MONK & ASSOCIATES
Environmental Consultants
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS
MENLO COUNTRY CLUB
TOWN OF WOODSIDE
SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
March 14, 2011
Prepared for
Menlo Country Club
2300 Woodside Road
Woodside, California 94062
Prepared by
Monk & Associates, Inc.
1136 Saranap Avenue, Suite Q
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
1136 Saranap Ave., Suite Q  Walnut Creek  California  94595
(925) 947-4867  FAX (925) 947-1165
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
2. PROPERTY LOCATION AND SETTING .................................................................................... 1
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 2
4. ANALYSIS METHODS .................................................................................................................. 6
5. RESULTS OF RESEARCH AND PROJECT SITE ANALYSES ................................................ 6
5.1 Soils .......................................................................................................................................... 6
5.2 Topography and Hydrology .................................................................................................... 6
5.3 Plant Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitats ........................................................... 7
5.3.1 GOLF COURSE LANDSCAPING ................................................................................................. 7
5.3.2 RIPARIAN VEGETATION ........................................................................................................... 8
5.3.3 OAK WOODLAND ..................................................................................................................... 8
5.3.4 MAN-MADE POND ................................................................................................................... 9
6. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES DEFINITION................................................................................. 9
6.1 Definitions................................................................................................................................ 9
6.2 Potential Special-Status Plants on the Project Site ............................................................... 11
6.2.1 PALO ALTO THISTLE .............................................................................................................. 12
6.2.2 SAN MATEO WOOLLY SUNFLOWER ...................................................................................... 12
6.2.3 MARSH SILVERPUFFS ............................................................................................................. 12
6.2.4 SMALL-FLOWERED MONOLOPIA ........................................................................................... 12
6.2.5 WHITE-RAYED PENTACHAETA.............................................................................................. 13
6.2.6 BENT-FLOWERED FIDDLENECK ............................................................................................. 13
6.2.7 ROBUST MONARDELLA.......................................................................................................... 13
6.2.8 FRANCISCAN ONION .............................................................................................................. 13
6.2.9 HILLSBOROUGH CHOCOLATE LILY ....................................................................................... 13
6.2.10 ARCUATE BUSH MALLOW ................................................................................................... 13
6.2.11 DAVIDSON’S BUSH MALLOW .............................................................................................. 14
6.2.12 DUDLEY’S LOUSEWORT....................................................................................................... 14
6.2.13 SAN FRANCISCO COLLINSIA ................................................................................................ 14
6.2.14 SLENDER LEAVED PONDWEED ............................................................................................ 14
6.2.15 WESTERN LEATHERWOOD................................................................................................... 14
6.3 Potential Special-Status Animals in the Project Site ............................................................ 14
6.3.1 CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER ........................................................................................ 15
6.3.2 CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG .......................................................................................... 16
6.3.3 WESTERN POND TURTLE ....................................................................................................... 18
6.3.4 SAN FRANCISCO GARTER SNAKE .......................................................................................... 19
6.3.5 HOARY BAT ............................................................................................................................ 20
6.3.6 SAN FRANCISCO DUSKY-FOOTED WOODRAT ...................................................................... 21
6.3.7 COOPER’S HAWK ................................................................................................................... 21
6.3.8 SHARP-SHINNED HAWK ......................................................................................................... 22
6.3.9 RED-SHOULDERED HAWK ..................................................................................................... 23
6.3.10 RED-TAILED HAWK ............................................................................................................. 23
6.3.11 AMERICAN KESTREL............................................................................................................ 24
6.3.12 WESTERN SCREECH OWL .................................................................................................... 24
6.3.13 GREAT HORNED OWL .......................................................................................................... 25
7. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR NATIVE WILDLIFE, FISH, AND PLANTS .............. 25
i
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
7.1 Federal Endangered Species Act ........................................................................................... 26
7.1.1 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY ................................................................................................... 28
7.1.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................................... 28
7.2 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act ....................................................................................... 28
7.2.1 APPLICABILITY TO PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................................................ 29
7.3 State Endangered Species Act ............................................................................................... 29
7.3.1 SECTION 2081 OF THE STATE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT .................................................. 29
7.3.2 APPLICABILITY TO PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................................................ 31
7.4 Applicable CEQA Regulations ............................................................................................. 31
7.4.1 APPLICABILITY TO PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................................................ 31
7.5 California Fish and Game Code § 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 ....................................... 31
7.5.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROJECT ........................................................................................... 32
7.6 Protected Amphibians ........................................................................................................... 32
7.6.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROJECT ........................................................................................... 32
7.7 Town of Woodside Ordinances ............................................................................................. 32
7.7.1 TREE PROTECTION ................................................................................................................. 32
7.7.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................................... 34
7.7.3 STREAM CHANNEL PROTECTION ........................................................................................... 34
7.7.4 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................................... 35
8. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
AND STATE .................................................................................................................................. 35
8.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction and General Permitting .................................. 35
8.1.1 SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT ............................................................................ 35
8.1.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 38
8.2 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) / California Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) ............................................................................................................ 38
8.2.1 SECTION 401 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT ............................................................................ 38
8.2.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 39
8.2.3 PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT .......................................................... 39
8.2.4 APPLICABILITY TO PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................................................ 40
8.2.5 NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) .............................. 40
8.2.6 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 42
8.3 RWQCB Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program........................................................ 42
8.3.1 RWQCB PHASE I PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................... 43
8.3.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 44
8.4 California Department of Fish and Game Protections ......................................................... 45
8.4.1 SECTION 1602 OF CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE ........................................................ 45
8.4.2 APPLICABILITY TO PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................................................ 45
9. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REGULATIONS ................... 45
9.1.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 46
10. IMPACTS ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 46
10.1 Significance Criteria ............................................................................................................ 47
10.1.1 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE .......................................................................................... 47
11. IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROPOSED MITIGATION ................................................... 48
11.1 Impact 1. Special-Status Plants ........................................................................................... 48
11.2 Mitigation Measure 1. Special-Status Plants ...................................................................... 48
11.3 Impact 2. Hoary Bat............................................................................................................. 51
11.4 Mitigation Measure 2. Hoary Bat ....................................................................................... 51
ii
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
11.5 Impact 3. San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat............................................................... 51
11.6 Mitigation Measure 3. San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat.......................................... 51
11.7 Impact 4. Trees .................................................................................................................... 52
11.8 Mitigation Measure 4. Trees ............................................................................................... 52
11.9 Impact 5. Compliance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code............ 53
11.10 Mitigation Measure 5. Compliance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game
Code ............................................................................................................................................. 53
11.11 Impact 6. Nesting Raptors (Birds of Prey) ....................................................................... 53
11.12 Mitigation Measure 6. Nesting Raptors (Birds of Prey) .................................................. 54
11.13 Impact 7. Nesting Passerine Birds .................................................................................... 55
11.14 Mitigation Measure 7. Nesting Passerine Birds ............................................................... 55
12. LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................. 57
iii
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
FIGURES
(Behind Tab at Back of Report)
Figure 1. Regional map of the Menlo Country Club Project Site
Figure 2. Menlo Country Club Project Site Location
Figure 3. Aerial photograph of the Menlo Country Club Project Site
Figure 4. Soils on the Menlo Country Club Project Site
Figure 5. Closest Known Records for Special-Status Species within 5 Miles of the Menlo
Country Club Project Site
Figure 6. California Tiger Salamander and California Red-Legged Frog Critical Habitats Closest
to the Menlo Country Club Project Site
TABLES
(Behind Tab at Back of Report)
Table 1. Plant Species Observed on the Menlo Country Club Project Site
Table 2. Wildlife Species Observed on the Menlo Country Club Project Site
Table 3. Special-Status Plant Species Known To Occur in the Vicinity of the Menlo Country
Club Project Site
Table 4. Special-Status Animal Species Known To Occur in the Vicinity of the Menlo Country
Club Project Site
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Preliminary Site Improvement Plan, Clifford Bechtel & Associates, March 4, 2011.
iv
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
1. INTRODUCTION
Monk & Associates, Inc. (M&A) has prepared this biological resource analysis for the proposed
Menlo Country Club renovation site (herein referred to as the project site) located in the Town of
Woodside, San Mateo County, California (Figures 1 and 2). The purpose of our analysis is to
provide a description of existing biological resources on the project site and to identify
potentially significant impacts that could occur to sensitive biological resources from the
renovation of the existing Menlo Country Club golf course.
Biological resources include common plant and animal species, and special-status plants and
animals as designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and other resource
organizations including the California Native Plant Society. Biological resources also include
waters of the United States and State, as regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps),
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFG. It is important to note
that our analysis includes an assessment of the potential for impacts to regulated waters but does
not provide the level of detail required for a formal delineation of waters suitable for submittal to
the Corps.
This biological resources analysis also provides mitigation measures for “potentially significant”
and “significant” impacts that could occur to biological resources. When implemented, the
mitigation measures would reduce impacts to levels considered less than significant pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Accordingly, this report is suitable for review and
inclusion in any review being conducted by the Town of Woodside for the proposed project
pursuant to the CEQA.
2. PROPERTY LOCATION AND SETTING
The 141.03-acre project site is located at 2300 Woodside Road, in the eastern portion of the
Town of Woodside, on the north side of Woodside Road and west of Alameda de las Pulgas, in
San Mateo County, California (Figures 1 and 2). The project site consists of a private eighteenhole golf course, which includes a club house, cottages, a maintenance shop, tennis courts and a
pool.
Figure 3 provides an aerial photograph of the project site showing the land use of the site and the
surrounding area. The project site is located within an established suburban residential area, and
is surrounded almost entirely by single-family homes, with the exception of Woodside High
School immediately to the south of the project site. Redwood Creek, a perennial stream, enters
the project site at the southwest corner and flows through the project site in a northeasterly
direction, exiting through a 9-foot arch culvert under Alameda de las Pulgas into a channelized,
concrete-sided flood control channel. Five unnamed intermittent drainages channeling runoff
from residences and streets enter the golf course area through underground pipes and eventually
drain into Redwood Creek. An underground aqueduct, conveying water from the Hetch Hetchy
reservoir to the San Francisco peninsula, traverses the eastern section of the project site from
south to north.
1
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Founded in the early 1900s, the Menlo Country Club is a California not-for-profit corporation
with a membership that currently numbers approximately 290. The first golf course on the
current property opened in 1914 or 1915. Since its opening, the golf course has been modified
several times with the most significant of those modifications occurring in the late 1920s and the
early 1960s. The critical course infrastructure systems (drainage, irrigation, cart paths) are more
than 25 years old and are all beyond their recommended/useful life. Given the need to update
these systems, the applicant plans to renovate simultaneously the course’s greens, tees and sand
bunkers (collectively, the “course improvements”). Finally, in view of the significant investment
(both time and financial) required to accomplish the infrastructure and course improvements, the
applicant desires to use this opportunity to incorporate several acres of the property which to date
have not been actively used as part of the golf course.
Preliminary Improvement Plans for the proposed project have been prepared by Clifford Bechtel
& Associates are attached to this report as Appendix A. Preliminary Improvement Plans for the
proposed project are attached to this application, and include:
a. Improvement Plan Cover: Sheet C-0.0 Cover sheet contains all General Notes,
Grading Notes, Vicinity Map, Location Map, Plan Sheet Index, Plan Sheet Legend.
b. Topographic Mapping. Sheet C-1.0 shows the existing topographic information with
the existing boundary information. This plan is a combination of a 1997 Aerial
Topographic Mapping of the property, Boundary Resolution by B & H Survey 2010,
and GPS field verification. In addition to the topographic information, the slope areas
between 35% and 50 % and 50% or greater are shown, dimensions to the nearest
property line for all structures have been labeled, creek setback limits per Town
Ordinance, and Redwood Creek Centerline.
c. Site Layout and Grading Plan. Sheet C-2.0 shows the visual locations of the areas to
be graded. It is the design concept to leave, as much as possible, of the existing golf
course terrain intact. Isolated areas will need to be graded to construct new features
and drainage. Grading quantities in these areas have been identified.
d. Drainage Plan. Sheet C-3.0 shows the visual locations of the existing and proposed
drainage for the golf course facilities. There is an extensive existing drainage system
on site and it is the intent of the project to retain and maintain as much of the existing
infrastructure as possible. No impacts are proposed to existing drainpipes with
upstream connectivity to any tributary or stream. No modifications to existing outfalls
into Redwood Creek are proposed, with the exception of the shortening of one
existing outfall pipe per a recommendation from the CDFG during an onsite meeting
held to review the proposed project. Shortening the pipe and directing flows
vertically will have no impacts below the ordinary high water mark, or on the bed,
bank, or channel of Redwood Creek.
2
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
e. Erosion & Sediment Control Plan. Sheet C-4.0 shows conceptual sediment and
erosion control measures. This is to be used by contractor as a base and shall be
modified as construction requires, in accordance with the project SWPPP.
f. Project Details. Sheets C-5.0 through C-5.2 provide addition detail information as
required for construction of site improvements.
g. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Check List. Sheet C-6.0 is the County of
San Mateo standard check list. The check list is provided to ensure that all
construction personnel are aware of standard Stormwater Pollution Prevention
procedures and penalties if these procedures are not followed.
The following is an overview of the critical aspects of the proposed golf course renovation
project.
a. Grading.
The major components of the grading portion of the project are as follows:
i.
Site Preparation. Remove and turn existing fairway grasses.
ii.
Rough Grading. Cut and fill (3-4’ max); shape new greens, bunkers, tee boxes
and fairways, approximately 100 acres and 88,150 cubic yards cut to fill
(balanced site—no off-haul or import).
iii.
Drainage. Trench and install new drain lines, connect to existing main drain
lines.
iv.
Irrigation. Trench and install new irrigation system.
v.
Finish Grading. Fine shape all fairways, greens, tee boxes and bunkers,
approximately 100 acres.
vi.
Sand Cap. Create sand cap; import approximately 62,920 cubic yards of sand,
distribute 8" over 60 acres, compact to 6".
b. Tree removal.
The project site has approximately 5,000 trees, with approximately 3,000 trees located
within the developed golf course area. The great majority of the trees on the site were
planted as ornamental trees over the life of the golf course. A golf course renovation
project of this scale (which includes the re-routing of several existing holes and the
relocation of one hole in a wooded portion of the property) necessarily involves the
removal, relocation, trimming/topping and transplanting/replacement of trees.
Approximately 476 trees will be removed or transplanted for the golf course renovation.
This is approximately three trees per acre, or less than 10% of the tree population on the
project site. Only three trees within the riparian corridor of Redwood Creek would be
impacted and these are non-native landscape trees that were planted in the past by the
golf course. We provide further details on these three trees below.
A tree replacement and transplant program will be implemented as part of the proposed
project, in accordance with the Town of Woodside’s Tree Ordinance. The applicant also
proposes to create and/or enhance as necessary the layered vegetation buffers that
currently border Woodside Road and Alameda de las Pulgas. The buffers and any
3
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
replacement trees will be native species of the same type and theme as the trees currently
found on the course (redwoods and native oaks) and will be in proportion to the trees
removed (see Section 7.7 for further details)
c. Existing Creek and Feature Pond
Redwood Creek is traversed by 10 existing bridges that accommodate foot and/or golf
cart traffic and several utility crossings. The creek runs through culverts in two relatively
short locations within the property, as necessary to accommodate the main entry road and
a portion of the golf course playing area. These culverts were installed when the golf
course was originally constructed in the early 1900s and were last replaced in the early
1960s. The culverts remain as serviceable components of the golf course today and will
not be modified as part of the proposed project. As currently conceived, the proposed
course plan does not require any new creek openings, bridges, or drainage installations.
The existing property has an existing course feature pond, as designed into the existing
hole number 8. This pond is supplied with water from the golf course irrigation system
that receives water from the San Francisco Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct. It is hydrologically
isolated from Redwood Creek. The proposed improvement requires the filling in of this
golf course feature.
d. Infrastructure Upgrades/Changes
As indicated above, one of the primary reasons for undertaking this renovation project is
the need to upgrade and modernize the critical infrastructure systems that are the
backbone of a course. The infrastructure systems to be upgraded are:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Irrigation. The irrigation system (including main lines, lateral lines, heads and
computerized control system) will be replaced and modernized. It is estimated
that the new system will produce water savings on the order of 10- 20%. The
existing pump station will be replaced, but it is not anticipated that the
location of the pump station will be changed.
Drainage. The intended plan for the course drainage system is a combination
of the existing drainage mains, additional drainage mains, replacement (i.e. up
sizing) of existing mains, sand capping, and subdrainage herring bone system
covered by a sand cap. Though there are proposed improvements to the
drainage facilities and an increase in impervious surfaces, the 60 acres of sand
cap will allow for an additional soil moisture storage and filtration, which will
equate to less run off, longer period of concentration.
Sand Capping. The proposed drainage plan would entail the integration of
approximately six to eight inches of compacted sand over approximately 60
acres to improve the agronomic growing medium within the primary golf play
areas. This will require the importing of approximately 62,920 cubic yards of
sand.
Cart paths/Lower driveway. Each hole of the existing course is accessed by
asphalt cart paths. Many of these paths are substandard in width and structural
stability, thus are in poor condition. In the renovation, the existing cart paths
will be removed and replaced with new colored asphalt paths. In addition, the
golf course cart path work, the proposed plan includes the elimination of the
4
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
v.
vi.
vii.
lower access road, the parking area and the lowering of approximately 500
lineal feet of the main entry road.
Paved Surfaces. The current project site has approximately 358,773 square
feet of impervious surfaces (building foot prints included), which is 5.84% of
the existing property. No increase in impervious surface is proposed as part of
the proposed project improvements.
Course improvements. As indicated in the Background section above, central
to the overall project will be the reconstruction of the existing tees, greens and
sand bunkers. Some tees, greens and bunkers will essentially remain in their
current locations. Others will move because the hole in question is being rerouted or relocated.
Yardage. The current course measures 6,280 yards from the “back” (longest)
tees. The proposed course routing measures 6,790 yards from the “back” tees.
e. Tennis courts and facilities
The Club has four tennis courts—two left of the main entrance; two “on” the golf course
adjacent to the driving range and 18th fairway. The proposed plan provides for the
relocation of the two courts on the course to the area near the main entrance. A four (4)court tennis complex, with tennis building, is to be created near the main entrance. The
tennis building will be a single story, 640-square-foot structure.
f. Fences/Retaining Walls
It is not presently anticipated that the construction of the new course will involve the
installation of any new fences or retaining walls, except around the proposed tennis
courts.
g. Landscaping
The re-designed course will be landscaped in the same style as the current course.
Drought tolerant native plants and turf-type grasses will be used to the maximum extent
possible consistent with the overall landscaping theme of the existing course and overall
parcel. Although subject to expert agronomic input, the dominant turf type will be
perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) (tees, fairways and rough) and creeping bentgrass
(Agrostis stolonifera) (greens). Per the request of the CDFG, the existing oleander
(Nerium oleander) hedge around the existing pump station facility will be replaced with
native hedge plant materials.
h. Proposed 12th Hole
The proposed re-design includes the incorporation of several acres of the property which
to date have not been actively used as part of the golf course. The new Hole #12 will
utilize approximately 5 acres of disturbed, heretofore managed oak woodland for a par
three golf hole (Hole #12 in attached Site Improvement Plan exhibits, Appendix A).
5
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
4. ANALYSIS METHODS
Prior to preparing this biological resource analysis report, M&A researched the most recent
version of the CDFG Natural Diversity Database, RareFind 3.1 application (CNDDB 2011) for
historic and recent records of special-status plant and animal species (that is, threatened,
endangered, rare) known to occur in the region of the project site. M&A also searched the 2011
electronic version of the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and
Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2001) for records of special-status plants known in the
region of the project site. All special-status species records were compiled in tables. M&A
examined all known record locations for special-status species to determine if special-status
species could occur on the project site or within an area of affect.
M&A biologist Mr. Geoff Monk conducted an initial survey of the project site on December 22,
2010 to assess the likelihood of agency regulated areas on the project site. On January 17, 2011,
Mr. Monk and M&A biologist Ms. Isabelle de Geofroy conducted a general survey of the project
site to record biological resources. The surveys involved searching all habitats on the site and
recording all plant and wildlife species observed. M&A’s site evaluations included a cursory
examination of the site to determine if there could be potential areas within the project site that
would be regulated as waters of the United States and/or State (the level of analyses was not
sufficient for a preliminary wetlands investigation report suitable for submittal to the Corps).
M&A also noted potential habitats on or adjacent to the project site that could support specialstatus species. Finally diurnal California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) surveys were
completed in Redwood Creek on December 22, 2010, January 17, 2011, January 31, 2011, and
February 23, 2011. Nocturnal California red-legged frog surveys were conducted in Redwood
Creek on January 31 and February 23, 2011. The results of our literature research and field
surveys are provided in the sections below.
5. RESULTS OF RESEARCH AND PROJECT SITE ANALYSES
5.1 Soils
Soils on the project site as mapped by the Soil Conservation Service are shown in Figure 4. One
unit is mapped on the site: Orthents, cut and fill, 0 to 15 percent slopes (121). This soil unit is
classified as non-hydric (i.e., is not wetland soil) (NRCS 2011). The 1991 Map of the San
Francisco - San Jose Quadrangle (CGS 1991) indicates that the underlying rocks on the project
site are Eocene marine sedimentary rocks. Soil bores on the project site by Romig Engineers
found claystone and sandstone bedrock of the Whiskey Hill Formation (Romig 2011). No
serpentine soils have been mapped on the project site; nor were serpentine soils detected in
Romig’s soil bores or during M&A’s December 2010 and January 2011 site visits.
5.2 Topography and Hydrology
The project site is located in the eastern foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Elevations range
from approximately 84 to 308 feet above sea level. The project site slopes gently down from
northwest to southeast. Redwood Creek, a perennial stream, traverses the project site from
southwest to northeast. This creek originates in Woodside Glens, located approximately 2 miles
upstream and northwest of the project site. On the project site, the average distance between
ordinary high water marks (OHWMs) of this creek ranges from 4 to 8 feet. Top-of-bank ranges
6
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
from approximately 10 to 15 feet above the flow line of the creek; and the distance between topof-banks is approximately 30 to 40 feet. The creek exits the project site through a 9-foot arch
culvert under Alameda de las Pulgas that drains into a channelized, concrete-sided flood control
channel. This channel has 9 foot high vertical sides and a level 9-foot concrete bottom. Redwood
Creek eventually drains into the San Francisco Bay approximately 3.5 miles to the north.
The hills in the northwestern corner of the project site support three unnamed intermittent
tributaries that are channeled into underground pipes upon entering the golf course. A fourth
unnamed drainage enters the project site from Woodside Road, carrying stormwater runoff from
south to north via an underground pipe. A fifth unnamed intermittent drainage carrying
stormwater runoff from residences and streets enters the project site on the north side of the
project site. The drainage transports flows through a ditch along the northern and eastern project
site boundaries. On the golf course, landscaped areas between the fairways act as swales,
directing surface sheet water runoff into a network of underground pipes and surface-level
drainages. All tributaries, drainages and pipes eventually drain into Redwood Creek.
A perennial man-made pond, located on the southwest side of the project site, was created as an
ornamental water feature for the golf course. As stated in the project description in Section 3 of
this report, this pond is supplied with water from the golf course irrigation system that receives
water from the San Francisco Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct. It is hydrologically isolated from
Redwood Creek.
5.3 Plant Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitats
A complete list of plant species observed on the project site is presented in Table 1.
Nomenclature used for plant names follows The Jepson Manual (Hickman 1993) and changes
made to this manual as published on the Jepson Interchange Project website
(http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange/index.html). Table 2 is a list of wildlife species observed
on the project site. Nomenclature for wildlife follows CDFG’s Complete list of amphibian,
reptile, bird, and mammal species in California (2008) and any changes made to species
nomenclature as published in scientific journals since the publication of CDFG’s list.
5.3.1 GOLF COURSE LANDSCAPING
The Menlo Country Club golf course and surrounding grounds occupy the majority of the project
site and are planted with ornamental trees and turf grass. The golf course supports a diversity of
mature planted trees, including redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), pin oak (Quercus palustris), cork oak (Quercus suber),
mayten tree (Maytenus boaria), liquidambar (Liquidambar styraciflua), evergreen ash (Fraxinus
uhdei), Italian cypress (Callitropsis sempervirens), plum (Prunus sp.), and juniper (Juniperus
sp.). The fairways and roughs have been planted with turf grass, including annual bluegrass (Poa
annua) and creeping bent grass (Agrostis stolonifera). Common weeds also found growing in
these lawn areas include English daisy (Bellis perennis), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon),
Stebbins’ grass (Ehrharta erecta), and Dallis grass (Paspalum dilatatum).
Ornamental landscapes, and particularly large trees such as those found on the project site, provide
urban adapted species with a food source and nesting opportunities. Wildlife observed in the
7
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
landscaped portions of the project site include fox squirrel (Sciurus niger) and birds such as
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), northern
flicker (Colaptes auratus), western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), California towhee (Pipilo
crissalis), red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis), and Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna).
Lawn areas also provide habitat for American robin (Turdus migratorius), golden-crowned
sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla), white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), and the black
phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), who will “sally” over the lawn in search of insects.
5.3.2 RIPARIAN VEGETATION
On the project site, riparian woodland occurs along the banks of Redwood Creek. The mature,
dense canopy is dominated by coast live oak, with valley oak, and California bay (Umbellularia
californica). Also noted were California buckeye (Aesculus californicus) and red willow (Salix
laevigata). The riparian understory consists primarily of non-native species that are well adapted
to the high levels of disturbance typically occurring in a golf course, and include privet
(Ligustrum lucidum), French broom (Genista monspessulana), Japanese pittosporum
(Pittosporum tobira), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), English ivy (Hedera helix),
German ivy (Delairea odorata), and periwinkle (Vinca major). Some native species also occur
on the creek banks, and include toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), snowberry (Symphoricarpos
sp.), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) and California figwort (Scrophularia
californica).
The riparian woodland mixture of oaks and bays, along with the cover of shrubby understory
vegetation provide wildlife with many different food sources, nesting opportunities and cover
from predators. Wildlife observed in the adjacent golf course can also be expected to occur in the
riparian woodland community due to its diverse plant composition, nesting, and foraging
opportunities. Wildlife observed in the riparian woodlands onsite include Columbian black-tailed
deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter
cooperii), belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), Nuttall’s woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), western
scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), chestnut-backed
chickadee (Poecile rufescens), Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), bushtit (Psaltriparus
minimus), cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), and yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica
coronata).
5.3.3 OAK WOODLAND
The hilly northwestern corner of the project site is undeveloped and supports a disturbed oak
woodland habitat. This plant community is likely a remnant of the original hillslope vegetation
prior to its development in the early part of the 20th century; however, it is now surrounded by
residential development and the golf course. The oak woodland on site supports a patchy
overstory of coast live oak with an understory of scrub and grassland. A portion of this oak
woodland habitat is routinely cleared as a part of maintenance of the golf course property. Scrub
areas are dominated by the non-native invasive French broom, along with native shrubs coyote
brush (Baccharis pilularis) and toyon. The grassland understory supports native species
including poison oak, miner’s lettuce (Claytonia perfoliata), gamble weed (Sanicula
crassicaulis), and California honeysuckle (Lonicera hispidula var. vacillans); and non-native
species such as milk thistle (Silybum marianum), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), castor
8
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
bean (Ricinus communis), wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis), yellow star thistle (Centaurea
solstitialis), and Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae).
Oak woodland provides foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of species. Common birds
identified in the oak woodlands include northern flicker, spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus),
Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), oak titmouse, dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), and house
finch (Carpodacus mexicanus).
5.3.4 MAN-MADE POND
A small (approximately 1/4 acre) perennial man-made pond, located on the southwest side of the
project site, was created in uplands as an ornamental golf course hazard at an existing green site.
The pond is 100 percent surrounded by golf course turf and playing area. Ornamental trees
surrounding the pond include weeping willow (Salix babylonica) and mayten tree. A hard edge
on the turf constitutes the pond shoreline. While most of the pond supports “open water habitat,”
and has this hard turf edge, a small area (about 20 by 70 feet) of emergent marsh occurs on the
east side of the pond. This area of marsh is dominated by narrow-leaf cattail (Typha
angustifolia), with soft rush (Juncus effusus var. brunneus), tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis),
and hairy willow-herb (Epilobium ciliatum). Aquatic plants in the pond include water lily
(Nuphar sp.), water plantain (Alisma plantago-aquatica), sago pondweed (Potamogeton
pectinatus), joint paspalum (Paspalum distichum), and mosquito fern (Azolla sp.).
The man-made pond provides a water source for wildlife. This aquatic habitat provides
mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and passerine birds with a drinking source, and waterfowl and
wading birds with foraging habitat. Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) and Sierran tree frog
(Pseudacris regilla) are abundant in the in the pond. Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and ringnecked duck (Aythya collaris) were observed foraging the pond during M&A’s December 2010
and January 2011 site visits. The pond has also been stocked with mosquito fish (Gambusia
affinis).
6. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES DEFINITION
6.1 Definitions
For purposes of this analysis, special-status species are plants and animals that are legally
protected under the California and Federal Endangered Species Acts (CESA and FESA,
respectively) or other regulations, and species that are considered rare by the scientific
community (for example, the CNPS). Special-status species are defined as:

plants and animals that are listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered
under the CESA (Fish and Game Code §2050 et seq.; 14 CCR §670.1 et seq.) or the
FESA (50 CFR 17.12 for plants; 50 CFR 17.11 for animals; various notices in the Federal
Register [FR] for proposed species);

plants and animals that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or
endangered under the FESA (50 CFR 17; FR Vol. 64, No. 205, pages 57533-57547,
October 25, 1999); and under the CESA (California Fish and Game Code §2068);
9
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County

plants and animals that meet the definition of endangered, rare, or threatened under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (14 CCR §15380) that may include
species not found on either State or Federal Endangered Species lists;

Plants occurring on Lists 1A, 1B, 2, 3, and 4 of CNPS’ Electronic Inventory (CNPS
2001). The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) recognizes that Lists 1A,
1B, and 2 of the CNPS inventory contain plants that, in the majority of cases, would
qualify for State listing, and CDFG requests their inclusion in EIRs. Plants occurring on
CNPS Lists 3 and 4 are "plants about which more information is necessary," and "plants
of limited distribution," respectively (CNPS 2001). Such plants may be included as
special-status species on a case by case basis due to local significance or recent biological
information;

migratory nongame birds of management concern listed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern in the United States: The
list 1995; Office of Migratory Bird Management; Washington D.C.; Sept. 1995);

animals that are designated as "species of special concern" by CDFG (2009);

Animal species that are “fully protected” in California (Fish and Game Codes 3511,
4700, 5050, and 5515).
In the paragraphs below we provide further definitions of legal status as they pertain to the
special-status species discussed in this report or in the attached tables.
Federal Endangered or Threatened Species. A species listed as Endangered or Threatened under
the FESA is protected from unauthorized “take” (that is, harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, trap)
of that species. If it is necessary to take a Federal listed Endangered or Threatened species as part
of an otherwise lawful activity, it would be necessary to receive permission from the USFWS
prior to initiating the take.
State Threatened Species. A species listed as Threatened under the state Endangered Species Act
(§2050 of California Fish and Game Code) is protected from unauthorized “take” (that is, harass,
pursue, hunt, shoot, trap) of that species. If it is necessary to “take” a state listed Threatened
species as part of an otherwise lawful activity, it would be necessary to receive permission from
CDFG prior to initiating the “take.”
California Species of Special Concern. These are species in which their California breeding
populations are seriously declining and extirpation from all or a portion of their range is possible.
This designation affords no legally mandated protection; however, pursuant to the CEQA
Guidelines (14 CCR §15380), some species of special concern could be considered “rare.”
Pursuant to its rarity status, any unmitigated impacts to rare species could be considered a
“significant effect on the environment” (§15382). Thus, species of special concern must be
considered in any project that will, or is currently, undergoing CEQA review, and/or that must
obtain an environmental permit(s) from a public agency.
10
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
CNPS List Species. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) maintains an inventory of
special status plant species. This inventory has four lists of plants with varying rarity. These lists
are: List 1, List 2, List 3, and List 4. Although plants on these lists have no formal legal
protection (unless they are also state or federal listed species), the California Department of Fish
and Game requests the inclusion of List 1 species in environmental documents. In addition, other
state and local agencies may request the inclusion of species on other lists as well. List 1 species
have the highest priority: List 1A species are thought to be extinct, and List 1B species are
known to still exist but are considered “rare, threatened, and endangered in California and
elsewhere.” All of the plants constituting List 1B meet the definitions of Section 1901, Chapter
10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Sections 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act)
of the CDFG Code, and are eligible for state listing (CNPS 2001). List 2 species are rare in
California, but more common elsewhere. Lists 3 and 4 contain species about which there is some
concern, and are review and watch lists, respectively. Additionally, in 2006 CNPS updated their
lists to include “threat code extensions” for each list. For example, List 1B species would now be
categorized as List 1B.1, List 1B.2, or List 1B.3. These threat codes are defined as follows: .1 is
considered “seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree
and immediacy of threat)”; .2 is “fairly endangered in California (20-80% of occurrences
threatened)”; .3 is “not very endangered in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened
or no current threats known).”
Under the CEQA review process only CNPS List 1 and 2 species are considered since these are
the only CNPS species that meet CEQA’s definition of “rare” or “endangered.” Impacts to List 3
and 4 species are not regarded as significant pursuant to CEQA.
Fully Protected Birds. Fully protected birds, such as the white-tailed kite and golden eagle, are
protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3511). Fully protected birds may not be “taken”
or possessed (i.e., kept in captivity) at any time.
6.2 Potential Special-Status Plants on the Project Site
After searching CDFG’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2011) for special-status plant
records within five miles of the project site and the CNPS Inventory for a list of special-status
plant species known to occur in the vicinity of the project site, M&A compiled a list of 37
special-status plant species that have potential to occur in the region of the project site. Figure 5
provides a graphical representation of the closest known records of special-status species within
5 miles of the project site and helps readers visually understand the extent of sensitive species
mapping that has occurred in the vicinity of the project site. Table 3 discusses each special-status
plant considered for the project site individually and takes into consideration their habitat
requirements.
Of the 37 plants listed in Table 3, 22 occur in habitats not found on the project site such as
serpentine soils, salt marshes, vernal pools, coastal scrub, and alkaline soils, and thus would not
be expected to occur on the project site. Accordingly, the potential presence of these 22 species
is only addressed in Table 3 and is not further addressed below.
11
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
The majority of the project site is an extensively managed golf course and as such does not
provide suitable habitat for special-status plants. Within the proposed project footprint, the oak
woodland area is routinely cleared as a part of maintenance of the golf course property. The
level of disturbance doesn’t preclude the potential presence of special-status species known from
the area of the project site; however, special-status plant species are more likely to occur in areas
of oak woodland that fall outside of the project footprint where the understory is relatively
undisturbed.
For the remaining 15 plant species, while not expected to occur within the project footprint
owing to high levels of disturbance, formal special-status plant surveys should nonetheless be
conducted to prove absence of these species. Surveys should be conducted in March, May, and
July, to conclusively demonstrate their absence on the project site. The 15 special-status plant
species that would have to be dismissed through surveys are further discussed below.
6.2.1 PALO ALTO THISTLE
Palo Alto thistle (Cirsium praeteriens) is a CNPS List 1A species, indicating that it is presumed
extinct in California. This species has no federal or state listing; however all plants on CNPS List
1A meet the definition of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act), or Sections 2062
and 2067 (CESA) of the CDFG Code, and are thus eligible for state listing. This thistle is known
from only two collections from Palo Alto, collected in 1896 and 1901. Nothing is known about
its habitat; however, this species must be fully considered during preparation of environmental
documents relating to CEQA. Although it is highly unlikely that this species is present on the
project site, its presence cannot be dismissed in the oak woodlands on the project site without
conducting formal surveys. As such, impacts to this plant are considered potentially significant
pursuant to CEQA.
6.2.2 SAN MATEO WOOLLY SUNFLOWER
San Mateo woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum latilobum) is a federal and state listed endangered
species. It is also a CNPS List 1B.1 species. This small shrub is most often found in oak
woodlands in serpentine soils; however, it is also known to occur in non-serpentine soils and on
road cuts. It is only known from San Mateo County and blooms between May and June. As
potentially suitable habitat for this species is present on the project site, its presence cannot be
dismissed without conducting formal surveys. Pursuant to CEQA, impacts to this plant are
considered potentially significant.
6.2.3 MARSH SILVERPUFFS
Marsh silverpuffs (Microseris paludosa) is a CNPS List 1B.2 species. It has no state or federal
status. This plant is found on moist grassy slopes or in open woods and coastal scrub. It flowers
between April and July. The oak woodland’s grassy understory provides suitable habitat for this
species; therefore, the presence of this plant cannot be dismissed without conducting formal
surveys. Pursuant to CEQA, impacts to this plant are considered potentially significant.
6.2.4 SMALL-FLOWERED MONOLOPIA
Small-flowered monolopia (Monolopia gracilens) is a CNPS List 1B.2 species. It has no state or
federal status. This annual plant in the sunflower family is found in serpentine grassland, open
chaparral, and oak and coniferous woodlands. It flowers between March and July. The oak
12
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
woodland understory provides suitable habitat for this species; therefore, the presence of this
plant cannot be dismissed without conducting formal surveys. Pursuant to CEQA, impacts to this
plant are considered potentially significant.
6.2.5 WHITE-RAYED PENTACHAETA
White-rayed pentachaeta (Pentachaeta bellidiflora) is a federal and state listed endangered
species. It is also a CNPS List 1B.1 species. This slender annual in the sunflower family is found
in grassy or rocky areas in woodlands or grassland habitats, often in serpentine soils. It blooms
between March and May. As potentially suitable habitat for this species is present on the project
site, its presence cannot be dismissed without conducting formal surveys. Pursuant to CEQA,
impacts to this plant are considered potentially significant.
6.2.6 BENT-FLOWERED FIDDLENECK
Bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris) is a CNPS List 1B.2 species. It has no state or
federal status. Bent-flowered fiddleneck is found in open woods, coastal bluff scrub, and
grassland habitats where it flowers between March and June. As potentially suitable habitat for
this species is present on the project site, its presence cannot be dismissed without conducting
formal surveys. Pursuant to CEQA, impacts to this plant are considered potentially significant.
6.2.7 ROBUST MONARDELLA
Robust monardella (Monardella villosa ssp. globosa) has no state or federal legal status. It is a
CNPS List 1B.2 species. This plant in the mint family can be found in chaparral openings, oak
woodlands and coastal scrub. It blooms between June and August. As potentially suitable habitat
for this species is present on the project site, its presence cannot be dismissed without conducting
formal surveys. Pursuant to CEQA, impacts to this plant are considered potentially significant.
6.2.8 FRANCISCAN ONION
Franciscan onion (Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum) is on CNPS List 1B.2. It has no state or
federal status. This member of the lily family is found on dry hillsides in woodland and grassland
habitats. It is often found growing on serpentinite. Franciscan onion flowers between May and
June. In 2007, a population of Franciscan onion was identified on a hillside 0.7 mile northwest of
the project site (CNDDB occurrence no. 14). As potentially suitable habitat for this species is
present on the project site, its presence cannot be dismissed without conducting formal surveys.
Pursuant to CEQA, impacts to this plant are considered potentially significant.
6.2.9 HILLSBOROUGH CHOCOLATE LILY
Hillsborough chocolate lily (Fritillaria biflora var. ineziana) is a CNPS List 1B.1 species. It has
no state or federal status. This perennial lily is most likely to be found in serpentine grassland or
oak woodlands; however, it is also known from non-serpentine soils. It flowers between June and
August. As potentially suitable habitat for this species is present on the project site, its presence
cannot be dismissed without conducting formal surveys. Pursuant to CEQA, impacts to this plant
are considered potentially significant.
6.2.10 ARCUATE BUSH MALLOW
Arcuate bush mallow (Malacothamnus arcuatus) is a CNPS List 1B.2 species. It has no state or
federal status. This shrub in the mallow family is found in chaparral and oak woodlands. It
13
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
flowers between April and September. As potentially suitable habitat for this species is present
on the project site, its presence cannot be dismissed without conducting formal surveys. Pursuant
to CEQA, impacts to this plant are considered potentially significant.
6.2.11 DAVIDSON’S BUSH MALLOW
Davidson’s bush mallow (Malacothamnus davidsonii) is a CNPS List 1B.2 species. It has no
state or federal status. This shrub in the mallow family is found on slopes and in washes in
chaparral, coastal scrub, oak woodlands and riparian woodlands. It flowers between June and
January. As potentially suitable habitat for this species is present on the project site, its presence
cannot be dismissed without conducting formal surveys. Pursuant to CEQA, impacts to this plant
are considered potentially significant.
6.2.12 DUDLEY’S LOUSEWORT
Dudley’s lousewort (Pedicularis dudleyi) is a CNPS List 1B.2 species. It is also a California
“rare” species. This perennial plant is found in coastal chaparral, grasslands, oak woodlands and
coniferous forest. It blooms between April and June. As potentially suitable habitat for this
species is present on the project site, its presence cannot be dismissed without conducting formal
surveys. Pursuant to CEQA, impacts to this plant are considered potentially significant.
6.2.13 SAN FRANCISCO COLLINSIA
San Francisco collinsia (Collinsia multicolor) is a CNPS List 1B.2 species. It has no federal or
state status. This annual plant is found in moist, more or less shady scrub and forests, sometimes
in serpentine soils. It blooms between March and May. As potentially suitable habitat for this
species is present on the project site, its presence cannot be dismissed without conducting formal
surveys. Pursuant to CEQA, impacts to this plant are considered potentially significant.
6.2.14 SLENDER LEAVED PONDWEED
Slender-leaved pondweed (Stuckenia filiformis) is a CNPS List 2.2 species. It has no federal or
state status. This aquatic plant is found in shallow, clear freshwater ponds and streams. It blooms
between May and July. As potentially suitable habitat for this species is present in the man-made
pond on the project site, its presence cannot be dismissed without conducting formal surveys.
Pursuant to CEQA, impacts to this plant are considered potentially significant.
6.2.15 WESTERN LEATHERWOOD
Western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis) is a CNPS List 1B.2 species. It has no federal or state
status. This deciduous shrub can be found on moist slopes in chaparral, oak woodlands, riparian
woodlands, coniferous forests and broad-leafed upland forest. It blooms between January and
April. As potentially suitable habitat for this species is present on the project site, its presence
cannot be dismissed without conducting formal surveys. Pursuant to CEQA, impacts to this plant
are considered potentially significant.
6.3 Potential Special-Status Animals in the Project Site
Figure 5 provides a graphical illustration of the closest known records for special-status species
within 5 miles of the project site and helps readers visually understand the number of sensitive
species that occur in the vicinity of the project site. A total of 23 special-status animal species are
14
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
known to occur in the region of the project site (Table 4). Because of the sensitivity of thirteen
(13) of the listed special-status animal species known to occur in the area, we further discuss
them below. These include California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, western pond
turtle, San Francisco garter snake, hoary bat, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, sharp-shinned
hawk, Cooper’s hawk, red-shouldered hawk, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, western screech
owl, and great horned owl.
6.3.1 CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER
The California tiger salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense) has different state and federal
legal protections. The Santa Barbara Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the CTS was
federally listed as endangered on January 19, 2000. The Sonoma County DPS of the CTS was
federally listed as endangered on July 22, 2002. Finally, the Central California DPS of the CTS
was federally listed as threatened on August 4, 2004. The project site falls outside of the range of
the Central California DPS. The USFWS designated critical habitat for the Central California
population (DPS) in the summer of 2004. The proposed project site is not located in USFWS
designated critical habitat for CTS. The closest USFWS designated critical habitat area for
California tiger salamander is Critical Habitat Unit EB-3 designated in Santa Clara County (East
Bay Region Unit 3, Map 18) (USFWS 2005) which is located approximately 23 miles east of the
project site (Figure 6). On March 4, 2010, the CTS was also state listed as a threatened species
under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). This designation covers the entire range
of the species. Prior to impacting CESA protected species, a CESA Section 2081 permit is
required or a consistency determination with a federal incidental take permit must be made by
CDFG pursuant to Section 2080.1 of the CESA.
CTS occur in grasslands and open oak woodlands that provide suitable aestivation and/or
breeding habitats. CTS spend the majority of their lives underground. They typically only
emerge from their subterranean refugia for a few nights each year during the rainy season to
migrate to breeding ponds. Unobstructed migration corridors are an important component of
CTS habitat. While adult CTS have been observed up to 1.3 miles from a breeding site (Final
Listing Rule, 69 FR 47212.47216 (citing S. Sweet, University of California, Santa Barbara, in
litt. 1998), it appears that the vast majority remain within 0.7 mile of a breeding pond (Final
Listing Rule, 69 FR 47212; Final Rule Designating Critical Habitat for the California Tiger
Salamander, Central Population, 70 FR 39379).
CTS emerge during the first heavy, warm rains of the year, typically in late November and early
December. In most instances, larger movements of CTS do not occur unless it has been raining
hard and continuously for several hours. Typically, for larger movements of CTS to occur,
nighttime temperatures also must be above 48° F. Other factors that encourage larger movements
of CTS to their breeding ponds include flooding of refugia. CTS are able to move over, through,
or around almost all obstacles. Significant obstructions that block CTS movements include
freeways and other major (heavy traffic) roads, rivers, and deep, vertical-sided, concrete
irrigation/flood control ditches.
During the spring, summer, and fall months, most known populations of the CTS predominately
use California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beechyi) burrows as aestivation habitat (G.
Monk personal observation). Other secondary subterranean refugia, or primary refugia where
15
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
California ground squirrels are absent, likely include Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae)
burrows, deep fissures in desiccated clay soils, and debris piles (e.g. downed wood, rock piles).
Stock ponds, seasonal wetlands, and deep vernal pools typically provide most of the breeding
habitat used by CTS. In such locations, CTS attach their eggs to rooted, emergent vegetation, and
other stable filamentous objects in the water column. Eggs are gelatinous and are laid singly or
occasionally in small clusters. Eggs range in size from about ¾ the diameter of a dime to the full
diameter of a dime. Occasionally CTS are found breeding in slow moving, streams or ditches.
Ditches and/or streams that are subject to rapid flows, even if only on occasion, typically will not
support or sustain CTS egg attachment through hatching, and thus, are not usually used
successfully by CTS for breeding. Similarly, streams and/or ditches that support predators of
CTS or their eggs and larvae such as fish, bullfrogs, red swamp crayfish, or signal crayfish,
almost never constitute suitable breeding habitat.
In most of the northern range of the CTS, seasonal wetlands that are used for breeding typically
must hold water into the month of May to allow enough time for larvae to fully metamorphose.
In dry years, seasonal wetlands may dry too early to allow enough time for CTS larvae to
successfully metamorphose. Under such circumstances, desiccated CTS larvae can be found in
dried pools. In addition, as pools dry down to very small areas of inundation, CTS larvae become
concentrated and are very susceptible to predation. In the past, G. Monk has observed predation
in drying pools by red-sided garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis infernalis), ducks (various spp.),
wild pigs (Sus scrofa), and raccoons (Procyon lotor). However, in years exhibiting wet springs,
these same pools can remain inundated long enough through continual rewetting to allow CTS
larvae ample time to successfully metamorphose.
The closest occurrence of CTS is located approximately 1.5 miles west of the project site
(Occurrence No. 545). This 1962 record is located in low density residential area and is
considered likely to be extirpated. A second CTS record, located approximately 2.7 miles to the
south of the project site (Occurrence No. 77), is from 1938 and is also considered extirpated. The
project site does not provide suitable habitat for CTS, due to the lack of grassland habitat and
California ground squirrel burrows. Accordingly, M&A does not believe CTS breed or oversummer on the project site. Due to an absence of viable records for CTS within 5 miles of the
project site and the lack of suitable habitat on the project site, M&A concludes that this species is
not present on the project site and accordingly would not be impacted by the proposed project.
6.3.2 CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG
The California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) was federally listed as threatened on May 23,
1996 (Federal Register 61: 25813-25833) and as such is protected pursuant to the Federal
Endangered Species Act. Critical habitat for this species was designated by USFWS on March
13, 2001 (Federal Register 66: 14625-14674); however, on November 6, 2002 a court decision
removed many of the critical habitat units that had been designated for the frog. The USFWS
Final Rule on designated critical habitat for the California red-legged frog was issued on April
13, 2006 (Federal Register 71:19243-19345). This rule became effective May 15, 2006. On
September 16, 2008, the USFWS proposed to revise critical habitat for the California red-legged
frog (USFWS 2008). On April 28, 2009, the USFWS re-opened the comment period on the
Proposed Rule on the revised designation of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog
16
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
(Federal Register 74:19184-19192). On March 16, 2010, the USFWS issued the final designation
for California red-legged frog Critical Habitat (USFWS 2010). The closest USFWS designated
critical habitat area for California red-legged frog is Critical Habitat Unit SNM-1 designated in
San Mateo County (USFWS 2010) which is located approximately 3.3 miles northwest of the
project site (Figure 6). The California red-legged frog is also a state “species of special concern.”
The California red-legged frog is typically found in ponds, slow-flowing portions of ephemeral,
perennial, and in intermittent streams that maintain water in the summer months. This frog is
also found in hillside seeps that maintain pool environments or saturated soils throughout the
summer months. Populations probably cannot be maintained if all surface water disappears (i.e.,
no available surface water for egg laying and larval development habitat). Larval California redlegged frogs require 11-20 weeks of permanent water to reach metamorphosis (i.e., to change
from a tadpole into a frog), in water depths of 10 to 20 inches (USFWS 2002). Riparian
vegetation such as willows and emergent vegetation such as cattails are preferred red-legged frog
habitats, though not necessary for this species to be present. Populations of California red-legged
frog will be reduced in size or eliminated from ponds supporting non-native species such as
bullfrog, Centrarchid fish species (such as sunfish, bluegill, or large-mouth bass), and signal and
red swamp crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus and Procambarus clarkii, respectively), all of
which are known California red-legged frog predators. However, the presence of these nonnative species does not preclude the presence of the California red-legged frog.
California red-legged frogs also use upland habitats for migration and dispersal. The USFWS
Recovery Plan for the California Red-Legged Frog states that frog overland excursions via
uplands can vary between 0.25 mile up to 3 miles during the course of a wet season, and that
frogs “have been observed to make long-distance movements that are straight-line, point to point
migrations rather than using corridors for moving in between habitats” (USFWS 2002). The
USFWS Recovery Plan for the California Red-Legged Frog states that populations are “most
likely to persist where multiple breeding areas are embedded within a matrix of habitats used for
dispersal.” “The primary constituent elements for California red-legged frogs are aquatic and
upland areas where suitable breeding and non-breeding habitat is interspersed throughout the
landscape and is interconnected by unfragmented dispersal habitat” (USFWS 2002).
The closest known record for California red-legged frog is located 1.1 mile south of the project
site (Occurrence No. 242). This California red-legged frog occurrence was reported in 1998 from
a spring-fed pond and intermittent stream west of I-280. The project site is east of I-280. The
record location is in a different watershed than the watershed associated with project site. Also,
the intervening habitat between the project site and the record location consists of moderate
density residential housing, and Highway 84, a major thoroughfare and geographic barrier to
overland California red-legged frog movements. Neither is suitable habitat for California redlegged frogs and thus would constitute a significant barrier to overland migration from record
locations to the project site. As such, California red-legged frogs in the spring-fed pond and
associated ephemeral stream associated with this occurrence would not likely ever migrate to
Redwood Creek on the project site.
M&A also directly investigated the potential presence of the California red-legged frog on the
project site. Redwood Creek is densely shaded by riparian vegetation and therefore does not
17
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
provide likely habitat that would be used by the California red-legged frog. Regardless, diurnal
California red-legged frog surveys were completed by Mr. Geoff Monk and Ms. Isabelle de
Geofroy in Redwood Creek on December 22, 2010, and January 17, 2011. In addition, Mr. Monk
and Ms. Sadie McGarvey conducted two diurnal and two nocturnal surveys for California redlegged frog in Redwood Creek and the man-made pond on the project site on January 31 and
February 23, 2010. As the site is a managed golf course in an otherwise urban setting, and there
was little expectation that the California red-legged frog would occur in this setting, the level of
survey for this special-status frog species meets the standards of care required by the CEQA to
address potential impacts to California red-legged frogs. Mr. Monk carries a 10(A)(1)(a) permit
issued by the USFWS that allows him to work with this frog species, and has extensive
experience capturing and handling both larvae and adult California red-legged frogs.
No California red-legged frog egg masses and no red-legged frog larvae, sub-adults, or adults
were observed during the surveys on the project site. During all surveys, bullfrogs were
identified in the pond and are abundant on the project site. Bullfrogs were scarce in most of
Redwood Creek and likely the few that were observed were migrating or moving frogs. This
creek is too shaded over much of its reach on the golf course to support bullfrogs and/or
California red-legged frogs. Based on the negative survey findings for this species and the lack
of connectivity between the project site and the closest occurrence of California red-legged frog,
it is M&A’s conclusion that California red-legged frogs are not present on or adjacent to the
project site. M&A therefore concludes that the proposed project would not impact this frog
species.
6.3.3 WESTERN POND TURTLE
Western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) is a state “species of special concern”. The western
pond turtle is a habitat generalist, inhabiting a wide range of fresh and brackish, permanent and
intermittent water bodies from sea level to about 4,500 feet above sea level (USFWS 1992).
Typically, this species is found in ponds, marshes, ditches, streams, and rivers that have rocky or
muddy bottoms. This turtle is most often found in aquatic environments with plant communities
dominated by watercress, cattail, and other aquatic vegetation. It is a truly aquatic turtle that
usually only leaves the aquatic site to reproduce and to overwinter. Field work has demonstrated
that western pond turtles may overwinter on land or in water, or may remain active in water
during the winter season; this pattern may vary considerably with latitude, water temperature,
and habitat type and remains poorly understood (Jennings and Hayes 1994).
The pond turtle also requires upland areas where it digs nests and buries its eggs. These nests can
extend from 52 feet to 1,219 feet from watercourses (Jennings et al. 1992), however most pond
turtles nest in uplands within 250 meters of water (Bury, unpublished). Upland nest sites are
usually found in areas with sparse vegetation. Sunny, barren, and undisturbed (not disked) land
provides optimal habitat, while shady riparian habitat and planted agricultural fields do not
provide suitable habitat (op. cit.). Eggs are typically laid from March to August (Zeiner et. al.
1988), with most eggs being laid in May and June. Hatchlings will stay in the nest until the
following April (Bury, unpublished). Predators of juvenile pond turtles include the non-native
bullfrog and Centrarchid fish (sunfish). This turtle is most visible between April and July when it
can be observed basking in the sun. In areas where the water is very warm during these months,
18
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
however, it will bask in the warm water and will be more difficult to observe. It eats plants,
insects, worms, fish and carrion (Stebbins 2003).
The closest western pond turtle record is located 2.1 miles south of the project site, in San
Francisquito Creek (CNDDB Occurrence No. 242). San Francisquito Creek is not hydrologically
connected to Redwood Creek. It is unlikely that Pacific pond turtles occur on the project site, as
there are no suitable pool or basking habitats in the reach of Redwood Creek within the project
site. M&A conducted surveys for western pond turtles in Redwood Creek during the surveys for
California red-legged frogs and no western pond turtles were observed. Consequently, M&A
does not believe that western pond turtles occur within the project site and concludes that no
impacts would occur to this species from implementation of the proposed project.
6.3.4 SAN FRANCISCO GARTER SNAKE
The San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) is a federal and state listed
endangered species. This is a slender, colorful snake in the Colubridae family, which includes
most of the species of snakes found in the western United States. This subspecies has a burnt
orange head, greenish-yellow dorsal stripe edged in black, bordered by a red stripe, which may
be continuous or broken with black blotches, and then a black stripe. The belly color varies from
greenish-blue to blue. Large adults can reach 3 feet or more in length. The snakes are extremely
shy, difficult to locate and capture, and quick to flee to water or cover when disturbed.
The snakes' preferred habitat is a densely vegetated pond near an open hillside where they can
sun themselves, feed, and find cover in rodent burrows; however, considerably less ideal habitats
can be successfully occupied. Temporary ponds and other seasonal freshwater bodies are also
used. The snakes avoid brackish marsh areas because their preferred prey, the California redlegged frog, cannot survive in saline water. Emergent and bankside vegetation such as cattails
(Typha spp.), bulrushes (Scirpus spp.) and spike rushes (Juncus spp. and Eleocharis spp.)
apparently are preferred and used for cover. The area between stream and pond habitats and
grasslands or bank sides is used for basking, while nearby dense vegetation or water often
provide escape cover. Snakes also use floating algal or rush mats, if available.
Adult snakes sometimes estivate (enter a dormant state) in rodent burrows during summer
months when ponds dry. On the coast, snakes hibernate during the winter, but further inland, if
the weather is suitable, snakes may be active year-round. Recent studies have documented San
Francisco garter snake movement over several hundred yards away from wetlands to hibernate in
upland small mammal burrows. Although primarily active during the day, captive snakes housed
in an outside enclosure were observed foraging after dark on warm evenings.
San Francisco garter snakes forage extensively in aquatic habitats. Adult snakes feed primarily
on California red-legged frogs. They may also feed on juvenile bullfrogs, but they are unable to
feed on the larger adults. Adult bullfrogs likely prey on smaller San Francisco garter snakes, and
may be a contributing factor in their decline. Newborn and juvenile San Francisco garter snakes
depend heavily upon Sierran tree frogs as prey. If newly metamorphosed Sierran tree frogs are
not available, the young may not survive. San Francisco garter snakes are one of the few animals
able to eat the toxic California newt (Taricha torosa) without suffering serious side effects.
19
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
Historically, San Francisco garter snakes occurred in scattered wetland areas on the San
Francisco Peninsula from approximately the San Francisco County line south along the eastern
and western bases of the Santa Cruz Mountains, at least to the Upper Crystal Springs Reservoir,
and along the coast south to Año Nuevo Point, San Mateo County, and Waddell Creek, Santa
Cruz County. Currently, although the geographical distribution may remain the same, reliable
information regarding specific locations and population status is not available. However, it is
known that many locations that previously had healthy populations of garter snakes are now in
decline due to loss of habitat from agricultural, commercial and urban development, collection
by reptile fanciers and breeders, the decline of the California red-legged frog (an essential prey
species), and the introduction of bullfrogs into San Francisco garter snake habitat.
A San Francisco garter snake record is located within 10 miles of the project site (CNDDB
Occurrence No. 22). The exact location of this record has not been disclosed by the CNDDB due
to the sensitive nature of the species. The project site does not provide suitable habitat for the
San Francisco garter snake. The emergent marsh vegetation in the ornamental pond is not dense
or extensive enough to support this species. Redwood Creek runs clear, has little emergent
vegetation, and is mostly too shady to support this garter snake. In addition, the golf course is a
manicured setting that provides few safe areas for basking and there are no rodent burrows that
could otherwise provide over-summering habitats. Consequently, M&A does not believe that the
San Francisco garter snake occurs on the project site and concludes that no impacts would occur
to this species from implementation of the proposed project.
6.3.5 HOARY BAT
The hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) is the most widespread North American bat. While it is
afforded no protection under the California Endangered Species Act or the Federal Endangered
Species Act, it is designated as a species of special concern by the CDFG. This designation
affords no legally mandated protection; however, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR
§15380), some species of special concern could be considered “rare.” Pursuant to its rarity status,
any unmitigated impacts to rare species could be considered a “significant effect on the
environment” (§15382). Thus, species of special concern must be considered in any project that
will, or is currently, undergoing CEQA review, and/or that must obtain an environmental
permit(s) from a public agency.
The hoary bat may be found at any location in California, although distribution is patchy in the
southeastern deserts. This common, solitary species winters along the coast and in southern
California, breeding inland and north of its winter range. This bat is nocturnal emerging late in
the evening. Peak activity varies with season and location, but usually is typically 3 to 5 hours
after sunset. Individuals wintering in cold climates hibernate, but may be active on warm winter
days. The hoary bat tolerates a wide range of air temperatures, and has been found foraging at
temperatures of 0-22° C (32-72° F). This bat requires water as it has relatively poor urineconcentrating abilities (Geluso 1978). The hoary bat prefers roost sites with dense foliage
consisting of medium to large trees. Preferred sites are hidden from above, with few branches
below, and have ground cover of low reflectivity.
Numerous studies have shown that the hoary bat feeds primarily on moths, although various
flying insects are taken (Black 1974, Whitaker et al. 1977, 1981). Copulation occurs in autumn,
20
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
in migration or on the wintering grounds. Mating is followed by delayed fertilization. The young
are born from mid-May through early July. From 1-4 young may be born, but most litters have 2.
Females bear young while roosting in trees. Females and young tend to roost at higher sites in
trees. Females may leave the young in the roosting site while foraging. The offspring are capable
of flight after 33 days. This bat migrates between summer and winter ranges, probably over long
distances. During spring and fall, large groups are encountered, occasionally in unusual
locations. Females precede males in the northward spring migration, which occurs from
February-May. Fall migration occurs from September-November.
A 1991 record for hoary bat is located approximately 0.2 mile southwest of the project site
(Occurrence No. 121). Most trees on the project site are well maintained or otherwise pruned or
removed when decadent. Many if not most oak trees on the project site are relatively small and
without cavities and other prime hibernacula or nursing sites. This bat species has a low
likelihood of occurring in the trees on the project site. Regardless, as there is a chance this bat
species could roost on the project site, impacts to this species are regarded as potentially
significant pursuant to the CEQA. Mitigation measures are prescribed below that would reduce
impacts to less than significant.
6.3.6 SAN FRANCISCO DUSKY-FOOTED WOODRAT
The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) is a state species of
special concern. It is one of 11 subspecies that live in California. They are medium-sized rodents,
with a body around 7 inches long, nose to rump, and a furred tail. They live in a variety of
brushy and forested habitats, with a moderate canopy and moderate to dense understory.
Woodrats build mounded stick lodges that may range in size from 3 to 8 feet across at the base
and as much as 6 feet tall, and they tend to live in colonies of 3 to 15 or more lodges. Each house
is occupied by a single adult; adult females share the nest with their litters for a few months until
the young disperse to nearby nests. Adult female woodrats live in the same nest until they die,
when the nest is taken over by one of the female offspring. In this manner nests may be occupied
and maintained by the same family for decades. Individual lodges may persist for 20 to 30 years.
A record for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat occurs approximately 3.8 miles southeast of
the project site (Occurrence No. 9). Woodrat lodges/nests have been identified in the oak
woodland understory on the project site. In the area where the oak woodland understory has
been cleared and managed as part of an out-of-play area within the golf course, approximately 18
existing nests have been preserved by golf course personnel. Part of this woodland area is
proposed to be Hole #12. Woodrat nests are also abundant in the remaining undisturbed oak
woodland understory. Woodrat nests would be disturbed by the proposed golf course project.
Therefore, impacts to the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat are regarded as significant.
Mitigation measures are prescribed below that would reduce impacts to less than significant
pursuant to the CEQA.
6.3.7 COOPER’S HAWK
The Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperi) is protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(50 CFR 10.13). Its nest, eggs, and young are also protected under California Fish and Game
Code (§3503, §3503.5, §3800, and §3513). While no longer on the State’s list of “species of
21
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
special concern,” this raptor is on the State’s “watch list.” The watch list does not afford this
raptor any legal protection.
The Cooper's hawk is a yearlong resident that typically nests in heavily wooded areas along
streams, rivers, or in close proximity to springs or seeps. There are also migratory Cooper’s hawks
that can be found locally in the fall and winter months. The Cooper’s hawk prefers to nest in tall
canopies with an open understory, usually near openings. Cooper's hawks construct nests near the
trunk of large trees. Nests are constructed of sticks, and may be reused in subsequent years. In the
region of the project site, Cooper's hawks nest from April through July. Peak nesting months occur
in May and June. Prey consists primarily of avian species and to a lesser extent mammalian
species. Prey is usually captured in flight.
A Cooper’s hawk was observed foraging in the riparian vegetation along Redwood Creek on the
project site during M&A’s January 17, 2010 site visit. The coast live oak and valley oak trees
along Redwood Creek on the project site provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. The golf
course provides suitable habitat for the Cooper's hawk to hunt small bird species. Thus, the
project site provides suitable habitat for resident Cooper’s hawks. Thus, impacts to nesting
Cooper's hawks from the proposed project are considered potentially significant pursuant to
CEQA. Preconstruction nesting surveys should be conducted before tree removal or earth-moving
activities commence on the project site if these activities would occur between February 1st and
September 1st. If nesting Cooper's hawks are found on or adjacent to the project site, a protective
buffer should be established around the nest until the young have fledged and are flying well
enough to avoid project construction zones. Once nesting is complete, the nest tree typically can be
removed without further consideration for this raptor species (see the Impacts and Mitigation
Measures section below).
6.3.8 SHARP-SHINNED HAWK
The sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) is protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (50 CFR 10.13). Its nest, eggs, and young are also protected under California Fish and Game
Code (§3503, §3503.5, §3800, and §3513). While no longer on the State’s list of “species of
special concern,” this raptor is on the State’s “watch list.” The watch list does not afford this
raptor any special legal protection.
The sharp-shinned hawk typically nests in heavily wooded areas, near open habitats, sometimes
near streams, rivers, or in proximity to spring or seeps. Sharp-shinned hawks are usually found
nesting in more densely wooded areas than Cooper's hawks. This species nests in thick tree
canopies often with shrubby understories. Nests are constructed of sticks and are typically built
near a major branch of the nesting tree.
The coast live oak and valley oak trees along the drainages on the project site provide suitable
nesting habitat for this species. The golf course provides suitable habitat for sharp-shinned hawks
to hunt small birds. Thus, the project site provides suitable habitat for resident sharp-shinned
hawks. Until nesting surveys are conducted that confirm or negate this species’ presence on the
project site, impacts to nesting sharp-shinned hawks from the proposed project are considered
potentially significant pursuant to CEQA. Preconstruction nesting surveys should be conducted
before tree removal or earth-moving activities commence on the project site if these activities
22
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
would occur between February 1st and September 1st. If nesting sharp-shinned hawks are found on
or adjacent to the project site, a protective buffer should be established until the young have
fledged and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones. Once nesting is complete,
the nest tree typically can be removed without further consideration for this raptor species (see the
Impacts and Mitigation Measures section below).
6.3.9 RED-SHOULDERED HAWK
Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR
10.13) and under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3800, and 3513 which
protect nesting raptors and their eggs/young. This medium-sized raptor prefers the largest trees in
a particular area for nest construction. Blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) trees have
become favorite nesting trees for this species in California. A stick nest is constructed and usually
two to four eggs are laid in the spring. Incubation lasts about 27 days. Usually two or three nests
are built over a several year period by a nesting pair and then are reused year after year. Prey
consists of reptiles and small rodents.
The project site’s large trees, including pines, coast live oaks, and valley oaks, all provide suitable
nesting habitat for red-shouldered hawks. The golf course also provides suitable foraging habitat
for this species. Hence, until nesting surveys are conducted that confirm or negate that this
species is nesting on or near the project site, impacts to nesting red-shouldered hawks from the
proposed project are considered potentially significant pursuant to CEQA. Preconstruction
nesting surveys should be conducted before tree removal or earth-moving activities commence on
the project site if these activities would occur between February 1st and September 1st. If nesting
red-shouldered hawks are found on or adjacent to the project site, a protective buffer should be
established until the young have fledged and are flying well enough to avoid project construction
zones. Once nesting is complete, the nest tree typically can be removed without further
consideration for this raptor species (see the Impacts and Mitigation Measures section below).
6.3.10 RED-TAILED HAWK
The red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50
CFR 10.13) and under California Fish and Game Code §3503.5, 3800, and 3513 which protect
nesting raptors and their eggs/young. This raptor species has an extremely wide tolerance for
habitat variation, which can be attributed to its very broad spectrum of prey (Johnsgard 1990).
Some clear habitat preferences do exist, however, and have been analyzed by a variety of studies.
Habitat preferences in the winter for both sexes are oriented toward upland pasture, grassland,
and hardwood habitats, with females also using lowland hardwoods and males using marsh–
shrub communities. In the spring, females continue to use mainly upland and lowland
hardwoods, probably as a reflection of their orientation toward a nest site. M&A has observed
red-tailed hawks nesting in a variety of tree species including eucalyptus, coast live oak, and
valley oak trees.
The project site’s large trees, including pines, coast live oaks and valley oaks, all provide suitable
nesting habitat for red-tailed hawks. The golf course provides suitable foraging habitat. Hence,
until nesting surveys are conducted that confirm or negate that this species is nesting on or near
the project site, impacts to nesting red-tailed hawks from the proposed project are considered
23
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
potentially significant pursuant to CEQA. Preconstruction nesting surveys should be conducted
before tree removal or earth-moving activities commence on the project site if these activities
would occur between February 1st and September 1st. If nesting red-tailed hawks are found on or
adjacent to the project site, a protective buffer should be established until the young have fledged
and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones. Once nesting is complete, the nest
tree typically can be removed without further consideration for this raptor species (see the Impacts
and Mitigation Measures section below).
6.3.11 AMERICAN KESTREL
The American kestrel (Falco sparverius) is protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(50 CFR 10.13) and under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3800, and
3513 which protect nesting raptors and their eggs/young. The American kestrel breeds throughout
the United States and Canada. This species is most adaptable and breeds in a wide diversity of
habitats. Near woodlands or woodland savannahs the American kestrel can be found breeding in
tree hollows, or in woodpecker hollows excavated in telephone poles. Near rocky areas this species
can be found nesting in cavities on cliff faces. Usually a relatively early nester, this species will
begin laying eggs in February or March. Typically up to five eggs are laid and up to five young
fledge. Incubation lasts about 30 days. Peak nesting months include February through June. Diet
consists of insects, small rodents and reptiles.
The project site’s large trees, especially the larger valley oaks, may contain cavities that could be
used for nesting by the American kestrel, although M&A did not see any suitable nesting cavities
during surveys of the project site. The golf course provides suitable foraging habitat for the
American kestrel. Hence, until nesting surveys are conducted that confirm or negate this species’
presence on the project site, impacts to nesting American kestrels from the proposed project are
considered potentially significant pursuant to CEQA. Preconstruction nesting surveys should be
conducted before tree removal or earth-moving activities commence on the project site if these
activities would occur between February 1st and September 1st. If nesting American kestrels are
found on or adjacent to the project site, a protective buffer should be established until the young
have fledged and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones. Once nesting is
complete, the nest tree typically can be removed without further consideration for this raptor
species (see the Impacts and Mitigation Measures section below).
6.3.12 WESTERN SCREECH OWL
Western screech owl (Otus kennicottii) is protected under California Fish and Game Code
Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3800 that protect nesting raptors, their eggs, and young. This owl is also
protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13). The western screech owl
is fairly common in the San Francisco Bay Area in oak woodland and in mixed oak and Douglas
fir forests. Western screech-owls are secondary cavity nesters, most often using abandoned
cavities of woodpeckers.
The project site’s large trees, especially the larger valley oaks, may contain cavities that could be
used for nesting by the western screech owl, although M&A did not see any suitable nesting
cavities during surveys of the project site. The golf course provides suitable foraging habitat for
the western screech owl. Hence, until nesting surveys are conducted that confirm or negate this
24
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
species’ presence on the project site, impacts to nesting western screech owl from the proposed
project are considered potentially significant pursuant to CEQA. Preconstruction nesting surveys
should be conducted before tree removal or earth-moving activities commence on the project site
if these activities would occur between February 1st and September 1st. If nesting western screech
owls are found on or adjacent to the project site, a protective buffer should be established until
the young have fledged and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones. Once
nesting is complete, the nest tree typically can be removed without further consideration for this
owl species (see the Impacts and Mitigation Measures section below).
6.3.13 GREAT HORNED OWL
The great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50
CFR 10.13) and under California Fish and Game Code §3503.5, 3800, and 3513 which protect
nesting raptors and their eggs/young. Great horned owls are found throughout much of North
America. This species lives and reproduces in a diversity of habitats including, forest, grassland,
high and low desert, and just about all variations of these habitats. Great horned owls nest
relatively early compared with other large raptor species and usually usurp nests of other raptors.
Nests that are selected for use by great horned owls may be a previous year’s nest or may be under
construction by another raptor species when taken. Stick nests and cavity nests (cavities in trees
and cliffs) are the most common nests acquired by this species. Occasionally these owls are found
nesting on the ground in large cavities or hollow logs. Typically, one to three eggs are laid, and
one or two young fledge. Peak nesting months include February through July. Great horned owls
are versatile predators and capture and consume just about any small mammal or bird in the
locality. Typically, great horned owls will capture small rodents, small carnivores, rabbits, ducks,
pheasants, and anything else in this size range.
The project site’s large trees, including pines, coast live oaks and valley oaks, all provide suitable
nesting habitat for great horned owls. The golf course provides suitable foraging habitat. Hence,
until nesting surveys are conducted that confirm or negate that this species is nesting on or near
the project site, impacts to nesting great horned owls from the proposed project are considered
potentially significant pursuant to CEQA. Preconstruction nesting surveys should be conducted
before tree removal or earth-moving activities commence on the project site if these activities
would occur between February 1st and September 1st. If nesting great horned owls are found on or
adjacent to the project site, a protective buffer should be established until the young have fledged
and are flying well enough to avoid project construction zones. Once nesting is complete, the nest
tree typically can be removed without further consideration for this owl species (see the Impacts
and Mitigation Measures section below).
7. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR NATIVE WILDLIFE, FISH, AND PLANTS
This section provides a discussion of those laws and regulations that are in place to protect native
wildlife, fish, and plants. Under each law we discuss their pertinence to the proposed
development.
25
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
7.1 Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) forms the basis for the federal protection of
threatened or endangered plants, insects, fish and wildlife. FESA contains four main elements,
they are as follows:
Section 4 (16 USCA §1533): Species listing, Critical Habitat Designation, and Recovery
Planning: outlines the procedure for listing endangered plants and wildlife.
Section 7 (§1536): Federal Consultation Requirement: imposes limits on the actions of federal
agencies that might impact listed species.
Section 9 (§1538): Prohibition on Take: prohibits the "taking" of a listed species by anyone,
including private individuals, and State and local agencies.
Section 10: Exceptions to the Take Prohibition: non-federal agencies can obtain an incidental
take permit through approval of a Habitat Conservation Plan.
In the case of salt water fish and other marine organisms, the requirements of FESA are enforced
by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The USFWS enforces all other cases. Below,
Sections 9, 7, and 10 of FESA are discussed since they are the sections most relevant to the
proposed project.
Section 9 of FESA as amended, prohibits the "take" of any fish or wildlife species listed under
FESA as endangered. Under Federal regulation, "take" of fish or wildlife species listed as
threatened is also prohibited unless otherwise specifically authorized by regulation. "Take," as
defined by FESA, means "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” "Harm" includes not only the direct taking
of a species itself, but the destruction or modification of the species' habitat resulting in the
potential injury of the species. As such, "harm" is further defined to mean "an act which actually
kills or injures wildlife; such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation
where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns,
including breeding, feeding or sheltering" (50 CFR 17.3). A December 2001 decision by the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals (Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association, Jeff Menges, vs. the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management, and the Southwest Center for Biological
Diversity) ruled that the USFWS must show that a threatened or endangered species is present on
a project site and that it would be taken by the project activities. According to this ruling, the
USFWS can no longer require mitigation based on the probability that the species could use the
site. Rather they must show that it is actually present.
Section 9 applies to any person, corporation, federal agency, or any local or State agency. If
"take" of a listed species is necessary to complete an otherwise lawful activity, this triggers the
need to obtain a incidental take permit either through a Section 7 Consultation as discussed
further below (for federal actions or private actions that are permitted or funded by a federal
agency), or requires preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) pursuant to Section 10 of
FESA (for state and local agencies, or individuals, and projects without a federal “nexus”).
26
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that each federal agency consult with the USFWS to ensure
that any action authorized, funded or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of an endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat for listed species. Critical habitat designations mean: (1) specific
areas within a geographic region currently occupied by a listed species, on which are found those
physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of a listed species and that
may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a listed species that are determined essential for the conservation
of the species.
The Section 7 consultation process applies only to actions taken by federal agencies, or actions
by private parties that require federal agency permits, approval, or funding (for example, a
private landowner applying to the Corps for a permit). Section 7’s consultation process is
triggered by a determination of the “action agency” — i.e., the federal agency that is carrying
out, funding, or approving a project — that the project “may affect” a listed species or critical
habitat. If an action is likely to adversely affect a listed species or designated critical habitat,
formal consultation with the USFWS is required. As part of the formal consultation, the USFWS
prepares a Biological Opinion assessing whether the proposed action is likely to result in
jeopardy to a listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. If the USFWS finds
“no jeopardy” or adverse modification, it provides an incidental take permit which allows for the
taking of a limited number of listed species or critical habitat.
Federal actions include permitting, funding, and entitlements for both federal projects, as well as
private projects facilitated by federal actions (for example, a private landowner applying to the
Corps for a permit). As an example, if a federally listed endangered species is present in "waters
of the United States" on a project site, prior to authorizing impacts to “waters of the United
States,” the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (who administers the Clean Water Act) would be
required to initiate “formal consultation” with USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of FESA. As part of
the formal consultation, the USFWS would then be required to prepare a Biological Opinion
based on a review and analysis of the project applicant’s avoidance and mitigation plan. The
Biological Opinion will either state that the project will or will not result in “take” or threaten the
continued existence of the species (not just that population). If an endangered species could be
harmed by a proposed project, USFWS has to be in complete concurrence with the proposed
avoidance and mitigation plan. If USFWS is not in complete concurrence with the mitigation
plan, they will submit a Biological Opinion to the Corps containing a “jeopardy decision” and
state that a Corps’ permit should not be issued for the pending project. The applicant would then
have an opportunity to submit a revised mitigation plan that provides greater protection for the
species.
For non-federal entities, Section 10 provides the mechanism for obtaining take authorization.
Under Section 10 of FESA, the applicant for an "incidental take permit" is required to submit a
"conservation plan" to USFWS or NMFS that specifies, among other things, the impacts that are
likely to result from the taking, and the measures the permit applicant will undertake to minimize
and mitigate such impacts, and the funding that will be available to implement those steps.
Conservation plans under FESA have come to be known as "habitat conservation plans" or
27
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
"HCPs" for short. The terms incidental take permit, Section 10 permit, and Section 10(a)(1)(B)
permit are used interchangeably by USFWS. Section 10(a)(2)(B) of FESA provides statutory
criteria that must be satisfied before an incidental take permit can be issued.
7.1.1 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
FESA gives regulatory authority over terrestrial species and non-anadromous fish to the
USFWS. The NMFS has authority over marine mammals and anadromous fish.
7.1.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
There are no federal listed anadromous fish species expected to occur on the project site.
Redwood Creek is channelized downstream of the project site, and apparently has constructed
drop structures that would preclude use of the project site by anadromous fish. The proposed
project will not impact Redwood Creek in any way and thus aquatic habitat associated with this
creek would not be impacted. As such, consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Services
for the proposed project is not warranted.
The project site provides potentially “suitable” habitat conditions for two federally- listed plant
species on the project site (Table 3). These are San Mateo woolly sunflower and white-rayed
pentachaeta. Suitability does not infer presence, only that formal surveys would be required to
dismiss the presence of these species. Accordingly, plant surveys should be conducted prior to
construction during the appropriate period in which these species are most identifiable, in
compliance with all USFWS (1996) published survey guidelines. Given the flowering periods of
the above-listed plant species, rare plant surveys should be conducted in the months of March,
May and July. If a federally listed plant is found on the project site, an “incidental take” permit
should be acquired from the USFWS for any proposed impacts to federally listed plants found
within the project site.
No California red-legged frog egg masses and no red-legged frog larvae, sub-adults, or adults
were observed during four diurnal and two nocturnal surveys for this species in December 2010,
and January and February 2011 on the project site (see section 6.3.2 for details). Based on the
negative survey findings for this species and the lack of both hydrologic and overland
connectivity between the project site and the closest occurrence of California red-legged frog, it
is M&A’s conclusion that California red-legged frogs are not present on or adjacent to the
project site. Thus, impacts are not expected to occur to this species. The project site does not
provide suitable habitat for any other federally listed wildlife species. Accordingly, the proposed
project will not result in significant adverse impacts to animal species protected pursuant to
FESA.
7.2 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712, July 3, 1918, as amended 1936,
1960, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986 and 1989) makes it unlawful to “take” (kill, harm, harass,
shoot, etc.) any migratory bird listed in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section
10.13, including their nests, eggs, or young. Migratory birds include geese, ducks, shorebirds,
raptors, songbirds, wading birds, seabirds, and passerine birds (such as warblers, flycatchers,
swallows, etc.).
28
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
7.2.1 APPLICABILITY TO PROPOSED PROJECT
Sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper’s hawk, red-shouldered hawk, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel,
western screech-owl, and great horned owl could nest on the project site. These raptors (birds of
prey) would be protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Also, the common songbirds and
wading birds that occur on the site would be protected pursuant to this Act. As long as there is no
direct mortality of species protected pursuant to this Act caused by development of the site, there
should be no constraints to development of the site. To comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, all active nest sites would have to be avoided while such birds were nesting. Upon
completion of nesting, the project could commence as otherwise planned. Please review specific
requirements for avoidance of nest sites for potentially occurring species below.
7.3 State Endangered Species Act
7.3.1 SECTION 2081 OF THE STATE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
In 1984, the state legislated the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game
Code §2050). The basic policy of CESA is to conserve and enhance endangered species and their
habitats. State agencies will not approve private or public projects under their jurisdiction that
would jeopardize threatened or endangered species if reasonable and prudent alternatives are
available.
CESA requires that all state lead agencies (as defined under CEQA) conduct an endangered
species consultation with CDFG if their actions could affect a state listed species. The state lead
agency and/or project applicants must provide information to CDFG on the project and its likely
impacts. CDFG must then prepare written findings on whether the proposed action would
jeopardize a listed species, or would result in the direct take of a listed species. Because CESA
does not have a provision for "harm" (see discussion of FESA, above), CDFG considerations
pursuant to CESA are limited to those actions that would result in the direct take of a listed
species.
If CDFG determines that a proposed project could impact a State listed threatened or endangered
species, CDFG will provide recommendations for "reasonable and prudent" project alternatives.
The CEQA lead agency can only approve a project if these alternatives are implemented, unless
it finds that the project's benefits clearly outweigh the costs, reasonable mitigation measures are
adopted, there has been no "irreversible or irretrievable" commitment of resources made in the
interim, and the resulting project would not result in the extinction of the species. In addition, if
there would be impacts to threatened or endangered species, the lead agency typically requires
project applicants to demonstrate that they have acquired "incidental take" permits from CDFG
and/or USFWS (if it is a Federal listed species) prior to allowing/permitting impacts to such
species.
If proposed projects would result in impacts to a State listed species, an "incidental take" permit
pursuant to §2081 of the Fish and Game Code would be necessary (versus a Federal incidental
take permit for Federal listed species). CDFG will issue an incidental take permit only if:
1) The authorized take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity;
2) the impacts of the authorized take are minimized and fully mitigated;
29
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
3) measures required to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the authorized take:
a) are roughly proportional in extent to the impact of the taking on the species;
b) maintain the project applicant’s objectives to the greatest extent possible; and,
c) capable of successful implementation; and,
4) adequate funding is provided to implement the required minimization and mitigation measures
and to monitor compliance with, and the effectiveness of, the measures.
If an applicant is preparing a habitat conservation plan (HCP) as part of the federal 10(a) permit
process, the HCP might be incorporated into the §2081 permit if it meets the substantive criteria
of §2081(b). To ensure that an HCP meets the mitigation and monitoring standards in Section
2081(b), an applicant should involve CDFG staff in development of the HCP. If a final
Biological Opinion (federal action) has been issued for the project pursuant to Section 7 of the
federal Endangered Species Act, it might also be incorporated into the §2081 permit if it meets
the standards of §2081(b).
No §2081 permit may authorize the take of a species for which the Legislature has imposed strict
prohibitions on all forms of “take.” These species are listed in several statutes that identify “fully
protected” species and “specified birds.” See Fish and Game Code §§ 3505, 3511, 4700, 5050,
5515, and 5517. If a project is planned in an area where a “fully protected” species or a
“specified bird” occurs, an applicant must design the project to avoid all take.
In September 1997, Assembly Bill 21 (Fish and Game Code §2080.1) was passed. This bill
allows an applicant who has obtained a “non-jeopardy” federal Biological Opinion pursuant to
Section 7, or who has received a federal 10(a) permit (federal incidental take permit), to submit
the federal opinion or permit to CDFG for a determination as to whether the federal document is
“consistent” with CESA. If after 30 days CDFG determines that the federal incidental take
permit is consistent with state law, and that all state listed species under consideration have been
considered in the federal Biological Opinion, then no further permit or consultation is required
under CESA for the project. However, if CDFG determines that the federal opinion or permit is
not consistent with CESA, or that there are state listed species that were not considered in the
federal Biological Opinion, then the applicant must apply for a state permit under Section
2081(b). The process provided in Fish and Game Code §2080.1 (Assembly Bill 21) may be of
use when the incidental take would occur to species that are listed under both the federal and
state endangered species acts. Assembly Bill 21 is of no use if an affected species is state-listed,
but not federally listed.
State and federal incidental take permits are issued on a discretionary basis, and are typically
only authorized if applicants are able to demonstrate that impacts to the listed species in question
are unavoidable, and can be mitigated to an extent that the reviewing agency can conclude that
the proposed impacts would not jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species under
review. Typically, if there would be impacts to a listed species, mitigation that includes habitat
avoidance, preservation, and creation of endangered species habitat is necessary to demonstrate
that projects would not threaten the continued existence of a species. In addition, management
endowment fees are usually collected as part of the agreement for the incidental take permit(s).
The endowment is used to manage any lands set-aside to protect listed species, and for biological
mitigation monitoring of these lands over (typically) a five-year period.
30
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
7.3.2 APPLICABILITY TO PROPOSED PROJECT
The project site provides potentially “suitable” habitat conditions for two state- listed plant
species on the project site (Table 3). These are San Mateo woolly sunflower and white-rayed
pentachaeta. Suitability does not infer presence, only that formal surveys would be required to
dismiss the presence of these species. Accordingly, plant surveys should be conducted prior to
construction during the appropriate period in which these species are most identifiable, in
compliance with all CDFG (2000) published survey guidelines. Given the flowering periods of
the above-listed plant species, rare plant surveys should be conducted in the months of March,
May and July. If a state-listed plant is found on the project site, prior authorization from CDFG
pursuant to CESA would be necessary for any proposed impacts to state-listed plants found
within the project site.
The project site does not provide suitable habitat for any other state-listed wildlife species.
Accordingly, the proposed project will not result in significant adverse impacts to animal species
protected pursuant to CESA.
7.4 Applicable CEQA Regulations
Section 15380 of CEQA defines “endangered” species as those whose survival and reproduction
in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change
in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors. “Rare” species are
defined by CEQA as those who are in such low numbers that they could become endangered if
their environment worsens; or the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered “threatened” as
that term is used in the FESA. The CEQA Guidelines also state that a project will normally have
a significant effect on the environment if it will “substantially affect a rare or endangered species
of animal or plant or the habitat of the species.” The significance of impacts to a species under
CEQA, therefore, must be based on analyzing actual rarity and threat to that species despite its
legal status or lack thereof.
7.4.1 APPLICABILITY TO PROPOSED PROJECT
This document addresses impacts to species that would be defined as endangered or rare
pursuant to Section 15380 of the CEQA. This document is suitable for use by the CEQA lead
agency (in this case the Town of Woodside) for preparation of any CEQA review document
prepared for the proposed project. This report has been prepared as a Biology Section that is
suitable for incorporation into an initial study or other CEQA review document including the
biology section of an Environmental Impact Report.
7.5 California Fish and Game Code § 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513
California Fish and Game Code §3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the “take, possession, or
destruction of birds, their nests or eggs.” Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss
of reproductive effort (killing or abandonment of eggs or young) is considered “take.” Such a
take would also violate federal law protecting migratory birds (Migratory Bird Treaty Act).
All raptors (that is, hawks, eagles, owls) their nests, eggs, and young are protected under California
Fish and Game Code (§3503.5). Additionally, “fully protected” birds, such as the white-tailed kite
31
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
(Elanus leucurus) and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), are protected under California Fish and
Game Code (§3511). “Fully protected” birds may not be taken or possessed (that is, kept in
captivity) at any time.
7.5.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROJECT
Raptors that could nest on the project site and thus that could be impacted by the project include
sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper’s hawk, red-shouldered hawk, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel,
western screech-owl, and great horned owl. Preconstruction nesting surveys would have to be
conducted for these species to ensure that there is no direct take of these birds including their
eggs, or young. Any active nests that were found during preconstruction surveys would have to
be avoided by the project. Suitable non-disturbance buffers would have to be established around
nest sites until the nesting cycle is complete. More specifics on the size of buffers are provided
below by each species that could be affected by the project.
7.6 Protected Amphibians
Under Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR 14, Division 1, Subdivision 1, Chapter
5, §41. Protected Amphibians), protected amphibians, such as the California tiger salamander may
only be taken under special permit from California Department of Fish and Game issued pursuant
to Sections 650 and 670.7 of these regulations.
7.6.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROJECT
As discussed in section 6.3 above, no California red-legged frogs or other special-status
amphibians occur on or adjacent to the project site. As such, no significant adverse impacts are
expected to occur to special-status amphibians from implementation of the proposed project.
7.7 Town of Woodside Ordinances
The Town of Woodside Code of Ordinances, Title XV (Land Usage), Chapter 153 (Zoning)
provides protection measures for trees and stream channels within town limits. Requirements
that are pertinent to the proposed project are as follows:
7.7.1 TREE PROTECTION
Ordinance 2006-534 (§153.170-§153.178) requires a tree destruction permit for all trees that are
to be removed. As part of the permit, the Town of Woodside requires:



A sketch of the site depicting the location of the significant trees included in the permit
application, including relative proximity to structures, property lines, easements, other
trees and other relevant features;
A description of the significant trees, including species, size, health, and general
condition; and
A photograph of the existing site with the significant trees clearly marked with orange
ribbon that will remain on the tree throughout the permitting process.
A significant tree is defined as any living tree that has a trunk circumference, measured 48 inches
above mean natural grade, greater than the size in inches in the table below. For Madrone, Blue
Oaks, and Buckeye trees only, if multiple trunks have developed by 48 inches above grade, the
32
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
measure of circumference shall be the sum of the circumferences of all of the trunks. For
California Bay Laurel trees, the measurement pertains only to the largest of multiple trunks.
Slower growing natives
Alder (Alnus rhombifolia)
Big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum)
Blue oak (Quercus douglasii)
Buckeye (Aesculus californica)
Fremont Cottonwood (Populus fremontii)
Madrone (Arbutus menziesii)
Tanbark oak (Lithocarpus densiflorus)
Circumference
24 in.
Diameter
7.6 in.
Circumference
30 in.
Diameter
9.5 in.
Faster growing natives
Black oak (Quercus kelloggii)
California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica)
Coast Live oak (Quercus agrifolia)
Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)
Valley oak (Quercus lobata)
Western sycamore (Platanus racemosa)
Other
36 in.
11.5 in.
The Planning Director may require an arborist report to be submitted if the information
submitted by the applicant is insufficient to determine the health of the significant trees or any
danger the significant trees may pose. In such cases, the Planning Director shall, within ten days,
send a letter to the applicant listing the specific application deficiencies that led to the
requirement of an arborist report.
Significant trees may be removed as may be required to permit construction authorized by a
valid building or grading permit which specifies such removal
Factors that may be considered in support of a denial of the tree permit include, but are not
limited to, size of the significant trees, number of trees remaining on the lot, number of same
species trees in close proximity whose removal would significantly impact the surrounding
ecosystem, timing of the cut, and potential for excessive and unnecessary scarring of the natural
landscape through removal of vegetation. The Planning Director may issue a permit but require
that the removal be delayed for reasons including, but not limited to, habitat preservation and
avoiding damage to other trees. The Planning Director may also require tree replacement.
When tree replacement is required by the Planning Director, the replacement trees shall be a
California native tree species and be planted as near as possible to the original location, unless
practical reasons preclude this option. Replacement trees will be of at least a 36-inch box or
other minimum size as specified by the Planning Director. Replacement trees shall be planted
33
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
within one year of removal or, in the case of removal to accommodate construction, prior to final
inspection.
7.7.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
An arborist report has been prepared by Mr. Barrie D. Coate (Coate 2011). Of approximately
3,000 trees on the golf course and 5,000 trees on the property, 476 trees are slated for removal.
Of these, 354 of which are considered by Mr. Coate to be unhealthy or overcrowded; and 287
(116 native and 171 non-native) are significant trees and 189 trees are not significant.
Of the 287 significant trees that are to be removed, 26 native significant trees will be
transplanted to an alternate location. The project proposes that 261 new native plantings shall be
made, as mitigation for significant tree removals. The total of transplants and new native planting
represents a ratio of 1:1 replacement for the significant trees impacted. Final species and
locations of replacement trees will be determined by the golf course architect and the arborist.
See the Impacts and Mitigations section for more details.
7.7.3 STREAM CHANNEL PROTECTION
Ordinance 2006-534 (§153.205-§153.209) prescribes limitations to uses in stream corridors. A
stream or creek bank is defined as the point at which the break in slope occurs, and a stream
corridor is defined as a horizontal distance of 50 feet, measured from each side of the center line
of the stream, or a horizontal distance of 25 feet, measured from the top of the stream or creek
bank, whichever is greater. The Planning Commission may establish greater horizontal
measurements for specific stream corridors.
The following limitations shall apply to all uses in stream corridors:

No removal of riparian vegetation shall be permitted under this chapter within the stream
corridor, except that required for the permitted and conditional uses.

No filling of the natural stream corridors or dumping of slash, debris, residue from
parking or recreation areas, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, or liquid or solid waste shall
be permitted.

All agricultural wastes, including manure, shall be kept out of the stream corridor and
disposed of in a manner which will prevent drainage from such wastes into the stream
corridor.

No channelization or damming of streams or creeks shall be permitted, unless required or
allowed by the Planning Commission.

Any alteration of, or work in, the stream corridor shall be subject to the approval of the
Planning Commission except the work set forth in division (A) of this section or the
removal of material which obstructs the normal flow of water within the stream channel.
34
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County

No structure, including a fence, shall be permitted within the stream corridor. The cross
fencing of the stream corridor shall be permitted subject to the issuance of a permit from
the Town Engineer.
7.7.4 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The preliminary site improvement plan prepared by Clifford Bechtel & Associates, dated March
4, 2011, identifies creek setbacks from Redwood Creek per Town of Woodside Stream Channel
Protection Ordinance 2006-534 (§153.205-§153.209), listed above (Appendix A). Work in the
stream corridor shall be limited to (1) the replacement of existing golf course turf grass; (2) the
removal of three non-native trees; and (3) the replacement of pipelines that are a part of an
existing pump station above the top-of-bank of Redwood Creek. This pump station takes water
from the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct and distributes it to the golf course via a pumped irrigation
system. The applicant should acquire permission from the Woodside Planning Commission prior
to the start of work.
8. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO WATERS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND STATE
This section presents an overview of the criteria used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Water Resources Control Board, and
CDFG to determine those areas within a project area that would be subject to their regulation.
8.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction and General Permitting
8.1.1 SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into "waters of the United
States" (33 CFR Parts 328 through 330). This requires project applicants to obtain authorization
from the Corps prior to discharging dredged or fill material into any water of the United States.
In the Federal Register "waters of the United States" are defined as, “...all interstate waters
including interstate wetlands...intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams),
wetlands, [and] natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate
or foreign commerce...” (33 CFR Section 328.3).
Limits of Corps’ jurisdiction.
(a) Territorial Seas. The limit of jurisdiction in the territorial seas is measured from the baseline
in a seaward direction a distance of three nautical miles. (See 33 CFR 329.12)
(b) Tidal Waters of the United States. The landward limits of jurisdiction in tidal waters:
(1) Extends to the high tide line, or
(2) When adjacent non-tidal waters of the United States are present, the jurisdiction
extends to the limits identified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Non-Tidal Waters of the United States. The limits of jurisdiction in non-tidal waters:
35
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
(1) In the absence of adjacent wetlands, the jurisdiction extends to the ordinary high
water mark, or
(2) When adjacent wetlands are present, the jurisdiction extends beyond the ordinary high
water mark to the limit of the adjacent wetlands.
(3) When the water of the United States consists only of wetlands the jurisdiction extends
to the limit of the wetland.
Section 404 jurisdiction in "other waters" such as lakes, ponds, and streams, extends to the
upward limit of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) or the upward extent of any adjacent
wetland. The OHWM on a non-tidal water is the "line on shore established by the fluctuations of
water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear natural line impressed on the bank;
shelving; changes in the character of soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the presence of
litter or debris; or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding
areas" (33 CFR Section 328.3[e]). Wetlands are defined as “...those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration to support a prevalence of
vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR Section 328.8 [b]). Wetlands
usually must possess hydrophytic vegetation (i.e., plants adapted to inundated or saturated
conditions), wetland hydrology (e.g., topographic low areas, exposed water tables, stream
channels), and hydric soils (i.e., soils that are periodically or permanently saturated, inundated or
flooded) to be regulated by the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
It should be noted that the extent of the Corps jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act was recently modified. In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Supreme Court [148 L. Ed. 2d 576 (2001) (SWANCC)] ruled
that the Corps exceeded its authority under the Clean Water Act when it regulated discharges of
fill material into "isolated" waters used as habitat by migratory birds. Accordingly, waters
(including wetlands) that are not connected hydrologically to navigable waters are not subject to
regulation by the Corps.
Another recent Supreme Court decision also significantly changes how the Corps defines waters
of the United States. On June 19, 2006 the United States Supreme Court, in a "four-one-four"
decision, addressed the extent of Clean Water Act jurisdiction over wetlands adjacent to
tributaries of navigable waters. In two consolidated cases, Rapanos v. United States and Carabell
v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a five-Justice majority of the Court remanded the case to the
Sixth circuit for further consideration. The Court was unable to produce a majority vote in favor
of any one jurisdictional standard for the Sixth Circuit to apply (or for the regulated community
to follow). Instead, Justice Scalia authored a plurality opinion that would significantly narrow the
reach of federal wetlands jurisdiction, while Justice Kennedy, concurring in the judgment only,
concluded that the appropriate test for jurisdiction over wetlands was the presence of a
"significant nexus" between wetlands and "navigable waters" in the traditional sense. The
remaining four Justices, in a dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens, would have upheld the Corps
of Engineers' assertion of jurisdiction and would have affirmed the Sixth Circuit's decision.
When no opinion garners at least five votes, lower courts follow the concurrence that reached the
result on the narrowest grounds. Here, that is Justice Kennedy's opinion. Unfortunately, Justice
Kennedy did not provide specific guidance about the extent of federal jurisdiction over wetlands
that are adjacent to tributaries of navigable waters.
36
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
Justice Kennedy concluded that the Clean Water Act applies only to those wetlands with a
"significant nexus" to "navigable waters in the traditional sense." A significant nexus exists when
a wetland, "either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region,
significantly affect[s] the chemical, physical, and biological integrity" of factually navigable
waters. Under Supreme Court precedent, wetlands adjacent to navigable waters meet this test.
For wetlands located near tributaries of navigable waters, however, each wetland demands a
case-by-case jurisdictional inquiry. We know that a "mere hydrological connection" is not
enough in all cases, and that "speculative or insubstantial" effects on water quality will not
suffice to satisfy the test. [Preceding text excerpted from a newsletter prepared by Briscoe,
Ivester, and Bazel LLP]. The Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency
jointly prepared an Instructional Guidebook to aid Corps field staff in completing the new
“Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form,” and is intended to be used as the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Regulatory National Standard Operating Procedures for conducting an
approved jurisdictional determination.
To remain in compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, project proponents and
property owners (applicants) are required to acquire authorization from the Corps prior to
discharging or otherwise impacting “waters of the United States”. In many cases, the Corps must
visit a proposed project area to confirm the extent of area falling under their jurisdiction (to
conduct a “jurisdictional determination”) prior to authorizing any permit for that project.
Typically, at the time the jurisdictional determination is conducted, applicants (or their
representative) will discuss the appropriate permit application that would be filed with the Corps
for permitting the proposed impact(s) to “waters of the United States.”
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps normally provides two alternatives for
permitting impacts to “waters of the United States.” The first alternative would be to use
Nationwide Permit(s). The second alternative is to apply to the Corps for an Individual Permit
(33 CFR Section 235.5(2)(b)). The application process for Individual Permits is extensive and
includes a public review (i.e., public notice and receipt of public comments) and must contain an
“alternatives analysis” that is prepared pursuant to Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344(b)). The alternatives analysis is also typically reviewed by the federal
Environmental Protect Agency (EPA), and thus brings another resource agency into the
permitting framework. Both the Corps and EPA take the initial viewpoint that there are practical
alternatives to any proposed project there would not result in impacts to waters of the U.S., if the
proposed permitted action is not a water dependent project (e.g. a pier or a dredging project).
Alternative analyses therefore must provide convincing reasons that the proposed impacts are
unavoidable.
Nationwide Permit(s) (NWP) are a type of general permit administered by the Corps and issued
on a nationwide basis that authorize minor activities that affect Corps regulated waters. Under
the NWP program, if certain conditions are met, the specified activities can take place without
the need for an individual or regional permit from the Corps (33 CFR, Section 235.5[c][2]). In
order to use NWP(s), a project must meet 27 general nationwide permit conditions, and all
specific conditions pertaining to the NWP being used (as presented at 33 CFR Section 330). It is
also important to note that pursuant to 33 CFR Section 330.4(e), there may be special regional
37
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
conditions or modifications to NWPs that could have relevance to individual proposed projects.
Finally, pursuant to 33 CFR Section 330.6(a), Nationwide permittees may, and in some cases,
request from the Corps confirmation that an activity complies with the terms and conditions of
the NWP intended for use (i.e., must receive “verification” from the Corps).
Prior to finalizing design plans, the applicant needs to be aware that the Corps maintains a policy
of “no net loss” of wetlands (waters of the United States). Therefore, it is incumbent upon
applicants that propose to impact Corps regulated areas to submit a mitigation plan that
demonstrates that impacted regulated areas would be recreated (i.e., impacts would be
mitigated). Typically, the Corps requires mitigation to be “in-kind” (i.e., if a stream channel
would be filled, mitigation would include replacing it with a new stream channel), and at a
minimum of a 1:1 replacement ratio (i.e., one acre or fraction thereof recreated for each acre or
fraction thereof lost). Often a 2:1 replacement ratio is required. Usually the 2:1 ratio is met by
recreation or enhancement of an equivalent amount of wetland that is impacted, in addition to
preserving an equivalent amount of wetland. In some cases, the Corps allows “out-of-kind”
mitigation if the compensation/mitigation has greater value than the impacted area. Finally, there
are many Corps approved wetland mitigation banks where wetland mitigation credits can be
purchased by applicants to meet their mitigation requirements. Mitigation banks have limited
distribution and the Corps typically only allows their use when projects have limited impacts. If a
project meets conditions of Nationwide Permits, and an Individual Permit is not required by the
Corps, then typically the Corps allows use of wetland mitigation banks (if available) to meet its
no net loss requirement and to otherwise mitigate the impacts to waters of the United States
resulting from the proposed project.
8.1.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The project as proposed would not result in impacts below the ordinary high water marks of
Redwood Creek or any other drainages that enters the project site. The man-made golf course
pond was excavated in dry land as an ornamental feature for the golf course, and thus would not
be considered a “water of the United States.” Water is provided to this lake from the irrigation
system that supports the golf course and it is otherwise completely isolated within turf play areas.
The pond would dry without artificial irrigation. It has no hydrologic connectivity to Redwood
Creek or any other tributary. The preamble to the Corps’ 1986 regulations (51 FR 41217) states
that the Corps generally will not consider “waters of the United States” to include “[a]rtificial
lakes or ponds created by excavating…dry land to collect and retain water and which are used
exclusively for such purposes.” Thus, the project would remain outside of the Corps’ likely
jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. As such, authorization pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act would not be necessary under the current project design (see
Appendix A engineering drawings).
8.2 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) / California Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB)
8.2.1 SECTION 401 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
The SWRCB and RWQCB regulate activities in "waters of the State" (which includes wetlands)
through Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. While the Corps administers a permitting program
that authorizes impacts to waters of the United States, including wetlands and other waters, any
38
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
Corps permit authorized for a proposed project would be inoperative unless it is a NWP that has
been certified for use in California by the SWRCB, or if the RWQCB has issued a project specific
certification or waiver of water quality. Certification of NWPs requires a finding by the SWRCB
that the activities permitted by the NWP will not violate water quality standards individually or
cumulatively over the term of the permit (the term is typically for five years). Certification must be
consistent with the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act, the California Environmental
Quality Act, the California Endangered Species Act, and the SWRCB’s mandate to protect
beneficial uses of waters of the State. Any denied (i.e., not certified) NWPs, and all Individual
Corps permits, would require a project specific RWQCB certification of water quality.
Additionally, if a proposed project would impact waters of the State, including wetlands, the
project applicant must demonstrate that the project is unable to avoid these adverse impacts, or
water quality certification will most likely be denied. Section 401 Certification may also be denied
based on significant adverse impacts to waters of the United States/State, including wetlands. The
RWQCB has also adopted the Corps’ policy that there shall be “no net loss” of wetlands. Thus,
prior to certifying water quality, the RWQCB will impose avoidance mitigation requirements on
project proponents that impact waters of the State.
8.2.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
As discussed in section 8.1.2 above, the proposed project would not impact waters of the
U.S./State. As such, prior authorization for the project pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act should not be necessary. Please refer to the applicability section of the Porter-Cologne
Water Quality Control Act below for other applicable actions that may be imposed on the project
by the RWQCB.
8.2.3 PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, Water Code § 13260, requires that “any person
discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, that could affect the waters of the State to
file a report of discharge” with the RWQCB through an application for waste discharge (Water
Code Section 13260(a)(1). The term “waters of the State” is defined as any surface water or
groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the State (Water Code §
13050(e)). It should be noted that pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the
RWQCB also regulates “isolated wetlands,” or those wetlands considered to be outside of the
Corps’ jurisdiction pursuant to the SWANCC decision (see Corps Section above).
The RWQCB generally considers filling in waters of the State to constitute “pollution.” Pollution
is defined as an alteration of the quality of the waters of the state by waste that unreasonably
affects its beneficial uses (Water Code §13050(1)). The RWQCB litmus test for determining if a
project should be regulated pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act is if the
action could result in any “threat” to water quality.
The RWQCB requires complete pre- and post-development Best Management Practices Plan
(BMPs) of any portion of the project site that is developed. This means that a water quality
treatment plan for the pre- and post-developed project site must be prepared and implemented.
Preconstruction requirements must be consistent with the requirements of the National Pollutant
39
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). That is, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) must be developed prior to the time that a site is graded (see NPDES section below).
8.2.4 APPLICABILITY TO PROPOSED PROJECT
To remain in compliance with the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and the NPDES,
the RWQCB will require that a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be developed
and submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board prior to the time that a site is graded
(see NPDES section below). The project civil engineer’s Erosion & Sediment Control plan and
SWPPP are included in the Preliminary Site Development Plan (Appendix A, Sheet C-4.0 and C6.0).
8.2.5 NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
In 1972 the Clean Water Act was amended to state that the discharge of pollutants to waters of
the United States from any point source is unlawful unless the discharge is in compliance with an
NPDES permit. The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act added Section 402(p) which
establishes a framework for regulating municipal and industrial stormwater discharges under the
NPDES Program.
While federal regulations allow two permitting options for stormwater discharges (individual
permits and General Permits), the SWRCB has elected to adopt only one statewide General
Permit at this time that will apply to all stormwater discharges associated with construction
activity, except from those on Tribal Lands, in the Lake Tahoe Hydrologic Unit, and those
performed by the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). The General Permit
requires all dischargers where construction activity disturbs greater than one acre of land or those
sites less than one acre that are part of a common plan of development or sale that disturbs more
than one acre of land surface to:
1.
Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which
specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will prevent all construction pollutants from
contacting stormwater with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off site
into receiving waters.
2.
Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters
of the nation.
3.
Perform inspections of all BMPs.
This General Permit is implemented and enforced by the nine California Regional Water Quality
Control Boards (RWQCBs).
Types of Construction Activity Covered by the General Permit
Construction activity subject to this General Permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances
to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation that results in soil disturbances of at least one
acre or more of total land area. Construction activity that results in soil disturbances to a smaller
area would still be subject to this General Permit if the construction activity is part of a larger
40
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
common plan of development that encompasses greater than one acre of soil disturbance, or if
there is significant water quality impairment resulting from the activity. Construction activity
does not include routine maintenance to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or
original purpose of the facility, nor does it include emergency construction activities required to
protect public health and safety. Project proponents (landowners) should confirm with the local
RWQCB whether or not a particular routine maintenance activity is subject to this General
Permit.
8.2.5.1 2009 Changes to the NPDES Program and Use of the General Permit
[This section excerpted in part from Morrison Foerster Legal Updates and News September
2009, by Robert L. Falk and Corinne Fratini]. The California State Water Resources Control
Board (“State Water Board”) has adopted a new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land
Disturbance Activities (“Construction General Permit”). The new Construction General Permit
which was issued pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act and is enforceable through citizens’
suits, represents a dramatic shift in the State Water Board’s approach to regulating new and
redevelopment sites, imposing new affirmative duties and fixed standards on builders and
developers. Changes to use of the General Permit became effective on July 1, 2010.
The new Construction General Permit does not completely carry forward the former qualitative
and self-selected compliance approach based on preparation of a SWPPP. Instead, developers
and construction contractors must implement specific BMPs, achieve quantitatively-defined (i.e.,
numeric) pollutant-specific discharge standards, and conduct much more rigorous monitoring
based on the project’s projected risk level.
The State Water Board’s new quantitative standards take a two-tiered approach, depending on
the risk level associated with the site in question. Exceedance of a benchmark Numeric Action
Level (“NAL”) measured in terms of pH and turbidity (a measure related to both the amount of
sediment in and the velocity of site runoff) triggers an additional obligation to implement
additional BMPs and corrective action to improve SWPPP performance. For medium- and highrisk sites, failure to meet more stringent numeric standards for pH and turbidity, known as
Numeric Effluent Limitations (“NELs”), will also automatically result in a permit violation and
be directly enforceable in administrative or, in the case of a citizens’ group taking up the cause,
judicial forums. New minimum BMPs include Active Treatment Systems, which may be
necessary where traditional erosion and sediment controls do not effectively control accelerated
erosion; where site constraints inhibit the ability to construct a correctly-sized sediment basin;
where clay and/or highly erosive soils are present; or where the site has very steep or long slope
lengths.
In addition, the new Construction General Permit includes several “post-construction”
requirements. These requirements entail that site designs provide no net increase in overall site
runoff and match pre-project hydrology by maintaining runoff volume and drainage
concentrations. To achieve the required results where impervious surfaces such as roofs and
paved surfaces are being increased, developers must implement non-structural off-setting BMPs,
such as landform grading, site design BMPs, and distributed structural BMPs (bioretention cells,
rain gardens, and rain cisterns). This “runoff reduction” approach is essentially a State Water
41
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
Board-imposed regulatory requirement to implement Low Impact Development (“LID”) design
features. Volume that cannot be addressed using non-structural BMPs must be captured in
structural BMPs that are approved by the Regional Water Board.
Finally, the new Construction General Permit requires electronic filing of all Permit Registration
Documents, NOIs, SWPPPs, annual reports, Notices of Termination, and NAL/NEL Exceedance
Reports. This information will be readily available to the Water Boards and citizen enforcers
who can then determine whether to initiate enforcement actions—actions which can result in
significant penalties and legal fees.
8.2.6 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
On September 2, 2009, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted Order No. 2009-0009DWQ, which reissued the Construction General Permit (CGP) for projects disturbing one or
more acres of land surface, or those sites less than one acre that are part of a common plan of
development or sale that disturbs more than one acre of land surface. Effective July 1, 2010, the
requirements of this order replaced and superseded State Water Board Orders No. 99-08-DWQ.
Surface grading and excavation of the project site will exceed one acre and thus would be
regulated pursuant to the NPDES program. It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain
coverage under the General Stormwater Permit prior to commencement of construction activities
that disturb greater than one acre of area. To obtain coverage, the project proponent (landowner)
must file an application and the appropriate fee with the SWRCB/RWQCB. The application now
requires submittal of a SWPPP for the project to the State Water Resources Control Board.
Section A of the General Permit outlines the required contents of a SWPPP. As the process of
receiving coverage under the General Permit became considerably more involved in July 2010,
the project engineer should start this permitting loop with the RWQCB at least 6 months in
advance of the commencement of the proposed project.
8.3 RWQCB Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program
The Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program regulates storm water discharges from
municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). MS4 permits were issued in two phases.
Under Phase I, which started in 1990, the RWQCBs have adopted NPDES storm water permits
for medium (serving between 100,000 and 250,000 people) and large (serving 250,000 people)
municipalities. Most of these permits are issued to a group of co-permittees encompassing an
entire metropolitan area. These permits are reissued as the permits expire.
As part of Phase II, the SWRCB adopted a General Permit for the Discharge of Storm Water
from Small MS4s (WQ Order No. 2003-0005-DWQ) to provide permit coverage for smaller
municipalities, including non-traditional Small MS4s, which are governmental facilities such as
military bases, public campuses, and prison and hospital complexes.
The MS4 permits require the discharger to develop and implement a Storm Water Management
Plan/Program (SWMP) with the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants to the maximum
extent practicable (MEP). MEP is the performance standard specified in Section 402(p) of the
Clean Water Act. The management programs specify what best management practices (BMPs)
will be used to address certain program areas. The program areas include public education and
42
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
outreach; illicit discharge detection and elimination; construction and post-construction; and
good housekeeping for municipal operations. In general, medium and large municipalities are
required to conduct chemical monitoring, though small municipalities are not.
8.3.1 RWQCB PHASE I PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
The C.3 NPDES requirements went into effect for any project (public or private) that is “deemed
complete” by the City or County (Lead Agency) on or after February 15, 2005, and which will
result in the creation or replacement (other than normal maintenance) of at least 10,000 square
feet of impervious surface area (roofs, streets, patios, parking lots, etc.). Intended to reduce the
introduction of urban pollutants into San Francisco Bay, creeks, streams, lakes, and other water
bodies in the region, Provision C.3 requires the onsite treatment of stormwater prior to its
discharge into downstream receiving waters. Note that these requirements are in addition to the
existing NPDES requirements for erosion and sedimentation controls during project
construction.
Projects subject to Provision C3 must include the capture and onsite treatment of all stormwater
from the site prior to its discharge, including rainwater falling on building rooftops. Project
applicants are required to implement appropriate source control and site design measures and to
design and implement stormwater treatment measures in order to reduce the discharge of
stormwater pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. While the Clean Water Act does not
define “maximum extent practicable,” the Stormwater Quality Management Plans required as a
condition of the municipal NPDES permits identify control measures (known as Best
Management Plans, or BMPs) and, where applicable, performance standards, to establish the
level of effort required to satisfy the maximum extent practicable criterion. It is ultimately up to
the professional judgment of the reviewing municipal staff in the individual jurisdictions to
determine whether a project’s proposed stormwater controls will satisfy the maximum extent
practicable criterion. However, there are numeric criteria used to ensure that treatment BMPs
have been adequately sized to accommodate and treat a site’s stormwater. The C3 requirements
are quite extensive, and their complete explanation is not provided here. However, the following
are minimums that should be understood and adhered to:

The applicant must provide a detailed and realistic site design and impervious surface
area calculations. This site design and calculations will be used by the Lead Agency
(County or City) to determine/verify the amount of impervious surface area that is
being created or replaced. It should include all proposed buildings, roads, walkways,
parking lots, landscape areas, etc., that are being created or redeveloped. If large
(greater than 10,000 square feet) lots are being created an effort will need to be made
to determine the total impervious surface area that could be created on that parcel. For
example if only a portion of the lot is shown as a “building envelope” then the lead
agency will need to consider that a driveway will have to be constructed to access the
envelope and that the envelope will then be developed as shown. If the C.3 thresholds
are met (creation/redevelopment of 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area), a
Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) (if required by the Lead Agency, or whatever steps
for compliance with Provision C3 are required locally) must accompany the
application.
43
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County

If a SWCP is required by the Lead Agency for the project it must be stamped by a
Licensed Civil Engineer, Architect, or Landscape Architect.
Incorporating the C3 requirements into the early phases of new project planning will speed the
approval process (by reducing or eliminating the need for redesign of the site plan once it gets to
the municipal review process), improve the integration of treatment into site landscaping,
enhance the project’s aesthetics, reduce the water quality impacts of the project, improve the
natural absorption of urban pollutants into the environment, and reduce the amount of
stormwater discharged from the site. If these requirements are not incorporated into the early
stages of site design, a subsequent redesign of the site plan may be required in order to provide
all of the required onsite water treatment, adding unnecessarily to project development costs.
8.3.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The Town of Woodside, along with the cities of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, East
Palo Alto, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Redwood City, San
Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, and South San Francisco; the towns of Atherton, Colma,
Hillsborough, and Portola Valley; the San Mateo County Flood Control District; and San Mateo
County have joined together to form the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention
Program and have submitted a permit application (Report of Waste Discharge), dated January
23, 2004, for reissuance of their waste discharge requirements under the NPDES permit to
discharge stormwater runoff from storm drains and watercourses within the San Mateo
Permittees’ jurisdictions. The San Mateo Permittees are currently subject to NPDES Permit No.
CAS0029921 issued by Order No. 99-059 on July 21, 1999, amended by Order No. R2-20030023 on February 19, 2003; amended by Order Nos. R2-2004-0060 and R2-2004-0062 on July
21, 2004, and amended by Order R2-2007-0027 on March 14, 2007, to the San Mateo Permittees
to discharge stormwater runoff from storm drains and watercourses within their jurisdictions.
The Town of Woodside is individually responsible for adopting and enforcing ordinances,
implementing assigned BMPs to prevent or reduce pollutants in stormwater, and providing funds
for capital, operation, and maintenance expenditures necessary to implement such BMPs for the
storm drain system that it owns and/or operates. Assigned BMPs to be implemented are listed as
Performance Standards in the Plan. It is the Regional Board’s intent that this Order shall ensure
attainment of applicable water quality objectives and protection of beneficial uses of receiving
waters. This Order therefore includes requirements to the effect that discharges shall not cause or
contribute to violations of water quality objectives nor shall they cause certain conditions to
occur which create a condition of nuisance or water quality impairment in receiving waters.
Accordingly, the Regional Board is requiring that these requirements be addressed through the
implementation of BMPs to reduce pollutants in stormwater as provided in Provisions C.1
through C.14 of this Order. BMPs prepared for the proposed project are provided as part of the
Preliminary Site Improvement Plan (Appendix A, Sheets C-4.0 and 6.0). The Preliminary Site
Improvement Plan in conjunction with the project SWPPP shall be used to monitor all
construction activities for this project.
44
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
8.4 California Department of Fish and Game Protections
8.4.1 SECTION 1602 OF CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE
Pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFG regulates activities that
divert, obstruct, or alter stream flow, or substantially modify the bed, channel, or bank of a stream
which CDFG typically considers to include its riparian vegetation. Any proposed activity in a
natural stream channel that would substantially adversely affect an existing fish and/or wildlife
resource, would require entering into a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SBAA) with CDFG prior
to commencing with work in the stream. However, prior to authorizing such permits, CDFG
typically reviews an analysis of the expected biological impacts, any proposed mitigation plans that
would be implemented to offset biological impacts and engineering and erosion control plans.
8.4.2 APPLICABILITY TO PROPOSED PROJECT
On January 24, 2011, M&A biologist Mr. Geoff Monk met with Ms. Suzanne DeLeón of CDFG
to determine the extent of impacts to areas that fall within CDFG’s jurisdiction on the project site
and to discuss the permitting requirements for the proposed project. Also present at the meeting
were project applicant Mr. Scott Lewis, project manager Mr. Ralph Osterling, project engineer,
Mr. Clifford Bechtel; and Town of Woodside staff Ms. Jackie Young, Mr. Dong Nguyen, and
Ms. Sage Schaan. At the meeting, it was determined that the man-made pond does not fall within
CDFG’s jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, and that the
proposed project will not impact the bed, bank and channel of Redwood Creek. However, there
would be impacts under the dripline of the riparian canopy that are within CDFG’s jurisdiction
pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. These impacts include: (1) the replacement
of existing golf course turf grass that occurs under the riparian canopy of Redwood Creek; (2)
the removal of three non-native trees within the riparian corridor; and (3) the replacement of
pipelines that are a part of an existing pump station that, while above the top-of-banks of
Redwood Creek, is nonetheless partially located under the Redwood Creek riparian canopy. The
riparian canopy of Redwood Creek is subject to CDFG jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1602 of
the Fish and Game Code. As such, an SBAA with CDFG will be necessary for the project.
Ms. DeLeon recommended mitigation measures that included (1) planting three replacement
California native tree species within the riparian corridor to compensate for impacted non-native
trees that will be removed (a 1:1 impact to replacement ratio); (2) planting toyon and coffeeberry
around the replacement pump station to compensate for pipeline replacement work within the
riparian corridor on the project site. Mitigation plantings would become conditions of project
approval. CDFG’s recommendations have been incorporated into the Impacts and Mitigation
Measures below.
9. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REGULATIONS
A CEQA lead agency must determine if a proposed activity constitutes a project requiring further
review pursuant to the CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA, a lead agency would have to determine if
there could be significant adverse impacts to the environment from a proposed project.
Typically, if within the city limits, the city would be the CEQA lead agency. If a discretionary
permit (i.e., site development permit) would be required for a project (e.g. an occupancy permit
must be issued), the lead agency typically must determine if there could be significant
45
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
environmental impacts. This is usually accomplished by an “Initial Study.” If there could be
significant environmental impacts, the lead agency must determine an appropriate level of
environmental review prior to approving and/or otherwise permitting the impacts. In some cases,
there are “Categorical Exemptions” that apply to the proposed activity; thus the activity is
exempt from CEQA. The Categorical Exemptions are provided in CEQA. There are also
Statutory Exemptions in CEQA that must be investigated for any proposed project. If the project
is not exempt from CEQA, the lowest level of review typically reserved for projects with no
significant effects on the environment would be for the lead agency to prepare a “Negative
Declaration.” If a proposed project would have only minimal impacts that can be mitigated to a
level of no significance pursuant to the CEQA, then a “Mitigated Negative Declaration” is
typically prepared by the lead agency. Finally those projects that may have significant effects on
the environment, or that have impacts that can’t be mitigated to a level considered less than
significant pursuant to the CEQA, typically must be reviewed via an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). All CEQA review documents are subject to public circulation, and comment
periods.
Section 15380 of CEQA defines “endangered” species as those whose survival and reproduction
in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change
in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors. “Rare” species are
defined by CEQA as those who are in such low numbers that they could become endangered if
their environment worsens; or the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered “threatened” as
that term is used in FESA. The CEQA Guidelines also state that a project will normally have a
significant effect on the environment if it will “substantially affect a rare or endangered species
of animal or plant or the habitat of the species.” The significance of impacts to a species under
CEQA, therefore, must be based on analyzing actual rarity and threat of extinction to that species
despite its legal status or lack thereof.
9.1.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
This report has been prepared as a Biology Section that is suitable for incorporation into the
biology section of a CEQA review document such as a Mitigated Negative Declaration or
Negative Declaration. This document addresses potential impacts to species that would be
defined as endangered or rare pursuant to Section 15380 of the CEQA. This document is suitable
for use by the CEQA lead agency (in this case the Town of Woodside) for preparation of any
CEQA review document prepared for the proposed project.
10. IMPACTS ANALYSIS
In this section we discuss potential impacts to sensitive biological resources including specialstatus animal species and stream channels. We follow each impact with a mitigation prescription
that when implemented would reduce impacts to the greatest extent possible. This impact
analysis is based on site improvement plan prepared by Clifford Bechtel & Associates on March
4, 2010 (Appendix A).
46
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
10.1 Significance Criteria
A significant impact is determined using CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA
§21068, a significant effect on the environment means a substantial, or potentially substantial,
adverse change in the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Guideline §15382, a significant effect on
the environment is further defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in
any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water,
minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. Other
Federal, State, and local agencies’ considerations and regulations are also used in the evaluation
of significance of proposed actions.
Direct and indirect adverse impacts to biological resources are classified as “significant,”
“potentially significant,” or “less than significant.” Biological resources are broken down into
four categories: vegetation, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, and regulated “waters of
the United States” and/or stream channels.
10.1.1 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
10.1.1.1 Plants, Wildlife, Waters
In accordance with Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) of the CEQA Guidelines,
implementing the project would have a significant biological impact if it would:

Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.

Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected “wetlands” as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance.

Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.
47
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
10.1.1.2 Waters of the United States and State.
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United
States, which includes wetlands, as discussed in the bulleted item above, and also includes “other
waters” (stream channels, rivers) (33 CFR Parts 328 through 330). Impacts to Corps regulated
areas on a project site would be considered a significant adverse impact. Similarly, pursuant to
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the
RWQCB regulates impacts to waters of the state. Thus, substantial impacts to RWQCB regulated
areas on a project site would also be considered a significant adverse impact.
10.1.1.3 Stream Channels
Finally, pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFG regulates activities
that divert, obstruct, or alter stream flow, or substantially modify the bed, channel, or bank of a
stream which CDFG typically considers to include riparian vegetation. Any proposed activity that
would result in modifications to a natural stream channel would be considered a significant
adverse impact.
11. IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
11.1 Impact 1. Special-Status Plants
The portion of the project site that is vegetated by oak woodland and the man-made pond provide
potentially “suitable habitat” for 15 special-status plant species. Suitability does not infer
presence, only that conditions are present which could support these species. To prove absence
of these species within the project footprint, formal surveys must be conducted at appropriate
times of the year. The oak woodlands on the project site provide suitable habitat for San Mateo
woolly sunflower and white-rayed pentachaeta, both federal- and state-listed plant species and
CNPS List 1B.1 species; as well as Palo Alto thistle, marsh silverpuffs, small-flowered
monolopia, bent-flowered fiddleneck, robust monardella, Franciscan onion, Hillsborough
chocolate lily, arcuate bush mallow, Davidson’s bush mallow, Dudley’s lousewort, San
Francisco collinsia, and western leatherwood, all CNPS List 1 or List 2 species. The man-made
pond provides suitable habitat for the CNPS List 2.2 species, slender-leaved pondweed.
Please refer to the Special-Status Species section of this document for further details on the
status of each plant. Until such times that formal surveys are conducted that prove absence of
these species, impacts to these species are regarded as a potentially significant pursuant to the
CEQA. These impacts could be mitigated to levels considered less than significant.
11.2 Mitigation Measure 1. Special-Status Plants
Special-status plant surveys should be conducted on the project site, in the portion of the oak
woodland that falls within the project footprint and in the man-made pond. Special-status plant
surveys should be conducted prior to any tree removal, grading, or construction, during the
appropriate period in which the species are most identifiable, in compliance with all USFWS
(1996), CDFG (2000), and CNPS (2001) published survey guidelines. Given the flowering
periods for San Mateo woolly sunflower, white-rayed pentachaeta, Palo Alto thistle, marsh
silverpuffs, small-flowered monolopia, bent-flowered fiddleneck, robust monardella, Franciscan
48
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
onion, Hillsborough chocolate lily, arcuate bush mallow, Davidson’s bush mallow, Dudley’s
lousewort, San Francisco collinsia, and western leatherwood, rare plant surveys should be
conducted in the portion of the oak woodland that falls within the project footprint in March,
May, and July. Rare plant surveys for slender leaved pondweed should be conducted in the manmade pond in May and June. Construction timing should be coordinated to account for the
required surveys for rare plants. Project construction shall not be initiated in the oak woodlands
or in the pond on the project site until all rare plant surveys are completed and subsequent
mitigation, if necessary, is implemented.
If special-status plant species are found, those individuals or populations should be avoided to
the maximum degree possible. If avoidance is impossible, then impacts should be minimized by
adjusting the proposed project grading envelope, or other suitable measures and mitigation
should be developed in consultation with the agencies that are responsible for protection of that
plant species based on its protection status [i.e. Town (protected by CEQA), CDFG (protected by
California law), or USFWS (protected by Federal law)].” Based upon M&A’s knowledge of case
law (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino), the mitigation measures for a potential impact should
be proposed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, rather than just stating that “mitigation shall
be developed in consultation with the agencies” (in the future). Thus, the mitigation measures
incorporated by the Town of Woodside into the conditions of project approval for potential
impacts to plants (and other potential impacts discussed below) should include actual mitigation
prescriptions. Appropriate mitigation prescriptions that should be included as conditions of
project approval follow:
Rare plant surveys should be completed as described above prior to breaking ground on the
project site. A rare plant survey report that includes the methods used, survey participants, and
findings should then be prepared and submitted to the Town of Woodside demonstrating absence
of rare plants at least 30 days prior to breaking ground. If the report documents that there are no
rare plants on the project site, then there will be no further regard for the mitigation measures
presented below and the project may proceed, provided all other applicable permits and
authorizations are obtained for the project. However, if a special-status plant is found on the
project site, the following mitigation measures should also be implemented as a condition of
project approval.
If special-status plants are present within the proposed project area, the project should not break
ground or otherwise disturb the oak woodland habitat or the man-made pond on the site until the
following measures have been satisfactorily completed. A mitigation compliance report should
be submitted to the Town of Woodside at least 30 days prior to breaking ground. The compliance
report should detail the avoidance and other mitigation measures that have been implemented by
the project. The Town may approve grading/site disturbance in a quicker timeframe than 30 days
if compliance with the mitigation measures can be verified by the City sooner than 30 days.
The following mitigation measures should be implemented if rare plants are found on the project
site. Initially the feasibility of avoidance should be evaluated. If avoidance is not feasible, a
mitigation plan should be developed in consultation with CDFG personnel if it is a state listed
(i.e., protected pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act) or a CNPS List 1B or List 2
plant. If the plant is state listed, an incidental take permit (i.e., a 2081 Agreement) should be
49
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
acquired for the project from CDFG prior to any grading within the project area. A copy of this
permit should be provided to the Town of Woodside prior to any grading within the project area.
Any conditions for the project established by CDFG in the 2081 Agreement should become
conditions of the project also enforceable by the Town of Woodside. If the plant is federally
listed (i.e., protected pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act), the applicant should
formally notify the USFWS within 5 days of the finding and this agency’s permitting instructions
should be incorporated into the project conditions of approval. As required by the USFWS, an
“incidental take” permit should be acquired from the USFWS for any proposed impacts to any
federally listed plants found within the project site. A copy of this permit or a letter from the
USFWS that otherwise states this agency is satisfied with the avoidance and/or mitigation
measures should also be provided to the Town of Woodside prior to the time the project site can
be graded.
If a plant is found on the project site that is a CNPS List 1B or 2 species, prior to construction
within the project area, a qualified botanist should collect the seeds, propagules, and top soils, or
other part of the plant that would ensure successful replanting of the population elsewhere. The
seeds, propagules, or other plantable portion of all plants designated as CNPS List 1B or 2
species should be collected at the appropriate time of the year. Half of the seeds and top soils
collected should be appropriately stored in long-term storage at a botanic garden or museum (for
example, Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden). The other half of the seeds, propagules, or other
plantable portion of all plants collected designated as CNPS List 1B or 2 species should be
planted at the appropriate time of year (late-fall months) in an area of the subject property that
will not be impacted by the project (or if the project has a designated mitigation site for impacts
to other special-status species, the plants can be seeded on the mitigation site). This area should
be fenced to ensure protection of the species. Any area where the plants are seeded should be
permanently protected through recordation of a perpetual Grant of Easement naming the Town
of Woodside as the Grantee or other permanent deed restriction prepared in favor of the
perpetual protection of the rare plants. Any deed restriction should usurp all future development
rights and recreational use of the protected site. The applicant should then conduct annual
monitoring surveys of the transplanted plant population for a five year period, and should
prepare annual monitoring reports reporting the success or failure of the transplanting effort.
These reports should be submitted to the Town of Woodside and to the appropriate resource
agency (CDFG and/or USFWS) no later than December 1st each monitoring year.
If the seeding/transplanting effort fails, the stored seeds and top soils can be taken out of longterm storage and sown in another location (either onsite or offsite) deemed suitable by CDFG.
This seeding effort will then have to be monitored for an additional three-year period to ensure
survivorship of the new population. Annual monitoring reports will need to be submitted to the
Town of Woodside for the three year period. If the subsequent seeding effort fails, no other
mitigation compensation shall be deemed necessary.
A CNDDB form should be filled out and submitted to CDFG for any special-status plant species
identified within the project area. Any mitigation plan developed in consultation with CDFG
must be implemented prior to the Town of Woodside issuing a grading permit. When
implemented, these measures would reduce potentially significant adverse impacts to specialstatus plant species to a level considered less than significant pursuant to CEQA.
50
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
11.3 Impact 2. Hoary Bat
The project site’s large trees, including pines, redwoods, coast live oaks and valley oaks, provide
suitable maternity/nursery, and/or roosting habitat for the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus). The
hoary bat is designated as a species of special concern by the CDFG. As there is a chance this bat
species could use the project site, impacts to this species are regarded as potentially significant
pursuant to the CEQA. Mitigation measures are prescribed below that would reduce impacts to
less than significant.
11.4 Mitigation Measure 2. Hoary Bat
In order to avoid impacts to maternity/nursery, and/or roosting habitat used by the hoary bat, a
tree survey should be conducted 15 days prior to commencing with construction work (including
tree removal). The survey should include examination of all trees within 100 feet of the entire
project site, not just trees slated for removal. Both tree canopies and understories should be
examined for evidence of bat roosting. If no hoary bats are found, then there would be no further
regard for this bat species. If they are found, a determination should be made whether there are
young. If a maternity site is found, impacts to this tree should be avoided until the young have
reach independence of the tree. If adults are found roosting but no maternity sites are found, then
the adult bats can be flushed prior to the time the tree in question would be removed or disturbed.
No other mitigation compensation would be required. Implementation of this mitigation measure
would reduce impacts to the hoary bat to a level considered less than significant pursuant to
CEQA.
11.5 Impact 3. San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat
The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), a state species of
special concern, is present in the oak woodlands on the project site. It has no other special-status
designation. As such, impacts to this species are regarded as potentially significant pursuant to
the CEQA. Mitigation measures are prescribed below that would reduce impacts to less than
significant.
11.6 Mitigation Measure 3. San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat
San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests have been identified in the oak woodland understory
on the project site. In the area where the oak woodland understory is routinely cleared as a part
of maintenance of the golf course property, approximately 18 woodrat nests occur and have not
been removed or otherwise damaged. Woodrat nests are also abundant in the remaining
undisturbed oak woodland understory outside the footprint of the proposed project.
Prior to construction, it should be necessary for a qualified biologist to survey the entire oak
woodland habitat onsite for evidence of nesting San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats (i.e., large
stick nests). Since woodrats use their nests year round, surveys for woodrat nests may be
conducted at any time of the year. All woodrat nests will be flagged in the field and delineated
on project site maps. For any woodrat nest identified on a project site, the mitigation listed
below should be implemented.
51
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
For all woodrat nests that have been preserved in the cleared oak woodland understory, CDFG
has recommended that a qualified biologist live trap to determine which nests may be in use. If
the nests are found to be unoccupied, they can be removed without further consideration for this
woodrat species. If woodrat nests are found to be occupied and cannot be avoided by the project,
it would be necessary to relocate woodrats and their nests from the proposed area of impact. As
necessary, trapped woodrats may be kept in captivity until nests are moved to suitable oak
woodland or riparian habitats outside of the development footprint. All trapped woodrats shall
be ear-tagged for later mark and recapture studies. A CNDDB form should be filled out and
submitted to CDFG for any San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats that are trapped.
Once nest sites are moved, any trapped woodrats should be released into reconstructed nests in
the daylight hours so that they seek refuge in the reconstructed nests. Food should be provided
within relocated nests for a period not less than 60 days. This will give the relocated woodrats
the opportunity to rebuild their nests and to otherwise acclimate to their new sites. Any relocated
woodrats should be monitored on a monthly basis using capture/recapture trapping methods for a
period of one year. A monitoring report should be submitted to CDFG and the Town of
Woodside by December 1 of the following year. This mitigation measure when implemented
would reduce the project’s impact to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat to a level considered
less than significant pursuant to CEQA.
11.7 Impact 4. Trees
The arborist report (Coates 2011) states that 476 trees would be removed for the proposed
project. Three trees proposed for removal are within the riparian canopy of Redwood Creek. In
accordance with the Town of Woodside Code of Ordinances, Title XV (Land Usage), Chapter
153 (Zoning), Ordinance 2006-534 (§153.170-§153.178), a tree permit and mitigation
compensation will required for impacts to 287 significant trees. A permit will not be required to
remove the remaining 189 not significant trees.
The Woodside tree permit will require a map of the location of the significant trees included in
the permit application, including relative proximity to structures, property lines, easements, other
trees and other relevant features; a description of the significant trees, including species, size,
health, and general condition; and a photograph of the existing site with the significant trees
clearly marked with orange ribbon that will remain on the tree throughout the permitting process.
Hence, based on all of the above regulations, removal of trees onsite would be a significant,
adverse impact pursuant to CEQA. This impact could be mitigated to a level considered less
than significant.
11.8 Mitigation Measure 4. Trees
In order to offset the impact of removing 287 significant trees onsite, the applicant should
acquire a tree removal permit from the Town of Woodside, which would require the applicant to
plant 261 new native trees and transplant 26 significant native trees. This represents a ratio of 1:1
(impacts to replacement). Replacement (i.e. “new native plantings”) trees shall be of at least a
36-inch box size. Final species and locations of replacement trees will be determined by the golf
course architect and the arborist. Replacement trees should be planted as near as possible to the
original location, unless practical reasons preclude this option. Replacement trees should be
52
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
planted within one year of removal or, in the case of removal to accommodate construction, prior
to final inspection. Transplant trees shall be performed in accordance with Arborist Report and
under the supervision of the project arborist.
The applicant should conduct annual monitoring surveys of the planted trees for a five year
period, and should prepare annual monitoring reports reporting the success or failure of the
planting effort. These reports should be submitted to the Town of Woodside no later than
December 1st each monitoring year.
This mitigation measure when implemented would reduce the project’s impact to trees to a level
considered less than significant pursuant to CEQA.
11.9 Impact 5. Compliance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code
At a meeting with Ms. Suzanne DeLeón of CDFG on January 24, 2011, it was determined that
the proposed project will not impact the bed, bank and channel of Redwood Creek or existing
trees within the riparian canopy. However, the following impacts will occur under the dripline of
the riparian canopy, as follows: (1) the replacement of existing golf course turf grass that occurs
under the riparian canopy of Redwood Creek; (2) the removal of three non-native trees within
the riparian corridor and away from the top of bank; and (3) the replacement of pipelines that are
a part of an existing pump station that is partially located under the Redwood Creek riparian
canopy. Pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFG regulates
activities that divert, obstruct, or alter stream flow, or substantially modify the bed, channel, or
bank of a stream, including its riparian vegetation. As such, impacts to the creek bank under the
riparian canopy would be regarded as potentially significant. These impacts could be mitigated to
levels considered less than significant pursuant to CEQA.
11.10 Mitigation Measure 5. Compliance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and
Game Code
The Town of Woodside should require that the applicant enter into a Streambed Alteration
Agreement (SBAA) with CDFG prior to commencing work in the Redwood Creek riparian
corridor. This would ensure that the applicant is in compliance with the Section 1602 of the
California Fish and Game Code.
Mitigation for work in the Redwood Creek riparian corridor should consist of removing existing
non-native (and toxic to wildlife) oleander (Nerium oleander) shrubs located along the pump
station fenceline, and replacing them with native shrub species California coffeeberry (Rhamnus
californica) and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia). Mitigation plantings should become conditions
of project approval with the Town of Woodside. Mitigation to offset the impacts of removing
three non-native trees within the riparian canopy is included in Mitigation Measure 4, above.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to the bed, channel
and bank of the creek to a level considered less than significant.
11.11 Impact 6. Nesting Raptors (Birds of Prey)
The project site is located in an urban setting and is routinely subjected to high levels of human
and construction related disturbance. The project site is surrounded by urban development, a
53
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
high school, and large groups of people and golf carts traverse the entire project site routinely.
This disturbed setting is important since it has relevance to considerations granted to nesting
birds that might occur on or adjacent to the project site. Any birds including raptors that nest on
or near the project site can safely be presumed to be acclimated to high levels of human-related
disturbance. Thus nest protection buffers normally established for nesting birds can be
significantly smaller in areas subjected to high disturbance.
The project site’s large trees, including pines, redwoods, coast live oaks and valley oaks, provide
suitable nesting habitat for raptors. A Cooper’s hawk was observed on the project site, and may
nest on or immediately adjacent to the project site. In addition, great horned owl, western
screech-owl, sharp-shinned hawk, red shouldered hawk, and American kestrel all are known
from the area, and could conceivably nest on the project site. All of these raptors (that is, birds of
prey) are also protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13) and their eggs and
young are protected under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3800, and
3513. Any project-related impacts to these species would be considered a significant adverse
impact. Potential impacts to these species from the proposed project include disturbance to
nesting birds, and possibly death of adults and/or young. No nesting raptors have been identified
on the proposed project site; however, no specific surveys for nesting raptors have been conducted.
As such, in the absence of survey results, it must be concluded that impacts to nesting raptors from
the proposed project would be potentially significant pursuant to CEQA. This impact could be
mitigated to a level considered less than significant.
11.12 Mitigation Measure 6. Nesting Raptors (Birds of Prey)
In order to avoid impacts to nesting raptors, a nesting survey should be conducted prior to
commencing with construction work if this work would commence between February 1st and
August 31st .The raptor nesting survey should include examination of all trees within 500 feet of
the entire project site, not just trees slated for removal.
If nesting raptors are identified during the surveys, the dripline of the nest tree must be fenced
with orange construction fencing (provided the tree is on the project site), and a 200-foot radius
around the nest tree must be staked with bright orange lath or other suitable staking. If the tree is
located off the project site, then the buffer should be demarcated per above where the buffer
occurs on the project site. The size of the buffer may be altered if a qualified raptor biologist
conducts behavioral observations and determines the nesting raptors are well acclimated to
disturbance. If this occurs, the raptor biologist should prescribe a modified buffer that allows
sufficient room to prevent undue disturbance/harassment to the nesting raptors. No construction
or earth-moving activity should occur within the established buffer until it is determined by a
qualified raptor biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained
sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction zones. This typically occurs by July 15th.
This date may be earlier or later, and would have to be determined by a qualified raptor biologist.
If a qualified biologist is not hired to watch the nesting raptors then the buffers should be
maintained in place through the month of August and work within the buffer can commence
September 1st.
Two surveys should be required to address both early and later nesting raptor species. Great
horned owls and American kestrels begin nesting in February; western screech owls, red-tailed
54
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
hawks and red-shouldered hawks begin nesting in March and April; and the Cooper’s hawk and
sharp-shinned hawk begin nesting in May. Thus, an early survey should be conducted in
February or March. If all trees slated for removal have not been removed by March 1st, or if
construction has not commenced by the end of March, a second nesting survey should be
conducted in late April or early May. If construction/tree removal would commence after May
but before September 1st, then the second survey should be conducted within the 30 day period
prior to site disturbance.
If the early nesting survey identifies a large stick or other type of raptor nest that is inactive at the
time of the survey, but that was evidently used in the previous year (as evidenced by condition of
the nest and possibly presence of whitewash and/or feathers/down on the nest), a protection
buffer (as described above) should be established around the potential nesting tree. This buffer
should remain until a second follow-up nesting survey can be conducted to determine the status
of the nest and eliminate the possibility that the nest is utilized by a late-spring nesting raptor (for
example, Cooper’s Hawk). This second survey should commence even if construction has
commenced. If during the follow-up late season nesting survey a nesting raptor is identified
utilizing the nest, the protection buffer should remain until it is determined by a qualified raptor
biologist that the young have fledged and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project
construction zones. If the nest remains inactive, the protection buffer can be removed and
construction and earth moving activities can proceed unrestrained. Implementation of this
mitigation measure would reduce impacts to nesting raptors to a level considered less than
significant.
11.13 Impact 7. Nesting Passerine Birds
Nesting passerine (perching) birds could be impacted by the proposed project. Passerine birds
and their nests are protected under California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5), and
the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Impacts to nesting birds, their eggs, and/or young caused
by implementation of the proposed project would be regarded as potentially significant. These
impacts could be mitigated to levels considered less than significant pursuant to CEQA.
11.14 Mitigation Measure 7. Nesting Passerine Birds
A nesting survey should be conducted on the project site and within a zone of influence around
the project site. The zone of influence includes those areas off the project site where birds could
be disturbed by earth-moving vibrations or noise. Accordingly, the nesting survey(s) must cover
the project site and an area around the project site boundary. If project site disturbance associated
with the project would commence between March 1 and September 1st, the nesting surveys
should be completed 15 days prior to commencing with the work. If common (that is, not
special-status) birds for example, California towhee, western scrub jay, or acorn woodpeckers
are identified nesting on or adjacent to the project site, a non-disturbance buffer of 75 feet should
be established or as otherwise prescribed by a qualified ornithologist. The buffer should be
demarcated with painted orange lath. Disturbance around an active nest should be postponed
until it is determined by a qualified ornithologist that the young have fledged and have attained
sufficient flight skills to leave the area.
55
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
Typically, most passerine birds in the region of the project site are expected to complete nesting
by August 1st. However, many species can complete nesting by the end of June or in early to
mid-July. Regardless, nesting buffers should be maintained until August 1st unless a qualified
ornithologist determines that young have fledged and are independent of their nests at an earlier
date. If buffers are removed prior to August 1st, the qualified biologist conducting the nesting
surveys should prepare a report that provides details about the nesting outcome and the removal
of buffers. This report should be submitted to the Town of Woodside prior to the time that
buffers are removed if the date is before August 1st.
This mitigation measure would reduce impacts to nesting common bird species to a level
considered less than significant.
56
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
12. LITERATURE CITED
Black, H. L. 1974. A north temperate bat community: structure and prey populations.
J. Mammal. 55:138-157.
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2000. Guidelines for assessing the effects of
proposed developments on rare and endangered plants and plant communities. December
9, 1983, revised May 8, 2000.
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2008. Complete list of amphibian, reptile, bird
and mammal species in California. September 2008. 27 pps.
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2009. Special animals. California Natural
Diversity Data Base. 53 pp.
CGS (California Geological Survey) 1991. Geologic Map of the San Francisco - San Jose
Quadrangle, Regional Geologic Map No. 5A, 1:250,000 scale. Compilation by D.L.
Wagner, E.J. Bortugno, and R.D. McJunkin 1991.
http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/RGM/sfsj/sfsj.html.
CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Data Base). 2011. RareFind 3.2. Computer printout for
special-status species within a 5-mile radius of the project site. California Natural
Heritage Division, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2001. Inventory of rare and endangered plants of
California (sixth edition). Rare plant scientific advisory committee, David P. Tibor,
convening editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. x+338 pps.
Coate, Barrie D. 2011. Menlo Country Club Golf Course Renovation Tree Assessment,
Woodside. March 14.
Geluso, K. N. 1978. Urine concentrating ability and renal structure of insectivorous bats.
J. Mammal. 59:312-323.
Hickman, J. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. University of California
Press, Berkeley. 1400 pp.
Jennings, M.R., M.P. Hayes, and D.C. Holland. 1992. A petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to place the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the western
pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) on the list of endangered and threatened wildlife and
plants. 21 pp.
Jennings, M.R., M.P. Hayes 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in
California. Final Report Submitted to the California Department of Fish & Game, Inland
Fisheries Division. Rancho Cordova, CA. 255 pp. November 1.
57
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
Johnsgard, P.A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, & Falcons of North America: Biology and Natural History.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. 403 pps.
NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service). 2011. United States Department of Agriculture.
Soil survey of San Mateo County, Eastern part, and San Francisco County, California
[Online WWW]. Available URL: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Survey.aspx?State=CA
[Accessed January 21, 2011]
Romig Engineers. 2011. Geotechnical Investigation for Golf Course Improvements at the Menlo
Country Club, 2300 Woodside Road, Woodside, California. 42 pps. February.
Stebbins, R.C. 2003. Western reptiles and amphibians. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Company,
New York, NY. 533 pps.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1992. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;
commencement of status review for a petition to list the western pond turtle and California
red-legged frog. Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 193, pp. 45761-45762.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996. Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office Guidelines
for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and
Candidate Plants. September 23.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002. Recovery plan for the California red-legged frog
(Rana aurora draytonii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. Viii + 173
pps.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 2003. Interim guidance on site assessment and field
surveys for determining presence or a negative finding of the California tiger salamander.
October 2003. Joint survey protocol released by the California Department of Fish and
Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. October 2003. 12 pps.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;
designation of critical habitat for the California tiger salamander, central population; final
rule (50 CFR Part 17, August 23, 2005).
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 2008. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Revised Critical Habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii)
Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17 Proposed Rule: September 16 (Volume 73, Number
180, pp. 53491-53540)
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants:
Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for California Red-Legged Frog; Final Rule.
Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17 March 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 51) Page 1281512864.
58
Monk & associates
Biological Resources Analysis
Menlo Country Club
Town of Woodside, San Mateo County
Whitaker, J. O., Jr., C. Maser, and L. E. Keller. 1977. Food habits of bats of western Oregon.
Northwest Sci. 51:46-55.
Whitaker, J. O., Jr., C. Maser, and S. P. Cross. 1981. Food habits of eastern Oregon bats, based on
stomach and scat analyses. Northwest Sci. 55:281-292.
Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White. 1988. California's wildlife,
volume I, amphibians and reptiles. State of California, the Resources Agency, Department
of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.
59