOS INDICATE DEVELOPMENT IN THE
VICINITY OF THE 1993 DETECTIONS; HABITAT MAY
HAVE BEEN LOST. 1997: A MITIGATION AREA WITH

SEASONAL WETLANDS, REFERENCE VERNAL

POOLS, AND CONSTRUCTED POOLS IN ANNUAL
GRASSLAND/OAK WOODLAND.

FOUND IN 3 OF 3 BASINS SAMPLED IN SEC 18, 16
JAN 1993. FOUND IN 5 OF 31 BASINS SAMPLED IN
SEC 25, 27 JAN 1993. FOUND IN 71 BASINS, 16 JAN
1997.

THREATENED BY DEVELOPMENT (GOLF COURSES
AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT).

Development
20140819
Lepidurus packardi vernal pool tadpole shrimp
ICBRA10010
24 32457
1900
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 29, SE (M)
130
Crustaceans
2 1/5 mile
Possibly Extirpated
Natural/Native occurrence
None
N
19950227
19950227
PVT‐SARES REGIS GROUP
Endangered
None
G4
S3S4
IUCN_EN

BETWEEN KASEBERG CREEK & SOUTH BRANCH
PLEASANT GROVE CREEK; ABOUT 0.6 MILE SW OF
FOOTHILLS BLVD AT PLEASANT GROVE BLVD.

AKA WOODCREEK OAKS MITIGATION SITE. 1993:

EXACT DETECTION LOCATION UNKNOWN;
SOMEWHERE IN TRS SEC 29. 1995: MAPPED TO
LOCATION GIVEN FOR POOL C2 ON MAP IN
SUGNET REPORTS; SPECIMEN LOCALITY GIVEN AS
"NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 SECTION 28, T11N R06E."
1993: MANMADE VERNAL POOL. 1995: HARDPAN
VERNAL POOL IN ANNUAL NON‐NATIVE

GRASSLAND ON WETLAND
COMPENSATION/MITIGATION PRESERVE. AIR

PHOTOS SINCE THE TIME OF SURVEY SHOW
DEVELOPMENT IN VICINITY.

FOUND IN 1 POOL ON 4 FEB 1993. FOUND IN 1 OF
14 BASINS SAMPLED FEB‐MAR 1995; 3 COLLECTED
(CASIZ #103128). FWS 5‐YEAR PLAN DESCRIBED
OCCURRENCE AS LIKELY EXTIRPATED IN 2007 (P.

BALFOUR, PERS. COMM.)
DEVELOPMENT.

Development
20170228
Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus pop.
11 steelhead ‐ Central
Valley DPS
AFCHA0209K
3 90973
92020
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 36 (M)
0 Fish
1 non‐specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Poor
N
2007XXXX
2007XXXX

UNKNOWN
Threatened
None
G5T2Q
S2
AFS_TH

DRY CREEK AND ITS TRIBUTARIES SECRET RAVINE
AND MINERS RAVINE.

MAPPED TO REACHES OF DRY CREEK & OCCUPIED

TRIBUTARIES CURRENTLY NAVIGABLE BY
STEELHEAD. COTTONWOOD DAM WAS TOTAL

BARRIER ON MINERS PRIOR TO ITS FAILURE IN
2009. ALL SPAWNING REPORTS FROM U/S OF
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (38.736, ‐
121.316).

MAINSTEM DRY CREEK (DC) USED AS MIGRATORY

CORRIDOR, BUT WATER QUALITY & SUBSTRATE
TOO DEGRADED TO SUPPORT SPAWNING.

SPAWNING & REARING HABITAT UPSTREAM, IN
SECRET (SR) & MINERS (MR) RAVINES.
1998‐2000: ESTIMATED RUN TO UPPER DC "A FEW
100"; JUVENILES CAUGHT AT MR/SR CONFLUENCE,
PRESUMED PRESENT IN BOTH TRIBS. '04‐05
ELECTROFISHING SURVEYS CAUGHT 136 O. MYKISS
IN SR, 0 IN DC & MR. EVIDENCE OF SPAWNING OBS
IN SR IN 2007.

BANK DESTABILIZATION/EROSION, VEG REMOVAL,

CHANNELIZATION, POLLUTION, BARRIERS, LOW
FLOWS, URBANIZATION, SILTATION.

Altered flood/tidal/hydrologic regime;
Channelization; Degraded water quality;
Development; Erosion/runoff; Mining; Pollution;
Wood cutting or brush clearing
20140328

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Spea hammondii western spadefoot
AAABF02020
173
42150
42150
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 29 (M)
140
Amphibians
1 2/5 mile
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Poor
N
199002XX
199002XX
PVT
None
None
G2G3
S3
SSC
BLM_S; IUCN_NT

NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF WOODCREEK OAKS

BLVD AND PLEASANT GROVE BLVD, WOODCREEK
OAKS SUBDIVISION IN WESTERN ROSEVILLE.

MAPPED TO DESCRIPTION GIVEN (TOWNSHIP,

SECTION AND ELEVATION DON'T MATCH SITE
DESCRIPTION).

GRASSLAND WITH NUMEROUS VERNAL POOLS
AND SWALES.
30+ METAMORPHS OBSERVED IN A DRYING
INTERMITTENT DRAINAGE, 1990.

LAND HAS BEEN DEVELOPED SINCE OBSERVATION.

Development
20000112
Athene cunicularia burrowing owl
ABNSB10010
339
42028
42028
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R05E, Sec. 24 (M)
100
Birds
1 non‐specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20030505
19980508
PVT
None
None
G4
S3
SSC
BLM_S; IUCN_LC; USFWS_BCC

NORTH SIDE OF PHILIP ROAD, APPROXIMATELY

0.75 MILE WEST OF FIDDYMENT ROAD, NW OF
ROSEVILLE.

HABITAT CONSISTS OF MODERATELY‐GRAZED,

ROLLING GRASSLAND, WITH NO EVIDENCE OF
HISTORIC SOIL DISTURBANCE. SITE WOULD BE
BETTER IF MORE BURROWS WERE PRESENT; HARD

SOILS AND LACK OF GROUND SQUIRRELS MAY BE
THE CAUSE.

OWLS (NEVER MORE THAN 2) OBSERVED YEAR‐
ROUND DURING 1998. HABITAT APPEARS EXTANT,
BUT NO OWLS WERE OBSERVED ON 5 MAY 2003 ‐
DATE OF SITE VISIT LIKELY TO EARLY.

THREATS INCLUDE POSSIBLE FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT OR LOSS OF GRAZERS.

Development; Other
20030821
Athene cunicularia burrowing owl
ABNSB10010
1177
71623
72527
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 31 (M)
110
Birds
1 80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20080218
20080218

MOORE RANCH CONSERVANCY
None
None
G4
S3
SSC
BLM_S; IUCN_LC; USFWS_BCC
250 FT NORTH OF EAST CATLETT RD, 0.4 MI WEST
OF FIDDYMENT RD, SW OF LINCOLN.

LOCATED ON MOORE RANCH WETLAND
RESTORATION PROJECT PROPERTY.

HABITAT CONSISTS OF MIXED NATIVE AND NON‐

NATIVE GRASSLAND, WHICH IS WITHIN A VERNAL
POOL RESTORATION PROJECT AREA. SURROUNDED
BY GRAZED AND UNGRAZED PASTURES.
1 ADULT OBSERVED AT BURROW SITE ON 30 JAN, 1
FEB AND 18 FEB 2008. GULLS ATTRACTED BY

NEARBY WASTEWATER & GARBAGE COLLECTION

FACILITIES COULD POSSIBLY PREY UPON BUOW
CHICKS IF NESTING OCCURS.

THREATENED BY ENCROACHING URBAN

DEVELOPMENT FROM BOTH LINCOLN &
ROSEVILLE.

Development
20080701
Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk
ABNKC19070
791
42026
42026
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 30, SE (M)
125
Birds
1 80 meters
Possibly Extirpated
Natural/Native occurrence
None
N
20010529
19960701

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, UNKNOWN
None
Threatened
G5
S3
BLM_S; IUCN_LC; USFWS_BCC
KASEBERG CREEK, 0.75 MILE E OF FIDDYMENT
ROAD AND 0.25 MILE N OF PLEASANT GROVE
BOULEVARD, E SIDE OF ROSEVILLE.

NEST TREE WAS LOCATED IN WHAT BECAME THE

NORTH EDGE OF AN OPEN SPACE CORRIDOR/GOLF
COURSE IN 1996. MAPPED TO PROVIDED TOPO
MAP.

HABITAT WAS A WOODLAND CORRIDOR ALONG
KASEBERG CREEK. DEVELOPMENT BEGINNING IN
THE MID‐1990S CONTINUES TO REPLACE
FORAGING & NESTING HABITAT. NEST SITE IS NOW

WITHIN THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE PUBLIC GOLF
COURSE, SURROUNDED BY DEVELOPMENT.

NESTING INITIATED IN 1996 DURING GRADING
BUT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSES; 2
YOUNG PRODUCED. NEST SITE VACANT IN 1997,

THOUGH NEST TREE REMAINED WITHIN AN OPEN
SPACE/GOLF COURSE. NO ACTIVITY IN 2000 &
2001; TERRITORY APPEARS ABANDONED.

SURROUNDING SUBDIVISIONS & GOLF COURSE IN

RIPARIAN CORRIDOR WERE CONSTRUCTED
BEGINNING IN 1996. CONTINUING DEVELOPMENT.

Development
20130524

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk
ABNKC19070
952
46025
46025
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 19, N (M)
110
Birds
1 80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20010627
200106XX

UNKNOWN
None
Threatened
G5
S3
BLM_S; IUCN_LC; USFWS_BCC

ALONG PLEASANT GROVE CREEK, BETWEEN

FIDDYMENT ROAD AND BLUE OAKS BOULEVARD,
WEST SIDE OF ROSEVILLE.

NEST TREE WAS A BLUE OAK; SURROUNDING

HABITAT CONSISTS OF BLUE OAK WOODLAND
GROWING ALONG PLEASANT GROVE CREEK.

DARK‐PHASE ADULT SWHA OBSERVED ON 26 APR
2001; NO NEST FOUND. NEST FOUND BY THOMAS
LEEMAN (ESA), AND HE REPORTED THAT AT 2
YOUNG HAD BEEN PRODUCED. BY 27 JUN 2001,

WHEN WE RETURNED TO GPS THE NEST, THE
YOUNG HAD FLEDGED.

THREATENED BY DEVELOPMENT JUST WEST OF
THE NEST SITE.

Development
20011003
Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus
California black rail
ABNME03041
134
65182
65261
3812172
Rocklin
PLA
T11N, R07E, Sec. 05, NW (M)
360
Birds
1 1/10 mile
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Excellent
N
20060609
20060609
PVT
None
Threatened
G3G4T1
S1
FP
BLM_S; IUCN_NT; NABCI_RWL; USFWS_BCC
CLOVER CREEK, IN CLOVER VALLEY, ABOUT 2.2 MI
EAST OF TELEGRAPH HILL, ABOUT 2 MILES NW OF
LOOMIS.

TEC: COORDS PROVIDED. RIC: GENERAL LOC

PROVIDED VIA MAP (INDICATES SAME APPROX
LOC, AND MAY REFER TO SAME DETECTION);
OUTSIDE OF CORE STUDY AREA. MAPPED TO TEC
LOCATION.

LARGE, TYPHA‐DOMINATED WETLAND
SURROUNDING CLOVER CREEK; FIRM SUBSTRATE,

UNSATURATED MUD WITH ALMOST NO STANDING
WATER ELSEWHERE IN THE WETLAND. NO WATER

FLOW WAS OBSEREVED, BUT INFLOW IS AT NORTH
END.
1 RAIL (PROBABLE TERRITORIAL MALE)
RESPONDED TO TAPED CALL ON 9 JUN 2006;
LIKELY THE DETECTION NOTED IN RIC08A. RECENT

DETECTIONS IN N PLA CO & NEARBY INDICATE THIS

AS IMPORTANT S EXTENSION OF THE PATCHY
INLAND DISTRIBUTION OF THE CA BLRA.

THREATENED BY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,
INCLUDING A ROAD‐CROSSING NEAR THE 2006
DETECTION SITE.

Development
20091008
Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird
ABPBXB0020
937
B1321
113229
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 29, SW (M)
102
Birds
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Excellent
N
20170523
20170523
PVT
None
Threatened
G1G2
S1S2
SSC
BLM_S; IUCN_EN; NABCI_RWL; USFWS_BCC

AROUND THE CONFLUENCE OF INGRAM SLOUGH &
ORCHARD CREEK, ABOUT 1.0 MI NE OF
FIDDYMENT RD AT E CATLETT RD, SW OF LINCOLN.

MAPPED TO PROVIDED LOCATIONS. PROPERTY
KNOWN AS ANTONIO MOUNTAIN RANCH.

NESTING IN HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY IN RUDERAL

GRASSLAND/VERNAL POOL COMPLEX AT

CONVERGENCE OF ORCHARD CREEK AND INGRAM
SLOUGH. SURROUNDING AREA USED FOR
RANCHING, SUBURBAN HOUSING. IN 2017 SITE

WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BECOMING A
MITIGATION BANK.

NESTING COLONY OF ABOUT 1000 OBSERVED ON
23 MAY 2017. ADULTS OBSERVED CARRYING FOOD
(CATERPILLARS) INTO BLACKBERRY BRAMBLES.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN ADJACENT PARCELS.

Development
20181106
Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird
ABPBXB0020
579
96865
98087
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 27 (M)
140
Birds
1 1/10 mile
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
20150417
20110419

UNKNOWN
None
Threatened
G1G2
S1S2
SSC
BLM_S; IUCN_EN; NABCI_RWL; USFWS_BCC
ABOUT 0.7 MI N OF HWY 65 AT TWELVE BRIDGES
DR, 0.9 MI S OF HWY 65 AT JOINER PKWY, S OF
LINCOLN.

COLONY DATA STORED IN UC DAVIS TRICOLORED
BLACKBIRD PORTA; SITE NAME "RODEO GROUND
OPEN SPACE 3." MAPPED TO
LOCATION/COORDINATES PROVIDED BY PORTAL.

BLACKBERRY BRAMBLES ALONG A CATTAIL/TULE
MARSH. 2011 COLONY CONSISTED OF 3
BLACKBERRY BRAMBLES WITH OVER 100 BIRDS
EACH; COLONY GROWING IN SIZE. DRY
CONDITIONS AND MINIMAL WATER IN 2015.

APPROXIMATELY 500 BIRDS OBSERVED ON 18 OR
19 APR 2011; COLONY NOT PREVIOUSLY

OBSERVED, MARKED AS SINGING AND CARRYING
NEST MATERIAL IN PORTAL. 0 BIRDS OBSERVED ON
18 APR 2014. 0 OBSERVED ON 17 APR 2015;
ABOUT 1500 OBS THE WEEK PRIOR.
20160201

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird
ABPBXB0020
242
23971
4277
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 28, SW (M)
125
Birds
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Excellent
N
20150410
20000422

UNKNOWN
None
Threatened
G1G2
S1S2
SSC
BLM_S; IUCN_EN; NABCI_RWL; USFWS_BCC
~0.2 MI WSW OF BRENTFORD CIR & FOREBRIDGE
LN, 0.8 MI NW OF TWELVE BRIDGES DR &
INDUSTRIAL AVE INTERSECTION, LINCOLN.

MAPPED TO PROVIDED MAPS, COORDINATES, AND
LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS. COLONY DATA STORED
IN UC DAVIS TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD PORTAL; SITE
NAME "INDUSTRIAL AVENUE." AN ADDITIONAL
2,000 BIRDS NOTED SOMETIME IN 1992.

NESTING SUBSTRATE CONSISTED OF BULRUSH
GROWING IN A SHALLOW FARM POND. POND WAS

A SMALL LAKE & MARSHY CREEK WITH PAVED
WALKING, BIKE, & DOG WALKING TRAILS. AT THE
EDGE OF A DEVELOPED SUBDIVISION (2011).

HABITAT STILL EXISTS (2015).
25 BIRDS OBSERVED NESTING IN JUL 1992.

NESTING COLONY ANECDOTALLY REPORTED IN
1993. 1K NESTING BIRDS OBS IN APR 1994. 2K
NESTING BIRDS OBS ON 21 APR 1995. 5K NESTING
ON 22 APR 2000, ADDITIONAL 4K FORAGING
NEARBY. 0 OBS IN 2011 & 2015.

THREATENED BY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

Development
20160829
Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird
ABPBXB0020
581
96873
98096
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 33, NE (M)
121
Birds
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20150417
20150410
PVT
None
Threatened
G1G2
S1S2
SSC
BLM_S; IUCN_EN; NABCI_RWL; USFWS_BCC
ABOUT 0.2 MI S OF TWELVE BRIDGES DR &
INDUSTRIAL AVE INTERSECTION, 0.6 MI N OF
ATHENS RD AT INDUSTRIAL AVE, LINCOLN.

COLONY DATA STORED IN UC DAVIS TRICOLORED
BLACKBIRD PORTAL; SITE NAME "ORCHARD
CREEK." MAPPED TO LOCATION PROVIDED IN
PORTAL. LOCATION DESCRIBED AS "JUST EAST OF
INDUSTRIAL AVENUE, ABOUT 0.25 MILE SOUTH OF
TWELVE BRIDGES RD."

HABITAT COMPOSED OF SEVERAL ADJACENT
CLUMPS OF HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY. IN 2014,

FORAGING BIRDS WERE FLYING LOW ACROSS

INDUSTRUAL AVE TO FORAGE AND AT LEAST ONE
WAS HIT BY A CAR.
300‐500 OBS NESTING ON 5 APR 2014. 1.8K OBS
NESTING ON 18 APR 2014. 2.2K OBS ON 16 MAY
2014; 15+ FLEDGLINGS. 2.2K OBS ON 23 MAY 2014;
160 FLEDGLINGS. 5K BIRDS SINGING IN & OUT
BLACKBERRY ON 10 APR 2015; ONLY 10
REMAINING BY 17 APR.

VEHICLE COLLISIONS.

Vehicle collisions
20161115
Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird
ABPBXB0020
929
A1684
103277
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 27, N (M)
143
Birds
1 80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
20150417
20080425
PVT
None
Threatened
G1G2
S1S2
SSC
BLM_S; IUCN_EN; NABCI_RWL; USFWS_BCC
ABOUT 0.3 MI SSW OF JOINER PKWY & DEL WEBB
BLVD INTERSECTION, 0.6 MI SSE OF HWY 65 &
JOINER PKWY INTERSECTION, LINCOLN.

COLONY DATA STORED IN THE UC DAVIS
TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD PORTAL; SITE NAME WAS
"RODEO GROUND OPEN SPACE 2." PREVIOUSLY
REFERRED TO AS "CAPERTON AND STERLING
PARKWAY" IN THE PORTAL.

HABITAT WAS HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY. SITE WAS

ON A SMALL STREAM FED BY THE CAPERTON
CANAL. A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF HABITAT HAD
BEEN CUT BY 2011 SURVEY. THE SURROUNDING

AREA HAS UNDERGONE SIGNIFICANT RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT FROM 2000‐2011.

AN ESTIMATED 1500 BIRDS OBSERVED ON 25 APR
2008; INCUBATION CONFIRMED, NEST BUILDING
OBSERVED THE WEEK PRIOR. 0 BIRDS OBSERVED
ON 3 APR 2011, 18 APR 2014, AND 17 APR 2015.

POTENTIALLY THREATENED BY DEVELOPMENT OF
SURROUNDING HABITAT.

Development
20170125
Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird
ABPBXB0020
580
96871
98094
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 34, NW (M)
130
Birds
1 80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20150417
20110416
PVT
None
Threatened
G1G2
S1S2
SSC
BLM_S; IUCN_EN; NABCI_RWL; USFWS_BCC
ABOUT 0.2 MI NNW OF HWY 65 & TWELVE
BRIDGES DR INTERSECTION, 0.3 MI NE OF TWELVE
BRIDGES DR AT INDUSTRIAL AVE, LINCOLN.

COLONY LOCATED "WEST OF THE SOUTH BOUND
OFF RAMP FOR TWELVE BRIDGES AND HWY 65."

BLACKBERRY BRAMBLES VISIBLE IN GOOGLE
STREET VIEW. COLONY DATA STORED IN UC DAVIS
TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD PORTAL. MAPPED TO
LOCATION PROVIDED IN PORTAL.

HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY AND TULES. BIRDS

OBSERVED FORAGING IN SURROUNDING
GRASSLANDS IN 2011.
200 BIRDS OBS ON 22 APR 2000. 200 BIRDS OBS
ON 25 APR 2008; CLASSIFIED AS
SINGING/CARRYING NEST MATERIAL. 0 OBS ON 29
MAR 2011. 2.5K BIRDS OBS FORAGING/NESTING
ON 16 APR 2011. 0 OBS ON 18 APR 2014. 0 OBS ON
17 APR 2015; 200 OBS WEEK PRIOR.
20160201

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Ammodramus
savannarum
grasshopper
sparrow
ABPBXA0020
8 69480
70259
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 27, NE (M)
155
Birds
1 80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
19980508
19980508

UNKNOWN
None
None
G5
S3
SSC
IUCN_LC

0.6 MILE ESE OF THE LINCOLN RODEO GROUNDS,
EAST OF HIGHWAY 65, SOUTH OF LINCOLN.

SITE IS LOCATED ON A VERNAL POOL PRESERVE;
DEVELOPMENT TO SURROUND PRESERVE.

HABITAT CONSISTS OF ROLLING VERNAL POOL
GRASSLAND.
1 ADULT OBSERVED ON 8 MAY 1998; LIKELY
BREEDING AREA.

THREATENED BY LOSS OF AREA AND HIGH

PROBABILITY OF INVASION BY STAR THISTLE AND
OTHER WEEDY PLANTS (BY LOSS OF GRAZING).

Non‐native plant impacts; Other
20070612
Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus
valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
IICOL48011
86 33018
3787
3812172
Rocklin
PLA
T11N, R07E, Sec. 20, NE (M)
320
Insects
1 80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Excellent
N
19910410
19910410

LOS RIOS COMM COLLEGE DIST
Threatened
None
G3T2
S3

SECRET RAVINE, TRIBUTARY TO DRY CREEK, ALONG
THE SIERRA COLLEGE NATURE TRAIL, ROCKLIN.

REPORT ON: TAXONOMY; DISTRIBUTION; LIFE
HISTORY; HABITAT; FIELD TECHNIQUES &
OBSERVATIONS; BEETLE RECOVERY.

HABITAT CONSISTS OF OAK WOODLAND, WITH

SPARSE/SCATTERED ELDERBERRIES GROWING
WITH OAKS, BUCKEYES, AND POISON OAK.

ALTHOUGH THE ELDERBERRIES WERE FEW AND
WIDELY‐SCATTERED, MOST HAD OLD, CLEAN‐CUT
EXIT HOLES.
19980811
Progne subis purple martin
ABPAU01010
27 70377
71268
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 25, SE (M)
216
Birds
1 80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20070523
20070523

CALTRANS, UNION PACIFIC ROW
None
None
G5
S3
SSC
IUCN_LC
HIGHWAY 65 OVERPASS OVER TAYLOR ROAD, ON
THE SOUTH EDGE OF ROCKLIN.

HABITAT SURROUNDING FREEWAYS CONSISTS OF
NON‐NATIVE GRASSLAND AND OAK WOODLAND.
2 ADULTS (PAIR) OBSERVED NESTING IN OVERPASS
DRAINAGE HOLE ON 23 MAY 2007.
20071031
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
315
93548
47900
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 31 (M)
100
Crustaceans
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20131204
20131204

MOORE RANCH CONSERVANCY, PVT
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU

MOORE RANCH PRESERVE & ANTONIO MOUNTAIN
RANCH; FROM ABOUT 0.7 MI NW TO 0.8 MI SE OF
FIDDYMENT RD AT E CATLETT RD.

MOORE RANCH [MR]: W OF FIDDYMENT;
"HIGHLAND RESERVE NORTH" ON SEC 36,
"WOODCREEK WEST" ON SEC 31. ANTONIO
MOUNTAIN RANCH [AMR]: E OF FIDDYMENT AND
NORTH OF ATHENS AVE; SEE ALSO OCC #308.

MR: 2 CONTIGUOUS RESTORATION SITES
W/CONSTRUCTED & REFERENCE WETLANDS; 10S‐
100S FOUND PER POOL; LINDERIELLA
OCCIDENTALIS ALSO FOUND. AMR: 808‐AC

PROPOSED MITIGATION SITE W/ VERNAL POOLS IN
GRAZED ANNUAL GRASSLAND; 10S‐1000S FOUND
PER POOL.

MR: 0 FOUND 1997; IN 2 POOLS, 2002; IN 4 POOLS,
2003; IN 1 POOL, 2005; IN 1 POOL, 2008; IN 5
POOLS, 2010. AMR: IN 6 POOLS, 2007 (5 MAPPED
HERE); IN 7‐8 POOLS, 2010 (6 HERE); 2+
COLLECTED, CYSTS IN 14 POOLS (10 HERE)
HATCHED & IDED, 2013.
20170301

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
29 33250
2571
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 27, NW (M)
140
Crustaceans
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Excellent
N
20090211
20090211
PVT
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU

EASTRIDGE SOUTHERN WETLAND PRESERVE, JUST
EAST OF HWY 65 (AT THE LINCOLN RODEO
GROUNDS), 0.5 MILE SE OF LINCOLN.

KNOWN AS "RODEO GROUNDS PRESERVE" IN 2008
& 2009 REPORTS. LOCALITY FOR 1980 SPECIMENS
GIVEN AS "2 MI S OF LINCOLN," ATTRIBUTED HERE.

MAPPED TO LOCATIONS GIVEN FOR OCCUPIED
POOLS.
145‐ACRE NORTHERN HARDPAN VERNAL POOL

PRESERVE WITH CONSTRUCTED VERNAL POOLS
(3.95 ACRES), CONSTRUCTED SEASONAL
WETLANDS (1.95 ACRES), AND REFERENCE VERNAL
POOLS IN ANNUAL GRASSLAND.

COLLECTED IN 1980 AND 1994. FOUND IN 26 OF 56
POOLS SAMPLED 1995. IN 27 OF 55 POOLS, 1996.

PRESENT, 1997 & 1998. IN 2 OF 30 POOLS, 2008.

SINGLE FEMALE BRANCHINECTA FOUND IN 1 OF 31
POOLS SAMPLED FEB 2009; PRESUMED B. LYNCHI.

FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNED IN
ADJACENT AREA; DIRT ROADS BISECT PRESERVE;
GRAZING; RODEO GROUNDS TO THE NW.

Development; Grazing; Other
20141114
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
737
93556
94689
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 21 (M)
130
Crustaceans
1 non‐specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
19950206
19950206

UNKNOWN
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU

VICINITY OF FOOTHILLS BLVD FROM BLUE OAKS
BLVD SOUTH ABOUT 0.7 MILE, ROSEVILLE.

MAPPED GENERALLY TO TRS GIVEN FOR
SPECIMENS, "NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 SECTION 21" &
"NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 SECTION 21; T11N R6E."
EXACT DETECTION LOCATIONS NOT KNOWN.

WETLAND FEATURE IN NE 1/4 WAS 95 SQ METERS,
17 CM DEEP. FEATURE IN SW 1/4 WAS 95 SQ
METERS AND 14 CM DEEP.
2 COLLECTED ON 31 JAN 1995 (CASIZ #103126). 1
COLLECTED ON 6 FEB 1995 (CASIZ #103125).
20140821
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
42 94475
17819
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 26, SW (M)
160
Crustaceans
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Fair
N
20120406
20120406

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU

HIGHLAND RESERVE SOUTH OPEN SPACE JUST N &

E OF DIAMOND OAKS MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE,
ROSEVILLE.

HIGHLAND RESERVE SOUTH. MAPPED TO
LOCATIONS PROVIDED FOR OCCUPIED POOLS 5, 8,
U22, U26, 27, LVP (=LC OR 11‐2), FA, AZ, & Z089.

NATURAL HARDPAN VERNAL POOLS & CREATED
POOLS IN ANNUAL GRASSLAND;

COMPENSATION/MITIGATION SITE SURROUNDED
BY DEVELOPMENT (2002). ON 31 JAN 1995 THE
SURFACE AREA WAS 59 (U22) & 94 (U26) SQUARE
METERS & THE DEPTH WAS 35 (U22) & 14 (U26)
CM.

FOUND IN 5 OF 32 POOLS, 1993. IN 2 POOLS, 1995
(2 IN CAS). 0 IN 1996. IN 5 POOLS, 1997. 0 IN 1998.

IN 3 POOLS, 2001. IN 1 POOL, 2002 & 2003. 0 IN
2004 & 2005. IN 2 POOLS, 2006. IN 1 POOL, 2007 &
2008. IN 3 POOLS, 2009, IN 5 POOLS, 2012.
20141229
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
304
46034
46034
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 31, NW (M)
125
Crustaceans
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20130125
20130125

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU

WOODCREEK WEST WETLAND COMPENSATION

AREA, S SIDE OF PLEASANT GROVE RD FROM
ABOUT 0.1 TO 0.6 MI E OF FIDDYMENT RD.

MAPPED TO LOCATIONS GIVEN FOR OCCUPIED
POOLS. 2001: FOUND IN POOL 55. 2002: IN POOL

17. 2003: POOLS 8, 22, 49, & 55. 2005: IN POOL 22.
2007: IN "INCIDENTAL WETLAND." 2008: IN POOLS
13, 20, 30, 68, & 69.

ANNUAL GRASSLAND INTERSPERSED WITH
CONSTRUCTED AND HISTORIC VERNAL POOLS.

SURROUNDING LAND HAS BEEN DEVELOPED.

OVER 10 FOUND IN 1 POOL, 2001. 10S IN 1 POOL,
2002. 10S‐100S IN 4 POOLS, 2003. 10S FOUND IN 1
OF 22 POOLS, 2005. IN 1 POOL, 2007. IN 5 POOLS,
FEB 2008. 0 FOUND IN 24 POOLS, FEB 2009. IN 1
POOL, FEB 2010. IN 1 POOL, APR 2012. IN 2, JAN
2013.

AVAILABLE HABITAT REDUCED BY DEVELOPMENT.

Development
20141218

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
731
93512
94645
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R05E, Sec. 13 (M)
90 Crustaceans
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20160208
20160208

PVT, CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU

0.7 TO 1.4 MILES WNW OF THE INTERSECTION OF

HAYDEN PARKWAY AND FIDDYMENT ROAD, NW
OF ROSEVILLE.
1993 DETECTIONS IN VICINITY, EXACT LOCATIONS
UNKNOWN. 2005 DETECTION ON WEST ROSEVILLE
SPECIFIC PLAN OPEN SPACE PRESERVE. 2007‐2008
SURVEYS WERE ON "CREEKVIEW PROPERTY." 2009
DETECTIONS ON AMORUSO PROPERTY. 2016, ON
FIDDYMENT WFB PARCELS.
1993: NATURAL VERNAL POOLS. 2005: NATURAL
VERNAL POOLS ON PRESERVE; SURROUNDING
AREA IS BEING DEVELOPED. 2009: VALLEY

GRASSLAND WITH SCATTERED VERNAL POOLS,
SWALES, AND SEASONAL WETLANDS.

FOUND IN 16 OF 52 POOLS IN SEC 13 & 4 OF 9
POOLS IN SEC 14, 1993 (SUGNET IDS #87 & 88).
100S FOUND IN 1 POOL, 2005. BRANCHINECTA
CYSTS FOUND IN 11 BASINS, 2007. NOT FOUND IN
2007‐08 WET SEASON. IN 10 POOLS, 2009. IN 4
POOLS, 2016.

DEVELOPMENT (2009).

Development
20160526
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
308
46098
46098
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 32 (M)
120
Crustaceans
1 non‐specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Fair
N
20131204
20131204

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU

ANTONIO MOUNTAIN RANCH PROPERTY, ABOUT

1.5 MILES E OF FIDDYMENT RD AT ATHENS AVE,
BETWEEN INGRAM SLOUGH & ORCHARD CREEK.
3 MI SSW OF LINCOLN. 2 DIFFERENT LOCATIONS
GIVEN FOR 2001 DETECTION: N‐MOST POLYGON

MAPPED TO LOCATION GIVEN ON FIELD SURVEY
FORM, E‐MOST POLYGON MAPPED TO
COORDINATES FROM MUSEUM CATALOG. ALSO
SEE OCC #315 FOR ANTONIO MTN RANCH
DETECTIONS.

GRAZED NON‐NATIVE GRASSLAND. LINDERIELLA
OCCIDENTALIS ALSO FOUND. PROPOSED
MITIGATION SITE.
10S FOUND ON 9 MAR 2001, 6 COLLECTED. FOUND
IN 6 OF 313 BASINS, FEB‐MAR 2007 (1 MAPPED
HERE). IN 7‐8 POOLS, FEB 2010 (1 MAPPED HERE).
2+ COLLECTED IN JAN, CYSTS FOUND IN 14 POOLS
(4 MAPPED HERE) DEC 2013 WERE HATCHED &
IDED AS B. LYNCHI.
20170301
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
734
93539
94675
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 28, SE (M)
125
Crustaceans
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Excellent
N
20140224
20140224
PVT‐WILDLANDS INC
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU

WEST SIDE OF INDUSTRIAL AVE, FROM

INTERSECTION WITH TWELVE BRIDGES DRIVE TO

0.4 MILE NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION, LINCOLN.

ORCHARD CREEK VERNAL POOL PRESERVE.

MAPPED TO LOCATIONS OF POOLS OCCUPIED IN
2009 AND 2014 (EXACT LOCATIONS NOT GIVEN
FOR 2008 DETECTIONS)
AN 80 ACRE PRESERVE WITH 7.4 ACRES OF

CREATED AND NATURAL VERNAL POOLS, AND
VERNAL SWALES. USED FOR GRAZING.

FEWER THAN 10 REPRODUCTIVE ADULTS
OBSERVED ON 22 JAN 2008. DETECTED IN 3 POOLS
ON 16 MAR 2009. FOUND IN 5 OF 17 POOLS
SAMPLED 4 APR 2012. DETECTED IN 3 OF 17 POOLS
SAMPLED JAN‐MAR 2014.
20140822
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
154
33672
30807
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R05E, Sec. 24, NW (M)
90 Crustaceans
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20160208
20160208

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU

NORTH SIDE OF BLUE OAKS BLVD NEAR

INTERSECTION WITH HAYDEN PARKWAY,
ROSEVILLE.

WEST ROSEVILLE SPECIFIC PLAN OPEN SPACE
PRESERVE. W POLYGON MAPPED TO OCCUPIED
POOLS #273, 277, 287, AND 291 (2005). E
POLYGON MAPPED TO 2016 DETECTION.

NATURAL VERNAL POOLS.

TENS DETECTED IN 4 POOLS ON 10 FEB 2005.

NONE FOUND IN POOL #273, 18‐19 FEB 2009 & 16
MAR 2010 (THE OTHER HISTORICALLY OCCUPIED
POOLS WERE NOT SAMPLED). DETECTED IN 1 POOL
ON 8 FEB 2016.

SURROUNDING AREA IS BEING DEVELOPED.

Development
20160801

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
45 94758
1899
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 28, SE (M)
130
Crustaceans
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
20130809
20130809
PVT‐SARES REGIS GROUP
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU

BETWEEN KASEBERG & S BRANCH PLEASANT
GROVE CKS; FROM ABOUT 0.1MI NNW‐0.4MI SE
PLEASANT GROVE BLVD AT COUNTRY CLUB DR.

N OF PLEASANT GROVE BLVD: WOODCREEK OAKS
MITIGATION SITE. MAPPED TO POOL C2 PER
LOCATION ON MAP FROM 1995 REPORT & POINTS
FROM 2013 SHAPEFILE & FIELD SURVEY FORM. S
OF BLVD: SILVERADO OAKS SITE, 1995 LOC
UNKNOWN, MAPPED TO 2013 SHAPEFILE.
1995: NATURAL AND CONSTRUCTED HARDPAN
VERNAL POOLS IN ANNUAL NON‐NATIVE

GRASSLAND ON WETLAND
COMPENSATION/MITIGATION PRESERVES. 2013:

CONSTRUCTED VERNAL POOLS SURROUNDED BY
DEVELOPMENT.

S OF BLVD: DETECTED, 1995. FOUND IN 1 POOL,
2010. IN 2 POOLS, 2012. N OF BLVD: IN 1 OF 14
POOLS, FEB‐MAR 1995; 1 ADULT COLLECTED, IN
CAS (CASIZ #103127). ADULTS IN 1 POOL, JAN
2013; BRANCHINECTA CYSTS FOUND IN DRY‐
SEASON SAMPLES, 2013.

IMPROPER GRAZING REGIME (2013).

Grazing
20141229
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
46 32458
9535
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 28, SW (M)
130
Crustaceans
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
19960129
19960129
PVT‐STERLING PACIFIC ASSETS
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU
INGRAM SLOUGH; 3.2 KM ESE OF INTERSECTION
OF MOORE ROAD AND FIDDYMENT ROAD; SSW OF
LINCOLN.

LINCOLN CROSSING MITIGATION SITE. 1995: 10

TOTAL WETLANDS SAMPLED, THE INFORMATION

FROM CONSULTANT HAD DISCREPANCIES
BETWEEN FIELD SURVEY FORMS AND MAP ‐
MAPPED ACCORDING TO THEIR MAP. 1996: 42
TOTAL WATERBODIES WERE SURVEYED.

CONSTRUCTED HARDPAN VERNAL POOL IN
ANNUAL NON‐NATIVE GRASSLAND. WETLAND
COMPENSATION/MITIGATION PRESERVE.
1995: <50 ADULTS OBSERVED IN POOL #211. 1996:
<50 ADULTS OBSERVED IN 5 POOLS (101, 204, 206,
216 & 220). LINDERIELLA OCCIDENTALIS ALSO
PRESENT IN MOST OF SITE DURING 1995 AND
1996.
20080429
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
309
46106
46106
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 20, NW (M)
115
Crustaceans
2 non‐specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
20090217
20010307

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU
1 MILE SW OF THE INTERSECTION OF FIDDYMENT
ROAD AND PLEASANT GROVE CREEK, ROSEVILLE.

WOODCREEK NORTH OPEN SPACE
PRESERVE/WETLAND COMPENSATION AREA; POOL
#6. IDENTIFIED AS "BLUE OAKS OPEN SPACE," CITY

PROPERTY, IN CALIFORNIA PROTECTED AREAS
DATABASE.

ANNUAL GRASSLAND WITH CONSTRUCTED AND

HISTORIC VERNAL POOLS SURROUNDED BY OAK
WOODLAND. LINDERIELLA OCCIDENTALIS ALSO
FOUND HERE.

HUNDREDS OBSERVED IN 1 OF 15 POOLS SAMPLED
DURING SURVEY CONDUCTED ON 7 MAR 2001.

NONE FOUND DURING SURVEYS ON 28 FEB 2002, 7
JAN 2005, 23 FEB 2007, 16 JAN 2008, AND 17 FEB
2009.
20140822
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
733
93531
94666
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 12 (M)
150
Crustaceans
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Excellent
N
20150109
20150109

CITY OF ROCKLIN
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU

STANFORD RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERVE, BOTH

SIDES OF STANFORD RANCH ROAD, BETWEEN
DELTA DRIVE AND DARBY ROAD, ROCKLIN.
2014: MAPPED TO LOCATIONS GIVEN FOR
OCCUPIED POOLS VP‐22, VP‐109, AND VP‐111.
2015: IN POOLS 22, 23, 109, & 111.

DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE PRESERVE. VERNAL
POOL GRASSLAND DOMINATED BY NON‐NATIVE
ANNUALS. SOME DISTURBANCE FROM
OCCASIONAL HUMAN VISITATION.

THOUSANDS WERE FOUND IN 3 OF 12 POOLS
SAMPLED ON 13 MAR 2014. 100S FOUND IN 4
POOLS, 9 JAN 2015.

SURROUNDED BY DEVELOPMENT.
20150304

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
191
36947
31944
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 33, SW (M)
115
Crustaceans
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
2014XXXX
20110127
PVT‐WILDLANDS INC
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU
ORCHARD CREEK CONSERVATION BANK; ABOUT

0.6 MI NW OF INDUSTRIAL AVE AT ATHENS AVE, 1
MI SW OF CA‐65 AT TWELVE BRIDGES RD.

MAPPED TO LOCATIONS OF OCCUPIED POOLS
FROM 1997 REPORT AND 2009‐2011 FIELD SURVEY
FORMS. EXACT LOCATION NOT GIVEN FOR
DETECTIONS IN 2002 & 2008.
632‐ACRE PRESERVE WITH NORTHERN HARDPAN

VERNAL POOLS, SWALES, & EMERGENT MARSH IN
GRAZED ANNUAL GRASSLAND. MAJORITY OF

VERNAL POOLS LOCATED ON SAN JOAQUIN SANDY
LOAM AND ALAMO‐FIDDYMENT COMPLEX SOILS.

FOUND IN LOW ABUNDANCE IN VP584, MEDIUM
IN VP610, 2 OF 170 POOLS SAMPLED, 17 JAN 1997.
100S OF ADULTS FOUND, 10 JAN 2002. FEWER
THAN 10 FOUND, 22 JAN 2008. FOUND IN 1 POOL,
16 MAR 2009, 16 FEB 2010 & 27 JAN 2011. NONE
FOUND IN 2014 SURVEY.
20140822
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
139
34813
1874
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 16, NE (M)
100
Crustaceans
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
19970114
19970114
PVT‐STANFORD RANCH
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU

0.3 TO 0.5 MILE SE OF THE INTERSECTION OF

INDUSTRIAL AVENUE AND JUSTICE CENTER DRIVE,
WEST OF HIGHWAY 65, ROCKLIN.

FOOTHILL BUSINESS PARK MITIGATION SITE,
PARCEL 1. 1993: DETECTIONS SOMEWHERE IN
T11N R6E SEC 16, ATTRIBUTED HERE. 1995: 12
FEATURES SURVEYED. 1996: 14 FEATURES
SURVEYED. 1997: 29 FEATURES SURVEYED.

MAPPED TO 1996 & 1997 LOCATIONS.

CONSTRUCTED VERNAL POOLS WITHIN NON‐
NATIVE ANNUAL GRASSLAND.

FOUND IN 5 OF 54 FEATURES SAMPLED ON 18 FEB
1993. NOT FOUND IN 12 FEATURES SAMPLED JAN‐
FEB 1995. OVER 50 FOUND IN 1 OF 14 POOLS, 30
JAN 1996. TENS FOUND IN 2 OF 29 POOLS, 14 JAN
1997.
20141216
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
788
93938
95067
3812174
Pleasant Grove
PLA
T11N, R05E, Sec. 11, NW (M)
90 Crustaceans
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
20090225
20090225
PVT
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU

SOUTH SIDE OF SUNSET BLVD WEST, JUST WEST OF

ITS INTERSECTION WITH AMORUSO WAY, NW OF
ROSEVILLE.

AMORUSO PROPERTY, POOLS VP‐5, VP‐15, AND VP‐

45. VALLEY GRASSLAND WITH SCATTERED VERNAL
POOLS, SWALES, AND SEASONAL WETLANDS.

FOUND IN 15 POOLS, 2009 (3 MAPPED HERE, SEE
ALSO OCCURRENCES #731 AND 732).

DEVELOPMENT (2009).

Development
20141113
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
738
93575
94708
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 04, NE (M)
125
Crustaceans
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
20061124
20061124
PVT
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU
WEST OF HIGHWAY 65, JUST EAST AND SE OF THE

INTERSECTION OF ATHENS AVE AND INDUSTRIAL
AVE, NW OF ROCKLIN.

ATHENS PARK PROJECT SITE. MAPPED TO POOLS
WHERE BRANCHINECTA CYSTS WERE FOUND.
30 ACRE PROPERTY PROPOSED FOR ROAD

IMPROVEMENTS AND COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT (AS OF 2007). 2.5 ACRES OF

SEASONAL WETLANDS INCLUDING VERNAL POOLS,
DITCHES, AND SWALES.
21 OF 117 POOLS SAMPLED 24 NOV 2006; 5
CONTAINED BRANCHINECTA CYSTS. CYSTS
PRESUMED B. LYNCHI GIVEN SITE LOCATION AND

HABITAT TYPE, BUT HATCHING AND REARING
WOULD BE NEEDED FOR A POSITIVE ID.
20140909

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB 5 mile search results:

Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
41 32449
1022
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 22 (M)
150
Crustaceans 1
specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown N
20090213
20090213
PVT‐ROSEVILLE PROPERTIES
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU
HIGHLAND RESERVE SOUTH;S SIDE OF HWY 65,
ABOUT 0.5 MILE NW OF THE PLEASANT GROVE BLVD
OVERPASS.

PARCEL 84 OFA MULTI‐PARCEL PRESERVE. MAPPED
TO INCLUDE OCCUPIED POOLS N10, N42, N8, NA&
NB.

CONSTRUCTED& HISTORIC VERNAL POOLS IN NON‐

NATIVE ANNUAL GRASSLAND ONA WETLAND

COMPENSATION/MITIGATION PRESERVE
SURROUNDED BY DEVELOPED LAND. IN 1995, POOL
NB WAS 94 SQ METERS& 17 CM DEEP. LINDERIELLA
OCCIDENTALIS ALSO FOUND.

OVER 50 FOUND IN1 POOL, 1995;1 COLLECTED AND
SENT TO CAS. TENS FOUND IN1 POOL, 2000.

HUNDREDS IN3 POOLS,4 JAN 2002. HUNDREDS IN1
POOL, 29 JAN 2003. NOT FOUND ON THIS PARCEL IN
2005& 2008. FOUND IN2 POOLS, 13 FEB 2009.
20150105
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
732
93527
94660
3812174
Pleasant Grove
PLA
T11N, R05E, Sec. 11, NE (M)
100
Crustaceans 1
specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Excellent N
20090225
20090225
PVT
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU

0.5 TO 0.7 MILE SE OF INTERSECTION OF SUNSET

BLVD WEST AND AMORUSO WAY, NW OF
ROSEVILLE.

AMORUSO PROPERTY, POOLS SW‐48 AND VP‐80.

VALLEY GRASSLAND WITH SCATTERED VERNAL
POOLS, SWALES, AND SEASONAL WETLANDS.

FOUND IN 15 POOLS, 2009 (2 MAPPED HERE, SEE ALSO OCCURRENCES #731 AND 788).

DEVELOPMENT (2009).

Development
20140924
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
924
B5447
118408
3812163
Citrus Heights
PLA
T10N, R06E, Sec. 9, NW (M)
130
Crustaceans 1
80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Fair N
20180124
20180124
PVT
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU

0.1 AIR MILE EAST OF COOK RIOLO RD AT GLEN LN

INTERSECTION, JUST NORTH OF CREEKVIEW
RANCH SCHOOL, ROSEVILLE.

MAPPED TO COORDINATES PROVIDED.

GRAZED ANNUAL GRASSLAND ON GENTLY
ROLLING TERRAIN. VERNAL POOLS, SEASONAL

WETLANDS AND SWALES SCATTERED
THROUGHOUT SITE. SITE SURRONDED BY

UNDEVELOPED LAND TO THE EAST AND WEST,

RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH, AND SCHOOL
TO THE SOUTH.
1,000S CAUGHT AND RELEASED ON 24 JAN 2018.

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Development
20200518

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
229
42058
42058
3812172
Rocklin
PLA
T11N, R07E, Sec. 31, NW (M)
320
Crustaceans
1 80 meters
Extirpated
Natural/Native occurrence
None
N
19981222
19981222
PVT‐AKT DEVELOPMENT
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU

0.2 MILE SW OF ROSEVILLE RES, 1.1 MILES S OF JCT
TAYLOR RD & SUNSET BLVD, 2.2 MILES SW OF
SIERRA COLLEGE, ROSEVILLE.

OLYMPUS OAKS PROJECT SITE, AKT
DEVELOPMENT.
1998: VERNAL POOL COMMUNITY. 2009 AERIAL

PHOTOS SHOW THAT THE SITE HAS BEEN
COMPLETELY DEVELOPED.
4 COLLECTED ON 16 DEC 1998 (CASIZ #121244).

HUNDREDS OBSERVED ON 22 DEC 1998.

DEVELOPMENT.

Development
20140818
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
230
42059
42059
3812172
Rocklin
PLA
T11N, R07E, Sec. 31, NW (M)
260
Crustaceans
1 80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
19981222
19981222
PVT‐AKT DEVELOPMENT
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU

0.8 MILE SW OF ROSEVILLE RESERVOIR, 1.3 MI S OF
JCT TAYLOR RD & SUNSET BLVD, 2.6 MILES SW OF
SIERRA COLLEGE, ROSEVILLE.

OLYMPUS OAKS PROJECT SITE, AKT
DEVELOPMENT..

VERNAL POOL COMMUNITY.
100'S OBSERVED IN 1998.

DEVELOPMENT.

Development
19991222
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
247
43395
43395
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 03, SW (M)
150
Crustaceans
1 80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
20010308
20010308
PVT
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU
STANFORD RANCH NORTH, 0.75 MILE NNE JCT OF
SUNSET BLVD & HWY 65, 1.8 MILES WSW OF
TELEGRAPH HILL, 4 MI N OF ROCKLIN.

VERNAL POOL AT THIS SITE NUMBERED VP42, MAX
SURFACE AREA ABOUT 10 METERS BY 13 METERS
& 35 CM DEEP. B. LYNCHI FOUND IN 1 OF 65
SEASONAL WATERBODIES SURVEYED BETWEEN 28
JAN & 24 MAR 2000.

HABITAT CONSISTS OF FORMERLY GRAZED, NON‐

NATIVE ANNUAL GRASSLAND, INTERSPERSED WITH
VERNAL POOLS.

VPFS NUMBERING IN THE 10'S OBSERVED ON 11
FEB 2000 (2 FEMALES) AND ON 25 FEB 2000 (2
MALES) IN VERNAL POOL #VP42. 8 MAR 2001: 1
MALE OBSERVED WITHIN POOL #42.

DISTURBED FIELD (SOURCE OF DISTURBANCE NOT
GIVEN).
20040622
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
412
64328
64407
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R05E, Sec. 24, S (M)
90 Crustaceans
1 80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20050210
20050210
PVT
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU
WRSP OPEN SPACE PRESERVE; ABOUT 0.1 MI SSE
OF HAYDEN PKWY AT BOB DOYLE DR & 0.6 MI
WNW OF FIDDYMENT RD AT PHILLIPS RD.

MAPPED TO OCCUPIED POOL #590.

IN AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL AREA.

TENS OBSERVED ON 10 FEB 2005.

AVAILABLE HABITAT REDUCED BY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT.

Development
20150107

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB 5 mile search results:

Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
736
93547
94682
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 05, SW (M)
125
Crustaceans 1
80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown N
20080131
20080131
PVT
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU ABOUT 0.7 MILE NE OF FIDDYMENT RD AT SUNSET
BLVD WEST AND1 MILE SW OF ATHENS AVE ATN
FOOTHILLS BLVD, NW OF ROSEVILLE.

CALIFORNIA MOTOCROSS PROJECT SITE. MAPPED
TO PROVIDED SHAPEFILE.

VIABLE POPULATION IN SEASONAL WETLAND8
INCHES DEEP. DISTURBANCE FROM OFF‐ROAD
VEHICLES NOTED. SITE WAS PLOWED/DISKED
HISTORICALLY.

FOUND IN1 BASIN DURING 2007
‐2008 WET
SEASON SAMPLING.

DEVELOPMENT.

Development
20140822
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
44 94478
1903
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 32, NW (M)
120
Crustaceans 1
80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Fair N
20110303
20110303

CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU

SILVERADO OAKS MITIGATION
SITE, ABOUT 0.2 MI NW OF
WOODCREEK OAKS BLVD AT JUNCTION BLVD AND 3 MI WNW
OF ROSEVILLE PO.
1995: 15 WETLANDS SAMPLED AMONG PARCELS 72 (EO #44, THIS OCCURRENCE)& 32 (EO #635);

EXACT DETECTION LOCATIONS
UNKNOWN. 1996: 10 SAMPLED.
1997: 13 SAMPLED. MAPPED TO
LOCATION OF 2010‐2011
DETECTIONS FROM 2013

CONSTRUCTED AND SEASONAL

HARDPAN VERNAL POOLS WITH
NON‐NATIVE ANNUAL
GRASSLAND. PROTECTED AREA,

SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT.

OBSERVED IN CONSTRUCTED
VERNAL POOLS IN 1995. NO B.

LYNCHI OBSERVED, BUT L.

OCCIDENTALIS PRESENT, 1996&
1997. DETECTED ON 16 FEB 2010 AND 3 MAR 2011.
20141113
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
141
34819
17500
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 28, NE (M)
140
Crustaceans 1
80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown N
19960130
19960130
PVT‐STERLING PACIFIC ASSETS
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU

NNW OF ROSEVILLE IN INGRAM
SLOUGH; 0.4 KM WEST OF
INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 65 AND INDUSTRIAL BLVD.

LINCOLN CROSSING MITIGATION
SITE. 1996: 42 TOTAL
WATERBODIES SURVEYED.

CONSTRUCTED HARDPAN VERNAL
POOL WITHIN NON‐NATIVE
ANNUAL GRASSLAND. WETLAND

COMPENSATION/MITIGATION
PRESERVE.
1996: <50 ADULTS OBSERVED IN
POOL #222; SURFACE AREA=574
SQ METERS, WATER DEPTH=32.0
CM, TEMPERATURE= 11.5
DEGREES C, CONDUCTIVITY=75.80,
TURBIDITY WAS LOW.

LINDERIELLA ALSO PRESENT IN

POOL AND IN SURROUNDING
19960717
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp
ICBRA03030
30 33251
2570
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 35, NE (M)
195
Crustaceans 1
80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good N
19941228
19941228
PVT
Threatened
None
G3
S3
IUCN_VU 2 MILES SE OF THE LINCOLN
RODEO GROUNDS, ABOUT3 MILES
SSE OF LINCOLN.

HABITAT CONSISTS OF VERNAL

POOLS WITHIN ROLLING
GRASSLAND.

MANY SHRIMP

OBSERVED/COLLECTED
(DEPOSITED AT CAS) ON 28
DECEMBER 1994.

THREATENED BY PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT.

Development
19950630

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB 5 mile search results:

Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk
ABNKC19070
2115
88290
89301
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 17, NW (M)
100
Birds 1
80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown N
20090428
20090428

UNKNOWN
None
Threatened
G5
S3
BLM_S; IUCN_LC; USFWS_BCC

NORTH SIDE OF PLEASANT GROVE CREEK, JUSTS

OF STARWOOD CT AT TRADEWINDS DR IN BLUE
OAKS DEVELOPMENT NW OF ROSEVILLE.

MAPPED TO POINT FROM CDFW SHAPEFILE OF
NEST RECORDS FROM 2009.

NEST IN 55' BLUE OAK IN RIPARIAN STRIP WITH AN

OPEN FIELD DIRECTLY NE, SURROUNDED BY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

NEST WITH YOUNG OBSERVED ON 28 APR 2009;
FLEDGING SUCCESS UNKNOWN.
20130304
Lepidurus packardi vernal pool tadpole shrimp
ICBRA10010
329
94802
95905
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 28, SE (M)
140
Crustaceans 1
1/10 mile
Possibly Extirpated
Natural/Native occurrence
None N
20020323
20020323

UNKNOWN
Endangered
None
G4
S3S4
IUCN_EN ALONG INDUSTRIAL AVE (=LINCOLN BLVD), ABOUT 0.3 MILE SSW OF THE LINCOLN BYPASS (=HWY 65)
OVERPASS, SSW OF LINCOLN.

MAPPED TO GIVEN COORDINATES; MAPPED NON‐

SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKELY THAT THE CYST

FOUND MAY HAVE BEEN TRANSPORTED FROMA
NEARBY WETLAND.

SEASONAL WETLAND ALONG ROADSIDE DISTURBED BY
EXCAVATION OFA TELECOMMUNICATION LINE;

PREVIOUSLY FILLED WITH RUNOFF FROM ADJACENT
WETLAND COMPLEX AND NEARBY STREAM.

SURROUNDING LAND BEING DEVELOPED FOR HOUSING. 1 CYST IDENTIFIED FROM SOIL SAMPLED ON 23 MAR 2002.

SINCE THE TIME OF SURVEY, THE WETLAND IN WHICH

THE CYST WAS FOUND WAS PAVED OVER DURING
ROAD EXPANSION PROJECT.

Road/trail construction/maint.
20150112
Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird
ABPBXB0020
907
A1220
102787
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 35, NE (M)
244
Birds 1
1/5 mile
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown N
19950421
1994XXXX

UNKNOWN
None
Threatened
G1G2
S1S2
SSC
BLM_S; IUCN_EN; NABCI_RWL; USFWS_BCC
ONN SIDE OF TWELVE BRIDGES DR, ABOUT 2.7 MI
E OF INTERSECTION WITH HWY 65,S OF LINCOLN.

MAPPED ACCORDING TO LOCATION ON PROVIDED
MAP. PROVIDED ROAD DESIGNATIONS WERE
"HIGHWAY 65& DIRT ROAD, 1.
7 MI SOUTH OF
RODEO GROUNDS."
CIRCULAR PATCH OF HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY.
2000 COLONY WAS INA HILLSIDE SEEP. LARGE
STOCKPOND WITHIN 0.5 MILE. ANECDOTALLY REPORTED AS NESTING IN 1994.

A
FORAGING FLOCK OF ABOUT 250 BIRDS OBSERVED
ON 21 APR 1995. ABOUT 200 BIRDS OBSERVED ON
22 APR 2000; NOTED AS CARRYING FOOD.

POTENTIAL THREAT FROM DEVELOPMENT.
20160914

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB
5 mile search results:

Spea hammondii western spadefoot
AAABF02020
1298
B4904
117842
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R06E, Sec. 31, SW (M)
106
Amphibians
1 1/5 mile
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20160305
20160305
PVT
None
None
G2G3
S3
SSC
BLM_S; IUCN_NT

ON SOUTH SIDE OF EAST CATLETT ROAD, JUST
WEST OF FIDDYMENT ROAD, SW OF LINCOLN.

MAPPED ACCORDING TO MAP PROVIDED.

VERNAL POOL AND GRASSLAND HABITAT, RURAL
HOUSING AND RANCHING ACTIVITIES IN THE AREA.

HEARD CALLING FROM ROAD ON 5 MAR 2016.

ROAD MORTALITIES, BULLFROGS ALSO OBSERVED
IN AREA.

Non‐native animal impacts; Vehicle collisions
20200130
Spea hammondii western spadefoot
AAABF02020
309
60024
60060
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R05E, Sec. 24 (M)
95 Amphibians
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown
N
20040423
20040423

UNKNOWN
None
None
G2G3
S3
SSC
BLM_S; IUCN_NT

UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO PLEASANT GROVE

CREEK VICINITY OF BOBDOYLE DR AT HAYDEN
PKWY, WESTPARK NEIGHBORHOOD OF ROSEVILLE.

MAPPED TO THE PROVIDED COORDINATES AND
MAP.

HABITAT CONSISTS OF TWO PONDED AREAS
WITHIN A SEASONAL SWALE/CHANNEL. AREA
APPEARED TO BE NATIVE HABITAT IN 2004
AERIALS; SURROUNDINGS GRADED FOR
DEVELOPMENT IN 2005 AERIALS; AND SEVERAL
NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENTS BY 2013 AERIAL.

ONE POOL SUPPORTED <10 TADPOLES AND THE
OTHER SUPPORTED 50‐100 TADPOLES ON 23 APR
2004. TOADS CAPTURED WITH A DIPNET, NONE
COLLECTED.

NOW SURROUNDED BY DEVELOPMENT.

Development
20190502
Spea hammondii western spadefoot
AAABF02020
172
42147
42147
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 25, SE (M)
208
Amphibians
1 specific area
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Fair
N
20180413
20180413

UNKNOWN
None
None
G2G3
S3
SSC
BLM_S; IUCN_NT

POOLS ADJACENT TO RAILROAD TRACKS NEAR
TAYLOR ROAD, 0.4 MILE SOUTH OF SEWAGE
DISPOSAL PONDS, ROSEVILLE.

POOLED AREAS BETWEEN TRACKS AND
DEVELOPMENT. MAPPED TO THE PROVIDED
COORDINATES.

SURROUNDING LAND USE: RAILROAD EASEMENT.

CALIFORNIA LINDERIELLA ALSO PRESENT. OFTEN
CO‐OCCUR WITH PACIFIC CHORUS FROG AND
WESTERN TOAD. CLAM SHRIMP OCCASIONALLY
PRESENT AS WELL.
5 TADPOLES OBSERVED ON 19 MAR 1994. 12‐24
LARVAE OBSERVED ON 13 APR 2018; OBSERVED
SWIMMING AND RESTING. LARVAE ANECDOTALLY
REPORTED AS PRESENT IN "MANY YEARS"
BETWEEN 1994 AND 2018

MUCH OF THIS AREA HAS BEEN DEVELOPED SINCE
1994; PORTION OF OCCURRENCE MAY BE
EXTIRPATED.

Development
20190501
Spea hammondii western spadefoot
AAABF02020
1299
B4905
117843
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T12N, R05E, Sec. 36, E (M)
112
Amphibians
1 80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good
N
20160305
20160305

UNKNOWN
None
None
G2G3
S3
SSC
BLM_S; IUCN_NT
EAST CATLETT ROAD, 0.7 MILE WEST OF ITS

INTERESCTION WITH FIDDYMENT ROAD, SWOF

LINCOLN
MAPPED ACCORDING TO MAP PROVIDED.

VERNAL POOL AND GRASSLAND HABITAT, RURAL
HOUSING AND RANCHING ACTIVITIES IN THE AREA.
1 JUVENILE FOUND DEAD ON ROAD ON 5 MAR
2016.

ROAD MORTALITIES, BULLFROGS OBSERVED IN
AREA.

Non‐native animal impacts; Vehicle collisions
20200130

Blue Oak Commerce Center ‐ CDFW CNDDB 5 mile search results:

Spea hammondii western spadefoot
AAABF02020
171
42145
42145
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 32, NW (M)
115
Amphibians 1
80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Unknown N
19910412
19910412

UNKNOWN
None
None
G2G3
S3
SSC
BLM_S; IUCN_NT
TRIBUTARY TO KASEBERG CREEK, 1.3

MILES NE OF JCT BASE LINE& FIDDYMENT
ROADS, ROSEVILLE. 5 CONSTRUCTED VERNAL POOLS AND
TRIBUTARY TO KASEBERG CREEK. MAPPED

TO SITE DESCRIPTION (ELEVATION GIVEN
DOESN'T MATCH).

VERNAL POOLS AND INTERMITTENT
CREEK. SURROUNDING LAND USE:

MITIGATION SITE, VARIOUS
DEVELOPMENTS.

SEVERAL TADPOLES OBSERVED, 1991.

THREATENED BY INCREASED
HYDROLOGYAND NON‐NATIVE FISHES.

Non‐native animal impacts; Other
20000120
Spea hammondii western spadefoot
AAABF02020
174
42151
42151
3812174
Pleasant Grove
PLA
T11N, R05E, Sec. 23, SE (M)
100
Amphibians 1
80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good N
19930321
19930321

UNKNOWN
None
None
G2G3
S3
SSC
BLM_S; IUCN_NT
BEND IN PHILLIP ROAD, 1.5

MILEW OF JCT WITH
FIDDYMENT ROAD, 0.3 MILE

WEST WHERE ROAD

PARALLELS PLEASANT GROVE
CREEK.

ANNUAL GRASSLAND. 1 ADULT FOUND CROSSING
THE ROAD.

CHANGES IN

HYDROLOGY/URBAN
RUNOFF.

Other; Pollutio
n
20000120
Elanus leucurus white‐tailed kite
ABNKC06010
56 42671
42671
3812173
Roseville
PLA
T11N, R06E, Sec. 20, SE (M)
125
Birds 1
80 meters
Presumed Extant
Natural/Native occurrence
Good N
1999XXXX
199807XX
PVT‐HEWLETT PACKARD
None
None
G5
S3S4
FP
BLM_S; IUCN_LC

ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE SOUTH BRANCH OF

PLEASANT GROVE CREEK, BETWEEN FOOTHILLS
BLVD AND WOODCREEK OAKS BLVD, ROSEVILLE.

SITE IS LOCATED ALONG THE BORDER BETWEEN
WOODCREEK GOLF COURSE AND HEWLETT‐
PACKARD.

HABITAT CONSISTS OF RIPARIAN/OAK

WOODLAND, DOMINATED BY BLUE OAKS AND
INTERIOR LIVE OAKS.

SITE WAS VISITED WEEKLY, MAR‐JUL 1998; ADULT
COURTSHIP TO5 BEGGING FLEDGLINGS
OBSERVED. KITES DID NOT NEST AT THIS LOCATION
IN 1999, POSSIBLY DUE TO BOTH GREAT HORNED

OWLS AND AMERICAN KESTRELS NESTING
NEARBY.

THREATENED BY ENCROACHING DEVELOPMENT ALONG WOODCREEK OAKS BLVD.

Development
20000330

Search Results
CNPS Rare Plant Inventory
14 matches found. Click on scientific name for details
Search Criteria: Quad is one of [3812184:3812174:3812183:3812182:3812172:3812163:3812173:3812164:3812162] ▲ SCIENTIFIC
NAME
COMMON

NAME FAMILY LIFEFORM

BLOOMING
PERIOD
FED
LIST
STATE
LIST
GLOBAL
RANK
STATE
RANK

CA RARE
PLANT

RANK PHOTO
Balsamorhiza
macrolepis
big-scale
balsamroot
Asteraceae perennial herb Mar-Jun None None G2 S2 1B.2
©1998 Dean Wm.

Taylor
Brodiaea rosea
ssp. vallicola
valley
brodiaea
Themidaceae perennial
bulbiferous herb
AprMay(Jun)None None G5T3 S3 4.2
© 2011 Steven Perry
Chloropyron
molle ssp.
hispidum
hispid salty
bird's-beak
Orobanchaceae annual herb
(hemiparasitic)
Jun-Sep None None G2T1 S1 1B.1
No Photo Available
Clarkia biloba
ssp.
brandegeeae
Brandegee's
clarkia
Onagraceae annual herb (Mar)MayJulNone None G4G5T4 S4 4.2 No Photo Available
Downingia
pusilla
dwarf
downingia
Campanulaceae annual herb Mar-May None None GU S2 2B.2
No Photo Available
Fritillaria
agrestis
stinkbells Liliaceae perennial
bulbiferous herb
Mar-Jun None None G3 S3 4.2
© 2016 Aaron
Schusteff
Gratiola
heterosepala
Boggs Lake
hedgehyssop
Plantaginaceae annual herb Apr-Aug None CE G2 S2 1B.2
©2004 Carol W.

Witham
Juncus
leiospermus var.
ahartii
Ahart's
dwarf rush
Juncaceae annual herb Mar-May None None G2T1 S1 1B.2
© 2004 Carol W.

Witham
Juncus
leiospermus var.
leiospermus
Red Bluff
dwarf rush
Juncaceae annual herb Mar-Jun None None G2T2 S2 1B.1
©2016 Dylan
Neubauer
Legenere limosa legenere Campanulaceae annual herb Apr-Jun None None G2 S2 1B.1 ©2000 John Game
Leptosiphon
aureus
bristly
leptosiphon
Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr-Jul None None G4? S4? 4.2 © 2007 Len Blumin
Navarretia
myersii ssp.
myersii
pincushion
navarretia
Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr-May None None G2T2 S2 1B.1 © 2020 Leigh Johnson
Orcuttia viscida Sacramento
Orcutt grass
Poaceae annual herb AprJul(Sep)FE CE G1 S1 1B.1
No Photo Available
Sagittaria
sanfordii
Sanford's
arrowhead
Alismataceae perennial
rhizomatous herb
(emergent)
MayOct(Nov)None None G3 S3 1B.2
©2013 Debra L. Cook
Showing 1 to 14 of 14 entries
Suggested Citation:

California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2022. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9-01 1.5). Website https://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 19 December 2022].

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT–PLANNING DIVISION
311 Vernon St, Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 774-5276

ADDENDUM TO BLUE OAKS COMMERCE CENTER MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ADOPTED ON MAY 27, 2010)
Project Title/File Number: NIPA PCL 56 – Blue Oaks Commerce Center; File #PL22-0101 Project Location: 2200 Freedom Way, Roseville, Placer County, CA 95678 (APN 017- 123-090-000)
Project Description: The applicant requests approval of a Major Project Permit (MPP) Stage 1 Modification and MPP Stage 2 to allow construction of four (4) industrial buildings totaling approximately 310,000 square feet in size with associated parking, lighting, and landscaping, which will be located on two (2) parcels totaling 23.94-acres in size.

Project Applicant: Jennifer Kimura, VLMK Engineering + Design Property Owner: Harsch Investment Properties II, LLC
Lead Agency Contact: Escarlet Mar, Associate Planner; Phone (916) 774-5247 An Addendum to a previously certified and adopted negative declaration or environmental impact report may be prepared for a project if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred (California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines [CEQA] Section 15164). Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the below analysis has been prepared in order to demonstrate that none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred and that only minor technical changes or additions are necessary in order to deem the adopted negative declaration adequate to describe the impacts of the proposed project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 also states that an addendum need not be circulated for public review, but can be included in or attached to the adopted negative declaration for consideration by the hearing body. This Addendum focuses only on those aspects of the project or its impacts which require additional discussion.

CC EXHIBIT A

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Table of Contents
Project Description …………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Purpose and Scope of Addendum ………………………………………………………………… 6 Initial Study Checklist
I. Aesthetics ……………………………………………. 10
II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources ………………….. 12
III. Air Quality ……………………………………………. 13
IV. Biological Resources ………………………………… 16
V. Cultural Resources ………………………………….. 21
VI. Energy ……………………………………………… 22
VII. Geology and Soils …………………………………... 22
VIII. Greenhouse Gases …………………………………... 24
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ………………….. 25
X. Hydrology and Water Quality ………………………… 27
XI. Land Use and Planning ………………………………. 29
XII. Mineral Resources ………………………………….. 30
XIII. Noise …………………………………………………. 31
XIV. Population and Housing ……………………………... 32
XV. Public Services ……………………………………….. 33
XVI. Recreation …………………………………………… 34
XVII. Transportation ……………………………….. 35
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ……………………………. 37
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ………………………… 39
XX. Wildfire ………………………………………………. 40
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ………………….. 41
Environmental Determination …………………………………………………………………….. 43 Attachments ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 43

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Location
The project site is located at 2200, 2301, and 2201 Freedom Way, at the southeast corner of Blue Oaks Boulevard and Industrial Avenue (see Figure 1). On June 1, 2022, planning staff approved a Voluntary Merger (File# PL22-0059) to merge Parcel 4 (017-123-083) and Parcel 5 (017-123-084) of the Blue Oaks Commerce Center Subdivision Parcel Map into one (1) parcel. As of this writing, the Lot Merger has been recorded. The project is located on Parcel 56 of the North Industrial Planning Area (NIPA), which has adopted design guidelines (North Roseville Area Design Guidelines) that influence the general character of development within the planning area. The project site is surrounded by developed industrial parcels to the north, south, west, and an undeveloped parcel and office building to the east.

Background
On May 27, 2010, the Planning Commission approved a Major Project Permit (MPP) Stage 1 and a Tentative Subdivision Map for development of approximately 49.4 acres with 17 buildings totaling approximately 576,000 square feet of office, industrial and commercial uses (File# 2007PL-039). An Initial Study leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared as part of the MPP Stage 1 and Tentative Subdivision Map for the Blue Oaks Commerce Center (BOCC) office, industrial and retail complex project to evaluate the environmental impacts of developing NIPA PCL 56. The Planning Commission adopted the Blue Oaks Commerce Center Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) on May 27, 2010. On October 23, 2014, the Planning Commission approved a modification to the MPP Stage 1 site plan to allow the elimination of the retail portion of the project and replace approximately 81,000 square feet of industrial uses with an approximately 123,000 square foot three-story office building for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). An MPP Stage 2 was also approved for the FBI Office building, which approved the building architecture, site grading, and on-site landscaping. The MPP Stage 1 entitlement approved in 2010 included conceptual landscape plans for the Blue Oaks Commerce Center.

Figure 1: Project Location
Project Site
Industrial Avenue
Blue Oaks Boulevard
Washington Boulevard

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

The landscape plans were deemed to be consistent with the North Roseville Area Design Guidelines (NRADG).

However, the NRADG was adopted in 1992 and did not address current water efficient landscape requirements.

Therefore, on May 24, 2016, the Planning Manager approved an Administrative Permit to modify the master landscape plan for the Blue Oaks Commerce Center to include more drought tolerant species and meet current water efficiency standards.

Environmental Setting
The project site is currently undeveloped but has been previously graded in preparation for the BOCC development and the FBI office building. As illustrated in Figures 2 through 4 below, the aerials of the BOCC site show that grading for the center were completed concurrent with the development of the FBI building. The aerials also show the removal of the jughandle that bisected the northwest corner of the site between Blue Oaks Boulevard and Industrial Avenue. As part of the MND analysis, the BOCC noted that grading and filling of approximately 1.70 acres of seasonal wetlands regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would occur.

The previously identified 1.95 acres of potential jurisdictional waters including 1.70 acres of wetlands and 0.26 acres of other waters has been filled and a Section 404 Individual Permit Application submitted and approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Currently, no wetlands exist on the site. In addition to grading, streetlights were located along the roadway frontages and utility poles along Blue Oaks Boulevard. Curb and gutter improvements exist along the perimeter of the BOCC site. Sidewalks are fully constructed along Blue Oaks Boulevard, Industrial Avenue, Freedom Way, and Fidelity Way.

Figure 2: Existing Site Conditions 2013
Figure 3: Existing Site Conditions 2015

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

As shown in Table 1 below, the site is surrounded by several industrial users to the north, south, and west. To the east of the Project site is a vacant parcel and an office building, the vacant parcel has been previously disturbed by an approximately 220-foot wide series of power lines that bisect the northeast portion of the property at a 45-degree angle from Washington Boulevard to Blue Oaks Boulevard.

Table 1: Adjacent Zoning and Land Use
Location Zoning General Plan Land Use Actual Use of Property Site General Industrial (M2) General Industrial (IND) Vacant North M2 IND Industrial users
South M2 IND Industrial users
East M2 IND Vacant; Office building for the FBI
West Light Industrial (M1) Light Industrial (LI) Albertsons warehouse Proposed Project
The proposed project (Project) consist of four (4) industrial buildings totaling approximately 310,000 square feet in size with associated parking, lighting, and landscaping improvements (see Figure 5 below). The Project is proposed on two (2) vacant industrial parcels totaling approximately 23.94-acres. The project entitlements consist of a Major Project Permit (MPP) Stage 1 Modification and MPP Stage 2. The request for a MPP Stage 1 Modification will change the orientation of the buildings, decrease the number of buildings from 10 to four (4), and increase the total square footage of the Project by approximately 50,000 square feet.

Figure 4: Existing Site Conditions 2017

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Figure 5: Site Plan

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ADDENDUM
This Addendum tiers from the previously approved MND and the 2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (GP EIR) and the 2021 Housing Element Addendum (HE Addendum) (combined, the GP EIR and Addendum), which analyzed the impacts of full buildout of the City’s General Plan land uses and implementation of its policies consistent with the General Plan and the 2021 Housing Element. The MND and related attachments are included as Attachment 1 of this Addendum. The GP EIR is available for review on the City’s website at https://www.roseville.ca.us/generalplan and the HE Addendum is available at www.roseville.ca.us/housingelement. These are also accessible upon request at the Planning counter during normal business hours.

The adopted MND evaluated the following topical sections as it relates to:
 Aesthetics
 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources
 Cultural Resources
 Geology and Soils
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology and Water Quality
Previously Approved
Not part of this Project

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

 Land Use and Planning
 Mineral Resources
 Noise
 Population and Housing
 Public Services
 Recreation
 Transportation/Traffic
 Utilities and Service Systems
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The MND evaluated the same impact areas as the Project, but did not include an analysis on Energy, Tribal Cultural Resources, or Wildfire as these sections were added to the CEQA Guidelines after the Project approval date. Nevertheless, because this Addendum tiers from the previously approved GP EIR and Addendum, in addition to the MND, those sections are included in the GP EIR and Addendum as described below.

The GP EIR evaluated the following topical sections, as numbered below:

Chapter 4.0. Introduction to the Environmental Analysis • Section 4.1. Land Use and Agriculture
• Section 4.2. Population, Employment, and Housing
• Section 4.3. Transportation
• Section 4.4. Air Quality
• Section 4.5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Section 4.6. Noise and Vibration
• Section 4.7. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources • Section 4.8. Biological Resources
• Section 4.9. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
• Section 4.10. Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire • Section 4.11. Public Services and Recreation
• Section 4.12. Utilities and Service Systems
• Section 4.13. Hydrology and Water Quality
• Section 4.14. Aesthetics
• Section 4.15. Energy
The HE Addendum evaluated the same impact areas, but was formatted in the same analysis order as the CEQA Guidelines Initial Study Checklist, in which impacts are evaluated by topic area in alphabetical order. For each impact topic and question, the HE Addendum listed the location (page number) where that topic was addressed in the GP EIR and the disposition of the impact. This Addendum follows the same format. The area analyzed in the GP EIR and Addendum included all areas within the City limits and those areas that are within the City’s Sphere of Influence, referred to throughout as the Planning Area. For consistency with previous documentation, in this Addendum the Planning Area will continue to refer to the area assessed within the GP EIR and Addendum, while “Project area” will refer to the much smaller subarea of the Planning area affected by the proposed Project.

The GP EIR included a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of City buildout compared to baseline physical conditions and conservatively assumed that developable sites would be fully developed, rather than developing at average intensities. The analysis in the GP EIR and Addendum assumed the Project site would be developed with uses consistent with the Project land use designation and the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Community Design Guidelines. Therefore, development of the Project site would comply with the development standards of the zoning district and development of the site would be well within the range of development analyzed within the GP EIR, which is why an Addendum was prepared.

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

The GP EIR and Addendum focused in the same manner as the MND on the development of the Project site with industrial users. Consistent with previous project approvals on the site, as described in the Background section, the GP EIR and Addendum assumed development of the Project site with approximately 380,000 square feet of industrial buildings. Including the already-constructed FBI building site, the MND assumed the original site would be developed with 17 buildings totaling approximately 575,505 square feet of office, industrial, and commercial uses. The Project development of 310,000 square feet of building does not exceed the maximum development potential previously analyzed in either the GP EIR and Addendum or the MND.

The analyses below rely on the GP EIR and Addendum and the MND analysis with minor supplements or technical updates where appropriate. Most of the project impacts remain identical to the impacts of the GP EIR and Addendum and MND because the proposed project is consistent with the industrial use type envisioned and analyzed for the subject property. No changes are proposed to the land use or zoning designation of the site.

Impacts to physical resources (such as agricultural land, biological resources, etc.) are based on the grading and development of an area, not on the proposed use types of the buildings (i.e. restaurant vs. retail) on the property. For other types of impacts which are affected by use type and square footage, the project uses reduce or maintain the same level of potential impacts, as discussed in this Addendum.

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR ADDENDUM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The purpose of this checklist is to evaluate the categories in terms of any “changed condition” (i.e. changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a changed environmental result. A “no” answer does not necessarily mean there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category, but that there is no change in the condition or status of the impact since it was analyzed and addressed in prior environmental documents.

EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST EVALUATION CATEGORIES
Where Impact was Analyzed
This column provides a cross-reference to the pages of the prior environmental documents where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic.

Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts?
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the changes represented by the current project will result in new significant impacts that have not already been considered and mitigated by the prior environmental review documents and related approvals, or will result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact.

Any new Circumstances Involving New Impacts?
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether there have been changes to the project site or the vicinity (circumstances under which the project is undertaken) which have occurred subsequent to the certification or adoption of prior environmental documents, which would result in the current project having new significant environmental impacts that were not considered in the prior environmental documents or that substantially increase the severity of a previously identified impact.

Any new Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3)(A–D) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous environmental documents were certified or adopted is available requiring an update to the analysis of the previous environmental documents to verify that the environmental conclusions and mitigation measures remain valid. Either “yes” or “no” will be answered to indicate whether there is new information showing that: (A) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the prior environmental documents; (B) that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

shown in the prior environmental documents; (C) that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the prior environmental documents would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. If “no,” then no additional environmental documentation (supplemental or subsequent EIR) is required.

Mitigation Measures Implemented or Addressing Impacts
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the prior environmental documents provide mitigation measures to address effects in the related impact category. In some cases, the mitigation measures have already been implemented. A “yes” response will be provided in any instance where mitigation was included, regardless of whether the mitigation has been completed at this time. If “none” is indicated, this environmental analysis concludes a significant impact does not occur with this project, no mitigation was previously included, and no mitigation is needed.

DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION SECTIONS
Discussion
A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue, how the project relates to the issue and the status of any mitigation that may be required or has already been implemented.

Mitigation Measures
Applicable mitigation measures from the prior environmental review that apply to the project are listed under each environmental category.

Conclusions
A discussion of the conclusion relating to the analysis contained in each section.

CHECKLIST
I. Aesthetics
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures
Implemented or Addressing
Impacts.
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? Page 7 No No No None
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
Same No No No None
c. In non-urbanized area, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
Same No No No None
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Same No No No None
Discussion: The proposed Project is located on a property already anticipated for development. The project site does not abut and is not visible from any scenic vista or scenic highway. The MND analyzed the impacts of grading of the project site and considered them to be less than significant. The proposed use (i.e., warehouse) is substantially consistent with the build out assumptions and would not increase the severity of already identified significant impacts. The Findings of Fact for the CEQA Implementing Procedures indicate that compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, Community Design Guidelines, and applicable Specific Plan Policies and/or Specific Plan Design Guidelines will prevent significant impacts related to construction of buildings in urban settings.

The project has been evaluated for compliance with the City’s Community Design Guidelines and the design guidelines established in the North Roseville Area Design Guidelines. As it relates to aesthetics, these standards ensure the high quality design and architectural character of any buildings developed as well as minimum landscaping standards. As it relates to light and glare, the Community Design Guidelines standards require all parking lot light fixtures to have glare shields. The project has been designed and will be conditioned to comply with the applicable Community Design Guidelines and the North Roseville Area Design Guidelines.

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Based on the reasons listed in this section, the changes introduced by the Project and/or new circumstances relevant to the project would not, as compared to the MND result in a new significant impact or significant impacts that are substantially more severe than significant impacts previously disclosed. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR or negative declaration have occurred” relative to aesthetic resources.

Mitigation Measures: None required for this Project.

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

II. Agricultural & Forestry Resources
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures
Implemented or Addressing
Impacts.
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract? Same No No No None
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
Same No No No None
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? Same No No No None
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
Same No No No None
Discussion: The MND concluded there were no resources to be affected by conversion of the site to urban uses. This conclusion remains appropriate for this Project. The project site is not used for agricultural purposes, does not include agricultural zoning, is not within or adjacent to one of the areas of the City designated as a protected farmland category on the Placer County Important Farmland map, is not within or adjacent to land within a Williamson Act Contract, and is not considered forest land. Given the foregoing, the Project will have no impact on agricultural resources. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), the City

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

finds that “none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent FEIR or negative declaration have occurred” relative to agricultural and forestry resources.

Mitigation Measures: None required for this project.

III. Air Quality
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures
Implemented or Addressing
Impacts.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? Pages 8-11 No No No Mitigation Measure AQ#1 & AQ#2 b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Same No No No Same
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? Same No No No None
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number
of people?
Same No No No None
Discussion: The City of Roseville 2035 General Plan Update found it will generate emissions that exceed Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) significance thresholds. Existing laws and regulations, including PCAPCD rules and regulations, combined with existing General Plan and proposed General Plan Update policies, would reduce these impacts. Projects would be subject to PCAPCD Rule 228 to minimize fugitive dust emissions of PM through implementation of dust control measures, such as PCAPCD’s standard Dust Control Requirements. PCAPCD Rules 202 and 205 would also reduce exhaust-related emissions from the use of construction equipment. PCAPCD Rules 217 and 218 would reduce VOC emissions associated with paving and architectural coating activities.

While all future development with the potential to generate substantial emissions would be required to reduce those emissions, the effectiveness of these measures would depend on the number and extent of strategies feasible to incorporate as a part of any given project. Since the timing and level of construction activities for future development projects is speculative, and cannot be known, it is not possible to quantify the extent to which the reduction strategies would result in emission reductions. Consequently, even with adherence to PCAPCD rules, proposed General Plan Update Policy AQ1.3, and Specific Plan mitigation measures, it is conservatively assumed that emissions from buildout of the General Plan could

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

exceed PCAPCD-recommended thresholds. Therefore, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could generate substantial constructed-related pollutant emissions, conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria air pollutants for which the project region is designated a nonattainment area under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. This project alone does not have a potential to significantly degrade air quality. However, the incremental impacts associated with this project considered cumulatively with the incremental impacts of other projects will degrade air quality. The General Plan Update found that the significant adverse air quality impacts cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level even with the mitigation measures proposed. Addressing the unmitigatable cumulative impacts to air quality, the General Plan Update adopted findings of overriding consideration.

However, CEQA requires that reductions in adverse project impacts be made, where it is feasible to do so.

Short term impacts to air quality can be expected in association with construction activities. These impacts are primarily associated with grading activities and the increased potential for dust and wind driven erosion of soils. Particulate matter resulting from construction dust will be reduced by implementing standard dust control measures on the job site as part of an erosion control plan. The grading permit and on-site inspection by the Public Works Department will ensure appropriate dust control measures, such as watering are done to reduce short-term air quality impacts.

Vehicle exhaust, produced during project construction, could temporarily contribute to the deterioration of ambient air quality. Diesel fuel fumes from construction equipment may be noticeable in the vicinity of the site; however, this is a short-term effect. All equipment must comply with the mitigation measures and with California emissions standards The air quality impacts associated with the increase in square footage of the project will not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts. For example, the construction phase project-level ROG (lbs/day) percent difference between the original project and the proposed project square footage is approximately a 17% difference, based on the project square footage increase. Furthermore, while the square footage is increased compared to the previously-approved MPP, the square footage remains less than the total amount of development assumed within the GP EIR and Addendum and the MND. The Project site is consistent with the existing land use designation and no new impacts not already analyzed in the GP EIR and Addendum will occur. Therefore, based on this the project remains consistent with the development scenarios outlined in the MND and GP EIR and Addendum. Future industrial uses that locate onsite will be required to comply with the PCAPCD requirements and may need to obtain permits prior to occupancy. Industrial users may need to install air quality devices such as exhaust systems. Permitting with the PCAPCD will ensure that operation emissions are regulated. Therefore, with the air quality mitigation measures incorporated into the project the air quality impacts of this project would be less than significant.

There are no sensitive receptors located in the immediate vicinity of the project. The multi-family residential development southeast of the FBI site on Washington Boulevard comprises of the nearest sensitive receptor. Construction and operation of the project will increase emissions on the site, but not substantially; implementation of mitigation measures AQ#1 and AQ#2 will reduce project emissions to less than significant levels.

Potential impacts to sensitive receptors would therefore be less than significant.

The project does not include components with the potential to create significant objectionable odors. No impact associated with odor would result from the project.

Mitigation Measures: Applicable mitigation measures from the MND are below; no new measures are warranted for this Project.

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

Mitigation Measure AQ#1
1a. Prior to approval of Grading or Improvement Plans (whichever occurs first) on project sites greater than five (5) acres, the applicant shall submit a Construction Emission / Dust Control Plan to the Placer County APCD. The applicant shall provide written evidence, provided by APCD, to the local jurisdiction (city or county) that the plan has been submitted to APCD. If APCD does not respond within twenty (20) days the plan shall be considered approved. It is the responsibility of the applicant to deliver the approved plan to the local jurisdiction. The applicant shall not break ground prior to receiving APCD approval, of the Construction Emission / Dust Control Plan, and delivering that approval to the local jurisdiction issuing the permit. 1b. Include the following standard note on the Grading Plan or Improvement Plans: The prime contractor shall submit to the District a comprehensive inventory (i.e. make, model, year, emission rating) of all the heavy-duty off-road equipment (50 horsepower of greater) that will be used in aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. If any new equipment is added after submission of the inventory, the prime contractor shall contact the APCD prior to the new equipment being utilized. At least three business days prior to the use of subject heavy-duty off-road equipment, the project representative shall provide the District with the anticipated construction timeline including start date, name, and phone number of the property owner, project manager, and on-site foreman. 1c. Prior to approval of Grading or Improvement Plans, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall provide a written calculation to the Placer County APCD for approval by the District demonstrating that the heavy-duty (> 50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent particulate reduction as required by CARB. Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, and/or other options as they become available. The following link shall be used to calculate compliance with this condition and shall be submitted to the Placer County APCD as described above: http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/ (click on the current “Roadway Construction Emissions Model”).

Mitigation Measure AQ#2: The following APCD rules shall be noted on the Improvement Plans:
 The project shall comply with all applicable Placer County Air Pollution Control District rules and regulation, and shall obtain applicable permits and/or clearances from the District prior to the start of construction.  The contractor shall use CARB ultra low sulfur diesel fuel for all diesel–powered equipment. In addition, low sulfur fuel shall be utilized for all stationary equipment. (California Standards for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel, title 13, article 4.8, chapter 9, California Code of Regulations).
 Processes that discharge 2 pounds per day or more of air contaminants, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 39013, to the atmosphere may require a permit. Permits are required for both construction and operation. Developers/contractors should contact the District prior to construction and obtain any necessary permits prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. (Rule 501)

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

 Pursuant to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District Rule 501, General Permit Requirements, the proposed project may need a permit from the District prior to construction. In general, any engine greater than 50 brake horsepower or any boiler with heat greater than 1,000,000 Btu per hour shall require a permit issued by the District. (Rule 501)  All on-site stationary equipment which is classified as 50 hp or greater shall either obtain a state issued portable equipment permit or a Placer County APCD issued portable equipment permit. (California Portable Equipment Registration Program, Section 2452).
 The contractor shall utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary diesel power generators if feasible.
 During construction, the contractor shall minimize idling time to a maximum of 5 minutes for all diesel powered equipment.  During construction, traffic speeds on all unpaved surfaces shall be limited to 15 miles per hour or less. (Rule 228 / section 401.2)
IV. Biological Resources
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior Environmental Documents’
Mitigation Measures Implemented or
Addressing Impacts.
a) 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?
Pages 11-14 No No No Mitigation Measure BIO#1,
BIO#2, & BIO#3
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies or regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
Same No No No Same

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
Same No No No Same
d) 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?
Same No No No Same
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Same No No No None
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Same No No No None
Discussion: The biological resources information presented in the GP EIR was based on review of the following sources: previous studies conducted for the West Roseville, Sierra Vista, Creekview, and Amoruso Ranch Specific Plan Areas and associated EIRs; a comment letter received from CDFW in response to the NOP; biological resource databases, including the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC), USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper, USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Wetlands Mapper, the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants; aerial photography interpretation; and the draft Western Placer County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP).

Impacts related to the loss and degradation of special-status plants and their habitats were found to be potentially significant (GP EIR page 4.8- 60) as were impacts to special-status wildlife and their habitats (GP EIR page 4.8-64), impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities (GP EIR page 4.8-70), impacts to protected wetlands and other waters (GP EIR page 4.8-73), and impacts to wildlife movement corridors and nursery sites (GP EIR page 4.8-76) because buildout of the General Plan could result in direct removal or take of special-status species; modification or removal of sensitive habitats, wildlife corridors, nursery sites, protected waters, and habitats suitable for special-status species; indirect effects to species or habitats that may result from construction-related runoff, sedimentation, erosion, and introduction of invasive weeds; and the introduction of new sources of noise and light. Implementation of mitigation, combined with General Plan policies and existing laws and regulations, were found to reduce impacts to less than significant levels, because new development would be required to identify, avoid, and preserve sensitive habitats, wildlife corridors, nursery sites, protected waters, and habitats which may support special-status populations to the extent feasible, and compensate for the loss of these resources through preservation, compensation, or other appropriate measures in

ADDENDUM
September 7, 2022
Blue Oaks Commerce Center – 2200 Freedom Way; File #PL22-0101