HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 ResourceMgmtPlanEDPO
File #
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
SUBJECT:
Report on Resource Management Plan within the Eastern Dublin
Properties Owners Annexation Area"" ./
Report Prepared by: Andy Byde, Senior Planner '-10'""""
ATT ACHMENTS:
1.
2.
Resource Management Plan
Letter from Varni, Fraser, Hartwell and Rodgers
RECOMMENDATIO~
1.
2.
3.
4.
Receive the Staff and Consultant presentation;
Receive public testimony;
Question Staff and the public; arid
Accept the Report on Resource Management Plan.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
The costs of preparing the Resource Management Plan are being
paid through developer deposits and will ultimately be borne by all
property owners within the area at the time the properties approach
the City for development.
DESCRIPTION:
Back¡¿round
The Eastern Dublin Properties Owners (EDPO) project area consists of 13 contiguous parcels totaling
1,120 acres with 11 different ownerships and is located east of Fallon Road to the City limit line and
Sphere of Influence line (see Figure 3.2 on page 94 of Attachment 1 for the adopted Stage 1 Site Plan). As
part of requesting the annexation and approving the prezoning (which consisted of a Stage 1 Planned
Development) of the Eastern Dublin Property Owners area, the City Council certified a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) on April 2, 2002, that contained several mitigation measures
requiring future environmental and resource analysis to be done.
Specifically, the SEIR contains Mitigation Measure SM-BIO 1 that requires the preparation of a Resource
Management Plan (RMP) for the entire 1,120 acre EDPO property prior to the approval of any subsequent
development. The purpose of the Resource Management Plan is to address impacts of the approved
development on biological resources across the entire project area (as opposed to addressing such impacts
on a parcel-by-parcel basis).
In October of 2002, the City Council authorized the Staff to distribute Requests for Proposals to various
environmental consulting firms. In July of 2003, the City Council awarded the contract to Wetlands
Research Associates, Inc. for preparation of the RMP. The consultant prepared the RMP, which is before
the Council now for its review. The RMP is an informational document. No Council action is required,
although individual Councilmember comments are welcome.
.____________________________________________________________r__~~~~____~~r_____________________________________________________________~___~_~~~__~_________________________r_~______________________·_________________
COPIES TO:
Property Owners
In- House Distribution Q ,
ITEM NO.~
G:\P A#\2002\02-057 RMP\City Council Hearing\edpo.nnp.council.sr.rev.081904.doc
I fIb"?
Resource Mana¡¿ement
The RMP includes goals and management guidelines for identified Development and Conservation Areas
within the Project Area (see Figure 4.1 on page 108 of Attachment 1). The Development Area allows for
development projects while avoiding resource impacts (such as to Heritage Trees or wetlands/creeks) to
the extent feasible, relocating sensitive species into the Conservation Area prior to construction, and
minimizing impacts to the adjacent Conservation Area during construction (including worker education,
fencing, monitoring, hydrology and storm water planning) and post-construction (brochures, signs,
homeowner policies). The Conservation Area would be permanently protected and managed for sensitive
species and habitats through various methods including fencing and signage, vegetation management and
habitat enhancement, and monitoring with adaptive management. The Conservation Area would be
divided into three management zones each with slightly different goals and management guidelines: the
Aquatic and Buffer Zone (breeding ponds and the 300-foot buffer around them), the Corridor Zone (the
preserved drainage and the variable-width corridor surrounding it), and the Grassland Management Zone
(other upland areas not associated with the other two zones). A summary of the guidelines for each zone
is described below:
· The Aquatic and Buffer Zone management would be limited to a single road crossing and the
resulting bridge would be designed to be located as far as possible from the ponds and to span the
largest portion of the zone feasible. A recreational trail would be located along the outermost edge
of the zone, and vegetation management would consist of very limited short-term grazing or
mowing and very limited herbicide use.
· The Corridor Zone would allow for three road crossings and bridges designed to span the drainage
and, if possible, the entire corridor. Trail design and vegetation management would be similar to
the Aquatic and Buffer Zone.
· The Grassland Management Zone would allow for very limited development and/or agricultural
uses as allowed under the Specific Plan (i.e. one residence per 100 acres). The recreational trail
would be designed to avoid sensitive areas (such as burrowing owl colonies). Vegetation
management would consist primarily of grazing with supplemental herbicide use.
The Conservation Area identified in the RMP was designed to preserve the largest density of breeding
ponds (see Figure 3.3 on page 94 of Attachment 1), which occur on the Jordan Property, in addition to the
breeding pond that occurs on the Bankhead property along with 300-foot wide buffers around each pond
for California red-legged frog associated upland habitat (as noted in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service re-
proposed Critical Habitat Rule). The Conservation Area also includes a variable-width corridor between
the two along an existing drainage to allow for connection between the breeding sites. The width of the
corridor is designed to vary between 150 and 600 feet wide, with a total average width of 400 feet, to
allow for preservation of the more sensitive areas along the drainage (such as large seep areas) while
allowing for a narrower corridor in less sensitive areas (such as more seasonal, channelized portions of the
drainage). See discussion in Section 3.2, page 92 of Attachment 1 for more information about the
development of the site opportunities including corridor widths. Grassland habitat would be preserved for
California tiger salamander estivation and habitat for other sensitive species (i.e. burrowing owl) in the
Conservation Area along the City's designated Scenic Viewshed Zone (mostly on the Tseng property) and
in areas above the City's 770-foot Elevation Development Cap (mostly on the Bankhead and Mandeville
properties). Impacts to biological resources were analyzed based on the Site Opportunities Map showing
potential conservation and development areas (see Figure 3.3 on page 94 of Attachment 1), and associated
mitigation measures from the SEIR were applied to these impacts.
RMP Fundin1!
The RMP also includes a discussion of funding options. Prior to the completion of development, a
funding source for the management of the open space must be identified and assured by the developer
2~?
(this is required in the SEIR). Two funding options briefly discussed in the RMP include (1) the
establishment of an endowment, the interest from which is used to fund annual expenses, and (2) the
establishment of an entity, such as a special district, which would collect regular fees or taxes within the
Project Area to fund annual expenses. A general cost estimate using the endowment approach is included
as an appendix in the RMP.
Land Owner Meetinfls
City Staff sent out the RMP to all of the property owners within the area on July 2, 2004. On July 8,
2004, City Staff and the Consultants held a meeting to go over the RMP and to solicit comments and
feedback from the property owners in the area. To date Staff had received one written comment regarding
the RMP from Anthony Varni, from Varni, Fraser, Hartwell and Rodgers, representing the Jordan Family
Trust. In his letter dated July 9, 2004 (see Attachment 2), Mr. Varni makes two comments: (1) the
Trustees do not consent to the creation of an Aquatic and Buffer Zone around the ponds and drainage
channels located on the property; and (2) it is his understanding that the RMP would not prohibit the
historic cattle grazing on the property.
Staff has the following response to these two comments. Comment 1: The Aquatic and Buffer Zone would
only apply to new development projects and would not apply to those uses currently utilizing the property.
The Stage 1 Planned Development that the City Council adopted on April of 2002, has a provision of
"Interim Agricultural" land use that would allow the existing residential and agricultural uses approved
under Alameda County's Zoning Ordinance to remain until such time as the property owner applies for a
Development Plan to develop the property. The Aquatic and Buffer Zone would only apply to future
development as approved by the City. In addition, the Aquatic and Buffer Zone on the Jordan property
was a result of multiple sightings of California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander (see Figure
2.5 and 2.7 of Attachment 1) on the property and the existing habitat known to occur on the property (i.e.
occupied ponds and drainage channels). The large conservation area on the Jordan property is only shown
on the map as a measure to partially offset habitat loss as a result of future development on only the
Jordan property, not for other properties within the Project Area.
Comment 2: Mr. Varni is correct in saying that the historic cattle grazing would be allowed to continue, as
previously mentioned the "Interim Agricultural" land use would allow the existing residential and
agricultural uses. The application of the Resource Management Plan would apply to future residential and
commercial development of the properties within the Project Area.
Future Use of The RMP and Next Steps
In addition to satisfying required mitigation measures, the RMP will be used for future land planning
efforts within the EDPO area. The RMP is currently written as though it were adopted, or to be adopted,
and thus contains statements that various actions "will" occur or are "prescribed". Through receipt of this
report, however, the Council is not adopting the analysis or measures identified in the RMP. Instead, the
RMP will be considered and applied, as appropriate, through future review of the EDPO General Plan and
Specific Plan amendments and implementing development projects. Therefore, subsequent to City
Council receipt of the RMP, the next step for the EDPO area will be for the Council to review
amendments to the existing General Plan, Specific Plan (where applicable) and the Stage 1 Planned
Development Zoning for the area considering the RMP and the constraints identified. Appropriate
environmental review will be performed for any such amendments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the Staff and Consultant presentation and public
testimony; question Staff and the public, and accept the report.
3BtJ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Resource Management Plan
for the
East Dublin Properties
Prepared for:
City of Dublin
Prepared by:
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc.
and Zander Associates
With assistance from:
Sycamore Associates LLC
MacKay and Somps
Hydro Science
Basin Research Associates
July 2, 2004
- DRAFf-
i (J
~TTACHMENT \
I+'¿YV\ ~. \
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:J-~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.. .... III.........". .... it. ill Ii III .... 1II..iII III III. .....111. ".. III III ........... ...111........... .......... III" III..... III". III III..... III.. III...... Ii 1
1. INTRODUCTION "...... .111.111....... III ."."...... ..." ...it.iII......... ............. III... .... III. ....... ....."... III.......""".. ...... III..... III. ill. it 2
1.1 Project Area Location and Description...................................................................... 2
1.2 Project History and Planning Background................................................................. 2
1.3 Purpose and Goals...... ....... .......... ...... .......... ........... ...... ..... ................. ...................... 11
1.4 Overview and Organization of the RMP ................................................................. 12
2. PROJECT AREA RESOURCES ..................."..............""..................................................... 13
2.1 Biological Resources Assessment.... ........ ........... ......................... ...... ...................... 13
2.1.1 Introduction..............................................................·.·....·..........·......· 13
2.1.1.1 Existing Site Conditions and Uses.. ............ ..... .................................... ..... 13
2.1.1.2 Background............ ................................................................................... 14
2.1.2 On-Site Biological Resources ............................................................ 16
2.1.2.1 Vegetation Communities and Habitats ....................................... ..... .......... 16
2.1.2.2 Special-Status Natural Communities and Plants.........................~.......... 22
2.1.2.3 Special-Status Plants....................... .......... ............................................... 23
2.1.2.4 Special-Status Wildlife................................ .............................................. 28
2.2 Geology, Soils and Slope ......................................................................................... 61
2.3 Hydrologic Conditions............. ..... .......... ........ ........... ........ ...... ......... ....................... 63
2.3.1 Introduction................ .......... ....... .............. ......................................... 63
2.3.2 Existing & Proposed Downstream Drainage Systems....................... 64
2.3.3 Methodology and Criteria.. ..... ......................... .................................. 67
2.3.4 Analysis Summary...... ...... ............ ............................... ....... ............... 68
2.4 Cultural Resources .................................................. ..... ............................................. 69
2.4.1 Regulatory Background ..................................................................... 69
2.4.2 Historical Background .................. .............................. ..... .............. .... 71
2.4.3 Methods.........................................................................···················.. 74
2.4.4 Project Area Findings ..................................... ................................... 75
3. PROJECT AREA ANALYSES AND PLANNING....................................................·....·........·..· 81
3.1 Constraints Analysis ................................................................................................ 81
3.1.1 Introduction................ ................................. .................. ..................... 81
3.1.2 Regulatory Policies ............................................................................ 82
3.1. 2.1 Federal Regulations................ .................................................................. 82
3.1.2.2 State Regulations and Policies............ ................ ..............:............ ........... 83
3.1.2.3 Local Regulations, Policies and Plans .....................................................84
3.1.3 Biologiéal Constraints........ ....................... ............................ ......... .... 85
3.1.3.1 California Red-Legged Frog.......... ........... .......... ..................... ........ ......... 86
3.1.3.2 California Tiger Salamander.................................... ........................ ........... 88
3.1.3.1 Burrowing Owl and Nesting Raptors........................................................ 88
3.1.3.3 San Joaquin Kit Fox........ ............ .................. ........... ............................. .... 88
3.1.3.4 Special-Status Plants ................................ ................................. ............... 89
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
3ð'
b
3.1.3.5 Aquatic Resources................. .... ........... .............. ........ ............ .......... ......... 89
3.1.4 Physical Constraints ........................................................................... 89
3.1.4.1 Geology and Soils .................... ....... .............. ............ ................................ 89
3.1.4.2 Project Access and Circulation ................................................................ 90
3.1.4.3 Utility Services ....... ....................... ...................... ................ ...,.................. 90
3.1.5 Cultural Resource Constraints ........................................................... 90
3.1.6 Land Use Constraints... ...................................................................... 91
3.1.6.1 Land Use Policies .................... ........... .................. ............ .................. ...... 91
3.1.6.2 Airport Protection Area........ .............. ................. ........ .... ........ ................. 91
3.1.6.3 Adjoining Land Uses...................................... ..... ........... ...... ........... .......... 92
3.2 Development of The Site Opportunities Map.......................................................... 92
3.3 Site Opportunities Map - Impacts and Mitigation ................................................... 93
3.3.1 Special Status Species ................... .......................... ...... ...................... 96
3.3.1.1 California Red-legged Frog......... ..... .............. ................. .......................... 96
3.3.1.2 California Tiger Salamander....................................................................98
3.3.1.3 Burrowing Owls and Special Status Birds................................................ 99
3.3.1.4 Special Status Mammals .............. ................ ........ ................ ............. ...... 100
3.3.1.5 Special Status Invertebrates...... .............................................................. 101
3.3.1.6 Special Status Plants ..... ........ ............ ...................... ................................ 102
3.3.2 Special Status Natural Communities and Aquatic Features ............102
3.3.2.1 Wetlands and Waters.. .............................................. .............................. 102
3.3.2.2 Central Coast Riparian Scrub................................................. ............... 104
3.3 .3 Cultural Resources......................................................................····· 104
4. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................................................................ 107
4.1 Description of Management Areas and Goals ....................................................... 107
4.1.1 Development Area ............................ ............... ............ .................... 107
4.1.2 Conservation Area ...... ............................................................ ......... 109
4.1.2.1 Aquatic and Buffer Zone ............................ ............................................. 109
4.1.2.2 Corridor Zone ..... .................. ..... ............. ................. .......... ..................... 110
4.1.2.3 Grassland Management Zone ........................................................ ......... 110
4.2 Management Techniques per Management Area................................................... 111
4.2.1 Development Area ........................................................................... III
4.2.2 Conservation Area ........................................................................... 113
4.2.2.1 Aquatic and Buffer Zone ......................................................................... 114
4.2.2.2 Corridor Zone ......... .............. ................ ................................... ............... 119
4.2.2.3 Grassland Management Zone.................................................. ............... 122
4.3 Funding Analysis and Assurance ....... ................. ................ ...................... ............. 126
5 . REFERENCES .... ................... lit ..... lit ......... ... ""....... ... .......... ...... ............... ..... ....." ..".... III ............ III 127
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~Db
FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Regional Location of the Project Area.... ......................... .......... ........................... 3
Figure 1.2. East Dublin Properties Project Area.......................................................·...........·.. 4
Figure 1.3. Photo Viewpoint Locator Map ............. ................................. ....... .................... ..... 5
Figure 2.1 Plant Communities and Aquatic Features........................................................... 19
Figure 2.2. Wetlands and Waters Features ............................................................................ 24
Figure 2.3 Special-Status Plant Occurrences............ .............. ................ "'."""" ....... ............. 29
Figure 2.4. Special-Status Branchiopod Sampling Sites ....................................................... 36
Figure 2.5. California Red-Legged Frog Sightings and Habitat............................................ 41
Figure 2.6. California Red-Legged Frog Regional Occurrences ...........................................42
Figure 2.7. California Tiger Salamander Sightings and Habitat............................................ 45
Mammals 49
Figure 2.8. California Tiger Salamander Regional Occurrences........................................... 50
Figure 2.9. San Joaquin Kit Fox, Burrowing Owl, and Golden Eagle Regional Occurrences53
Figure 2.10. Burrowing Owl Sightings and Potential Nesting Raptor Habitat...................... 56
Figure 2.11 Landslide and Soil Conditions.... ..................... ........................................... ....... 65
Figure 2.12 Cultural Resources............... ..................................................... ........................ 78
Figure 3.1. Combined Biological Constraints........................... .................... ........... .............. 87
Figure 3.2. Current Stage 1 Development Plan ....... .................................. ............. ............... 94
Figure 3.3 Site Opportunities Map................................... ..... ............. .......... ......... ............... 95
Figure 4.1 Management Areas within the Project Area........................;...................·.....·.. 108
TABLES
Table '2.1. Summary of EDPO Project Area Surveys ........................................................... 18
Table 2.2 Peak Flows by EDPO Sub-Basins and Storm Events............................................ 69
Table 3.1. Acres of California red-legged frog potential habitat impacts, required
mitigation, and on- and off-site potential mitigation opportunities. .............. 97
Table 3.2. Acres of California tiger salamander potential habitat impacts, required
mitigation, and on- and off-site potential mitigation opportunities. .............. 99
APPENDICES
1 - Hydrologic Conditions Information
2 - Off-site Mitigation Site Selection Criteria
3 - Special Status Species Pre-Construction Surveys, Salvage and Relocation Guidelines
4 - Integrated Stormwater Runoff Program
5 - Vegetation and Pest Management Guidelines
6 - Specific Habitat Enhancement Guidelines
7 - Monitoring and Adaptive Management Guidelines
8 - Cost Estimate for Endowment Funding Approach
iü
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
1j"" 0-'
Ib
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties is the result of a collaborative
effort between the City of Dublin and several entities. Much of the biological background
infonnation and survey data for the East Dublin Properties was collected and compiled into a
Geographic Infonnation System (GIS) database by Sycamore Associates LLC, which was
subsequently peer reviewed by Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. (WRA). Some of this
infonnation as contained in the Resource Management Plan Studies for the East Dublin
Properties, May 1, 2003 (revised January 21, 2004) prepared by Sycamore Associates and
MacKay and Somps, such as site and species background information and portions of the
appendices, has been directly incorporated into this RMP. WRA also conducted biological
surveys on the Jordan Property, and included this data into the GIS database. WRA, and MacKay
and Somps, provided background data and map information for the East Dublin Properties
regarding geologic and hydrologic conditions; Hydro Science peer reviewed this infonnation and
also conducted an assessment of these conditions on the Jordan property. Basin Research
Associates, Inc. conducted the cultural resources assessment of the East Dublin Properties. WRA
and Zander Associates utilized all of the compiled information in resource analyses and planning
for this RMP.
iv
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IPI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
lQ Db
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In order to comply with mitigation measure SM~BIO-1 from the East Dublin Properties
Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Revised Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report (2002), a Resource Management Plan (RMP) has been prepared in order to
comprehensively evaluate potential impacts to sensitive biological resources present on
all of the East Dublin Properties, an 1,120 acre area consisting of 13 parcels in 11
different ownerships. This analysis required conducting necessary biological surveys on
the East Dublin Properties, and compiling the resulting data for use in impact analyses.
Sensitive resources present within the Project Area include habitat for California red-
legged frog, California tiger salamander, burrowing owl, raptors, two rare plants, and
wetlands and riparian habitat. A constraints analysis was conducted for these sensitive
biological resources with regard to significant resource agency and City policies, species
habitat requirements, and other land use constraints. Cultural, hydrologic and geologic
resources were also evaluated but were determined not to be significant site constraints.
The result of this analysis was a set of draft opportunities maps, depicting several
potential site development and resource conservation scenarios. A Site Opportunities
Map was developed which met the reuirements of SM~BIO-1 and most closely followed
the City's General Plan for the Project Area. The Site Opportunities Map is based on the
most current information available; however, as new information becomes available, the
RMP allows for some variation in the final site design from the Site Opportunities Map.
Impacts to biological resources were then determined under this opportunities map
scenario, and applicable mitigation measures (from the 2002 SEIR) were applied to
avoid, minimize, and/or compensate for these impacts.' These methods are described in
detail to protect and manage the resources within an approximately 294-acre
Conservation Area, the emphasis of which is the protection of aquatic resources (ponds
and a connecting drainage corridor) and surrounding habitats for the California red-
legged frog and California tiger salamander. Additional mitigation may be required at
off~site location(s) to fully mitigate some of the impacts within the Project Area to these
species and other resources.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(Db
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT AREA LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The East Dublin Properties (Project Area) consists of approximately 1,120 acres in the
City of Dublin, located north of Interstate 580 and east of Fallon Road (Figure 1.1). The
Project Area was annexed to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services
District (DSRSD) in the spring of 2002. About 475 acres of the Project Area are included
within the City's Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (1994, revised 2004) area.
The Project Area is largely composed of grazed grasslands that historically have been
dryland fanned. It is bisected by two minor drainages that cross the property in a
southwesterly direction. On-site elevations range from approximately 340 to 955 feet
above mean sea level and consist of relatively flat terrain near Interstate 580 to gentle to
moderately rolling hills throughout the remainder of the site. The Project Area consists of
thirteen parcels in eleven different ownerships' (Figure 1.2). Some properties have
changed ownership since the Specific Plan was released; the Braddock and Logan Group
currently owns the Bankhead and Mandeville properties, and T.W. Starkweather
currently owns the Campbell property. However, for reasons of consistency, these
properties are referred to as Bankhead, Mandeville, and Campbell.
The Project Area's visual character is presented in a series of photographs that are keyed
to Figure 1.3, "Photo Viewpoints Locator Map." These present a portrait of the site's
landscape from representative vantage points throughout Project Area.
The property immediately to the west of the Project Area was annexed into the City in
1995 and is currently under development as the Dublin Ranch project.
1.2 PROJECT HISTORY AND PLANNING BACKGROUND
Preparation of a Resource Management Plan (RMP) is required to satisfy a mitigation
measure included in the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and
Annexation Revised Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (January 2002).
Mitigation measure SM-BIO-1 states:
"In order to address newly analyzed impacts, and in order to address impacts to
biological resources in a coordinated manner across the entire Project Area (as opposed
to addressing them solely on a property-by-property basis), the Project proponents shall
prepare and implement a Resource Management Plan (RMP) as described below.
Following approval of the Project, but prior to subsequent submittal to the City for
discretionary review of any specific development proposal for any property within the
I The remalning nine landowners include: Fallon Enterprises (represented by the Braddock and Logan
Group), First American Title (two parcels, represented by Jordan Charitable Trust), Chen or Tseng
(represented by Kaiway Investment 10), Croak (two parcels), EBJ Partners L.P., Pleasanton Ranch
Investments, Anderson Second Family Limited Partnership, Righetti Partners, and Branaugh. The Chen
property is frequently referred to as the Tseng property.
I
. "-....'\...."
\
I
'-'
.'f'"\
I
-j
/--,.~...,,,.,.
\
I
I
-'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
.
0,5
1
. Miles
.........'
.-
¡ '.:;":-",
Sycamore Associates, LLC,
2099 Mt Diablo Boulevard, Suite 204
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
(925) 279-0580 Phone
Figure 1.1
Project Area
East Dublin Properties
Resource Management Plan
Dublin, California
~
1m]
I
Legend
D East Dublin Properties
Current Development
$
I
1 :31,680 July 2004
1 inch equals 0.5 miles
~Ial'ldl kMGrchAuoolotft.lnQ.
This document provided for the sole use of Braddock & Logan Group, LP.
This document not intended for detail design work.
Airphoto provided by MacKay and Somps, 2003
I Date: July 2004
L:\ACAD2000\12127\GIS\Arcma \RMI'Fi 'ures\Fi mrel l.mxd
Wetland Research Associates, Inc.
2169-G East Francisco Blvd.
San Rafael, CA 94901
(415) 454~8868 Phone
(415) 454-0129 Fax
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.....
'"
..... c...... :"'-
"" 0 a
.~ <\)
;U ()
i' <\) a ~
q þ (f¡
CD Z ;,'( ,
(f¡
:1 \,
õ
;u:;
;;:()
-oJ>
,,0
_.N
o
c: 0
@9
<J) -'
-- N
".....
-. '"
<:: -.¡
roG)
~cn
!"þ
3 ...,
>< ('J
0.3
Q
"S-
OJ
Q
<J)
Q)
3
'"
-0
o
ro
~
'-
<::
.:z
N
o
o
.þ.
o
"'0
""i
o
<:......
~
~
~
~
.....
(JQ
==
""i
!'tJ
)00000
.
N
U
t::
cr"
..........
;r
Qt=:
=: :\:)
(jJ8
a g.
....... :\:)
:\:) n
8
=:I
9"
;;!
~ ~.
:::! ~
'" '"
",-",
- '"
'â'> ..,
-: .g
;:;;
~ .
~
s -
~~
~ §'
~~
~o
~~
~S"
~' 5
~
.I>-
o
o
UJ
n
>
L'
tT1
;;:
Q
o
^
ro
'<
I/O
(f)
o
3
"0
y>
-0
Cõ
ro
<J)
Q
::>
Õ
"::>
()
J>
$
II
00
o
o
0:>
o
o
>
""i
~
~
s=
~
~
..........
:::
tv
o
o
m
,,0
roO
ro
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ii
Id
(1)
r.n
o
C
....¡
o
(1)
~
:\:)
=:I
:\:)
(JQ
3
(1)
=:I
......
"ï:1
..........
§
tT1
:\:)
r.n
......
~
ã
~
~ ...
~~~~ r
-;~ ~ ~ ã
~t-~:;; ñ
~i~~ ~
~~d 8~
¡¡:~~
... ,1
j
5'
p
(f)
~'<
~ ¡;¡
_:<~ 3
~~~ Q
-;: ~ ~ (þ
~~~ è;
g"ê CIJ
~oii" 0
"U~~ Q.
i5 .. ," Q
ã: ~ g> q;
i' (J
'"
¡¡:õ
()
u
c
cr"
..........
Eï
'ì:I
a
'"0
3-
.......
(1)
r.n
~
.'
->;I' '
" ~' . c
...(")
9
\,
"JI':r[) r;
h ;
"¡..~{ ! I~
t I
. '
\j \./":
. I'
IJI··· ¡.
--" .' 0 "
I .f .o~{ ,\
i' "; ~
~'''''-'; ,
_m"_"_"" ~..",,~
I
I
I
I
I ,.\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
}
/ ~
"\
Spring
"'.
~..i..../.'...'
" J'/'/(
I ¡",'
,\,,\ \
'\
\
, i
"
\ "-
-'>
.......,
-~
....~....
\
\
,
\ ,,' ."..
'''-''~'.
..<'" I
j'--
1 ~ ' '.
.~ ..' '. "'.-
~~ . ,,'
...,~...
,
~'
,."'...~./¡
II
}
>/ " if:',
~ ". .'\ 'I.,
\( "'- - .
!7) ~
, ',)' Q' ".
'?' ¡I.~./B
irr: ,i""
;/,.' Q;
I
D" '
. " 1
1 i' I:
I " r'
i ,I /
\ /"'\ \ I If l ) r' \
~::.- ~',:~~._-_.-
.1 /'4ðO
··...V 2 ~
, ~.:.. ..... ", .' ,)
U "-...../\ .;:/ . '.' ,
.' \~'. ". ....~~~...:
. '_..,_.,....., '<".~ 1
I· '" ~ \
......". '" . l
"aO "
~
C
-J.
-J
't:
l...
¿
Q:
'..-
)" - /'-.-
"''', ("'" /.
(
~. n ß
'I ... , ......j
I: (:;:'''' l
I )è4-::'- ....
.~----"'----
\.........~."
. ' .
.' ,,' -"-"'" I ....
/~"T
,....~r..., "."",::'"~:,, ".....__"
....~__.~'" I...J
t
'.' .-.J'
'-
.....~.........._-
...':........--..,......"'..... .........
_"" ;; LAN£
,.;,.,.
'''"--...,-.~
,"
"',""1
"
", Jnrnan
\ :)ch
:;¡ LI'INE-_
-." "- ._~.~"' .,.., -
/-
/
Legend
$
Figure 1.3
Photo Viewpoint Locator Map
East Dublin Properties
Resource Management Plan
Dublin, California
. Em
,ftfla l~.IM"archAuoelgM..lne.
Sycamore Associates, LLC. Wetland Research Associates, Inc.
2099 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Suite 204 2169-G East Francisco Blvd,
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 San Rafael, CA 94901
(925) 279-0580 Phone (415) 454~8868 Phone
(415) 454-0129 Fax
D East Dublin Properties
1 :18,000 4/27/04
1 inch equals 1,500 feet
.
Photo Viewpoint Locations
o
I
3,000
I Feet
1,500
ThiS document not intended for detail design work.
USGS topographic quadrangle data from MapTech (1998).
I Date: July 2004
L:\ACAD2000\12127\GIS\Arcmap\RMPFigures\Figurc I 3.mxcd
I
/ / 6}
o
I
Photo Credits: Sycamore Associates LLC
I
/. '." ~~". ~ ~.
~:~~~::~;'~Ll~~i:i~~~~~_\,\_-~.,:\_...
I
I
I
I
I
I
Viewpoint 1: On the western
edge looking south along the
riparian corridor and Fallon
Road.
Viewpoint 2: Looking north onto the Jordan
Property from inside Drainage C.
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Viewpoint 3a: On the Jordan property looking south within riparian corridor.
Resource Management Plan tor the East Dublin Properties - July 2, 2004
6
I
I
I
Photo Credits: Sycamore Associates LLC
I
I
I
I
I
Viewpoint 3b: Within the willow riparian
corridor of Drainage C, looking south.
I
I
I
I
I
Viewpoint 5: Inside incised
channel of Drainage C3, on the
Bankhead parcel, looking
south.
I
I
I
I
I
Viewpoint 8: Minor tributary to
Drainage C3 looking west,
illustrating hills bounding the
Project Area on west and north.
I
/;;A ò
:)
Viewpoint 4: At the confluence of tributary
Drainages C2 and C3, looking north.
Viewpoint 6: Along access drive to Bankhead
Property, looking north up the watershed along
Drainage C3.
Viewpoint 7: Detail along Drainage C3,
depicting seasonal wetland feature, looking
to the northwest.
Resource Managemcnt Plan for the East Dublin Properties - July 2, 2004
I
7
I
I
I
Photo Credits: Sycamore Associates LLC
I
I
I
I
I
Viewpoint 9: Looking southwest towards Pond 2, a
breeding pond for California red legged frogs and
California tiger salamanders.
I
I
I
I
I
Viewpoint 13: Looking north toward the
ridgeline on the Mandeville Property.
I
I
I
I
I
I
/3 c:
j
Viewpoint 11: Looking north
along the ridgeline of the
Bankhead Property.
Viewpoint 10: View south
along Drainage C3 near the
north edge of the Project
Area.
Viewpoint 12: View south toward Dublin Ranch along Drainage 01_
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - July 2, 2004
8
I
I
Photo Credits: Sycamore Associates LLC
I
.,
1''MW'i¡\:
I
I
I
ILl t5b
Viewpoint 14: View southwest toward Jordan Property, within Drainage C2
I
I
I
I
I
I
Viewpoint 15: Looking
southwest from Croak Ranch
along View Drainage C1
I
I
I
I
I
Viewpoint 16: Looking north on Croak Road, among
plantation of trees and embankment.
Viewpoint 17: View of the quarry pond (Pond 1), looking east onto Anderson property.
I
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - July 2, 2004
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/~ 66
Project Area, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the city for its review and
approval an RMP encompassing all properties within the Project Area. The RMP will
analyze biological impacts in more detail and more comprehensively than can this
program-level SEIR, and such impacts will in turn be analyzed to an even greater,
project-level degree when Stage 2 development plans are submitted by individual
property owners within the Project Area to the City for discretionary review.
The RMP shall address all properties within the Project Area and any necessary off-site
mitigation lands. As noted below. it must apply and comply with all biological resource
mitigation measures contained in this SEIR (SM-BIO-2 through SM-BIO-45) and in the
Eastern Dublin EIR.
The RMP must address the following special-status species and habitats:
1. Botanically sensitive communities: arroyo willow riparian woodland, seasonal
wetlands. intermittent streams, freshwater marsh, and alkali grasslands
2. Special-status plant species: San Joaquin spearscale, Congdon's tarplant,
palmate bird's beak, caper-fruited tropidocarpum, and Livermore tarplant
3. Special-status invertebrates: Conservancy fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp,
vernal poolfairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp
4. Special-status amphibians: California red-legged frog and California tiger
salamander
5. Special-status raptors and passerines: golden eagle, western burrowing owl,
short-eared owl, sharp-shinned hawk, tricolored blackbird, loggerhead shrike,
and California horned lark
6. Special-status mammals: San Joaquin kit fox, pallid bat. Townsend's big-eared
bat, and Yuma myotis bat
The RMP shall consist of the following:
· Overview
· Discussion of existing conditions of soil, geology, adjacent and proposed
land uses, creeks and drainages. wetlands, vegetation, and special-status
plants and animals across the entire Project Area
· For each special-status species and sensitive habitat listed above, a
detailed discussion as follows:
1. General description of the resource - biology, life history. and
regional distribution
2. Specific description and mapping of occurrence across the Project
Area (to be based on property-by-property surveys)
3. Potential direct. indirect, and cumulative impacts per the Eastern
Dublin EIR and Supplemental EIR (mitigation measures 3.4/42.0;
3.6/18.0, 22.0, and 23.0; 3.7/1.0 - 28.0; 3.11/1.0)
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
10
/ ÚJ cJo
4. Description of applicable local, state, and federal regulatory
requirements
. A comprehensive and detailed plan for managing these resources
consistent with the following requirements and principles:
1. Each of the biological resource mitigation measures in the Eastern
Dublin EIR and Supplemental EIR
2. All applicable local, state, and federal regulatory requirements
3. Local resource protection policies (e.g., Stream Restoration
Program, Grazing Management Plan)
4. To the greatest extent feasible, and consistent with applicable
mitigation measures and regulatory requirements, impacts to sensitive
biological resources shall be avoided, and such resources shall be
preserved and managed on site (i.e., within the Project Area)
5. To the extent impacts to sensitive biological resources cannot be
avoided, those impacts shall be mitigated off site consistent with the
applicable mitigation measures
6. Sensitive biological resources, which are preserved either through
avoidance or mitigation, shall be permanently protected and managed.
The means to accomplish this shall be specified in the plan
7. Management efforts shall employ principles of adaptive
management, and shall be monitored regularly
8. Funding for such preservation, management and monitoring work
must be assured
Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce the identified impacts to a less
than si(Jnificant level. "
1.3 PURPOSE AND GOALS
The purpose of the RMP is to provide an operational framework for resource
enhancement and stewardship to mitigate impacts of future development on biological
and related resources across the entire 1,120-acre Project Area, consistent with
applicable regulatory requirements, and with the avoidance and minimization of impacts,
their mitigation, and the resource stewardship principles established in Mitigation
Measure SM-BIO-l. The RMP provides planning and operational guidance consistent
with SM-BIO-I for implementation through subsequent individual development projects
within the Project Area.
The secondary goal of the RMP is to facilitate the permitting processes for development
of the Project Area parcels. Towards that end, the City provided information on the draft
RMP to the agencies, and conducted a workshop for them during which agency input was
solicited and received. That input was then used in developing the final RMP.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/íÒ(j
1.4 OVERVIEW AND ORGANIZATION OF THE RMP
The RMP is composed of three separate but interdependent studies that are bound as one
document, and consist of the following sections: Project Area Resources (Section 2),
Project Area Analyses and Planning (Section 3), and a Resource Management Plan
(Section 4). These three sections are organized in the following manner:
Project Area Resources: This study consists of a comprehensive resource assessment of
the Project Area. The most extensive component of this report is the Biological
Resources section. This section describes and depicts the existing biotic conditions
including plant communities and wildlife habitats across the Project Area. Through
extensive focused surveys, it provides an assessment of vegetation communities and
habitats, potentially occurring special-status plants and sensitive natural communities,
and special-status wildlife. On-site physical resources are also evaluated, including site
geology, soils, and slope conditions, as well as hydrologic conditions and cultural
resources.
Project Area Analyses and Planning: This section consists of a constraints and
opportunities analysis, presents a site opportunities map for the Project Area, and
describes the resulting resource impacts and implementation of applicable mitigation
measures.
Resource Management Plan: This section presents recommended resource management
guidelines for the proposed Conservation Area, as supplemented by the following
programs and guidelines as appendices:
· Integrated Storm water and Runoff Program
· Vegetation Management and Integrated Pest Management Plans
· Off-site Mitigation Selection Criteria
· Monitoring and Adaptive Management Program
· Habitat Enhancement and Creation Guidelines
· Pre-construction and Salvage Guidelines
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
12
['3 ðÒ
2. PROJECT AREA RESOURCES
This section describes the existing biological, physical, and cultural resources within the
Project Area, which are based on the most current information available. An analysis of
these resources with regard to site planning and constraints is presented in Section 3.
2.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
2.1.1 INTRODUCTION
Sycamore Associates LLC (Sycamore Associates) and Wetlands Research Associates,
Inc. (WRA) conducted biological resource assessments and surveys for the approximate
l,120-acre Project Area located in the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. The
Biological Resources section of this report describes the existing on-site conditions,
including plant communities and wildlife habitats, and provides an assessment of
potentially occurring special-status plant and animal species.
2.1.1.1 Existing Site Conditions and Uses
The Project Area consists of mostly undeveloped grazed lands in eastern Alameda
County. It is located within the Livermore USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle (Township 2S
and 38, Range IE), and is approximately 1.2 miles east of Tassajara Road, and five miles
east of Interstate 680. The Project Area borders Fallon Road and Old Fallon Road to the
west, Interstate 580 to the south and extends to the southwestern ridgeline of Doolan
Canyon to the northeast. Topography on site consists of moderate to steeply sloping hills
divided by intermittent drainages, which flow southward toward the Livermore Valley.
Elevations on site range from approximately 340 to 955 feet above mean sea level.
Sparsely developed, privately owned ranch lands are present throughout the Project Area
which include rural residences, barns, parking areas, horse paddocks, and associated
outbuildings. Barbed wire fencing delineates most of the property lines. Adjacent land
uses consist primarily of agricultural lands and ranches, although an extensive residential
housing development (Dublin Ranch) is under construction adjacent to the entire western
boundary of the Project Area. The lands south of Interstate 580 are primarily
commercially developed. Historically, the Project Area and surrounding lands have been
used for livestock grazing and have been periodically cultivated in hay and grain using
dryland farming methods.
Habitats within the Project Area are characteristic of heavily grazed grasslands in the
Livermore Valley and are dominated by highly disturbed non-native grassland and
ruderal vegetation. The Tseng, EBJ, Pleasanton Ranch, Anderson, Righetti, Branaugh,
Jordan, and the northern portion of the Bankhead properties presently consist of grazed,
non-native annual grasslands. The Croak property is presently ungrazed, non-native
annual grasslands and the Mandeville and southern portion of the Bankhead property
were recently utilized for dryland farming of hay and grains.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J {j ()O
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.1.1.2 Background
Relevant studies completed for the Project Area and adjacent areas are as follows:
General Studies and Supporting Documents
· City of Dublin General Plan (City of Dublin 2002a)
· Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (City of Dublin 1998 adopted 1994, revised 2004)
· Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment / Specific Plan EIR (City of Dublin 1993)
· Revised Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, East Dublin Properties Stage 1
Development Plan and Annexation (City of Dublin 2002b ~ January)
· Revised Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, East Dublin Properties Stage I
Development Plan and Annexation (City of Dublin 2002c w March)
· Project Area Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for Dublin Ranch, Dublin, California (H.T. Harvey &
Associates 2000a)
· Biological Assessment for the Bankhead and Mandeville Properties (Sycamore Associates 2002a)
· Biological Assessment for the Jordan Property (Wetlands Research Associates 2003a)
Botanical and Wetland Studies
· Preliminary Report on the Conservation Status of Congdon's Spikeweed (Hemizonia parryi ssp.
Congdonii) in the South and East San Francisco Bay Area and Monterey County, California (Preston
1999)
· Rare Plant Survey of the East Dublin Property (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2000b)
· Botanical Assessment for the Bankhead, Mandeville and Croak Properties (Sycamore Associates
2002b)
· Botanical Assessment for the Tseng, Anderson, Righetti, Branaugh. Campbell, RBI, and Pleasanton
Ranch Properties (Sycamore Associates 2002c)
· Final U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Analysis, Dublin Ranch (H.T. Harvey & Associates
1 992a)
· Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the Bankhead and Mandeville
Properties (Sycamore Associates 2002d)
· Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the Tseng, Anderson, Righetti,
Branaugh, Campbell, EBl, and Pleasanton Ranch Properties (Sycamore Associates 2002e)
· Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the Croak Property (Sycamore
Associates 2002f)
· Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination for the Jordan Ranch (Zander
Associates 2000)
· Botanical Survey of the Jordan Property (Wetlands Research Associates, Inc.; 2004a, In Preparation)
Invertebrate Studies
· Pao Yeh Lin Property Special-Status Species Surveys (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1999a)
· Habitat Assessment for Threatened Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp and Endangered Longhorn Fairy Shrimp
for the Bankhead and Mandeville Properties (Entomological Consulting Services 2001)
· 2002w2003 Wet Season Branchiopod Survey Report (Condor Country Consulting 2003)
· 2001-2002 Wet Season Branchiopod Survey Report (Condor Country Consulting 2002)
· Interim SpecialwStatus Branchiopod Report for the East Dublin Properties (Sycamore Associates
2002g)
Amphibian Studies
· Site Assessment for California Red·legged Frog and California Tiger Salamander at the Bankhead and
Mandeville Properties (Sycamore Associates 2001a)
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
14
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
{).o õtJ
· Site Assessment for California Red-legged Frog, Dublin Corporate Center (Sycamore Associates
2001 b)
· California Red-legged Frog Focused Surveys, Dublin Corporate Center (Sycamore Associates 2001c)
· California Tiger Salamander Focused Surveys, Dublin Corporate Center (Sycamore Associates 2001d)
· Project Area Biological Assessment for the California Red-legged Frog (H.T. Harvey & Associates
2000c)
· Site Assessment for California Red-Legged Frog at the Croak Property (Sycamore Associates 2002h)
· California Red-Legged Frog Focused Survey Report for the Croak Property (Sycamore Associates
2003a)
· California Tiger Salamander Report for the East Dublin Properties (Sycamore Associates 2003b)
· Interim California Tiger Salamander Report, East Dublin Properties (Sycamore Associates 2002i)
· California Red-legged Frog Protocol-level Surveys for the Jordan Ranch. (Rana Resources 200la)
· California Tiger Salamander Protocol-level Surveys for the Jordan Ranch (Rana Resources 2001b)
· California Tiger Salamander Site Evaluation for the Jordan Property (Wetlands Research Associates
2003b)
· California Tiger Salamander Protocol-level Surveys for the Jordan Property (Wetlands Research
Associates, Inc.; In Progress)
Bird Studies
· Eastern Dublin Golden Eagle Survey Phase 1 Report (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1990)
· Dublin Ranch Area A Golden Eagle Report (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2000d)
· Dublin Ranch Golden Eagle Nest Buffer-Zone Analysis (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2000e)
· Habitat Assessment for Burrowing Owl, Tseng and Righetti Properties (Sycamore Associates 2002j)
· Habitat Assessment for Burrowing Owl, Bankhead, Mandeville, Anderson, Campbell, Branaugh and
Croak Properties (Sycamore Associates 2002k)
San Joaquin Kit Fox Studies
· Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Review of Kit Fox Issues Phase 1 Report (H.T. Harvey &
Associates 1991a)
· San Joaquin Kit Fox Surveys, Dublin Ranch (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1991b)
· Summary of Kit Fox Surveys in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties (H.T. Harvey & Associates
1 992b)
· Surveys for San Joaquin Kit Fox, Amphibians and Other Wildlife Species of Concern, Tassajara
Valley (Habitat Restoration Group and Sycamore Associates 1992)
· Dublin Ranch San Joaquin Kit Fox Preliminary Report and Results from Earlier Phases of Kit Fox
Surveys (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997a)
· Dublin Ranch San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997b)
· San Joaquin Kit Fox Surveys, Dublin Ranch, Alameda County, Phase 1, 1993 USFWS Protocol Fall
1996 (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997c)
· Distribution of the San Joaquin Kit Fox in the North Part of its Range (HT Harvey & Associates
1997d)
· Early Evaluation for the San Joaquin Kit Fox, Bankhead and Mandeville Properties (Townsend and
Sycamore Associates 2002a)
· Early Evaluation for the San Joaquin Kit Fox, Tseng and Righetti Properties (Townsend and Sycamore
Associates 2002b)
· Early Evaluation for San Joaquin Kit Fox for the Anderson, Campbell, Branaugh and Croak Properties
(Townsend and Sycamore Associates 2002c)
· Early Evaluation for San Joaquin Kit Fox for the Jordan Property (Wetlands Research Associates
2003c)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c9,/uo
2.1.2 ON-SITE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The infonnation presented in this report is based on the site assessments and surveys
listed in Section 2.1.1.2 above, which were conducted pursuant to respective specified
protocols defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and California Department of Fish and Game. Protocol parameters are discussed below.
Vegetation communities, wildlife habitats, and wetlands were mapped and evaluated to
identify baseline biological resource infonnation. Investigative methods varied by
specialty and the nature and significance of each resource type. A summary of the
biological studies and results are given in Table 2.1.
2.1.2.1 Vegetation Communities and Habitats
Project Area vegetation is characteristic of heavily grazed lands in the East Bay,
dominated by highly disturbed non-native grassland and ruderal vegetation. The primary
vegetation community within the Project Area is non-native annual grassland, with lesser
amounts of freshwater marsh, seasonal wetlands, riparian scrub, and alkali
meadow/grassland. Portions of the Project Area were under cultivation in barley during
some of the baseline biological surveys, and these areas have been characterized as
cultivated grain fields. When not in cultivation, such areas support non-native annual
grasslands. Freshwater marsh on site is generally associated with seeps along drainages,
and is also present within several impoundments, including an abandoned quarry
excavation. Seasonal wetlands are present in scattered locations, primarily in shallow
depressions within poorly drained, low-lying fields. Central Coast riparian scrub,
dominated by willows, is present along the westernmost drainage. Alkali meadows and
grasslands, supporting plant species adapted to highly alkaline soils, are also present
along portions of some of the drainages. Ornamental plantings, including shade trees,
fruit trees, and other horticultural plantings are located near ranch houses and associated
outbuildings. Vegetation communities are described in more detail below (Figure 2.1).
Non-Native Annual Grassland
Non-native annual grassland is generally found in open areas in valleys and foothills
throughout coastal and interior California (Holland 1986). It typically occurs on soils
consisting of fine-textured loams or clays that are somewhat poorly drained. This
vegetation type is dominated by non-native annual grasses and weedy annual and
perennial forbs, primarily of Mediterranean origin, that have replaced native perennial
grasslands and scrub as a result of human disturbance. Scattered native wildflower
species representing remnants of the original vegetation may also be common.
Characteristic non-native annual grasses commonly found on site include wild oats
(Avena spp.), brome grasses (Bromus spp.), wild barley (Hordeum spp.), Italian ryegrass
(Lolium multiflorum), and annual fescue (Vulpia spp.). Common non-native forbs include
yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), field
bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), long-beaked storkbill (Erodium botrys), and curly
. .'
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties ~ DRAFT July 2, 2004
16
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
dd. 6:0
dock (Rumex crispus), among many others. Common native species present within the
grassland community include purple sanicle (Sanicula bipinnatijìda), Ithuriel's spear
(Triteleia laxa), blue dicks (Dichelostemma capitatum ssp. capitatum), Fitch's spikeweed
(Centromadiafitchii), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), dove lupine (Lupinus
bicolor), hayfield tarweed (Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulaefolia), alkali mallow
(Malvella leprosa), rigid fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii var. intermedia), and narrow-
leaf milkweed (Asclepias fascicularis), among others.
On portions of the site that have been highly disturbed by human activities such as
grading and scraping, non-native annual grassland intergrades with ruderal habitat
consisting of dense stands of herbaceous, non-native forb species. Such areas are often
dominated by nearly monotypic colonies of such species as sweet fennel (Foeniculum
vulgare), hoary mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), yellow starthistle, bristly ox-tongue, wild
radish (Raphanus sativus), rose clover (Trifolium hirtum), and dittrichia (Dittrichia
graveolens), among others.
Non-native annual grassland conforms to the California annual grassland series as
described in Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995), and would be classified as an upland
following Cowardin et al. (1979).
Alkali Meadow and Grassland
Alkali meadow is typically a sparse to densely vegetated plant community consisting of
relatively few low growing plant species. It occurs on fine-textured, seasonally or
permanently moist alkaline soils. When dominated by annual grasses or forbs, it is
sometimes referred to as alkali grassland. Alkali meadow or grassland is distributed in
poorly drained valley bottoms and on the lower edges of alluvial slopes east of the
Cascades and the Sierra Nevada as well as throughout the Sacramento and San Joaquin
valleys and into the Livermore Valley. Although not specifically described in Holland
(1986), features commonly referred to as alkali scalds are frequently associated with
alkali meadow or grassland. Alkali scalds are relatively barren areas with a saline or
alkaline crust on the soil surface, supporting little or no vegetation.
Within the Project Area, alkali meadows, grasslands, and scalds occur in small, isolated
locations in the central and eastern drainages of the Bankhead property and in patches
along drainage CIon the Jordan Property. Portions of alkaline marsh and seep areas on
the Mandeville property might also be classified as alkali meadows. Additionally, many
plant taxa typical of alkaline soils were detected within low-lying, vernally wet
grasslands or in the vicinity of seasonal wetlands. In these areas, grasslands might best be
characterized as alkali grassland. Characteristic plant species of alkali meadows or
grasslands occurring within the Project Area include saltgrass (Distichilis spicata), alkali
heath (Frankenia salina), salt-marsh sand-spurrey (Spergularia marina), alkali mallow,
Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum), Italian ryegrass, and
common spikeweed (Centromadia pungens). Locally uncommon species, including alkali
barley (Hordeum depressum), alkali peppergrass (Lepidium dictyotum var. acutidens),
-
-
-
en
-c
( )
('
¡¡¡.
VI G)
g @
(' ( )
!:¡ ::;¡
¡¡¡ II
::;¡ ()
(' 0
( ) 3
VI -0
W m
CD ctr
c..
::;¡
¡¡¡
a.
Z ::E
2. :d
~ ~
-< 1/
q¡ ::E
W ¡:p.
ëi §
~. ¡F
g¡ if
'i m
~ 9-
.... ~
~ '"
q¡ g
:::J ~'
~ .~
¡¡; 5'
" 0
o
;:¡
~
en
-0
o
a.
r::
o
( )
c..
'~'--~"----.
~ @ ~ R
1/ () '" n
'" 1/ II II
'ri * ~ ()
e:: Š 6' §
~tö8Q
~ õ' (g ()
~ õ ~. 0
g 'S. g, §
",' g, n.'J
~ n g Q
L ~ Ê. ~
r- c= g- g.
n g: w~ t:;;;'
( ~ (/) r;;
~
,,'
();
-
-
~~¡(o~
;; ~ ....
C" ~
'" ôo
t..J Õ ~
~ '" ....
~ i
~
tJ:;d
§. ,g.
š'[
'v
8'"
~~
[
[
~
D.
q
g,
c::(')~
~~ ~o
m"
:TI&
"v,t:1
;I!"<i l"j
'" 'v t""
(j8z
....."'l"j
u> "'¡¡'
"'<...
9·õ
[2
v.
~
u>
g:Q~
JJ'.[ g
'" [~
.. t:1
~~
g~
.....><
z'"
'" .
~
1".
¡€
6''''::;<
S- ~ 1';
~ 8 ¡¡j
S,~
8",
"'~
g~
~><
z'"
'" '
o. (')
"'0
~. .s
[
~
~.~ ~
§.'5. ~
g¡ Eo ><
¡~~
~ s.¡¡.
",,§.t""
'" ",c::
e¡Õ'~
R g _
~'5"'~
o <JQ ,
.~ §(')
~. "" 0
It.g
o § -
;:; ,<. R
l;~
t'CI' ',"'" ,0
~,š ~
'" 0" '"
o~· 9
¡ê:""
,,' 8"~
;; ~ '"
5 .. '<"i
~.~ r:5
5~
g.
"'::de::
1; c:: 6i
g~~
!':' ~¡¡.
~"'~
're c::",
I".::C ~
;¡ ;j '"
~'~ ~
'"
"",' ('),2
'" '0 ~
.s ,',V;¡
[~
z()~
'" (') 0
're (') (')
1". '" c::
<i g ~
§"!'i'0
S- ~ ~
~ N::C
§~
,. ~
š~
(')(j
NO
ð.s
.¡.-
~. ~
-
'W~
-0 ....
Qc ~
~ ê
ii1 ""
~=-
tJ::tI
<= '"
0" :S.
š''''
1"8.
0'"
0<=
tv'"
'""''''
[
[
m
¡;a
ñ
~.
g,
C::(')"'J
'" 0 0
f:;.[ ~
m¡:p.
:TI8.
,,~O
:I!' '<"i l"j
'" '" t""
....O~
u>o
.....1"
u> _. ¡¡.
"'<...
a. Õ
[2
v.
..,
Õ
u>
§"(')"'J
<=- 0 0
S·.€] ("'J
00 - c::
{ð ~ 00
2.l"j
.. 0
"'V;¡
1; c::
"'::C
§;j
.' ~
ZV;¡
'" ,
o.
"'
o.
;¡
~8
§~
." ~
0",
pc::
r:5::t1
~~
q'f'
"'Q
.s
[
"'.", l"j
o ~>-
Zi.",1d
... 0 t"'
Õ'ei~
>< ,-;;- l"j
g. '" <
'" s. >-
~ 0; t"'
8.S!:c::
§ g, :J>;
"" ~ ::¡
.", ~. ~
~ ~ ,
-S'("'J
õõ' gO
g '5. .[
!;;' (J~ 2
~ § ~
0""",
...., §o
.¡;¡ < ,;.;
~ ,~ ¡¡;
~. R £i
~ '" ""
'''' - ~
8š",
'[ g: '<"i
~;:'N
"s:>g
~ ~ !':'
'ß '"
~~
~~~
'" = 6i
80:=¡
.~ ~ ~
r@ ,~ ~
~ ~"~
s-'f'~
~, Q?j
.g '"
!~
z(')"'J
r@ Rg
1". '" c::
<i ,g ~
6'!':'0
S-~~
~ N::tI
§;j
.. ><
Š'"
(')("'J
'" 0
g.s
.... -
.. ~
-
~(')
?O ~
:' 3
0:1..
!~
~~
S!: :S.
s·'"
1"2.
8~
~:g
"
R
'"
[
m
¡;a
ñ
~.
g,
c:: ()'~
>~ 0
("'J_~
m'"
:TI8.
¡¡-v,t:1
:I!' '<"i l'1
'" ." t""
....oz
~ßttJ
u>.. >-
"'<....
a·Õ
=>z
8.
v.
~
u>
::n(')""
6.. 0 0
JJ' 'ª- g
~ (D t;r¡
~~
"''''
1; c::
NId
8<
!":':;¿
Z'"
,¡;¡ ,
ê.
<i
~K~
~ gc::
.:- ~
." 1::1
ðVO
." c::
;" "
§~
.. ~
ZVO
" '
'IE Q
1". ¡:
(i'2,
"
~
S' S l'1
:< e¡ ¡¡.
o "" ::c
g- 5· ~
9~l"j
!l ¡q <
§-. >-
....§,t""
'" ¡;- ¡¡;
e¡ S' ....
@ õ! -
~ '5. ~
o <JQ ,
~§("'J
~."" 0
;8.[
~ ~ ~
'g 3 ,P.-
~. g ...
~ ... 0
,,~ ff ~
8 z. ¡¡¡
¡~§.
~. s:> i<:'
(":; 0 rzI
§ ~ 'ri
~~r:5
813
[
~~¡;
"'~::d
gO:=¡
¡':'~~
~"'¡¡.
~ ~ '"
=.,~ ~
;¡ toJ ~
[;;;:::
S' , ~
~ Q ~
.€]'"
!~
~R~
'b'! (") (')
C::. I" C
;¡ ð '"
:::t t..J ~
~ ". t::'
~ ~ V;¡
'œ ::'., ;iâ
§~
.. 0<
~'"
t:tI'
(')(")
~t
.. ~
-
'Z~
"'''''
-->C"
~ Ë
....
!
tj:;d
ê:~,
::;;[
8~
8:g
(
~
ñ
~.
o
....,
C,(') ~
~~ ~o
ttI"
:!18.
¡¡-;;'I::I
:I!' '<"i l"j
N",t""
....O~
u>o
.....'"
u>.. ¡¡.
"'<...
!l õ
[~
~
~
6' (') "'J
"" 0 0
s·.g (')
~ ê: ~
~~
~~
N::C
g~
.....><
z'"
" ,
o.
"'
1".
(i
~g
ê¡¡j
l"j
g ~.
pC
N::C
~~
("'J'"
....(')
"'0
.[
~
P.-
'ß ,8' "8 t'1
o '" g ¡¡.
'ª- ~ 1". ~
2;"'e:..><
n .:", c.. ~
§8g<
~ [~ ~
~~¡¡;
o 0....
g-ê:õ
[ '< 2
¡q ,
~. (')
~ §. 0
"" ¡¡-.g
~ ~ ët:'
? õ! 8.
(t; no: ..
;:: 5: ,....,
'" <JQ c·
g§ ~
f7. ,0.. ¡;.<;¡
~§[
g,<i~
~ ~ '"
::\ ... '<"i
if š ~
0"0
~. I"
¡¡¡ ..
~~¡;
N¡:¡j=
~o~
z~...
c§ ~ ~
E.::C ~
;¡ ~ tI)
g: ;;; ~'"
5' ,
'œ Q
.s VO
->-
" Z
~I::I
z(')~
,¡;¡ (') 0
"' ("'J ("'J
o. 'v c::
<i g~
5'!':'0
.... '" ,~
5' '<"i ,~
<¡;; N::C
0<
ßl"j
-. ><
æ'f'
("'J(')
'" 0
0.s
'i-
y. ~
-
-
-z....
co '"
~~
~ ~
~ S
~
tJ::tI
<= "
0" :S.
Š' '"
",8.
0'"
° c:
8:g
[
[
m
:;3
D.
.::;:
g,
C::("'J;"j
~I ~o
m¡:p.
:TI2.
,,~O
:I!' '<"i ttJ
",,,,t"'
~8z
,........N~
u>,. ¡¡.
"'<...
~Õ
",2
....,
v.
~,
u>
Q~~
=::tI("'J
i;j~
",-;;; ~
'¡r i, 't='
-tj"QO
[f~
!i(')
.. ¡¡.
"'t"'
'<"i
'"
~
Q~
.[c::
~'~
P.-I::I
~~
"'::C
8;j
~;;;
:;.;:'
"'J
"';"j
'<"i 0
gg
.i:ê
0",
Be
. ::tI
g~
u>><
~~
"'("'J
VOo
.s
[
<JQ ~'" t'1
8 5' 0 ¡¡.
¡ ~ ~. ~
_. ~ Eo ~
"., .... l"j
§ 5 ~ <
~~; ~
Õ',g ~
:< g >-
g. [' ::j
"'_0
a,''< z
< '" ,
8. s. ("'J
§ 0; 0
"" ~.€]
"C ~,-
e¡ 0"
Ii & ~
õõ· o~· ;;'
g § ~
¡;¡ "" '"
~,'Ë 8.
0, < ~
~§~
B. g ~
~g:g
~. '"
ê: -.
"'::de::
'~~= 6i
80:=¡
~ ~,~
'" '" ¡¡.
'b'! c::~
~. ~'~
6'~:::
s-'f'~
~ Q ~
.g '"
?í~
~
~R~
<J.:: ("'J ("'J
s. '" e
<i 8 '"
§'!'i'~
s,"'",
,Fo 'ri c::
'" N::tI
§;j
.. 0<
Š~
("'J("'J
NO
8.€]
.¡.-
.. ~
-
-:;~
"" '"
!-" =
0'1""
'"
o
....
!
~š'
S!: :S.
S' 8.
g~
.!3:g
[
'"
[
g¡
'"
ñ
ª"
o
....,
c::(")~
~¡ ~
:!18.~
¡¡-v,t:1
:I!' '<"i l"j
"'Nt""
....O~
u>o
.....1"
u> _. ¡¡.
"'$::!
:::1·0
[z
~
ð
w
g>(");"j
.... 0 0
s·.€] ("'J
~ ?í~
~ ~,
~~
~~
8,-,
><
~'f'
'b'!
1".
<i
1:11"'::;<
~~ 1';
q¡¡gc
;:ê
g",
"'c
t" ::c
o~
~~
z'f'
0'6 (')
"' 0
c::. ::t
;¡~
ß..
'28' ~ ~
l~~~
(),:-tc.~
§8g<
~~; ~
(rg~
~ g. ~
g-.ê: õ
9 ~ ~
2. s: (')
§ ¡;; 0
.... ~.s
"'1 3' [
[03. ~
!õ: 0'; ë7
g § ~
t;. c.. (I¡.
~§[
g,<i~
~ R '"
::\ S '<"i
~¡r~
0"0
~. !'i'
'" =
0c::
fJ¡:¡j=
g: c"S
:3 ~ ...
:I; ~ ~
~. ~ ~
~ ,~'~
Q~
I~
'"
*' R~
';(")("'J
_. I" c::
;¡ g ~
::n,'" 0
~~'"
n; '<"i c::
" N::C
§~
-. ~
æ'"
("'J(')
",0
~.[
~. ~
-
-¡::n
0'1 ;:I
.¡. ~
r; ".
....
to
~
:?š'
0" :S.
š'[
"'",
g c:
1"'"
-- ."
[
[
t!J
::tI
'('1
~.
o
....,
~Q~
~t ~
c::2.~
"'..
>"'0
("'J '<"i l"j
m '" t"'
:TIgr¡j
ñNFii
.. ¡¡.
:I!'<...
'" '" -
....;:1. 0
t;i?2
N,~ I
'"
z"''''J
~ ;iâ 0
c::, < g
;¡:;¿~
6''''1::1
S, (.¡'.'a:J
,~ 0 0
~~
9.,.
2.(')
;;,~
'<"i
'"
o
13
Z("'J"'J
"'0 0
0& ,,g n
1". _C::
<i ~ ~
ã'!";-I::I
¡:;''''",
,~~ ;iâ
0<
ßl"j
';'" ><
8'f'
~
[Q¡;
S' -3 'a:J
<JQ - :=¡
"'[...
---~
,~ ~
"'¡¡.
§~
:-. ¡¡.
"'....
§~
Z'
~.
<i
'2 §: Ê. ~
i~'§;~
rr9 ~ ~
o " l"j
§ ~ š <
0:0 ..(: 5' ¡)iÞ
~~rJ~t-
g ~. ¡¡;
;0<" J' ....
:=. '" Õ
8'gz
>:. g ,
§. g. ("'J
~ == c
~~.€]
2. " -
§~~
~ã~
~ 20
8 11 ~
!!. rrs. ~
~. ~ È.
~~~
~§~
o < '"
;;; g g
'" iii '"
n =- ~.
" ~ '"
~. 0
~~¡;
8~5
"'O~
::.~....
E; ~ ~
3 ::tI vo
;1. ;j ~
~ >< ~
o '"
::: '
¡;¡-Q~
.s '"
!~
z("'J~
r@ 8 g
C::. I" ~
ti 0",
Ol"j
§'!':'o
s- ~ ~
~ '" "
§;j
.. 0<
~'"
o ,
(')()
g~
.... -
.. ~
-
~ '-<
- 0
co ....
-o~
~ g:
'" '"
o
ii1
~
~Q¡::J
:g -3 ("'J
"-0
~ [~
[ ..>-
m~~
¡;a>~
('1 'v 2
~. g ("'J
qu>l"j
. t"'
g,,,,l'1
ti "
<= :S. ~
g;B,t"'
"
'"
o
o
'"
NC(')"'J
§~~~
m '" >:
:!1&t""
::; § t:'
.. "" l"j
t~ < ~
~~~
C';:;2.¡¡'
~.....'"
~:::;õ
....:¡;:z
Q Õ
o
~r:5~~
=81d("'J
'\§..¡,.<c::
o ~.l"j",
"'_ ;;:><(11
'" '" "'0
S'S:~,=
is' Q S
~ ;;¡ .€] ¡¡.
'"'" 0 -' z
~ [-
~ .-.~
;-:~t"'
...
::tI~
~ (')
~ c::
~ ~
1"1::1
0",
8c
(')~
"l"j
"'J~
'"
,
g.Qi~
~i::tlg
~~g~
.@ ~~..~
§. 1" t1 c::
5' ,;- ." ::tI
"'8~
;;¡ 8 ~ t"J
Ow~><
~ ./:. ¡;¡ '"
1:: t:;. 're (')
':":" Q. ¡:. 0
("'JE.ti.ã
"'¡;'="'-
"'§' ~
IS
'2 g: Ê. ~
'!35ïg.~
~;.::¡¡-><
" ::r ""
§ ~ ª ~
no < ~. >-
z ~ ~ t-'
= :!:. c::
~.~ ::¡
....'" õ
~~z
c E. ("'J
~Ë:o
~~.§
8. E. "
§§,g.
';-~::E
E¡ 0 :d
;¡ & >-
~~- g
g § ;~
f;;" "" ~
~ 2 0=
~ ;ä s"
vo 3 Eo
A~q
,,'
'"
",' =-=
E '" c:: >-
&...::C::d
" '" ~ ::¡
'" 8 ~ ~
~w<:....
1""
rf¿' s:~ ~
š 8 ::tIl'1
~("';j~.
¡;; ><~
... '"
o ,
"'[O'"..~. .("'J Z
~ 0 ....
5·l.~
~. [ e
-
-
~:::
'" Þ>
-0 =
lI. p.
~ ;
....
!¡:;"
"'(')Id
" 0 ttJ
:g.€] (')
¡¡--o
R ~ ~.
"'P.-¡¡.
["'-
t!J'<"i ~
::tI'':> ¡¡.
~82
Q!'-'Q
..., ~
o '" t"'
~~" ~
~ '" <
0"8.l"j
Š' t"'
'"
o
o
!3
š2Q~
ê.[ ~
0"
"'ñ:
c::P.-
"'",0
f:; '<"i t'1
m'" t""
¿J§~
'" H ¡¡.
:I!';$::¡
~s;8
$2.L.
""
'"
g
"'
z",;"j
,¡;¡c:: 0
'" ::tI (')
~. ;j ~
'" >< toJ
§"V;¡I::I
~n=
~o 0
.[~
[n
~~
'<"i
'v
o
o
!':'
r:5Q~
0::t ("'J
!":'~o
(') '" z
¡;;ß.'.~
"'-
8' ~
~~
(); (')
V,.' ~
ª ¡;;
;;;;j
'<"i t""
~~
g~
!""~
8~
!" ~
'" ~
~:;¿
r-,'f'
~Q
.[
[
n§g' "8 ~
~ :¡: g Id
5- ~ ç. t"'
". ~ ~ 0<
11 '" " ~
:;:, 0 5; >
ð [.;; t-
- 0 c::
~;ff~
c E. -,
i1."Ë:õ
"'..., 2
:2 '"
2. E, n
§ ¡;; c
....~.[
"'::J 0', n
8 11 8.
g. r!S. ..,
~ rjg d
g § ~
(;;' ¡:w ¡;,n
~§ 8-
~ ;;; Ro
~ ~ ~
::\ 2. '<"i
if ¡r r:5
0"0
~. !':'
-ClJ
'<"i
tv
o
o
!'i'
I:I:!.
C
¡:¡j:=¡
0>-
~...
~~~
~ ::c '"
:¡¡ < ~
:r ~
J1; ;;;, ~
~ ti3
¡;;Q?j
.€] '"
[~
r:5Pi~
~vo("'J
··.N c::
~8'"
'@ ::' ~
0.(') '"
~R;iâ
§,g~
~!'i'~
~(.¡
1....;1 0
g.s
"'-
.. '"
x ~
t;¡:I
("'J
-
"'("'J
c: 0
:g.€]("'J
",,0
~8.~
<:t .. >-
=:,.ClJ....
t!J 'ri ~
~.~ ¡¡.
ñ02
_.1" ("'J
-<::tIl"j
c '" t""
...., <: l"j
o ",' ~
§.2.l"j
š- t"'
,..>
o
o
'"
-(')
E: c
~~
0"
N~
c::~
"'",
f:;'<"i
VO"'''!I
'" ~ 0
'" ::c ("'J
'-«c::
¡¡ l"j",
-" ~ l"j
s. '" 0
'" , ::d
'" ("'J 0
"'0 ....,
~-3-'
;;!,,~
g,8.n
to ;;, ~
'<"i
'"
o
fJ
°2 ?~
¡,"'"
" g
., ~.
ñ",~ ~
;; '" '"
5 0 '"
~ [.:
"""'Q"g
>< !]
c ;,
g"ë:
'" '<
:2 '"
2. E. (')
§ s 0
.... g:.€]
¡ Q' ~
(j ~ n
fr¡ (J~ f::-
:: S' o-cJ
'" <JQ 0
g § ~
¡;¡ "" '"
~8[
~~~
.¡;¡ R '"
g g'i'i
~. ¡[ r:5
0"0
~. '"
g..
'"
'i'i
." m ~
0(')0
'i"'("'J
.. 'v c::
zg",
,ª ..... ~
1". ("'J '"
<i (') C
§"(')::c
""r:5;:;:::
...- 0 ~
0: !~ ~
"',
'(¡ (')
," c
g.§
'" -
'.. {þ
xi\"
t;¡:I
("'J
-
<;¡
.....
'"
ôo
~
Ä
:;;1.
~
i=.
=....
::I'
e..
'¡'~:'r
, "",' a?",' ~,;:../
;~;¡j~i)~o':
.n'''':~
ClJ
'<"i
g
!~
'"
8
u>
~
'""
-
"9
t::Ø
S; ....,
!::~...'..',""
r:;"','" ~
..:Ci'Jæ1;'."o'..:
;.:j;':,~.;x,;'
./1",'
:':"",',";~ ~::,'
.f'::i ~
.,'.'~....~.,'
.....00
'.e......s:...
~~
;;e:: ~""
";..§='
'&'~
,,,'~.<t;
r::r
....
=,
....'..
.~..;.
,",,"
-
-
-I
»
(D
r
m
I\.)
......
en
c
3
3
Q)
..,
'<
o
-
(D
o
o
(Q
()"
Q)
g?
c
a.
(ii"
r¡,
(")
o
::s
a.
c
~
CD
a.
-
o
....
-
'::J'
CD
m
Q)
r¡,
....
c
C
tr
::s
"'tI
..,
o
CD
(")
....
»
....
CD
Q)
-
:E
;:¡:
'::J'
o
o
n
c:
JJ
JJ
m
:z
o
m
en
:S"
JJ
(Dn
a.
-
\).)
OJ
(JS)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I~ II I I "'tI
t ) · ¡ I~
.. I
i: .,~ ·
."
-I "U d 0 CD :::0 Z Z » (/) (/) 0 c: "U 0
CD Ô ([> Q <:: 0 0 ;;¡: ([> ([> ([> ::;1 0 3
"0 < - 0- ::;1 ::;1 ~ I" I" ::;1 < ::;1
([> "0 0 ([> I: ([> Z Z (I> (I> [ ([> 0- 3
(I> ([> co 0 0 0 co
;:¡. ¡¡] .., ª- I" I" G) ::;1 ::;1 m ~ I:
'< "0 CD -. ct. ¡¡] ~ ~ 0 ¡¡r :::::s
OJ "0 ([> III < < 0 <t ~
;;J C. m ([> (I> ~ TI I" ;::¡:
0 In
c: õ' » G) G) ¡¡¡- CD ~ c. ::;1 ¡;;-
c:
:> 0 ro ã3 ã3 ::;1 ¡¡¡- (I> :::0 ~ 3 III
c. 0 I" C. ;;J I"
!!¡ (I> (I> ::;1 ::i -a' CT
::;1 (I> (I> (I> c. <t m Qo
ro' 0 ¡¡¡- ¡¡¡- II> II> ¡;¡ ro
~ ::;1.
In <:: :> ::;1 II> 0- X>
¡;¡ .c. F'- ::;1 D
~ (/) ¡¡¡- I:
G) c: I" CT
ã3 ::;1 ¡;¡ 0 ([> Q
co 2 E ~
N ã3 :; CT
m C')
c. N (/)
([> ."
c. m CD
m
1:> Q
-
I:
..,
CD
III
r
CD
c.c
CD
;j
C.
..
..
.
:
'. -+ . J\.~\
<.j "'#W'-"'/
, II ~. f )
, ~ '<-'" -', .- -
##
,~...
#~
##,.. ,-- ...-
'#..
. "-.. ......
............
;I>-r¡ OJ OJ 0 0
ë1 ¡¡- 'n·;"" ;;ì
~:..:. õ æ ~ ~
po "" ;: <- s;.
?-> § õ·.§ E.
;>:)0 P- ~.. '< .p.. ;;¡
~ê.. :<:P-~N 0 C/l ~ ~.
"po 0 0
-eN ê.~;k2 n
-r¡o ~ '"
-·0 § g~ :> ~..,
""0
Ei ~ [i;-- N ,,{J
Di N ;>:: §Ro CO $ e- ¡;¡ ;;;
'TiN 0
0: '" ~ 0 t'rj '" '"
cÆ·~ n (ñ 3 ~. ê
;:¡ a ~~"'O - ~
" - (j 0 '" ...... ~~
!'J~ ::T po . :: '" -,
;I>~3! ... a
N '" -
~ ~ r; g II ::::..:.~
o '" '" 0 '" -.
P- o ;I> '" 0 00 "'-a
5'~ Š- 0 "'-'"
ry; g .,=' '" ,-.
q c.-: ~
g' () OJ r;¡' §
Di ;I> ;:
TI 0 "'-
m 0
;!!.
~ U ~
- (D
> ~ ¡::: CfJ t'rj
= Ç) 0 ~ ~
,.c ..... ...... t:: CfJ (/)
..... >- .-+ D
? ~'<
= ('j 0 U ;J go
~ (D ~D. '" I"
~ 0 n:> §. ~ .. ¡; 3
~ .... ~ ~~~¡p r ~ '" gQ
e (K¡ ~ ...... ~
(';¡ = :=:p.¡ ~ ...... (h~~~ I ~ ~m Be
..... ~~~ø. D .... 0»
e ~s ::J ::J '"
~ ""I f'-œ_~TI Õ ¡ g~
(t> a 8.- ~ >¡: ~~o~ ~ 1<'0
(t> = (JQ 1'.,1~>ð ~ ~ 0 " .~'
~ = N (D a ~~~~. = f 0. ill'
..... p.¡ s )( ~ °rn R OO(b
..... ",,". · p.¡ n '<:I . - [ -. Ii (I>
= ..... ¡....¿ (D (D D ::'r
.... 0 ;- Or
""I t'T> t:: ::J ::¡ ~ "0
(t> f;I) ...... ..... ~
~ ::s >¡: (D
. ~ ...... CfJ
':< ......
= p.¡
c.. ::J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~5Ób
dwarf peppergrass (Lepidium latipes var. latipes), broad-toothed monkey-flower
(Mimulus latidens), smooth layia (Layia chrysanthemoides), yerba mansa (Anemopsis
califarnica), and slender plantain (Plantago elongata), are also associated with this
habitat type on site. Two special-status species, Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi
ssp. congdonii) and San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana) were detected in
somewhat alkaline areas in low-lying grasslands.
On site, alkali meadow or grassland does not correspond to any specific vegetation
association as described in Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995). Portions of this plant
community would be classified as a palustrine emergent persistent seasonally flooded
wetland as described by Cowardin et al. (1979).
Freshwater Marshes and Seeps
Freshwater seeps consist of areas with permanently or seasonally saturated soils
supporting few to several perennial and annual herbaceous hydrophytic plant species and
lacking appreciable surface flows. Within the Project Area, freshwater seeps closely
resemble freshwater marshes in tenns of species composition, supporting characteristic
low, emergent species. On site these plant community types freely intergrade.
Such aquatic vegetation communities are usually found where the water table is at or near
the surface, or where subsurface seepage collects near the surface, such as along the toe
of stream banks, on the lower portions of steep slopes, along fault lines or geological
contacts, or at the heads of small swales. These vegetation communities characteristically
fOlln a dense vegetative cover dominated by perennial, emergent l11onocots one to 15 feet
high that reproduce by underground rhizomes.
Within the Project Area, freshwater marsh vegetation is present in portions of drainage
swales and stock ponds or impoundments traversing the Branaugh, Campbell, Righetti,
Jordan, and Tseng propeliies. It is also well developed within an abandoned quarry
excavation in the northern pOliion of the Anderson property. Characteristic native species
occurring on site include bulrush (Scirpus acutus var. occidentalis), narrow leaf cattail
(Typha angustifolia), iris-leaved rush (Juncus xiphioides), water cress (Rorippa
nasturtium-aquaticum), umbrella sedge (Cyperus eragrostis), spike-rush (Eleocharis
macrostachya), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), yerba mansa, loosestrife (Lythrum
hyssopifolium), and toad rush (Juncus bufonius var. bufonius), among others.
On site, portions of this vegetation type conform to the bulrush-cattail series as classified
by Sawyer and Keeler- Wolf (1995). It would be classified as a palustrine seasonally or
permanently flooded wetland following Cowardin et al. (1979).
Seasonal Wetlands
Although not specifically described in Holland (1986), seasonal wetlands consist of
annual and perennial native and non-native wetland indicator species. This plant
association typically resembles a wetland community only following the wet season; it
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
20
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3-(0 ô
b
dries up rapidly with the onset of summer and the wetland indicator species go dormant.
During the dry season, some sites may not be readily recognizable as wetlands since
wetland species go to seed and typical upland grasses and forbs become established.
On site, seasonal wetlands are located in low-lying fields where clay soils are poorly
drained and may remain saturated for considerable time following the rainy season.
Dominant species within these wetlands include natives such as stipitate popcorn-flower
(plagiobothrys stipitatus), valley downingia (Downingia pulchella), semaphore grass
(Pleuropogon californicus), mouse-tail (Myosurus sessilis), flowering quillwort (Lilaea
sch illo ides), mudwort (Limosella acaulis), dwarf peppergrass, purslane speedwell
(Veronica peregrina ssp. xalapensis), and white-flowered navarretia (Navarretia
leucocephala ssp. leucocephala), among others. Non-native species such as loosestrife,
green dock (Rumex conglomeratus), common knotweed (Polygonum arenastrum),
rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), and Mediterranean barley (Hordeum
marinum ssp. gussoneanum), are also common. An apparently man-made seasonal
wetland is present along the northern boundary of the Branaugh property, where earthen
fill from a building pad allows standing water to collect during the rainy season.
Vegetation here is dominated by such non-native wetland indicator species as rabbitsfoot
grass, swampgrass (Crypsis schoenoides), Mediterranean barley, Italian ryegrass, bristly
ox-tongue, and curly dock, among others. Other common species such as spearscale
(Atriplex triangularis) and spiny cocklebur (Xanthium spinosum) were also noted.
On site, seasonal wetland does not conform to any specific series as classified by Sawyer
and Keeler- Wolf (1995); it would be classified as palustrine seasonally flooded wetland
following Cowardin et al. (1979).
Central Coast Riparian Scrub
Central Coast riparian scrub typically consists of a scrubby, open to impenetrable
streamside thicket composed of any of several species of willows. This plant community
occurs along streams or river channels generally on fine-grained sand and gravel bars
with a high water table. It is distributed along most perennial and many intermittent
streams of the Central and South Coast Ranges, from the Bay Area to near Point
Conception (Holland 1986).
Within the Project Area, Central Coast riparian scrub is found on a small segment of the
creek channel in the extreme northwestern portion of the Tseng property, extending
upstream onto the Jordan Ranch. Patches of willows are also present along the margins of
the old quarry on the Anderson property. Characteristic native species occuning on site
include arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), red willow (Salix laevigata), and narrow-leaved
willow (Salix exigua). Within the understory, scattered elements of freshwater marsh
vegetation, including watercress, cattail, and bulrush are also present.
On site, Central Coast riparian scrub conforms to the red willow and arroyo willow series
as described in Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995) and would be classified as a palustrine
shrub-scrub wetland following Cowardin et al. (1979).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
d7~
Ornamental Trees and Plantings
No naturally occurring trees appear to be present within the Project Area. However,
various ornamental plantings are present near the existing residences. These consist of
horticultural species of trees and shrubs that have been planted for a variety of reasons,
including food production, shade trees, windbreaks, and aesthetic appeal. Representative
species noted on site include pear (Pyrus communis), black locust (Robinia
pseudoacacia), mulberry (Morus sp.), olive (Olea europa), Tasmanian blue gum
(Eucalyptus globulus), coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), Peruvian pepper tree
(Schinus mol/e), and pomegranate (Punica granatum), among others. '
2.1.2.2 Special-Status Natural Communities and Plants
Special-Status Natural Communities
Special-status natural communities are those that are considered rare in the region,
support special-status plant or wildlife species, or receive regulatory protection (i.e., §404
of the Clean Water Act and/or §§1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code). In
addition, the California Natural Diversity Database has designated a number of
communities as rare; these communities are given the highest inventory priority (Holland
1986, CDPG 2002b).
The Project Area supports four special-status natural communities, including freshwater
marsh, freshwater seep, seasonal wetland, and Central Coast riparian scrub (Figure 2.1).
Alkali meadow and alkali seep were fonl1erly considered to be communities of the
highest inventory priority by the California Natural Diversity Database, although their
status as such is no longer so designated. Based upon the verified wetland delineations
(Zander Associates 2000, Sycamore Associates 2002d,e,f), the Project Area supports a
total 5.56 acres (242,020 square feet) of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. that
potentially fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Anl1Y Corps of Engineers pursuant to
Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (Figure 2.2).
Bankhead and Mandeville - Based upon the wetland delineation verified by U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers on October 7, 2002, the Bankhead and Mandeville properties support
a total of 1.70 acres (73,866 square feet) of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. that
potentially fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This includes
0.01 acre (525 square feet) of seasonal wetland, 1.55 acres (67,476 square feet) of
freshwater seep or freshwater marsh, and 0.14 acre (5,865 square feet) of unvegetated
waters of the U.S. In addition, there are 0.17 acres (7,255 square feet) of freshwater
marsh that are considered to be isolated and not under Army Corps of Engineers
jurisdiction, but may be subject to state jurisdiction.
Jordan - Based upon the wetland delineation verified by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
on November 14, 2000, the study area supports a total of 1.46 acres (63,643 square feet)
of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. that fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, including areas of freshwater marsh / seep, unvegetated waters, and
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
22
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
d~ (')b
Central Coast riparian scrub. Other areas of isolated freshwater marsh I seep,
unvegetated waters, and seasonal wetlands are not subject to Corps jurisdiction, but may
be subject to state jurisdiction.
Croak - Based on the wetland delineation verified by the U.s. Army Corps of Engineers
on June 16, 2004, the Croak property supports a total of 0.10 acre (4,500 square feet) of
wetlands that fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This
includes 0.05 acres (2,310 square feet) of seasonal wetlands, and 0.05 acres (2,190 square
feet) of freshwater marsh or freshwater seep. In addition, there are 0.31 acres (13,534
square feet) of seasonal wetlands, 0.21 acres (9,124 square feet) of freshwater marsh or
seep, and 0.06 acres (2,534 square feet) of unvegetated waters that are considered to be
isolated and not under Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction, but may be subject to state
jurisdiction.
Tseng, Righetti, Anderson, Branaugh, Campbell, EBJ, and Pleasanton Ranch Properties
- Based on the wetland delineation verified by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on May 7,
2003, the seven properties listed above support a total of 2.31 acres (100,011 square feet)
of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the Corps. This
includes 0.46 acre (19,836 square feet) of freshwater marsh or freshwater seep, 1.78 acres
(77,351 square feet) of seasonal wetland, 0.05 acre (1,980 square feet) of Central Coast
riparian scrub, and 0.02 acre (844 square feet) of unvegetated waters of the U.S. In
addition, there are 2.21 acres (96,440 square feet) of freshwater marsh and seasonal
wetlands that are considered to be isolated and not subject to Corps jurisdiction, but may
be subject to state jurisdiction
2.1.2.3 Special-Status Plants
Special-status plant species include those listed as Endangered, Threatened, Rare or those
species proposed for listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2001), the California
Department of Fish and Game (2003a,b) and the California Native Plant Society (2001).
The California Native Plant Society listing is sanctioned by the California Department of
Fish and Game and serves essentially as their list of "candidate" plant species. California
Native Plant Society List IB and List 2 species are considered potentially eligible for
state listing as Endangered or Threatened under the California Fish and Game Code. It is
required that such species be fully considered during preparation of environmental
documents subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). California
Native Plant Society List 3 and List 4 species are considered to be either plants about
which more information is needed or are uncommon enough that their status should be
regularly monitored. Such plants may be eligible or may become eligible for state listing,
and California Native Plant Society and California Department of Fish and Game
recommend that these species be evaluated for consideration during the preparation of
California Environmental Quality Act documents.
During the biological assessment studies conducted for the various Project Area
properties (see Section 2.1.1.2 above), several special-status plant species were
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
: I I
I I r-
.. .. co
.. ..
I I cc
..
'- co
I "U -I 0 :¿;
0 0 5" II> ::I
'- D
I D 0 ¡¡¡ (þ Co
~ (CJ ¡¡¡
.. ãJ g-
Oo' -< 8.
II D II>
CtJ :;y 5· S'
.. 0 ¡:;. II>
.. ¡:: (CJ <t>
,"~ ::J () '" C
0. 0 (J) 0
~ ::J II>
I (i, Õ ::J <-
!':i) (J) !:; 0.
. (f) TI ¡¡¡
0 ::¡;
::J ¡¡¡"
;....¡ 0.
I (J) E:
:
I
I',.
,I!,_
I
i:
:':','
!
..
. , ,':'i' ,,".'
:!..-...........IIÍI.. .1....... ."I I" ... .i....... .....L
I' ' !
-
:
: I
I ..
.. -
- .
. :
I
-
- .
. ..
- ..
.. I
I -
.. ..
.. I
-
oo
I
:
: I
I..
;-r.... ....... ..'-
....1.1...........
I,
..
..
.
¡
-
..
.
,-
..
I
..
-
.
..
..
I
I""
::
I
-
, ..
~I
~. -
! ,I'
j '¡"-ii'
! ~
! ~
i . '~
: '..
'--1- .~
;,,~.- ~
~ ~
~##. ,-
#..., -L.
-.,....-
-............ ¡ç.;:
- ......,.,.........
-
ii
-
,-
,I
I
:
I
2:" ::oJ.
~tõ
Q:¡ ':"
-g..:;¡,.
~~
"0 I"
~g
f1QO:>
¡:: ..-
Π~
~~
~§
r; (/'l
N---
N
3
"
¡:::..
c:ct:ao
5' ¡¡; g
õ' Œ! ~
f1Q ::! '-
~ ....::.;¡ c::
5..~?.:z
::Ë ¡:::.. :s:: I"
~ ~ ~ g
tc.:::;.;'"
~ ª ~~
'" ö'¡;o
i:"~~
'" 0
å~.§
ri ñ Cf'J
- ~ .,
;;'3"0
~ § ~
o .~ ~
" » '"
S' ~ ~
Πg ?
0;' rj
~>-
m
Tlo
<t> 0
~
~
~ t;;"
~.ê
:: 'J
~ 2;-
'(:» .
.., ~
¡;; ¡;¡
~. ~
"' §
~-
§ g.
~2.,
"'-a
"'-'"
~'?
~~' e
i5..
o
z
o
íD
(")<'><'>
o åT 0
... -.:J 0
~~5:~
oc...(I)<Þ
..... ......
m~:&.s-
~........ Q,1
<e, :; :'E ".
~ -. g;¡ Q)
~~~cg
üJ ~ fA Iþ
. -·0",
o .....:J
;;,ö.
-"'"
"eno
'< ... ::>
...",0.
iiCñcn
c:,,3
. c: '"
en ... '<
:,.:¡;"
~cb(l)
3 ;;;
'< ::>
2.
~
("þ
~
!"'1'-
=
loot
("þ
fI).
~
~
!"'1'-
("þ
loot
fI).
þ:i
=
Q..
~
("þ
!"'1'-
-
~
=
Q..
fI).
u
¡::
2:
p.
n;þ-
~ -
~~
~3
a 8.-
..... ~
~ n
o
¡::;
::I
9
.¡:,.
o
o
C/J
n
;þ-
l"
trJ
~
""".
(JC¡
=
loot
("þ
N
.
N
0:>
o
o
N
$
II
00
o
o
--
==
tv
o
o
;::0
(p
C/J
o
¡::
(1
(D
~
~
::I
~
(JQ
(!)
8
(!)
::I
r-+
'i::
-
~
;::j
I
-
..
I
:
I
oo
-
I
, I,II iI;
I',:!, 'i
¡I [,Iii,' .,
..;
I
i:,
·
..
..
·
oo
..
I
:
I
-
..
I
..
,-
I
i:!1
·
I
..
-
·
I
trJ
p)
C/J
r-+
QJ
.:--:)
~
Õ
::I
~D.
~ '"
~~~:p =
,;-¡~~ ~
t;¡~š-~ c
~:j¡'''", ¡:¡
~~~~ ~
~išU z:
>< ~ 00:;1 R
. - K -
. Q
~
~
U'!
~'<
On
:g ill
_",:;¡; 3
~~º Q
";:) ~ @} CÞ
~~~ ~
~rg en
g:oì'Þ 0
» & C)
~ f_a. 5)"
ig~ro
Q:I ~ en
~r
~h
C:",..",~
û
§..
-
S'
'i::
I-
o
'"d
(!)
::I.-
-.
(!)
C/J
lY'
i
Ii· -.'
. \\,
:'.X
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
30ðb
considered to have at least some potential to occur within the region or have been
historically in the project vicinity. Protocol-level surveys determined which species
actually occur in the Project Area. These species are discussed in further detail below.
Summary of Study Site Surveys
For all of the East Dublin properties, survey methods conformed to California
Department of Fish and Game's Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed
Developments on Rare and Endangered Plants and Plant Communities (CDFG 1997a) as
well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting
Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants (USFWS
2000).
On the Bankhead, Mandeville, and Croak properties, focused botanical surveys were
conducted by Sycamore Associates botanist Christopher Thayer on March 16, 19,23, and
27; April 16, 19, and 23; May 16, 18, and 23; June II; and September 12 and 13, 2001.
Surveys were also conducted by Sycamore Associates botanist Isabelle de Geofroy on
March 19 and 27; April 19 and 23; May 16 and 23; and September 12 and 13,2001, and
by botanist Diane Lake on April 19 and 23, 2001. The results of these surveys are
summarized in the Botanical Assessment for the Bankhead, Mandeville and Croak
Properties (Sycamore Associates 2002b). Surveys for late-season special status plant
species were conducted on the Jordan Property by WRA on September 26, 2003. An
early spring survey was conducted on the Jordan Property on March 22, 2004; additional
surveys for spring-blooming species were conducted on April 19 and May 20, 2004.
On the Anderson, Campbell, and Branaugh properties, as well as a 17-acre portion of the
Tseng property, Sycamore Associates botanists Christopher Thayer and Isabelle de
Geofroy conducted an initial survey on May 12, 1999, and the surveys were continued by
Ms. De Geofroy and botanist Dianne Lake on June 18, 1999, and by Mr. Thayer and Ms.
Lake on September 23, 1999. Mr. Thayer concluded the surveys for this portion of the
properties on March 9 and 17, and April 24, 2000.
Subsequent to the foregoing surveys, the original Project Area was expanded in 2001 to
include the Righetti property and the remainder of the Tseng property. During the course
of the surveys of the Anderson, Tseng, and adjacent properties, the small EBJ and
Pleasanton Ranch properties were also included. Surveys were conducted on the
expanded property on March 20, 2001 by Mr. Thayer and Ms. de Geofroy, and on March
23 by Mr. Thayer. Surveys continued on April 18 by Mr. Thayer, Ms. De Geofroy, and
Ms. Lake, on May 16, by Mr. Thayer, on May 18 by Ms. De Geofroy and Ms. Lake, and
on September 12 by Mr. Thayer and Ms. de Geofroy. Mr. Thayer concluded surveys on
the expanded Project Area on September 13, 2001. The results of these surveys are
summarized in the Botanical Assessment for the Tseng, Anderson, Righetti, Branaugh,
Campbell, RBJ, and Pleasanton Ranch Properties (Sycamore Associates 2002c).
In addition to the focused botanical surveys, Mr. Thayer conducted field surveys on the
Bankhead and Mandeville properties in conjunction with a formal wetland delineation on
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
25
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3l ób
August 31 and September 14,2001, and on the remainder of the properties of the Project
Area on April 5, April 18, May 10, May 23, and August 29, 2001. The results of these
studies were presented in separate reports (Sycamore Associates 2002d,e).
Congdon's Tarplant
Background and Natural Historv
Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdon ii, formerly placed in Hemizonia)
is an herbaceous annual member of the sunflower family (Asteraceae). It is prostrate to
erect, with ascending to horizontal branches, and ranges in height from 4 to 28 inches.
Leaves and bracts are rigidly spine-tipped. Lower leaves are from 2 to 8 inches long, soft-
hairy or bristly, deeply divided, and usually lost by the time of flowering. Upper leaves
are generally much reduced, entire or few-toothed, and often with axillary leaf clusters.
The inflorescence may be open to dense, with heads generally about one-quarter inch
wide and often over-topped by the sub tending bracts. Ray flowers have yellow corollas
and number from 9 to 30 or more, and the numerous disc flowers have yellow anthers.
The subspecies differs from the more common Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi by the
general absence of glandularity on the herbage, especially on the involucral bracts,
although local plants may have minute glands.
The taxonomy of the subspecies of Centomadia parryi is problematic in Alameda and
Contra Costa counties, particularly in populations in the Tassajara and the northern
Livermore valleys. These localized occurrences may represent a unique and undescribed
taxon distinct from the true Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii, originally collected in the
Salinas Valley in Monterey County (Baldwin, Pers. Comm. 1999).
Congdon's tarplant is generally found in grasslands of low, often alkaline fields in heavy
clay soil. It is highly restricted in its distribution, being found in the San Ramon and
Tassajara Valleys in Contra Costa County, the lower end of the San Francisco Bay in
Alameda and Santa Clara counties, and in the lower Salinas Valley in Monterey County
where the type collection was made. It has also been reported from Solano, Santa Cruz,
and San Luis Obispo counties. The subspecies is designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service as a Species of Concern, meaning it was fonnerly a federal C-2 candidate for
listing as Threatened or Endangered. It is also on the California Native Plant Society List
IB:3-3-3, indicating that its occurrence is limited to only a few highly restricted
populations, it is considered by California Native Plant Society to be endangered
throughout its range, and that it is endemic to California. It is eligible for state listing as
Endangered or Threatened, and California Native Plant Society and California
Department of Fish and Game recommend that these species be evaluated for
consideration during the preparation of California EnvirolU1lental Quality Act documents.
In Contra Costa County, Congdon's tarplant has been historically collected from the
western San Ramon Valley near Crow Canyon Road, from Green Valley northeast of
Danville, and from the vicinity of Walnut Creek (CDFG 2002a). It was also reported
anecdotally from the Tassajara Valley (Olson 1994). It had apparently not been re-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:3 d- Db
collected from any of these locations for several decades, and was in recent years thought
to have been extirpated from the county (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). However, several
collections have been verified within the last few years from the west side of the San
Ramon Valley, the Tassajara Valley, the Livermore Valley, along Highland, Manning,
Carneal, and Collier Canyon roads north of Livermore, and near Sycamore Valley Road
at Camino Tassajara in Danville, (Preston 1999; Baldwin, Pers. Comm. 1999; C. Thayer,
Pers.Obs.)
Summary and Analysis of Surveys
Within the Project Area, Congdon's tarplant was detected in low-lying, vernally moist
grasslands, mostly in the southern portions of the Tseng and Anderson properties, and in
the central portion of the Jordan Property. The species is most abundant on the Tseng
property, where more than six thousand individuals were estimated to be present in
September 2001. A smaller population, including an additional 339 individuals as
counted in September 1999, is located on the Anderson property, just east of Croak Road
(Figure 2.3). The Jordan Property contained three patches, one containing 30 individuals,
another containing approximately 125 individuals, and the third containing approximately
1,900 individuals (WRA 2004a, In prep.).
San Joaquin Spearscale
Background and Natural History
San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana syn. A. patula var. spicata) is a low
herbaceous annual in the saltbush family Chenopodiaceae. It is erect, growing 4 to 40
inches in height, with striate, sparsely scaly stems. Leaves are ovate to triangular, finely
gray-scaly to green above, one quarter to 3 inches long. It is distinguished by its striated
stem and fruiting bracts that are triangular, ribbed, and free. Flowers develop April
through September.
San Joaquin spearscale occurs in chenopod scrub, valley grassland, and alkali meadows
on highly alkaline soils and is distributed throughout the southern Sacramento Valley, the
San Joaquin Valley, and the eastern side of the North Coast Range. The species was
formerly a federal C-2 candidate for listing as Threatened or Endangered and is on the
California Native Plant Society List 18. Although the species has no official state or
federal status, any impacts to the species should be evaluated during the preparation of
California Environmental Quality Act documents.
Summary and Analvsis of Surveys
Within the Project Area, San Joaquin spearscale was detected in small populations on the
Tseng property, totaling approximately 95 individuals in 2001, and on the Bankhead
property, totaling approximately 785 individuals in 2001 (Figure 2.3).
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
27
3~ 0\
b
The presence of San Joaquin spearscale in the Project Area is considered to be of
botanical interest. In the East Bay, its distribution is restricted primarily to the Livermore,
Altamont, Antioch, and Byron areas. It has also been recorded historically from the
Tassajara Valley, near Danville, the Warm Springs District of Fremont, and the vicinity
of Marsh Creek. Extant populations are present on recently acquired public parklands in
the vicinity of Brushy Peak, and both natural and introduced populations are present on a
biological conservation easement along Vasco Road in eastern Livennore.
2.1.2.4 Special-Status Wildlife
Special-status animal species include those listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(2001) and the California Department of Fish and Game (2003c,d). The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service officially lists species as eitl;1er Threatened or Endangered, or designates
species as Candidates for listing, under the Endangered Species Act. Additional species
receive federal protection under the Bald Eagle Protection Act (e.g., bald eagle, golden
eagle) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) The California Fish and Game
Commission lists species as Endangered, Threatened or as Candidates for listing under
the California Endangered Species Act. Other species are protected by additional state
statutes such as "Fully Protected Birds" (Fish and Game Code §3511), "Fully Protected
Mammals" (§4700), "Fully Protected Reptiles and Amphibians" (§5050), and "Fully
Protected Fish" (§5515). Fish and Game Code §§3503 and 3505 prohibit the take,
destruction, or possession of any bird, nest or egg of any bird unless expressed
authorization is obtained from the California Department of Fish and Game. In addition,
many other species are considered by the California Department of Fish and Game to be
Species of Special Concern; these are listed in Remsen (1978), Williams (1986), and
California Department of Fish and Game (2003d). Although such species are afforded no
official legal status,they may receive special consideration during the California
Environmental Quality Act review process.
During the biological assessment studies conducted for the Project Area (see Section
2.1.1.2 above), several special-status animal species were considered to have at least
some potential to occur within the region or have been recorded historically in the project
vicinity. Protocol-level surveys and additional focused habitat assessments determined
which species actually occur, or have a high potential to occur, in the Project Area.
These species are discussed in further detail below.
Invertebrates
Background and Natural History
Fairy shrimp and tadpole shrimp are aquatic crustaceans associated with vernal pools,
grassy swales, and other temporarily ponded bodies of water in California. As a
taxonomic group, they are collectively referred to as branchiopods. Fairy shrimp and
tadpole shrimp represent two different orders, Anostraca and Notostraca respectively,
within the crustacean class Branchiopoda. The Anostracans are collectively called fairy
shrimp. There are approximately 185 species in this order, most of which are no more
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
28
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
, ,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
, ,
..'.... / \\41. n. d. Î . . .'. .... '.ìl .. .'.IIiIÎ'ij;, _
". '..... !!!~.
: ~..
.,
.., '
i'
..
.w,.
.',
{> . I~
,- .; ..
r )
f~. ;3 .
II
-I -u 6 0 (þ
¡¡¡ ô C1> OJ
C1> "0 "0 <: ....
0 C1> c:
(J) C1> (!) 0
;:¡ ãJ ñJ
'< "0
OJ "0 C1> VI
::; a.
0 0- :Þ
t:
'" () ¡¡¡
a. 0 Q
Q '" (J)
:::I. S'
CD
(J) !:¡
(J)
/
/..../..
'j .'
- . ~ ,
/.
:///,1-
. ,
" ,/;
..
1liii, "
.'
=;
.'!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
II I I ""C III (I)
¡¡¡- (C
::::I (I)
.... ::::s
n
;:0 z Z :Þ en en () c -u 0 en ò' a.
t: 0 0 [ æ æ C1> " 0 3 Q en
a. '" " " '" " " '" ....
CD Z Z (J) (J) [ '" a. 3 (!) OJ
<0 '-
i)l G) 0 0 !2. ? 0 Q. ....
Q 2!. '" '" c: c:
a. ãJ ~ '" () m Q 0
<: <. Ii 9' :J .0 " VI
'" ( ) g¡ ~ TI 0 a. ;:; c: (J)-
Q 5' ""C
G) G) ¡¡) ¡¡¡ ~ ~ " (D" -I
c: '" ¡¡¡-
ãJ ãJ '" ¡¡) (J) ;:0 0> 3 VI en -a
a. ::; !f "0 :J
(J) (J) " :;:: -5. cr- CD ¡¡)
(J) (J) a. Qo I.i!'
¡¡¡ ¡¡) Q Q '" CD Q a.
" '" ~ :::I. ¡¡¡ » ;¡¡
a. F'- Q a. n
So: '" ¡¡) .0 '"
G) C Q en cr- s::: CD
ãJ '" ;¡¡ ~ '" OJ
N (!) t: ~ ....
CD ãJ ::; cr- ñ'
a. N
~ en II
C1>
'" CD
TI OJ
....
s:::
ñJ
VI
...
· ¡';~,"/"''''':-~'''-''':'_' -¡111,ill; ,I" I " ,/""",.,J',....:" ' " ". ',,, " .
æ· i í IIÍI.I -..'.íl.iIi.....~. ~ i:~:iíÍì>~~,í .....;¡.'~:;¡.i.....~~'~..L ;
- ,"-."
. .:
..
III!I'-.
.--:-
till'"
";'
.,
w,"·,
.. .
1\
. ~I
."
;, , , ". , .'.'/
:r~.···"'a. í..... ...../.u~.I...II..ij.· .. ~...,.'.~"....f".·'~. .,j.,'ji'iill(!/(.
'¡',., ' ,," .".. ',: :,",,'::., <>-,,:,';-,.,'> .,', .':;,: :".:" :":"/'~:":(;:'::::l';."" .:,:,,:.::,::,'i ,'" ',',:) "" :.: """::':>':':'::';'0' __ :\\ì,,';i';:'~:',:I:/::,;::,:,:!l~~\\\:\\
- '. .......¿:}..'i"." """. ""!",.,II,"(,,I~\\;,\,..,
....... ',....',.... "..'..."..,....... "'''Ö\¡¡:''''''i':~~\
~.'.\.:;;
'.Iì¡¡ii'ji
! l~~~ll:¡
.
-:".
..
1,:''-'
~:-:--
I
..
..
I
/
.I ,/
¡ !,
\.
.\-:
..":"':
'.
~.
/.
'",.!
'·'41'
\!~~¡\~./
. .. ...... t'~ii!·
, ,..; QJ""
, 0
(y
¡
\! I
......,
?f;2
;;::~
'" ,.
'9-->
",,,
;;::g.
"'w
""0
~. 0
""'0
c .__
.., '--
IJ; w
"iíÑ
o'<i--:9
E¡ Ö
" -
w51
w
3
x
"--
~8'&?
o '" ~
~ª~
[[~~
<,,,--;;::w
-<:;{l)~O
ê:.5';i::5:
§ ~ ~
5;- cr,
",gfl:>
[,j ~ go
Cl) (Jj B
~7i1iJ
". '" .
>3."
'" 0 if
~ ;¡ '"
s, ~ §
'" '" .-
ΠiLg
¡;;. (j
ã>
..
..
..
"
I
__l-.
'..
lj~' "
Ie I:, ' ' ...
: " ',~.
, ,0 ,
, -'.
"
."
-"III"
·
......,..,....~..
.
·
·
I
·
..
·
"
._,.
<::>
-Þ-
<::> [/).
0
(j
>--
CO N r'
0 $ t!1
<::>
......
;:
Ì\:¡ II
<::>
<::> 00
0
0-, q
TI 0
CD 0
!l
'" ;;J
Q. ;;;.
3 3
"'-2
§ ::.
... '"
'ò>..,
:::~
1:; ~
'" '"
S· ~
í} s.
B" 2
~t:;
'" --
~~
~'"
~ '~
~' §
~
~
....
r¡c¡
=
""t
('t)
N
W
"t
-
~ rJJ
="C
.....(þ
o C.
n ~
n -
= rJJ
""t .....
""t ~
('t) .....
= =
n tI'.!
(þ
tI'.!
..-
.'
....
:
.
- .
..'
I,
.. '.
.:
,'.1,
'i//
./
..,
.i
"...
..'
. '.
...
¡,
::.'.
...-
..,.
.)~
M",.
".',..'...
.
-.,.
....
le:_-,.
"':.:,.',.."
."'.' '. "
II))')!;
/¡{;{:;/
':(1/ /(1/ ':
-.·lIi,!I!
i: /: ¡ I:: \
:,:.~.J !,' I.
.'...................... ...... I,
...........,.u.r,\ .. //
:' .... .~ii{II;~~~"
. <'}¡\"'i,¡,¡;,'ili
'·.I.~.>"'~!
,.~~:I.:.,:''-''
~,..
1'/
->',
... "
!
.-
I
a ;::0
(!¡
¡:: [fJ t"11
cr" 0 ~ i
...... ¡:: [fJ
... . ""'I - ã en
t::j (') ,,'<
(j (!¡ a ~ë- ~ £ ~
>-- ~ ¡:: -",~ r I _::;i: 3
~ cr" ~~( ¡~ ~[g Q
...... ~""
...... š ...... U1.......::tIm - . CD
... . ~ ... . -;~M-~ a ~~~:Þ II
~ t::j t::j j:m!'--n ¡:¡ ~.ig ~ (j
a (!¡ ~ ""C â~ç~ i ~Çf g
0.. (JQ ~~tg· ~, S·
... . ~ (!¡ .g ~f.å cu"
~ 8 ~::JO[I ~~~@"
(j . ~ [ -. ¡' en
å (!¡ , Q '"
0 ::¡ ~t)
¡::: ... .
0 ""C (!¡ ~
9" ...... [fJ
§
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~5-0
b
than 1 cm in length. Most branchiopods are small freshwater organisms with limited
specialization of their appendages as compared to other crustacean groups.
Three vernal pool invertebrate species were federally-listed as Endangered in 1994 by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1994): vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi),
Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), and longhorn fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta longiantenna). The vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) is
federally-listed as Threatened. Federally designated Critical Habitat was designated for
these four species on August 6, 2003. The midvalley fairy shrimp (Brachinecta
mesovalliensis) and the California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis) are federal
Species of Concern.
Vernal pools fonn in regions with Mediterranean climates where shallow depressions fill
with water during fall and winter rains, and evaporate in the spring (Holland and Jain
1988). Downward percolation is prevented by the presence of an impervious subsurface
layer, such as claypan, hardpan, or volcanic stratum (Holland 1976). Fairy shrimp and
tadpole shrimp are ecologically dependent upon these seasonal fluctuations in their
environment. Fairy shrimp are found in vernal pools and swales of various sizes ranging
from small puddles to the 40-ha Boggs Lake, 90 miles north of San Francisco. The water
chemistry characteristics [pH, turbidity, total dissolved solids (TDS), conductivity, and
alkalinity] of these habitats vary widely as well (Eng et al. 1990). Fairy shrimp have a
broad tolerance range for physical and chemical attributes. After pools become inundated
with water, these crustaceans hatch from eggs that have been dormant in the soil from
previous wet seasons. The eggs are highly tolerant of heat, cold, and prolonged
desiccation. Viable eggs have been kept in dried pond mud on the laboratory shelf for as
long as 15 years (Pennak 1978). In general, two to three weeks of inundation are required
for eggs to hatch and for completion of development, although this time period varies by
species.
Larval shrimp are known as nauplii. The nauplii molt several times as they grow in size
and sexually mature. Males and females mate, and females disperse their eggs throughout
the pool. When the pool dries, the eggs survive as cysts among the soil and detritus at the
bottom of the pool. Generally, there is one generation per rainy season, but in some
locations and in some years, depending on weather patterns and rainfall amounts,
conditions may permit two or more generations to complete their development. Egg cysts
are dispersed from one pool to another via wind, water, or animals such as birds and
cattle that may ingest them or pick them up on their feet. Adults swim upside down by
beating their phyllopodous (leaf~like) appendages, filtering detritus, bacteria, algae, and
other microorganisms from the water column (Pennak 1978).
It has been widely accepted by many biologists who study vernal pool branchiopods that
only one species ofbranchiopod inhabits a pool at a time, with few exceptions. This was
tenned the 'one-phyllopod-per-habitat rule' by Weise (1964). However, based on field
observations and literature reviews, Maeda-Martinez et at. (1997) report that in Mexico
and Arizona, as in many parts of the world, multi species assemblages of large
branchiopods are a common occurrence.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
30
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3UJ ù
b
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp
Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), a federally-listed Threatened species, has
a relatively wide range, and is most commonly found in grass or mud-bottomed swales,
or basalt low depression pools in unplowed grasslands. On a few occasions they have
been found in sandstone rock outcrops and alkaline vernal pools (USFWS 1994). This
species has a sporadic distribution within vernal pool complexes (USFWS 1994) wherein
a majority of pools in a given complex typically are not inhabited by the same species.
The vernal pool fairy shrimp is known to occur within the Central Valley and Central and
South Coast Ranges in California. It has been found at over 30 vernal pool complexes
throughout the state from Shasta County to Tulare County as well as several coastal
locations from northern Solano County to Pinnacles in San Benito County (Eng et al.
1990). There are also a few disjunct populations in the southern Coast Range and
Riverside County. It was also recently collected from Jackson County, Oregon (Eriksen
and Belk 1999). It is the only frequently encountered Branchinecta in California's vernal
pools (Eng et al. 1990).
The vernal pool fairy shrimp is typically found at low population densities (Simovich et
al. 1992). Only rarely does this species co-inhabit pools with other fairy shrimp species,
but where it does, the vernal pool fairy shrimp has never been documented as the
numerically dominant one (Eng et al. 1990). It can persist into the spring in longer lasting
vernal pools (Simovich et al. 1992) and has been collected from early December to early
May in waters ranging from 6 - 200 C (Eng et al. 1990).
Laboratory studies indicate that vernal pool fairy shrimp require a minimum of 18 days to
reach maturity at a water temperature of 200 C, with an average of 41 days at a water
temperature of 150 C (Helm 1998). Under similar conditions, the Longhorn fairy shrimp
requires a minimum of 23 days to reach maturity, although a more typical period is 43
days (Helm 1998).
Vernal pool fairy shrimp Critical Habitat Unit 19C (Altamont Hills Unit) is located
approximately 3.1 miles east of the Project Area. The closest reported occurrences of the
vernal pool fairy shrimp are located approximately 4 and 4.8 miles due east of the Project
Area in the north Livermore and Springtown areas, respectively (Sycamore Associates
2002g). Other nearby occurrences are located in the Byron, Brushy Peak, and Los
Vaqueros portions of southeastern Contra Costa County (Entomological Consulting
Services 2001).
Longhorn Fairy Shrimp
The longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), a federally-listed Endangered
species, has a disjunct distribution. It is known to inhabit sandstone depressions and
grassy pools from the Kellogg Creek watershed in the Altarnont Hills of eastern Contra
Costa County, the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge in Merced County and Soda Lake
in San Luis Obispo County. Pools inhabited by this species are filled by winter rains and
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
31 ('I
"0
may remain inundated until June. The longhorn fairy shrimp has been observed from late
December unti11ate April (USFWS 1994). It is rarely collected in pools with other fairy
shrimp species and has been collected at temperatures between 10 and 28° C (Eng et al.
1990).
Longhorn fairy shrimp Critical Habitat Unit 1B (Altamont Hills Unit) is located
approximately 7.6 miles northeast of the Project Area. The closest reported occurrences
of longhorn fairy shrimp to the Project Area are from the A1tamont area of Alameda
County and the Brushy Peak Area of Contra Costa County (Entomological Consulting
Services 2001).
Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp
The vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), a federally-listed Endangered
species, is found in pools containing clear to highly turbid water ranging in size from 5
square meters to 36 hectares (USFWS 1994). They belong to the crustacean order
Notostraca. There are nine extant species of tadpole shrimp, most of which are 2-10 cm
long (Brusca and Brusca 1990). Their common name derives from their body shape.
They have a broad shield-like carapace and narrow trunk with a long tail. Tadpole shrimp
mostly crawl along the bottom of ponds but can swim for short periods of time by beating
their limbs. They feed on detritus as well as other invertebrates and amphibian tadpoles
(Pennak 1978).
Female tadpole shrimp deposit their eggs on vegetation and other objects on the bottom
of pools. A portion of the eggs hatch immediately while the rest enter dormancy (Ahl
1991). During the dry season, diapaused eggs remain dormant in dry sediments until
winter rainwater refills the pools. The onset of hatching and maturation after inundation
differs in various studies. Ahl (1991) found that eggs hatched within three weeks of
inundation and sexual maturity was reached in another three to four weeks. Simovich et
al. (1992) found sexually mature adults in a pool three to four weeks after pools had
filled. Freezing temperatures may be necessary to break diapause and trigger hatching of
eggs (Braswell 1967). The number of eggs hatched in laboratory studies decreases with
increased water temperatures, with 10° C being the optimal temperature for hatching (Ahl
1991). This may explain the different hatching times following inundation in various
studies. A cold spell that occurs simultaneously with the beginning of winter rains could
trigger emergence earlier than during years in which a cold spell does not occur until later
in the rainy season.
The vernal pool tadpole shrimp is known from 18 populations in the Central Valley,
ranging from east of Redding in Shasta County south through the Central Valley to the
San Luis National Wildlife Refuge in Merced County, and from a single vernal pool
complex located on the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge in the City of
Fremont, Alameda County (USFWS 1994). They are not known to occur in the vicinity
of the Project Area and the closest Critical Habitat unit, e.g. the San Francisco Bay Unit
14, is located approximately 13 miles southwest of the Project Area.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
32
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
33
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
32 ð"Q
Conservancy Fairy Shrimp
The conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), a federally-listed Endangered
species, is known from six disjunct populations located in the Central Valley: Vina
Plains, Tehama County; south of Chico, Tehama County; Jepson Prairie, Solano County;
Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, Glenn County; near Haystack Mountain northeast
of Merced in Merced County; and the Lockewood Valley of northern Ventura County
(USFWS 1994). The seasonally astatic pools inhabited by this species are characterized
as swales. Generally, pools are filled by spring and winter rains and last until June (Eng
et al. 1990). Enget al. (1990) reports that B. conservatio occurs in the same geographical
area but rarely in the same pool as B. iynchi and Linderiel/a occidenta/is. Recorded pool
temperatures are between 6 and 19° C (Eng et ai. 1990).
The closest Critical Habitat unit, e.g. the Montezuma Unit 4, is located approximately 34
miles north of the Project Area in Solano County. There are no known occurrences of
conservancy fairy shrimp within Alameda or Contra Costa Counties.
California Linderiella
California linderiella (Linderiella occidentaUs), a federal Species of Concern, can be
found in sandstone depressions, grass, and less frequently, in mud-bottomed swales of
unplowed grasslands underlain by hardpan. It occurs in vernal pools filled by winter and
spring rains from late October to early May. They are found in the Central Valley from
Tehama County to Madera County as well as the Central and South Coast Mountain
regions from Boggs Lake (90 miles north of San Francisco) south to Riverside County in
a series of disjunct populations. 1. occidentaUs is commonly found at temperatures below
200 C; higher temperatures may be limiting to adults (Eng et al. 1990). When L.
occidenta/is co-occurs with B. lynchi it is the numerically predominant species (Eng et al.
1990).
The closest reported occurrence of California linderiella is approximately 2.5 miles east
of the study in north Livermore (CDFG 2002a, Sycamore Associates 2002g).
Midvalley Fairy Shrimp
The midvalley fairy shrimp (Branchinecta mesovalliensis), a federal Species of Concern,
is a newly described species that inhabits pools in only a handful of counties within the
Great Central Valley, including Sacramento, Solano, Merced, Madera, San Joaquin,
Fresno, and Contra Costa counties (Eriksen and Belk 1999, Belk and Fugate 2000). The
north-south extent of the known range of the midvalley fairy shrimp is narrower than that
of any other fairy shrimp species in the Central Valley of California (Belk and Fugate
2000). They have been found as far north as Solano and Sacramento counties and as far
south as Fresno County. They are found in small shallow vernal pools and swales (Helm
1998) and occasionally in roadside ditches or puddles along roadways adjacent to natural
habitat (Belk and Fugate 2000). The midvalley fairy shrimp has been observed to be
reproductive in 8-16 days (Helm 1998).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~q ð--
o
The closest reported occurrence of midvalley fairy shrimp is located approximately 11.5
miles northeast of the Project Area near Byron Hot Springs in Contra Costa County.
Summary and Analysis of On-Site Surveys
Wetland and/or drainage features that provide potentially suitable habitat for special-
status branchiopods occur on the Bankhead, Tseng, Anderson, Righetti, and Branaugh
properties (vernal pool fairy shrimp and longhorn fairy shrimp). Wetland delineations,
which identify the aquatic habitats on site, have been conducted for all of the properties
(Zander Associates 2000, Sycamore Associates 2002d,e,t). Additionally, 2001-2002 and
2002-2003 wet season surveys on all Project Area properties except Jordan have
identified specific areas of habitat suitable for special-status branchiopods. Figure 2.4
depicts the sampling locations within the Project Area.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1996b) protocol-level wet season branchiopod surveys
were conducted in 2002 for the Bankhead and Mandeville property by Wendy Weber
(Condor Country Consulting 2002), and for the Tseng, EBJ, Pleasanton Ranch,
Anderson, Righetti, Branaugh, and Campbell properties (Condor Country Consulting
2003). Dry season soil samples were collected for all 37 sampling locations by Wendy
Weber in the fall of 2002 and 2003 and were examined for branchiopod eggs (cysts) by
Brent Helm (Helm Biological Consulting). Cysts were found during sample analysis, but
they were determined to have morphological characters similar to a common species, the
versatile faIry shrimp, which is the only species of Branchinecta known from the vicinity
(Helm Biological Consulting 2004; In preparation). No suitable branchiopod habitat was
identified on the Mandeville, Croak, EBJ, Pleasanton Ranch and Campbell properties
(Entomological Consulting Services 2001, and Condor Country Consulting 2002, 2003).
The need for focused surveys on the Jordan property was assessed and determined to be
unnecessary based on the lack of suitable habitat and negative findings on the remaining
East Dublin properties and the neighboring Dublin Ranch project.
Aquatic surveys completed during the 2001-2002 wet season for the Bankhead property
(Condor Country Consulting 2002) identified eight pools as suitable branchiopod habitat.
Seven of these pools were located along an intermittent drainage and a single pool was
located within a man-made detention basin at the southwest comer of the property. No
vernal pool branchiopods were detected during the 2001-2002 wet season surveys. Soil
samples were collected within the eight pools on the Bankhead property during early fall
2002.
During the 2002-2003 wet season, twenty-nine pools that provide potential branchiopod
habitat were surveyed on the Tseng (14 pools), Anderson (12 pools), Righetti (two
pools), and Branaugh (one pool) properties (Condor Country Consulting 2003). No
special-status vernal pool branchiopods were detected during the 2002-2003 wet season
surveys. Two un-listed vernal pool branchiopod species were detected in several pools:
versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli) and California clam shrimp (Cyzicus
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
34
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\.-\OUb
califomicus). Soil samples were collected in the Fall 2003. Results will be incorporated
when the soil analysis is complete.
Summary and Analvsis of Off~Site Surveys
A review ofthe California Natural Diversity Database and recent biological reports for
nearby projects, and correspondence with local biologists, revealed four occurrences of
special~status branchiopods within ten miles of the Project Area (CDFG 2002a,
Entomological Consulting Services 2001, H.T. Harvey & Associates I 999a, and
Sycamore Associates 2002g). Two occurrences of California linderiella (a federal
Species of Concern) were identified approximately 2.5 and five miles east and south of
the Project Area, respectively. Two occurrences of vernal pool fairy shrimp (a federally
Threatened species) were identified approximately five and seven miles east of the
Project Area in north Livennore. Additionally, longhorn fairy shrimp and midvalley fairy
shrimp are known to occur in the Altamont area of Alameda County and the Brushy Peak
Area of Contra Costa County, and vernal pool fairy shrimp are known from the Byron,
Brushy Peak, and Los Vaqueros portions of southeastern Contra Costa County
(Entomological Consulting Services 2001).
Reconmiissance~level surveys authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the
Pao Yeh Un site located approximately one-half mile west of the Project Area did not
detect special-status branchiopods. However, one species of an unlisted branchiopod,
versatile fairy shrimp, was detected during the surveys perfonned by H.T. Harvey &
Associates (1999).
Amphibians and Reptiles
California Red-Legged Frog
Background and Natural Historv
First described as Rana draytonii in 1852 (Storer 1925, Slevin 1928), the red-legged frog
(Rana aurora) has since been recognized as two subspecies, the northern red-legged frog
(R. a. aurora) and the California red-legged frog (R. a. draytonii). The California red-
legged frog, a federally-listed Threatened species and a state-listed Species of Special
Concern, is restricted to northern Mexico and California as far north as Shasta county
(Jennings and Hayes 1994). The historic range of the California red-legged frog stretched
along the Pacific Coast of North America, predominantly throughout California. Historic
records suggest California red-legged frogs were known in 46 counties (USFWS 1996c).
California red-legged frogs are now extirpated from 24 of those counties (USFWS 1996c)
and are absent from all historic sites On the floor of the Great Central Valley (Stebbins
and Cohen 1997).
Optimal habitat for the California red-legged frog includes ponds, stream courses,
permanent pools (Storer 1925) and intennittent streams fed by drainage areas no larger
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
r
I~ I I "tJ CD
. II ¡¡¡- co
.. ;j 0 CD
.. I
. I - ::::s
"TI (') C.
-I "U -I 0 CD AI Z Z Þ en (JJ 0 C "U 0 en
(b <3 0 (!) !II c: 0 0 :>c (!) (!) (!) " 0 3 ¡¡;
-0 < - D- " " ~ w w " < " ::I
<1> -0 0 (!) c (!) :Z :Z r.n r.n [ <1> D- 3 0
r.n <1> «) 6" 0 0 «)
;::+ ã3 .... 91. w ~ 0 " " (!) ~ C :T
'< -0 CD "" iiJ ~ ~ 0 or ;j õ'
-0 (!) In <' 5'
OJ :T C. < r.n 0 <b ...,
0 (!) (!) r.n ~ õ1 W ;::; 0
õ· ¿;- (b c. " ar
c: 0 0 ¡¡¡- ~ c: C.
" (] (!) ã3 ã3 " <:!: r.n ::E 3 In (f
D- o W c. W :T AI w
~ " r.n r.n r.n " ~ -5. ~ 0- ;10 III
ro· õ r.n r.n D- w ~ (!) 3
¡¡¡- ¡¡¡- ro
r.n c: " " ~ Dr en » ~
D-
en ,D- D- " J:I 5'
0 c ~ (f) ¡¡¡- s:: cP
~ 0-
ã3 " Q (!) !II rn
'Q r.n c: IE - ;:
N :T 0- ñ"
(!) w
D- N en
(!) en "TI
D- (!) CD
(!)
-0 !II
-
s::
....
CD
In
.. ,
o
o
.
:
()
.
:
-'
-- ~_.~---
;t>">1
;; ¡:¡.:
<,H
.[j;:
;;On
'7''''
..,.0.
"'N
">10
_. 0
(~ s:
~~
", 1-.....)
rÆ·~
¡::¡ CJ
" -
N[/)
f:-
a
><
0..
OJ OJ 0
......~ þ
o '" ~
õ!] ~
"" '" ~
p] ""p} c::
::J (J.'ì::;j_
0..2.....«
::::o..~N
__ ~ ~ 0
2:.g~¡;
~ ~ ,...
:; '" '"
¡;;.~'<
;:<:J g' F1'
" ~ [/)
'" 0
n r./)::>
~ 'â -ã
::; ",.
>-a."
~ Q g-
o ~ VJ
n ;t> ::
~.f,I) :::.
Πg ?
D'n
ri );>.
o
$
........
~
....
(JQ
=
.,
(þ
N
:..
t:i
c
2:
;5'
0>
I:» ........
:=:1:»
8'8
8 8-
..... C:i
C:i 0
o
c
~
9
:::0
(D
rJJ
o
C
;::5
(D
~
C:i
~
C:i
fJQ
(D
8
(D
~
.-+
>¡:
........
I:»
~
tTJ
I:»
rJJ
.-+
~
ã
:J
0..
..
(f)
"''<
§£
~ 3
~ t:I 0
~ . (!)
~ g: þ
o g ~
~ i'Ii 0
[. i~·
-J en (Ü
~ tn
""
'i1r
(]
-
:;
;i
Q. ~
::: :::
~ ~.
.... '"
~"-:
::;~
~ ~
::;:. ~
- ....
'" '"
?t ::r.
§ g
.......:.~
(\) --
"'-0;,
~~
~ .?
'~. :::
~
oo~rJJ
~ ,..., "0
8 ~ ~
"0 = ....
~~~
~=--
== .... 00
~ 0 1""1-
rJJ 't:: ~
.... 0 1""1-
~Q.~
r.IJ
t:i
&
........
Ëï
>¡:
>-
o
'"0
(D
::4-
.....
(D
rJJ
-"-
"'-
~f
,.'"
~g:
"''''
"'"
",.
. 0
x ~
II
ëï
¡-
!"
5'
'I
\_ J
II
. >.
o
o
ex>
o
o
[/)
o
>
l'
~
tv
o
o
II
00
o
q
cr,
TlO
(!) 0
S-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4'ð-{)ö
than 300 krn2 (Hayes and Jennings 1988) between sea level and 1,500 meters (5,000 feet)
in elevation (Bulger et al. 2003). Habitat characteristics include water depth of at least
0.7 meters (2.5 feet), largely intact emergent or shoreline vegetation, e.g. cattails (Typha
spp.), tules (Scirpus spp.) or willows (Salix spp.), and absence of competitors/predators
such as bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides)
(Hayes and Jennings 1988). However, according to Jennings (Pers. Comm. 2003),
California red-legged frogs will use a wide variety of habitats, including temporary pools
and streams, permanent watercourses, wells, and ponds. Outside of an ideal habitat,
California red-legged frogs have been found in concrete-lined pools, isolated wells, stock
ponds absent of shoreline vegetation, and in refuse piles near ponds. Less optimal habitat
is most likely used during wet periods, but a permanent aquatic habitat is essential to the
survival oflocal California red-legged frog populations.
Adults are highly aquatic and are most active at night (Storer 1925). However, California
red-legged frogs do make use of terrestrial habitat, especially after precipitation events,
for non-migratory forays into adjacent upland habitats and migratory overland
movements between aquatic sites. In a study conducted by Bulger et al. (2003) at a
coastal site in northern Santa Cruz County, 90 percent of non-migratory California red-
legged frogs remained within 60 meters (196 feet) of aquatic habitat following the onset
of winter rains. Within this study area California red-legged frogs typically remained
within 5 meters (16 feet) of aquatic habitat during dry periods, but moved into upland
habitat as far as 130 meters (426 feet) during summer rains (Bulger et al. 2003).
Bulger et al. (2003) demonstrated that California red-legged frog migrations to breeding
ponds were often precipitated by rain events in excess of 25 mm. Migratory routes were
often highly oriented toward the nearest pond and were typically traversed in direct, point
to point movements with little to no preference or avoidance toward topography or
habitat. Migratory activity was conducted over a few to several days, followed by several
sedentary days. California red~legged frogs were documented to migrate between aquatic
sites at distances up to 3,200 meters (approximately 2 miles).
Breeding typically begins between November and mid-December and lasts through April
in most years, but is dictated by winter rainfall (Stebbins 1985, Jennings and Hayes 1994,
Bulger et al. 2003). As spawning occurs, California red-legged frogs cease using
terrestrial uplands farther than 6 meters (20 feet) from the water (Bulger et al. 2003). At
the breeding sites, males call in groups of 3 to 7 individuals to attract females (Jennings
and Hayes 1994). During amplexus, females deposit an egg mass on emergent vegetation
(Storer 1925, Jennings and Hayes 1994). Larvae hatch in 6-14 days and metamorphosis is
completed in 4-5 months (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Males and females attain sexual
maturity at 2 and 3 years, respectively (Jennings and Hayes 1994). In some cases,
tadpoles overwinter and metamorphose the following spring (Storer 1925).
The Project Area lies within the federally designated Critical Habitat - East Bay-Diablo
Range Unit (Unit 15). Although critical habitat is currently suspended (as of November
6, 2002) for economic analysis, it has since been re-proposed (on April 13, 2004) with
few changes. Although not yet finalized and enforceable, California red-legged frog
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
37
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
38
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
43 ~
Critical Habitat warrants a discussion because in some instances the designation reflects
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's view of California red-legged frog habitat for the
region. The timeline for completion of the re-designation is early 2005.
Summary and Analvsis of On-Site Surveys
Jordan Property - Zander Associates (1999) conducted a Biological Resources
Constraints Analysis for the Jordan property in 1998 and 1999. Their report identified a
total of five ponds on the Jordan property (Ponds 3-7) (Figure 2.5). Ponds 3 and 5 are in-
channel ponds containing emergent vegetation dominated by cattail (Typha latifolia).
Pond 4 is an in-channel pond that was dry at the time of the site reconnaissance and
lacked emergent vegetation. Ponds 6 and 7 are adjacent to the ranch house and function
primarily as ornamental ponds. Pond 6 is the larger of the two and was surrounded by
manicured lawn and was stocked with mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis) at the time of the
reconnaissance. The lower reaches of the two on-site drainages, C2 and C3, are enclosed
in Central Coast riparian scrub habitat and convey water year-round. Furthermore,
California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) burrows were observed on site,
which provide suitable upland refugia and aestivation habitat (H.T. Harvey & Associates
I 999b).
Herpetologist Mark Jennings, Ph.D. visited the site with Zander Associates on February
26, 1999 (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1999b). Dr. Jennings observed mosquitofish and
Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla) egg masses in the artificially maintained Pond 6. Due to
the lack of emergent vegetation and the presence of mosquitofish, a known California
red-legged frog predator, Pond 6 was determined to be poor California red-legged frog
breeding habitat. A single juvenile California red-legged frog was observed in the
drainage just upstream of Pond 5, which provides suitable breeding habitat for California
red-legged frogs. Ponds 3, 4, and 7 are small, contain Pacific treefrogs, and do not appear
to pond water in sufficient depth to support California red-legged frog breeding.
Focused California red-legged frog surveys were conducted by Mark Jennings and
Gretchen Flohr between January and July 2001 on the Jordan property (Rana Resources
2001a). Observations made between January-April were made during protocol surveys
for California tiger salamanders. Observations between June-July were conducted during
protocol-level focused California red-legged frog surveys. California red-legged frogs
were determined to be successfully breeding in Pond 5 and were observed in the seasonal
wetlands within Drainage C2 upstream of Pond 5. California red-legged frogs were not
observed in Ponds 4, 6, and 7 near the ranch house. During the course of surveys, the
number of California red-legged frogs observed varied from none to six subadults/adults
per survey. Recruitment within Pond 5 was determined to be low due to the presence of
mosquitofish and cattle grazing in and around the pond.
During site visits by WRA in Fall 2003, California red-legged frogs were observed in
Ponds 4 and 6, in upland habitat just east of Pond 4, in Drainage C3 below Pond 6, and in
a small, deep pond in Drainage C3 along the northern border with the Bankhead property
(WRA 2003a) (Figure 2.5). Based on the biological assessment, WRA considers seven
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L/4 ð-'
U
areas within the Jordan property to be potentially suitable CRF breeding habitat: Ponds
4, 5, 6, three ponded areas in Drainage C3 below Pond 6, and the small, deeply ponded
area in Drainage C3 along the northern border with the Bankhead property (Pond 10)
(Figure 2.5).
Bankhead and Mandeville - During the field reconnaissance to assess the potential
habitat availability for the Bankhead and Mandeville properties in March and May of
2001, five California red-legged frogs were observed within Drainages C" C2, and C3
(Sycamore Associates 200la). Of these, four were detected on the Bankhead property,
e.g. one within Pond 2, two along Drainage C3 south of Pond 2, and one within the
eastern-most Bankhead drainage (C2). Another individual was observed on the
Mandeville property at the northern end of Drainage C\. The Bankhead stock pond (Pond
2) at the time of the survey measured approximately 140 feet by 80 feet in length,
contained emergent freshwater vegetation, and was reported to pond water at sufficient
depth to support California red-legged frog breeding. Although the remaining on-site
drainages do not support additional California red-legged frog breeding habitat, they do
provide seasonal aquatic, foraging, and upland aestivation habitat. California ground
squirrel burrows were also present throughout the properties.
Tseng, EEl, Pleasanton Ranch, Anderson. Righetti, Branaugh and Campbell - A site
assessment (Sycamore Associates 2001b) was prepared for the Tseng, EBJ, Pleasanton
Ranch, Anderson, Righetti, Branaugh, and Campbell properties in the spring of 2001. No
California red-legged frogs were observed during the course of the site visits, however
suitable breeding habitat was identified within the Anderson quarry pond (Pond 1), and
suitable foraging, upland aestivation, and dispersal habitat was present among the Tseng,
EBJ, Pleasanton Ranch, Anderson, Righetti, Branaugh, and Campbell properties. At the
time of the site reconnaissance, Pond I was characterized by dense stands of emergent
freshwater vegetation, e.g. cattail (Typha spp.), tules (Scirpus spp.) and willows (Salix
spp.), and standing water at sufficient depths to support California red-legged frog
breeding. The remaining properties supported a patchy distribution of California ground
squirrel populations. In accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protocol (1997),
focused California red-legged frog surveys were conducted by Sycamore Associates
during the spring and fall of 200 I. Survey efforts focused in and around Pond I, but
resulted in negative findings (Sycamore Associates 200Ic). During nocturnal California
tiger salamander surveys in December 2002 an adult California red-legged frog was
observed on the Anderson property approximately 750 feet south of the nearest aquatic
source, Pond 1 (Sycamore Associates 2003b).
Croak - Based on the site assessment prepared by Sycamore Associates (2002h),
Drainage B, the freshwater marsh in the northwest comer, and the seasonal wetland on
the southern portion of the Croak property provide limited suitable foraging, dispersal,
and overwintering habitat. These features do not pond water at a sufficient depth and
duration to provide suitable California red-legged frog breeding habitat. Lack of grazing
activity within the past few years has resulted in dense mats of grasses and weedy
vegetation that may act as a barrier to California red-legged frog movement and dispersal.
Furthermore, California ground squirrel activity is confined to a small area within the
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
39
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July' 2, 2004
40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
45" Db
northwest corner, which provides limited refugia and aestivation habitat. Focused surveys
were conducted by Sycamore Associates in October 2003 (Sycamore Associates 2003a).
No California red-legged frogs were observed during the course of these surveys.
A review of the California Natural Diversity Database revealed three California red-
legged frog occurrences within the Project Area (CDFG 2002a). Two separate
observations were reported within Pond 5 by Eastern Dublin GP A-SP-EIR in 1989 and
Gary Beeman in 2000 (CDFG 2002a), and the third was reported by Mark Jennings in a
stock pond to the north, along the same eastern tributary (Rana Resources 2001 a).
In total, eight adultlsubadult California red-legged frogs have been recorded within the
Project Area. Given the spatial diversity of the sightings within the Project Area, the
entire site is considered to be suitable habitat for one or more California red-legged frog
life history stages. However, the xeric nature of much of the site would likely preclude
California red-legged frogs from using a majority of the upland habitat outside of the wet
season.
Summary and Analysis of Off-Site Surveys
A review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CDFG 2002a), correspondence
with local biologists, and review of recent biological reports for nearby projects revealed
37 California red-legged frog occurrences within five miles of the Project Area, 15 of
which occurred within one mile of the Project Area (Figure 2.6). Nine sightings were
located among adjacent properties to the west and north of the Project Area.
As summarized by H. T. Harvey & Associates (1999a and 2000c), there have been a
number of California red-legged frogs recorded off site in the Dublin/Livermore vicinity.
Surveys in 1989 for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Specific
Plan EIR on the Dublin Ranch property immediately west of Fallon Road found
California red-legged ftogs at II sites, including springs, ponds, windmill cisterns, and
pools along Cottonwood Creek and along two tributaries of Tassajara Creek. Specifically,
California red-legged frogs were detected along the northern-most boundary of the
Dublin Ranch project area in the Northern drainage. Surveys in 1993 found 10 subadults
in a pond along the upper portions of the Northern drainage. Surveys in the spring of
1995 (unreported number of juveniles) and 1998 (2 adults) identified California red-
legged frogs in the same pond (following the 1998 sightings, the dam failed and the pond
disappeared, at which time it was no longer suitable California red-legged frog breeding
habitat). Surveys in the spring of 1999 identified several California red-legged frogs and
an egg mass in the upper portion of the Northern drainage. Surveys in the fall of 1999
identified eighteen California red-legged frogs in the Northern drainage (three adults and
ten subadults in the stream, and five sub adults in and around a stock pond).
Similar findings were reported along the eastern border of the Dublin Ranch study site in
the pond located along Fallon Road. Surveys in 1993 found five subadults. Surveys in the
spring of 1995 identified an unreported number of subadults. In 2000, two California red-
legged frogs were detected approximately 30 feet west of the Tseng property in the
§ .
() ()
;0 ~
õ ~
II TI
"U :::J
N 0 õ,
CO ¡¡; ;0
CO 3- a>
~ 0.
J...
OJ a>
<.0
¡¡¡ <.0
a> a>
0. 0.
5' TI
<.0 S
"U
0 -0
:::J
a. ;0
õ
2!
(j)
<5'
::i:
5'
<.0
~.' -
, i
/
"tI
I I II ii!
...P I :::I
-
n
0 c: (j) ;0 Z z » (j) () 0
--0 0 0 '" a> a> 3
¡;¡ :::J 0 a> c
< :::J '" 0. :::J :::J ~ '" :::J 3
5' a> 0. "' CD Z: Z: "' ~
'" <.0 0 "l G) 0 c:
<.0 a> ]; :::J ~ ~ :::J
CD ¡¡¡- ~ ~' ~' ¡;¡ Q!. () :::I
W ::r "' TI 0 ;::¡:
~ "' '"
() a. :::J G) G) ¡¡¡- ¡¡¡ ~ ¡¡)'
¡¡¡ ~ c ¡;¡ ¡;¡ :::J "' ;0 UI
a> 3 ¡¡¡- a. ::r
'" '" 0- :::J "' "' '" ~' Qo
<P CD 0. "' "' '"
ã: ¡¡¡ ¡¡¡ ¡¡¡- ill ~ :::J, »
CD :::J :::J '"
3- a. F>- a. s: :::J .Q
~ õ) G) c: '" (j) c:
() 0- :::J ¡¡¡ (} Q
~ CD ¡;¡ <.0 ::r 2 -
õ· E- N ¡;¡ 0- ¡:¡.
a>
:::J a. N (j)
CD CD 'TI
a. a> ( )
" 2i
c:
....
( )
UI
0
I -
.: -\ . ::T
( )
" 3 ... ..,
::, ,< . 'TI
-I 1j -I 0 ( )
0 a> Q
¡¡¡ a " < -
CD " 0 CD c:
"' a> <.0 Õ ..,
-z ¡;¡ -g ( )
" (J
OJ ::r a.
0 0' »
c () ¡¡¡
:::J
a. 0 '"
~ :::J "'
(i, õ
"' s;
"'
,.,,-
,..
i'
...
...
.
: 1-""\
,S' ,) "" '),
~~."""', -------;
l' .'~.'''_ ._
, .... .
"...
..~
~~. ,,-'
II~'
......-
-..__._u......... .
;Þ-:J!
.., -
(} "
s:;.:.
~ ---
,,";Þ-
;;00
s:ê..
." '"
""i"; :;:::::>
-, 0
""0
g .::
" '"
~Ñ
otî'~
'" CJ
;:J -
"'[/)
'-"
S¡
x
CL
cr1"'O
..... ~ o,i
o ';.I' _
-" "
o _
{JQ :::: L....,
§ ~r~ ls..
f;::............ -- -.,
....CLs:'"
-< f\¡ ~ 0
:!~r~
R ;.~
~ g ¡Q
~y;~
~ U'J :3
e:!,-<~
ri ('} ~
-0> .
~ 3 ."
~~(b
'" " '"
g >- ~
p)' 12 ~
fig?
0;' 'J
~ >-
o
$
........
~
,.....
( C¡
=
~
(tI
N
.
U1
v
¡:::
ç)
........
p'
n>
p) ........
=-:P)
~S
8 8.-
....... p)
p) n
o
¡:::
~
':<
~
(1)
CJ)
o
¡:::
~
(1)
3:
p)
=:!
p)
(Jq
(1)
S
(1)
=:!
..-+-
""c:i
........
p)
=:!
tTJ
p)
CJ)
..-+-
I
D
~~
-:¡:~~~ f
......t,.n~ C') .
~~ ~ ~ 3
\: ¿¡ "-;¡o i'i
S:g;o!'J ~
~~fOì ~
~g¡g~ 8
m ~ "- _.
D
J
~
(fJ
"''<
On
Sa¡
_~:;: 3
~~~ @
tj~§ þ
6~ ~ en
~rc en
õ\2~ g
~~p. (lr
~ ~~ CD
@" (JJ
",r--
2tj
.'
~. Co,
"~' \
:::
~
~ ~
~ '"
",,",,,
'" -.
~~
"''2
~ ~
'"
5" ~
~§:
~ è)
S. ~
~~
"'-<::>
~~
~~
~. §
:::,.
n
~
-
,.....
~~~
Š. 8 d
rJ). ~ ,.....
~. ==;
:=:~(tI
-. _. Q.
= ~ I
~ ~ -
CIJ ~~
(JQ
(tI
Q..
t:J
¡:::
ç)
........
S'
""d
a
'"0
(1)
;:¡
.......
(1)
CJ)
~
co
o
o
r./l
n
>
l'
tTJ
-I>-
o
o
......
II
00
o
o
N
o
o
0-,
'TI0
CD 0
~
o 0 ~Sj
W
->.
.
ï
CÐ
CC
CÐ
::s
Q.
m
;U
O"Q)
=a.
:J -.
"UŒ
a»
-oa
CP c:
Î3::J
CPa.
(/)
mQ
Q) :J
~CD
oS;:
c: -.
O"m
§';u
"U~
..... -.
o c:
-o(/)
~~
cp.g
(/) :J
a.
o
c::
2:
:5"
"U
.....
o
-0
CP
;::::¡.
cp.
(/)
m
Q)
(f)
......
C/)
Ë
a.
'<
:r:-
CD
Q)
(f)
o
(')
(')
c:
.....
m
:J
2
o
::u
CD
-0
o
ffi'
a.
()
;::0
ìl
o
(')
(')
c:
m
:J
(')
CP
(f)
"r"""
:;-æ
,., <>
3: ..
~ :.:-
?- >
~~
-ON
""0
<ê'9
a Ñ
'iÍN
ãi$--.J
" 6
ߧ
0,
3
"
0..
c:lc:IO
õ' ~ ~
¡3:
[&r~ ~
...,;:3:;':"
<:: ('tI ~ 0
ß~~2
[ ;.'~
;'§r;>
~ ~ ~
~~.ð
,., ,., '"
:T3~
Z;'-:;¡g,
¡g !'t ,.-.
" .~ èn
§. .. 0
~ 8.~
~ 0
œ-g
o
"
0>
0..
o
II
~
....
(JQ
=
..,
(þ
N
.
0'\
o
&
......
......
=:I
n>:-
þ ......
:=:þ
Õ's
a 8.-
...... þ
Þ n
o
t::
~
':<
~
(þ
en
o
t::
M
(þ
$:
Þ
=:I
Þ
(Jq
(þ
s
(þ
~
'¡:
......
Þ
=:I
t1J
Þ
en
......
=
;;!
~ ~.
:::¡ :::¡
~{3
~ t;;'
~~
:~
~ ~
'"
s· ~
~ s.
1;; §;
::::~
'" "-
1'>..0
f}~
"';.:
~. so
k
o
n
n
=
..,
..,
(þ
=
n
(þ
rI.J
rJ
~
-
~ ....
.., ~
o ..,
(JQ e.
~~
(þ ~
CG. (þ
o Q.
= .,!...
~ t'Þ
-(JQ
(JQ
(þ
Q..
o
t::
cr"
......
......
=:I
'¡:
a
"'0
g
......
(þ
en
'"
'Z:~&'Pß
..¡.t)I:=JG)
~~~~
t.1~~
s: 0 ~
'" J>/';
"''''i''''
~h8
m.......!:E
d
I
~
II
J
:"
:i
r'I
U>
"''<
ffi£
¡gP 5
~s~ CD
....Qo Þ
6!! '" (j
~- ~ (j
ð~'" 0
"ti Q.
g ~UJ š-
ro ~ç. r.tJ
~~
o
~
[M
..L
--J
(:/
en
n
>:-
l'
tTi
~$z
......
......
w
VI
$:
......
......
(þ
en
:s::
(D
(f)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~goo
riparian scrub bordering the Fallon Road pond; the first observation was reported in the
California Natural Diversity Database by H.T. Harvey & Associates (CDFG 2002a), the
second by Sycamore Associates biologist Kim Briones in September 2001 during an
unrelated survey.
Although H. T. Harvey & Associate's surveys of the project site's interior in March and
May 1993, May 1995, and between January and August of 1998 failed to detect
California red-legged frogs on Dublin Ranch, in the summer of 1999 they reported one
adult female California red-legged frog in a stock pond in the northwest comer ofthe Pao
Yeh Un property. In the winter of 2000, a dead California red-legged frog was found
floating on a piece of wood at the end of the easternmost drainage in a spring cistern.
Suitable breeding, foraging, and dispersal habitat formerly existed within the neighboring
Dublin Ranch project area.
The Dublin Ranch area immediately west of the Project Area is currently under
development. As part of their mitigation, 160 acres was set-aside in a Conservation
Easement immediately northwest of the Bankhead property, including a pond which is
used by red-legged frogs (and California tiger salamander) for breeding. Furthennore,
Doolan Canyon has several reported occurrences of California red-legged frogs and
currently consists of rural ranchettes and grazed grasslands with numerous stock ponds
suitable for California red-legged frog.
California Tiger Salamander
Background and Natural History
The Californ,ia tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) (CTS), has been proposed for
federal listing as Threatened (the final listing decision is due by July 23, 2004, 'pursuant
to a federal court order), and is a state Species of Special Concern. It is a relatively large,
terrestrial salamander that inhabits grasslands and oak savanna habitats in the valleys and
low hills of central and northern California (Storer 1925, Stebbins 1985, Barry and
Schaffer 1994). California tiger salamanders have been recorded from all of the nine Bay
Area Counties at elevations ranging from approximately 10 to 3,500 feet above mean sea
level (Shaffer and Fisher 1991). California tiger salamanders appear to be in the initial
stages of habitat fragmentation and decline (Fisher and Shaffer 1996). California tiger
salamanders require vernal pools, ponds (natural or man-made), or semi-permanent calm
waters (where ponded water is present for a minimum of three to four months) for
breeding and larval maturation, and adjacent upland areas that contain small mammal
burrows or other suitable refugia for aestivation.
Adult California tiger salamanders spend most of their lives underground in small
mammal burrows, typically those of the California ground squirrel (Loredo et al. 1996).
Adults emerge from underground retreats to feed, court, and breed during warm winter
rains typically from November through March. Adults may migrate long distances, up to
a kilometer or more, to reach pools for breeding and egg laying (Jennings and Hayes
1994). The eggs are attached singly or in small groups of2-4 to vegetation underwater or
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
43
L/ O¡ Db
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
directly on the bottom of the pool if emergent vegetation is sparse or nonexistent (Storer
1925, Jennings and Hayes 1994). After hatching in about 10-14 days the larvae continue
to develop in the pools for several months until they metamorphose, which takes a
minimum of 10 weeks (Anderson 1968, Feaver 1971).
Following metamorphosis, juvenile salamanders seek refugia, typically mammal.
burrows, traveling distances of 1.6 Ian (I mile) or more from their breeding sites (Austin
and Shaffer 1992) in which they may remain until they emerge during a subsequent
breeding season. Trenham et aI. (2000) found that most individuals did not reach sexual
maturity for 4-5 years. After completion of breeding, adult California tiger salamanders
retreat to underground burrows. During some years in which the conditions are sub-
optimal, adult females have been known to forego reproduction completely (Loredo and
Van Vuren 1996, Trenham et al. 2000). California tiger salamander populations and
breeding are vitally influenced by environmental conditions including seasonal rainfall
and pond duration (Loredo and Van Vuren 1996). California tiger salamanders are
dependent on the integrity of both breeding ponds and adjacent upland habitat, especially
long-lasting vernal pool complexes (Jennings and Hayes 1994). The alteration of either
habitat component through the introductioh ófexotic predators or the construction of
barriers that fragment habitat and reduce connectivity, e.g. roads, berms and certain types
of fences, can be detrimental to the survival of California tiger salamanders (Jennings and
Hayes 1994). \
Summary and Analvsis of On-Site Habitat Evaluation Studies
An analysis of on-site habitats was conducted by Sycamore Associates to determine if
appropriate breeding and upland aestivation habitat was present within the Project Area
(Sycamore Associates 2001a). The presence of upland aestivation habitat on several
properties was also detennined during site evaluations for San Joaquin kit fox (Townsend
and Sycamore Associates 2002a,b) and a habitat assessment for western burrowing owl
(Sycamore Associates 2002g).
Sycamore Associates identified three potential breeding sites within the Project Area,
including the quarry pond (Pond I) located in the northern portion of the Anderson
property, the stock pond (Pond 2) located within the upper portion of Drainage C3 on the
Bankhead property, and the stock ponds and ornamental ponds (Ponds 3-5) located on the
Jordan property near the confluence of drainagesC2 and C3 (Figure 2.7). During the
biological assessment of the Jordan property conducted by WRA, identified two
additional ponds (Ponds 6-8) near the stock and ornamental ponds, and five other
unnamed small ponded areas along Drainage C3 (including Ponds 9 and 10) and others
near the confluence of Drainages C2 and C3 as potential CTS breeding sites (WRA
2003b)(Figure 2.7). During the December 19,2003 site visit by Sycamore Associates, the
freshwater marsh located at the southern end of Drainage C2 just north of the southern
Bankhead property line, appeared to have been modified by intense cattle grazing such
that it may pond water in sufficient depth to support California tiger salamander breeding.
This area, identified as pool 1 during branchiopod surveys, (Figure 2.4) was surveyed for
special-status branchiopods between December 2001 and April 2002. At that time it held
.
..
i'-
..
..
--'a
/ I
./'
e/ e' /
I
I I ,.
r / I
/ / /
! I
! I .
/
J I
I
.-
,-
-,-
.
.. -,
.. ( \,~-\
I.' / \
- ~i%~-"'-'_·-·' ,",-- -------,- -~,
,1 ___ (
" . ", ", .-
.... """J
, 0."
....
..,
""" I,
-..,
.......... ............
;;--~
<"> "
$::.:.
-ê!,~
;::;,,,
:¡::~
""'"
"'1'10
65·g
~~ ª
"''''
~-~
~ 9
"'~
""
;;
"
p,.
o:IC:CO
_. :t¡) ~
o !,on _
Õ 9: ~
~ :;j '-
þ -, 0> "
;o! ().,,-
~~..,<
~~:~
~~~$:
§ ~ ~
c.. ~.
on g R>
~~CI]
on 0
(þ c.n =:3
~ \< "d
<"> " on
::r 0> '
> 8 3:
~ @ ~
(1 >- ~
--~ ::J
;¡ 00 õ
" 0 _
00 (/ .:-"
¡;;. '1
Œ~
o
. :>.
o
o
N
:$
N
o
o
m
TI 0
CD 0
$B.
-,,----- ---r---- -- -,-
,/
)
l/l
n
>
l'
t11
:-l
ã ~
-. '"
~ ~
§ ~.
-. '""
'cs->'"
....g¡
c; ~
~ ~
:;, ~
~ §..
-. a
'" ::0
:::::.~
'" --
::>"a
::>..::0
~~
~. §
::>..
>-"
=
II
00
o
q
_/
==
~
0-
~oo
~ ~
~ -
~
~ =
Q..~
00=
.... Q..
r¡e¡ t"C
=-.,
~
....
=
r¡e¡
fIJ
/
,-,..
--
,
/
-,-
.-- _.~~-_..--, ~.-'
o
,~..
~-,
n
~
-
....
~
.,
=
....
~
'-3
....
r¡e¡
t"C
.,
~
....
r¡e¡
=
.,
t"C
N
.
-.1
u
¡:;
çJ
........
Fr
n>
~ ........
::;-:~
d'S
8 8-
..... ~
~ n
o
¡:;
i::!
-
~
;:;c
(].'I
en
o
¡:;
2
('D
3:
~
i::!
~
(Jq
(D
S
(D
i::!
-
"i:1
........
~
i::!
eni
("),
;¡:..'
t'\'
~
~
- "
II
N
0>
0>
()
.oe~
3
¡¡¡-
-I
<6'
~
r.n
'"
w
3
'"
:::J
a.
~
¡;;- 2- 6:
< ¡¡¡ !;,
~ ;;!,
¡o
~
!!!.
r.n
ciS-
Z
:.
'"
'"
III
0 () ~
(jj -I
r.n r.n
" 0 "
0 c- o
ro !II ro
<1>
;:¡. ~ ;:¡.
§I ![
a. CD
CD OJ
<i! <i! <i!
CD <t>
"- ~ a.
5· 5-
'" ;;J '"
'"
~ " "
0
;;J 0 :::J
"- ;o! a.
v;- a. "
c ~
~ !II
<::
'< <
<1>
ð CD
'<
CD
ð
"tJ
I II m
() I IB :I
....
...... (')
0
0 c " r.n ;:0 z z :r> r.n Q 3
¡¡¡ :::J 0 CD <:: 0 0 ;;:c CD
;;J '" "- ;;J ;;J ~ II> :::J
< '" ~ 3
5- CD "- '" ~ z z 0
'" '" 0 G) :::J c:
'" <1> ~ :::J '" S. S.
<1> nr ~ <. ::;' ¡¡¡ ~ () :I
5' '" 0 ;:;:
$' ~ <1> CD !II TI '"
0 a. :::J G) G) w <i! ~ ¡¡¡"
<i! :?: <:: ¡¡¡ ¡¡¡ ;;J !II ;u 1/1
CD 3 ¡¡; "- ::r
'" '" c- :::J !II !II ::;: -5' go
~ <1> a. '" '" '" '"
13: ro ¡¡; ¡¡; ~ :0. :Þ
<1> !II :::J :::J '"
;;J "- _a. !"- '5: ;;J .c
-. ¡¡; r.n c:
"" G) c ~
" (T ¡¡¡ ;;J ~ III
S. CD !II ....
'" OJ" c
õ' E rð ¡¡¡ c- õ'
:::J a. rð r.n "'T1
CD
"- <1> tÞ
" 2!.
c:
...
tÞ
1/1
tT:1
~
en
-
I
ã
::J
~e-
~~~PP ::
......(,n~ C> .,.,
2!"';; AI m ft
.þ.~~~ 0
'i'~~:;' Õ
~'"~~ :7r
W"l]~iji
~~8~
"~2§: -.
"
it
J1'
S-
('I
o
¡::
2:
=
>-c
a
'1:::1
(D
::4.
.....
(D
en
I
o
....
I~
-I"d~:E
WO""d<,..
rn~s~:;
;::>.õJ"OtÞ
'< ~ ~ en
g' ,r :r>
C () m
~ g ~
~ õ
ffi" c
'" ;¡¡
n.
, , ..
~ ~ -
" ,J .
/
/
~/'
/'
"
\
\
\
\.,~
(IJ
"''<
"n
$",
~-:;:!i' 3
ßs-o 0
~ ~ ã)' ro
~~s: ;r.
%~ &' en
g;- c en
oOi'Ð 0
gf! ~.
~mfpro
ffi' (¡)
""
",
'"0
II'
<j.
;.x __.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5/(~
water at a depth of 32cm and did not contain California tiger salamander larvae,
juveniles, or adults; however, this pond is still considered potential breeding habitat for
CTS.
All properties except for Croak and Campbell contain suitable refugia and upland
aestivation habitat due largely to the abundance of burrows within the area as the result of
California ground squirrel activity.
Summary and Analysis of On-Site Protocol-level Surveys
Nocturnal and aquatic surveys were conducted in accordance with California Department
of Fish and Game's Survey Protocol for California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma
californiense) (1997b). Nocturnal survey efforts were focused within 500 meters (1,640
feet) of potential breeding sites as recommended by California Department of Fish and
Game protocol (CDFG 1997b).
Nocturnal Surveys
Sycamore Associates conducted nocturnal surveys for the Anderson, Righetti, Branaugh,
Campbell, and Tseng (which included the EBJ and Pleasanton Ranch properties under the
fonn~r1y proposed Dublin Corporate Center project) properties between January and
March 2001 (Sycamore Associates 200Id). Two adult California tiger salamanders were
detected during the nocturnal surveys; one within Pond I and the other within a burrow
greater than 500 meters southeast of Pond 1 on the Branaugh property.
During the 2002/2003 wet season, Sycamore Associates conducted nocturnal surveys on
the Mandeville, Bankhead, Tseng, Anderson, Righetti, and Branaugh properties between
November 7,2002 and March 16, 2003 (Sycamore Associates 2003b). A total of sixteen
California tiger salamanders were observed on the Bankhead property. Fourteen adults
and one juvenile were located within 600 feet of Pond 2 along Drainage C3. Following
these observations, subsequent surveys were conducted outside of the SOD-meter radius
surrounding Pond 2 along Drainages D2, D3, C\, C2, and C3 [all identified as fteshwater
seeps and unvegetated waters of the U.S. based on the verified wetland delineation
(Sycamore Associates 2002d)] to determine the extent of upland aestivation habitat
utilized by California tiger salamanders within this area. Six California tiger salamanders
were observed along Drainage C¡ (4 adults and 2 juveniles) on the Mandeville property,
one adult California tiger salamander was observed along Drainage C2 on the Bankhead
property, and no California tiger salamanders were observed within Drainages D2, D3,
and the lower reaches of C3 on the Bankhead property. The seasonal wetlands and
Drainages present on the Croak property do not pond water of sufficient depth long
enough to allow for larval California tiger salamander maturation. Five new occurrences
of adult California tiger salamanders were observed within 500 meters of Pond 1. One
adult California tiger salamander was located on the northwestern portion of the Righetti
property, two adults were located on the knoll of the Anderson property just south of
Pond I, and two adults were located traveling along Croak Road between the Anderson
and Tseng properties.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
46
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
47
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5,~~ óÒ
No California tiger salamanders were observed during nocturnal surveys conducted by
Rana Resources on the Jordan property in 2001 (Rana Resources 2001b). However,
nocturnal surveys conducted by WRA in November 2003 revealed the presence of two
adult California tiger salamanders in upland habitat between Drainages C2 and C3 (WRA
2003b) (Figure 2.7).
Aquatic Surveys
Aquatic surveys were conducted on March 22 and April 23, 2001 by Sycamore
Associates (2001d) for the Anderson, Righetti, Branaugh, Campbell, and Tseng (which
included the EBJ and Pleasanton Ranch properties under the fonnerly proposed Dublin
Corporate Center project) properties. Three aquatic sites were surveyed, including a
shallow depression along the fence line that bisects the Tseng property (east-west
direction), Pond 1, and the shallow depression on the north end of the Branaugh property.
No larval California tiger salamanders were detected during these surveys.
An aquatic survey was conducted by Sycamore Associates in March and May 2001
(Sycamore Associates 2001b) for the Bankhead and Mandeville properties, which
included Pond 2. No California tiger salamanders were observed during these surveys.
However, during special-status branchiopod surveys conducted by Wendy Weber in
February of 2002, larval California tiger salamanders were observed in Pond 2 (Condor
Country Consulting 2002). Pond 2 was approximately 15 by 35 meters and 150
centimeters deep at the time ofthe survey.
Aquatic surveys were conducted by Sycamore Associates on March 24,2003 for Ponds I
and 2 according to California Department of Fish and Game protocol (1997b). At the
time of the survey Pond I was approximately 2.5 feet in depth and spanned 300 feet by
150 feet. Water temperature was 690 F and water was clear. Dense patches of cattail
(Typha spp.), tules (Scirpus spp.), and willows (Salix spp.) were scattered throughout the
pond. Larval California tiger salamanders were observed in the pond along with western
toad (Bufo boreas) and Pacific treefrog tadpoles (Hyla regilla), clam shrimp, and
freshwater snails. Pond 2 at the time of the survey was approximately 3 feet in depth and
spanned 90 feet by 50 feet. The water was 66° F and turbid. Aquatic vegetation consisted
of sparse patches of cattails. Larval California tiger salamanders were observed within
this pond as well as Pacific treefrogs, leeches, and clam shrimp.
No California tiger salamanders were observed during aquatic surveys conducted by
Rana Resources on the Jordan property in 2001. However, larval CTS were located in
two small ponds (ponds 4 and 9) on the Jordan Property during an aquatic survey
conducted on March 10, 2004 (WRA 2004b; in prep.). Additional aquatic surveys were
conducted on the Jordan Property by WRA on April 14 and May 6, 2004; however, no
additional CTS larvae were observed.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.;.-::; :..< .
~ -=)
ð)-"
l.. )
Summary of On-site Surveys
In total, 31 adult or juvenile California tiger salamanders have been observed to-date
within the Project Area and breeding has been confirmed by the presence of larvae within
Ponds 1, 2, 4 and 9 (Figure 2.7); additional aquatic surveys on the Jordan Property in
April and May 2004 did not locate any additional larvae. The highest degree of habitat
usage corresponded to the area surrounding Ponds 1 (15 individuals) and 2 (six
individuals), however California tiger salamanders were recorded as far away as 2,500
feet from identified breeding sites.
Summary and Analysis of Off-Site Surveys
A review of the California Natural Diversity Database of the Livermore and five adjacent
topographic quadrangles, correspondence with local biologists, and review of recent
biological reports for nearby projects reyealed 26 occurrences of California tiger
salamander within five miles of the Project Area. Interstate 580 likely functions as a
barrier to California tiger salamander dispersal and movement, essentially isolating those
occurrences reported south of the freeway from those reported on or surrounding the
Project Area to the north. Thus, of the 26 occurrences reported within five miles of the
Project Area, only 20 of those occurrences were reported north of Interstate 580, 12 of
which occur within one mile of the Project Area (Figure 2.8). One of these occurs within
the Project Area, but was observed during special-status branchiopod surveys conducted
concurrent to surveys conducted by Sycamore Associates between 2001-2003.
As summarized in H. T. Harvey & Associate's Project Area Biological Assessment for
the California Red-Legged Frog (2000c) and Pao Yeh Lin Property Special-Status
Species Surveys (1999a), there have been several California tiger salamanders recorded
off site in the Dublin/Livermore vicinity. Despite negative findings for special-status
amphibian surveys in 1989, 1993, and 1995, two California tiger salamander larvae were
found during a special-status amphibian survey in a stock pond in the south-central
portion of the Dublin Ranch property (immediately west of Fallon Road). After the
project was expanded in 1998, subsequent special-status amphibian surveys found
California tiger salamander larvae in a previously unsurveyed stock pond (identified as
occurring in "Area F" within Dublin Ranch).
Special-status amphibian surveys of the Pao Yeh Lin property west of the aforementioned
Dublin Ranch property found numerous California tiger salamander larvae during the
spring of 1998, but follow-up visits in the winter of 1998 and spring of 1999 found no
signs of larvae or aestivating adults. Throughout the Project Area, only the Pao Yeh Lin
stock pond was determined to be suitable California tiger salamander breeding habitat.
However, the Dublin Ranch project has been approved and the California tiger
salamanders associated with this area were recently relocated to mitigation land to the
north. As part of the Dublin Ranch mitigation, California tiger salamander breeding
ponds are being created within a conservation easement immediately north of Dublin
Ranch.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
48
5~ o-b
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
49
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mammals
San Joaquin Kit Fox
Background and Natural History
The San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) is a federally-listed Endangered and a
state-listed Threatened species. It is one of seven subspecies of kit fox and is considered
the most genetically distinct (Mercure et al. 1993). The San Joaquin kit fox is the
smallest North American member of the dog family, Canidae. Historically, the San
Joaquin kit fox occurred extensively throughout California's Central Valley and parts of
the Salinas and Santa Clara valleys. San Joaquin kit fox currently inhabit some areas of
suitable habitat on the San Joaquin Valley floor and in the surrounding foothills of the
coastal ranges, Sierra Nevada, and Tehachapi Mountains, trom southern Kern County
north to Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Joaquin Counties on the west, and near La
Grange, Stanislaus County on the east side of the Valley and some of the larger scattered
islands of natural land on the Valley floor in Kern, Tulare, Kings, Fresno, Madera, and
Merced Counties (taken from the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin
Valley. California, USFWS 1998).
Detection of San Joaquin kit fox in the past decade in the Black Diamond Mines East Bay
Regional Park have extended the San Joaquin kit fox range farther north than earlier
descriptions. San Joaquin kit fox have also been detected in the early 1990' s in Round
Valley and in areas near Frick Lake. San Joaquin kit fox sightings in the most northern
portion of their range are rare and have recently become increasingly so. The locations of
source populations for this area are not known (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997c).
San Joaquin kit foxes prefer habitats of open or low vegetation with loose soils. In the
northern portion of their range, they occupy grazed grasslands and to a lesser extent
valley oak woodlands. In the southern and central portion of the Central Valley, San
Joaquin kit foxes are found in Valley Sink Scrub, Valley Saltbrush Scrub, Upper Sonoran
Subshmb Scrub, and Annual Grassland (USFWS 1998). San Joaquin kit foxes are also
found in grazed grasslands, suburban settings, and in areas adjacent to tilled or fallow
fields (see USFWS 1998).
The San Joaquin kit fox requires underground dens to raise pups, avoid predators
(Golightly and Ohmart 1984), regulate temperature, and avoid other adverse
environmental conditions. In the northern portion of their range, burrowing mammals,
primarily California ground squirrels, usually provide these holes. Dens are usually
located on loose-textured soils on slopes less than 40 degrees (O'Farrell 1980). Natal
pupping dens are generally found on slopes of less than 6 degrees (O'Farrell and McCue
1981). Dens have been recorded at the elevation of 363 meters (1,200 feet) (Grinnell et
al. 1937, USFWS 1983, USFWS 1998).
Pairs may share home ranges all year but may use different dens (USFWS 1998). San
Joaquin kit foxes breed from late December to March (Egoscue 1956, Morrell 1972,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
~!iõ
.g j;:
::<in
;i:g.
""N
"TIO
uª" ?
~ -
~- ~
"TIN
~.~
~ 8
NC/J
~----
;:;
"
c..
o
OJOJQ
õ· e; a
õ ~ ~
"" '" '-<
§ ñ'~ S
Q... ~.. '<
c<~~~
('t¡ ~() 0
=''''7'-1'-
~ ê-.'~
~gfò'
~ ~ ~
" en S
~ ~(5 ~
or 0> .
>- S 0>
Gt"J 0 25.-
¿g ~ ,-
rJ. >- 2n
~~o
C"D 0 L./'J
'" n
fiõ'
:::q¡
.0
<=
0>
c..
r:f'1
þj
-
þ:i
0=
~ ~
~ =
= Q..
., (t) =
""1 ., ....
~ :=c þ:i
~ (t) ~
roo ~ ....
CI'J .... ~
o roo
= .,
þj
-
~
....
~
=
..,
(þ
N
.
00
v
g.
........
?'
n>-
p) ........
~~
~8
8 8.-
p;' p)
n
o
¡:::
=:I
9
~
õ ¡;;"
~ ::
~{;
'" -.
~~
:::~
t:; fi
'" '"
s· '"
~~
~ õ·
::. ~
~~
^>..co
^>..'"
B: "?
ciQ. a
'" '"
. "'-
en
n
>-
l"
t"11
~
þ:i
-
....
~
'""I
~$z
-'
::
II
-'
w
VI
$:
_.
-'
('þ
VJ
s:
CD
-
-
-
-
-
-
o 0 ~~~
mrn
~s:
õffi'
c: :::0
0"(1)
š'º,
'1J¡¡¡
a»
"Da
ro c:
a.:J
roo.
(fJ
::;r;:;
('þ
VJ
o
¡::
ri
('t>
$:
p)
=:I
p)
(Jq
3
([)
~
'ï:1
§
t"11
p)
C/l
-
v
¡::
çJ
-'
Ëï
""d
'-t
.g
('þ
::1
_.
('t>
en
I
ã
~
~e-
~â~~ !
~-; 11 ~ "
~~õî~ a
~ g¡J1!. ª ñ
_~o~ ~
~~~8 ~
X':~!1! 8
<iõ
;:
yo
;-
f'I
mo
[I) :J
~CD
oS:
c:=
0" CD
=:::0
:J tIJ
'1Jo.
., -.
o c:
"D(fJ
CD»
;::¡..,
ii)' g
(fJ :J
0.
m
tIJ
~
o
c:
g
:J
'1J
.,
o
"D
CD
;::¡.
ii)
(fJ
I
.
ï
CD
(,Q
CD
:::¡
Q.
(J)
Ë
a.
'<
»
.,
<D
tIJ
(fJ
:::0
CD
"D
o
æ-
0.
()
-i
(J)
o
o
o
c:
ro
:J
@
(fJ
o
o
o
c:
.,
CD
:J
()
CD
o
(f)
~£
~~; ~
~~&' CD
t¡ ¡¡' g: ;þ
%~g ~
~~~ g
hii 5,
~~fra;-
æ- '"
",r
<;::r
"
1)
~
fa
.>
)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5'0:J D'>o
Zoellick et al. 1987). One litter of two to six pups is born sometime between February
and late March (Egos cue 1962, Morrell 1972, McGrew 1979, Zoellick et at. 1987). Males
provision the female and pups for some period after birth. Dispersal distances vary
considerably. A six-year study at Elk Hills Petroleum Preserves in California showed that
pups dispersed an average distance of 5.0 miles (USFWS 1998).
Summary and Anälvsis of On-Site Survevs
"Early Evaluations" for San Joaquin kit fox were conducted for all Project Area
properties following the protocol outlined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service San
Joaquin Kit Fox Survey Protocol for the Northern Range (1999b) and the California
Department of Fish and Game's, Region 4, Approved Survey Methodologies for San
Joaquin Kit Fox (1989). These evaluations were conducted to identify potential San
Joaquin kit fox dens, foraging and movement habitat. In addition, concentrations of
rodent activity were noted to evaluate the availability of a prey base for the San Joaquin
kit fox.
The Bankhead and Mandeville property early evaluations were conducted in April 2001
(Townsend and Sycamore Associates 2002a). Early evaluations for the Tseng and
Righetti properties were conducted from October through November 2001 (Townsend
and Sycamore Associates 2002b). The Branaugh, Anderson, Campbell, and Croak
property early evaluations were conducted during July 2002 (Townsend and Sycamore
Associates 2002c). WRA conducted a San Joaquin kit fox early evaluation on the Jordan
property in October 2003 (WRA 2003c). A total of 29 potential dens were detected
within the Project Area ~ one on the Righetti property (Townsend and Sycamore
Associates 2002b), eighteen on the Bankhead property, one on the Mandeville property
(Townsend and Sycamore Associates 2002a), seven on the Anderson property
(Townsend and Sycamore Associates 2002c), and two on the Tseng property (Townsend
and Sycamore Associates 2002b). BUlTOWS identified as potential dens (based on size
alone) were monitored for a minimum of three nights with tracking medium and/or
TrailMaster infrared remote camera stations to determine if foxes were present and using the
burrow (den); however no San Joaquin kit fox or San Joaquin kit fox sign were detected
within the Project Area.
Based on the presence of variously sized small holes (burrows), nearly the entire
Bankhead, Mandeville, and Jordan properties support potential foraging, denning, and
movement habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. The northern portions of Tseng, Anderson,
Righetti, and Branaugh properties support potentially suitable foraging, denning, and
movement habitat. This section includes portions of these properties north of a 1,000 foot
buffer from Interstate 580. The portion of Drainage B east of Croak Road is suitable kit
fox foraging and denning habitat, which includes an approximately 100 foot corridor
centered around the drainage. The remaining portion of the Croak property as well as a
1,000 foot buffer along Interstate 580 is marginally suitable foraging and movement
habitat. The close proximity to the Interstate and lack of grazing of the grasslands make
this area less suitable for kit fox (Townsend and Sycamore Associates 2002a,b,c).
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFf July 2, 2004
51
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
52
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5> í ()þ
Although the Project Area contains features that make the area appear to be suitable for
kit fox, no kit fox or kit fox sign were detected in the Project Area. This is consistent
with kit fox survey efforts on adjacent lands, and with data that indicate this area is
outside of the range of kit fox.
Summary and Analysis of Off-Site Surveys
A review of the California Natural Diversity Database of the Livermore and eight
adjacent topographic quadrangles (CDFG 2002a), correspondence with local biologists,
and review of recent biological reports for nearby projects identified seventeen
occurrences of San Joaquin kit fox located within a ten-mile radius of the Project Area,
but no sightings within a one-mile radius or within the Project Area (Figure 2.9).
According to Grinnell et al. (1937), Laughrin (1970), Swick (1973), Wesler (1987), and
H. T. Harvey & Associates (1997), the East Dublin Properties are not within the San
Joaquin kit fox geographic range; however, according to other published range maps
reported by Morrell (1975), Laughrin (1983), and Orloff et al. (1986), the properties are
within the San Joaquin kit fox geographic range. These properties are contiguous with
open space that connects to areas that support San Joaquin kit fox and their habitat.
The Project Area is not located in an area that could be considered important for San
Joaquin kit fox dispersal as no suitable habitat or other populations of San Joaquin kit fox
are present to the northwest, west, or southwest. Multiple focused surveys for San
Joaquin kit fox have been conducted immediately adjacent to the western boundary of the
Project Area for the Dublin Ranch project (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997a), and for the
nearby North LivemlOre Valley (RT. Harvey & Associates 1997b). None of these
surveys detected kit fox with the exception of the Morgan Territory Road sighting in
1996, approximately two miles north of the North Livel11lore project area. In addition, no
San Joaquin kit fox have been incidentally detected in this area in over ten years.
The closest reported occurrence of kit was observed by H.T. Harvey & Associates along
Morgan Territory Road in 1997 approximately 4.3 miles to the northeast and a second kit
fox was observed by Karen Swaim along Blackhawk Road in 1990 (5.4 miles from the
Project Area). Five reported occurrences are located east of the Project Area, e.g. east and
northeast of Livermore. These include two sightings along Laughlin Road by H.T.
Harvey & Associates in 1992; a sighting on the Bosely Ranch by D. Riensche in 2002;
observed dens, sightings and a known population located' east of Frick Lake by H.T.
Harvey & Associates in 1988, 1989, and 1992; east of Brushy Peak in 2002 by G. Monk;
and 2.5 miles northeast of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory by K. Craig in 1989. There
are three reported occurrences east northeast of the Project Area, near the Vasco Caves in
1988, 1989, and 2002 by Jones and Stokes, and in 2002 by D. Modrell. Six occurrences
were reported northeast of the Project Area. Five of which included sightings within a
known population on East Bay Regional Park District property in 1988 and 1989 by
Jones and Stokes, and in 1992 by Bell. The sixth reported occurrence including dens and
sightings of a known population is located along Kellogg Creek in 1988 and 1989 by
Jones and Stokes.
-------------------
V-V£: I\:'I;..~=~~~~~ -'~~r~. ", ~ oJil~ '(~~j ',~><:J"~: -__-',r;~~tft"c:~~!'f¡ 0 ~~ ~ ï
¿~~ \~- ~;:(,. \.~' 'i',!) " . ~,~r· : -]', ~[Jl' .--<" _ -; r~../ > d.{J , . . II . *' ~
CD
~~"._ iZiii'm - \,"'''' , ,Y'>":JtJ ,,': ~ iU-d :' '~~." - ~~.,(~ ,- ~~:"'L /; , !r ~ ~ g? ê ~ ~ f¡q g' :J
~E-~:11.~) Is---' '-/~, ¡'t,,' {7fl(~(:~,f~.,~~ I ;,(~, ~~~-f.¿~:·~~~;>:w~ 'T\~~1~~s.. ".' ~ s: ~ ~ 0 a ~ ~ g: Co
- ;S L. , IS. í:D ft0~ h,-- .>.-;¡.-/' ~, :c"',c"'"' /~l. ~¿. l l:/ -,~ ~ ¡p ~ :þ ::?: :E 0 0 :::I
< . '-'~ .-~' '~~, ,;Y , ' ,~ '~Bì~~ WJP'P., ~ '" ,-~,,;/.I~ (F J~--J~;i2T~~: ",;" . ~ ~ ~ m W~' g ~ !r
I~ --, ~<.."- "~~~ ':^t~ ~jJ '~<~:'~C~'-.\ <C>D ~"I);, j, ,"~' ìJë' ìJ en s¡ ~ ~ ~ ~
,,' ',- . , Ii~ _ 'r.iP'~. - ,.J\(, ~'~-a ,,/ , '- ~.~ ---;,~' {~ a (f).g CTJ :::I;::¡:
/~'~I,:) ç -;;)l.(~~~'~~~'. ·l7~~l:I\{:;c;~~1~<'-~~(,;,:tr"~'\~'\'\-~:··~~2~: ,IJ' - ~ !~ ~ g ~ ~
" . m vr;.j'~ v~i~2r» '~~'I -l\.'iF .~t~~]~r- , ' '_ ~ CD:J (ì)' 0
~;"1i (\",~/~r),-. '" '-I-/1?f·-, t, ~1)' ,.,~j~tv'~f\4J~~~~' (~~~:~{£l-~,1:~.; J"{I¡~.'\·: _, /A),.?~,'t.~. (f) a. (f) ., ;,..' 1',.'
'iy~ItL;- 1 ',}""'"1['. "~l' \ ~\.\i~'r. '!;:/;':..' :;:~:J'l'~ivf'.;~~-{~~,l '~.(l~~f(~,~5;?~:Y,~'~::,; .x,.; ~J:-.<."; ':~ê1.., ~,"..~-' ~-i ..~~~';' ~ ~,:,lJ~:.~(;·~~[~~~t
w-, '.', t "¿fl·]:' ~I.." '.' ~,,~;',H..I ·jlJf{0 ,'1) ¡'?\" ......--'.. ~"'I""~'· ' I~ . JK i(' '~,'/~ ~, . ...' ."""\'~'>{r(;.r.'
.'-'i\: ~c\),'1 ,', ,.. :<:: .," ~%~:;~~ ,'l[!id" W.I·} -J¡,';¡t/:..-r :\1: f'/ :Ø1(~<;\: -~";/, i:~\''t~~' ~ ~') '.ß-~~5i \}. ':'¡,ov>i'( , . .. / " >-i~<ll·'-'Cl_::-,·,:.,~'~..
.Ctfl--- ~" . ) ,( , -}ø , I. "J. ;~~l,. y\.: \1\./-'<\, . t .t i :J" ./, "". )f'I~W ... 0l~' .1-'. ,~.. - " '" .. r;~G) .J.2.d., \ .'''p)
'~,k~'~/·~(',",\ ¡"j-*;r-;;7,~-,'j" 't"·':·~\· .,:1::*-:~--=0io: <t;h,./~.,\ "''0; I ,t- '~!--;?jd i(-(~r '.', .~: ' ~.~ 11:'1.1 j''''·I:K'{,t~~t
- ^, , 'r'''i'd;, ' ;;-1· / '¥ .. '-,' ~:, ¡' ,ì r" · " " \ " "'tI ,'j1t ~ ,:':¡"j, , ,~- ~"'~" ,I ~ 'I; Iti/<'(} t~ \ ç . i ~! \ ;;:; , \(:' \.. ..-/,1 ;:
/ ';'< " '~/.~~ ,!'.I,' ').[ ',,,~ ," ::t', ,('d~'Ï' \,.¡' '~~/~ r;;·;0" (I '")~. ~.I¡~ ';;o,:¡,' , ,""\' "\:ì'''''':' ~j;J~; lJ.,I~ ';, "
'~_ --- ) -~';r~ r J'~I ,- -.' .....~~... l --. '~; I, J ,.P " - r/'d~ '"" \' ~-..¡¡ ~ I ~ r, ,. I ,/ 't
'~",-.ry)"") ~'" ",':) ~","""-"./,,, ¡I I;''''¡;~''' (",' \i'/Vj'., , 1';- -j¡: I ' . /J)~-~)' ',J -. .;'"" ,.........,' ',1'..(,1' I(¡~j, k·
~,>I'-,? :j;!";' ,:;}¡! :;,'s ,~. \ -;',:~\:~: >'/fi.' "IÙ::;~·:,Y;;Ù. I ,.', , ""?, \. ,9",: . ,Jò'; ~?i\ ,...j(."'I":,"~ ' .~ J/ ~v,' iH'; -f'r./ '. '~,,'<4~;'¥'~~' -¡'~r.:;;:":,
- '::?,$>'"¡ ',j,?,';<' ~'''i'"~~'.1%./''':~'! i·';';'.':t...~4";~"7;' J. '_ ' /1"', :;'1'-"--.,,1'; .'>c;:'.,.;-.'\I,¡,(- ; , 1"~,,lý;¡' .~",/j""
, ~ r . ~~~"';,;.:J~I· .JI.... ,I_~;-,. ~t..:~~:~x~-;;'" - l;\...·::.â~~~\'-~ .Q... /-.. :,\y .. -::f '.// . /Ï.¡¡ -.\ ~¡ ~ /-,4._:;... \'''..¡¡,. tl'. '.' 'II \tt' I
[i"-... ,-':>. ,,};~;". ,:,ú~F'?;':~':<;'" ,,"~,':1'/~~\_., . ,,': ',., ;,/í ',«1 ',.'';;'-.,.','. <-. ',I r',,,,~ ,'j " '\, ' .,
1~4;ì: --'.,:: "",~.'!.-' ""~l' 4 -;Jt ..1 ¡ , ~,. -...... ~~, ~,.- \ 'u'" ~"~.. I _,~ --....-.-
~¡-.."., '" :,t& ~.:~~,·V~:. \. r"r¡,/ .'~ I, B' ,") ,~-,. ,I _ '¡I .., , .' " , I~'" .'" I~', :1/.1/ ,\;" J;'~ '2·- , , .
l~1g-I,~?!..~~::.~r - ~~--. f ~L '~r' '.,~,7!!g. l~]""'.J '..j/~) .' . ...., \ \ .. ';.J. _\. ~ I':~ ' f'~'--
,,~~~~3~',c.:,::'~':~¥1)¡,,·~,,-,<··::41t¡:':'·"dt ;·~i;;è.'t·.. .~}, '~',. -..~.~\ ,~( -', "l' /·""j-rc';;',_:,/\ ,.<. -'!Æ~. ~'~
)b tf.j c-.,,~~. ",,~_....,:\, ",I ,.::,~_~;r-< -. ,,". ~:," t'ð.l. ¡¡:¡W~.,\ ;,. .. ,. i-- ' ,'. .~--,-< ',I. . i' ........ /-. '!,.II.' '-,.;'1 ,~-' J /X~! ;f/{i: "A~ ií,J ,'~ "- ,;,.
\.' '.., .rj. . .'" _,,'- _: '\_"1" ~-', '9° -':'.'c'· ... ,. ,. ~ :-,._ -'" . "'-, ""-- . - - - 1 .:~"., ",. .'- ~ tJ":-" ._:-;'. ,'V.';r, III ,,\.' .,",,- ,1.·
~_' \\ ~ / -~ r Q{1- ...., \.\, --". ~ I ,-{so P"'::' .....-:......~,... \ A '......., - i' 1.. .......:... _ t1, ' r' _\ f ï"
- ' (,; r - -",~~o.,.;." ;.~ 17'TJ>c;J> . ")êrbC;' 1 " , '~,' r· :f.t,
'Î, J.~·;f"~~>;¡'liI0 ~'\':\-;:,,' - ~-.J0~t: _ ..- -I v\ ~ ~~l'~'ís.. -~.~:~," ,,<"-'., :r--~ _ 1- , ;rl." >\' \ I' ,,-.r '!~~~'~--::1
[t· }\,'<, '::';\'~_Itlt/~f}!2r~~·~;." - ' -;.- " ;J'fif~I~~l,),\ I ., ~, ., I' , ... I_~l''''-::~';('.·''';;Ch''¡:<' Jf ~,.~\<-.. ~~"I 'j \:'-1jj'J.,~'1 ;~
~<' If .)JY (r;.r::~"9ff, .kif"· : "', " ' ~ I '1D ~ ~I ¡. -' ,I '. ~ :"~. ,r. d-.: ;JL:>-,~ ':., 7¡,.. :""< > ,.:,.;, ~.FI.\',-}~~, .
.'. ~,-~,;'. ,c' "ic;;?:' -.;'- <'?," -, ' , ~ \ --" ,/1.0 - / / ~~.." i ' I,. :,,; ,..,,\), \ï··;t, -~'i'.,~:~,-:: ,t1i..>Qi 'c·. .,~~ '1.2\, - ~
· :-"~ r·c< ,,:;;::' " .' ~ . ~ ~ .. -I I .I 'I,'. í 1>;, ' .;# , ~,-, r )-&.\ , '.', " !, 'I .(~{ 'I 'f"', .' '-' ~:' i,¿1k' . ·r ',,~7¡7'. ," --,. ..
II~:...... -¡¡,...·."%".·~:'r,,,,::..1,,- "S;-",yI' , ~'" - \-<~/ ~" '::-~\).\ ".....~" .,·'-,-:,~,I >~,. ".,..¡ ,.';,"'!,-é.-:. ¡;:q>l,r"~""I1-~,*:'~)j~ ~;'4:'
J¡~: ¿, .~';;¡....... . ", - ~ -., '- ~~) ~' '\,l' \, 'if , 'C-- . '. .~I \ ,·r - iIA-'fi
~~.... "...... .ì,J/ioi "·_'~l~~' w~~ .i I , :·a ~ :ftt\. j',.."'-- - ~ -' I......... -'.(~ .\..~ ~ ')'1 J .' - ~"" ~ "'"'~ ~I I .L " ""....~......~~,.;.,'! l'· "t:
/']. ,/ 1~'~- < .F> ;.J>': ..cc~ ~ ~j~. I·' _I' "JI'¡ '~ I,-(,r Ic;'¡. "':';;"""'-":, \,'~;f 't"c I"~ "':0_' ¡l\~
~"'; \ ^ , ,. - ,,) '>f-,I'v.!.'/Y;.:i;:IiI ,. /" '.:<1'''% cÆ kì' ",."," ¡\"..'.":I...., r..":¡, ' I",.:).. -~(. ;', " ,'-,:i.~/ þ-',\\)', " )~?. :'(" '("oil)
[ > l~' ,~~X "j _"1Y:;,~~:; ~ .~ ~-=' \ ." _ ~~ _. , _ ~_~'~' r...~ '/I\~ '"ì:) ¡, . . ~/(I:~~,', /i. ft] -'¿-2?:.'" f
~'I.,., ,. <'./j"" \ ........ ,', 1.1 ... ,_ ..".r. ~E t,' ~ ,\\3.-;01 !.',.-~",), ',:1. ~i._,1~7~."·"'I,-" -,~¿,,:~¿.;, """"'¡;{!.Z?ill":¡:V~...;"-I.:..\A,
,4(" '-"~.':Þ ~ I. f, ~ ) I~ ~ \- </", ';C\/., f ~.I :,,' ~~'··"~·i' ..>., ~--~ ,I #/1 ',1, ' r'~
:\" ,\ < . t: _ - !' it " ~l- . Q¡r,'1 -, -_.....~ ,,' -({>-""'--:c'X' ...61 ': ,,' (,~' ('>'\ ."., \" -', . . ~:". \ : ,,: ,,~. ,,-<.' ,(.' J¡ ':' ':"1 Qr-
i ("j ., r~ ,..-~I ""-.I "- ., 1 \ '. (, 1\) r-'. "\' .;1'.' \ - ,j ,. .>\G>' ,
"\ ~'fk';( ,.,', , ::::;,., ,v... \....1 ,. '\ . '},\'J" ' i . " ~', -', "."" -,', , "",; '," ,.- ,'" \/ I ¡
, ,~ - Ü-yr :', ì.?, ì '¡:.~''''' -. '-::C......' . 'I \" j ,.- j" t .., " l. f'~ - ~.', ' "',;, \. . .'
",<#I ~/~..~ 1',;/ -:-// ....¡;:.. / '~'_" ,\(J'oO~__~'l ...-'~' ~'!-:--\':-:- (.of)ì :-""'\^~\ ,'_\ >;/ ~r?~~~:clì~~\!;'¡"'~, ..II, '- '.":;'
'~~\ "'-À" : .',j ~'., ::,{~ t·';· /i ;ð (' "i, ....... (.,' . /,.. ,~,,,:,~~~"<.'1 ,',; ,1,\, fr., ___ ' !, ,;~:r~,.»,," ""'':;' ,I" ~",; . ,,',
\, ~~ -,' ., :.'N'-~'~'¡ .-~.,,!~ 'j I U"~ J41 f,ª,·.r\ " "', ~ '), .' " þ , '.---.: . '", .\1 ""i·' '.' . <,' . ~ ,J '''',', ,;..;¡
\ ¡ - ~ ~~--... ", . '..-' -.11 r:1. n" f\..,J {¡, ! \", I y 1 ~~{ )1' \..ì \ ' )j'
\.\ \\ þ,_'''''' ,}".::,~I:'( .,. .;-:' ,K 'iO!<:¡.' ~'. i ""~".~' , ',~ ,,". '/¡\;f '_ ,[' I 1/, ,<.!_"-,-"-,,\_~ ~~;'~V~'~''4\~.'
~'\ \!,~ ,)-'¢T '\y,' f--..::........_<\"¡[IIHn..; \,-.:'. If:\- ,." ",,->,\-~ (, '1·"-" I, )'-,.;---9"·'-:, .' ,"~/;·~iír·'"
\ ;1\ :;:',./'"' J"""" ()J/-- ~,. ~ \. ~ _ ,¡) !~)(~I'I;,< \~~ ,~,().. J ~ J;;.;..... ¿jr r. '~;.; ~ ,,' ,(~.... , ' I>Ù~ 7"'\
ì '\~"'(' ~U "'7" Î~: . I I'~- l.i...l1 .L,;,¡'C I :f'" ~" (.- ,r). .:e, I ¡""p' '~~j!¡¡ì}~J' ;(, ' I' ¡ . <;,' I' ~"\"!~?~1l'~~!i~
_ç - ,_'" ,-')\.. ~'K 1\ : '.-- +1 7:' - ~.'~ - - - ,.' ': I ,.",~" ,,::' ,1'" I ,;... , ,.r. .\.~- -¡' J,~ ",""- '{",;'i'V v ': ~"~I ~"
~ . ~ ).., . I :Y. \ .........J ~1 'I _¡ . ~ . ~ ~ 1 I' -.. . I' ' Ii ..'. :-::::'~ r - ~ I , \" . "
\ ---,,'.:"'" -' 'o, - /.' . ,~\~'I ," 1 .-""'"J<,¡J'1'-- ___,_ -pt!~1 \ ,,_ \ ,....-.'.. ..~ {.. _, ,_" - , m - " J ;';-." r:·n_-_-.~"t' . ",:-;\'~~ ~,-.....,"- ~ ...,.,7'2
---'-è~Ç\_ ~:\.' - \( '. !J- r - - -, J ~ .¡""'~~" -.: .r 10" I;" \\ " í'~,,~l '::.' "1, 1^h{,.~·~,,:' -, , ..<- ,,'-, ,j: j~
, \ I' -,~:{, ( L=.:, . "'(" /. 1\ ' './ ~~" .....,,], '¡ ~ - "1..._,.,, ",¡;'~i....: 'fffii/'I;./ ,-,'
J ~ -.... ---- L - J J \ \ (\..-..,.., '" Vol I ~ i ~ ~~~ !t"'fIiI .), f f'"r \ /.....-
/{ 1\rt1 ~ ~ .\.,.,,~ ¡ 1 fr-~ ' t I~ «' '~~I /..,' {J (~ 'c~1), ~'J¡,~,,~I~- I ¡ )"'/ _~ :l~~.';0-'-&,/r fJ~~-";C:
;' :" I~ N\ I (. - - I. .'" '~ .- ~.(i"/) ,1 \1;,/ : II, \, (" I _ '. ·x.:.,yif· J~:¡ \~S:::~ ,.:, ~.--c'___';'.?¡ -;f.'.:¡~¿'- ,I~'* _-A
, .... ' , . 0\: rr~ '~;:'&'r - .. . f~>· . Q L ;r> {I:::)1 .
· ~~(; ~(\\ ,'-'.4"7 '.'-.~~ ~ ","'l ' _ ~-' T"~~" ", \' '" ,,~\,'~ r., .,..,t.';r1l', . -'" ,- :'-~'7~
'\", '-'~"".,': ~)''fj,,/: --; ¡= _ I J i ~ " ,I,,". .'-. ç,'~- ~,"., " : ,"(';[¡j) :./.~::' "" _. V"I').
,;:\' ¡,r_,.frJ :'~:_J\~\. j if\': .' '. ,'~'~""~i ¡AS P(þS'ITAS" 't' ~~ 1....· '~?(.&1af:YJ.L"'.'r/ 'J-J, C'·," .",}:>,
, .. ~'i " 'I " ¡!¡!i." ," 'C. "It: I ~ r . '( '. ì, ,':1 ~ - ,'t....~ ,",,' , - '1' ) ).
. "~, t, ..r ~ 1/ ~~' .':, ,'\ It .. ~ .\ :: ~ ;\ , « ~;- -.- . _ Ú~ It:'/·~..'< )~ :,', , ;~.\ :-f:~ ..;'~;.;~.prr-*........~--,. ,I:; > -.' f,! '
ill{ f ,( \111 I \ ¡ ,~, . ,~1:: ~( f~ u". . C - .' .¡.-¡. ~~: .....,1.~"i- ': /. _J I~.-' .¿ ..{-.~~ ',",
.... ! . J. -' " , - ,,;.> " ,\ \ ¡ I " t-;,., ."- '" ¡' S / J; - ~ ?£/J.. /.' '.' . ' - :,' \
. ·1 ....~ ./\ - - ¡, It It..\.. ...~~-~ ~___'__._.,;:;;;;.~"T IÄ' f....AtVlo , J \ , r \ ~ ! ~ J
- - . r- -- - -- ,,, -- r -- w,_.._. ~. - . -- - - -j:-í"- 1 - - - _,--..·'-'__·~^4",-_ ' \...., L - ->{-. I, , ;....:J,.." ~
,_ _. \ , . C/ ' _..- , -- -;., I r ~- ." AM ' ., I
, ,') . ,I ~ \ ..,.-~', :" \ . c! ' \, I :>< ¡i' ",~ ".. " . . . ;" '-. ,I.'. 'J "" _/
->: ,,,,,~L .", h~' ,,',~~-,'i '("'t~ \'l·"3 mr ~, ' ~,>-' - '. ,. Ci) ~ 1 AL" ,,<, ,·'v" -a VÎ/\ I.', '( ,\', ,~:: ~
I" ,;, ,.. ,) 'S" Y /'1' ¡.,.~:"'~ rf ~ -. -- ~¡:: " t\'~ I ~ßA1, -r-'?x/-'- " ...,. n '(" - ~¡ ,\ 11.. ¡'~~-
"kv, ::>;,. ff þ. ; Í" ;-Î \)\ -~/ - ' .. ,r.. - b;r-¡( '"L." - ~rU .).-n --, ~~ -', ~~'--'\-- 'r"""-"'~/ ' . "j' . t~~ \;, \ ( I::' -,--K"-
-:--:'J~".I ;. ,,(''''\\/\>-- r~ 'I - ) h ,-"I" I :.;¡f;,z8.",l' , - '/- "1 - -. " '- 0 -~~. 1·__-' '~
'ff' ,<(J,\~ .¡I'?,,,,l, '~/4"¡"\ I }' I 'I j' '.~~ ,. 11\ ,. ~~~m> ',,"¡~ ,- - 1;, "i \i , ",/ <:: ..-~,' ". . I' '¡ I:' I
, ) ~" '" ""- l"-,,I , (..--,_ _/' -,\~i' I \ ~" ".- " " -'.\)' . - ~~'" ' , c" .
, i" .¢,-1:"''l }.-' :.', ~.( III, --.-j ¡'( , ,,1 ~. \\ ..-.~ ,_ _, ";,\ I
,J' ,,)!:.~~ \, <'J, ,£;If<jð:< '--.~ .\\'-;~. .,;;' I ..:1) ; ~,., .' t "~ ~'-::~, fft\·'}'" ,.' "}l \ I' I
~._ "'; \ /' .:,,·n;f>·,L',;/· ..--... ,.. \I/"J\.~ ,~F',.~ \. t '..;(1 ~IDR....J r ,~ :l: - .~< ~_ - . :-7 I.",! \\. ." 1"",.., / \ . .,j7":-:r.r; ~~.::- I \
'.( ~ ',-,._, _;.,~///-~" -{'\\'I'\ ~=l-~~2. JLY'71!~ \, '\ '. :>:1 ,J:> .;'(\,,,";';'." I;;t ~,c.//'-,..--/\ '" ~.i!~',', ":,.'" ~,-,\:. ~ I' *, -i;.····
,,"-~' -.<{ '-ß"""" ':;T i, '\ {"--.' y,:1 "(..... ! F\ ,,0./ "'.' "'f !~¡n ,.~\__I; Q , ._-~:, <' "'-'-j>~L"~..:,. -;~I
.. ",,'\', " '\'''' ~..', -·-_u ,;., .... '" .."".' ~." __ ~~,' ."u"" " ., ._'-," "..,' " .)('~ r··cJ \.n~-'., \-,' ...:.r"b1'- ÃJ.'--""" "",; ,,-'III J,~
0:;¡'?'··";"T'~·- '~'-l"'C-~'-,,,-," :':'.,<, '1--;I.\Y\ ~:." 1 Lo~'~~-"'-r~'~ ' í;-, ):, ".-"'." j.:·:e/J\,·;,aA,)\ .... f' _. ~.) (T I ( ,,/" .
, ,.~./u 'i. I¡ .1 I ./;, t=;--¡V1r'i,\ '" ! . .1j , r:-,)' , ~.f. -....-. -.-~) S. ¡'\' .. ~·~J,~~..r...iilrik\-.ìØ;¡> ¡ ;/ I ~,
, , .: '.~. ',..' '" ) ,', .i' :C" \? 1 \, ,'-,,'\ ~ ~ \ . ( '. .- :..,..~. \\r"~"i i ' ).. ·-J'::""f'r7X'/ ' ~' 'f' . .J...~'-.\ -;, ,j.j/: - /
"ø"· '" ", <.' ~ - ".j "i' .:::;; ';t ';~ .-,:! Vi': 'Ï \~·q(;;;"'«í-<: (! ( -'" ·'t:· 0' ! <Pl" 'f} ~~iii:.~C- t/ \ ,,< )..{ , /
>~i~~o'~"",y<' i "">.(!:,' ,i~).I'<}:} ~~;:\' ~: ~(t':i'~':i ~~(" i)'Ji,:,,·,/,\,·)..í'};::-:~AA~:è:' ·:tl.;:~~;~:~ç,.-\~~ ~~' .~"''', '. /~){ //(:~"II á 1\//
.J\....~\,~./.,J:;/~. ~!j ,.~ì i7¡·1 I' '"1. ....·\~#r";'~ I \ ~ I:~ \ tl' í \.. .,. .h. "", \ ì.~¡-~:'~~- . ,~'.: 1'""". ...J ,'/ I .r'ìV:.....,' .~'/
','-~0)} '<.,:'''" ,,(!" ' ~.;¡;.~........;,' " 1\ '\ '0' ,-"d ·1(·-',,·~ -. I ,'.~("."~,-,,. \"" '... /it 'J, !',' ." ,\,,/
p.f;rrJ,'p.!~.! '~! ' :'~ ';! I:' ·(t~ ;~.J:; I . ..;. .. : '\ 1 1,\ .. ',".., I ~,~. p,,, "~~' . --;'"'":, ",: -' "~' _.'" \,f".;.'.....,,~·;...-..·,,:,,' -',. ::í ' . ' / ,. ,''I
i~~'\,!f(; ;¡..,;\l1:,.lþ" ~0)~R~:.. y'. , -'~J...\¡J .': ~ .._;,.o'>...,:.~: -. ,~.::..c,;;¿.,_\__ ...;,.'~. ~~-,,, ~~,~Li ~',.~ \ 1:1'_." ',".---,,<iç .. ""~OJ'--:' ·~t.-·, >---...-'... -
~. '<::~~r:"t ~¡'wW"}'iß;,~f-;J;, f--,/' \~~_.,.. '. .<AI~~r'1 .. :.--~At'I<'< '~/. _.~~. <:;' ,:r;-- . '-', .l, /~--
~) ..(1,. .\ /·r:f.7.tvl., < ,',' '- t·'·/ I. I ,f' !I~.\ ~~' '·\.l"" _.- /~:s .,;> " ì( ,h·i..... '" ~ '-~" i': /111 I",
'<'.;.: ~,' ,,~.;,<b,w;:·,/r/, '.. . ;;\. ~Ç{'i \ :'\'_ ' \ J'f . ._<,_:,,'';2) ,\"~ì(j--:': "',' &if )'",101, ' . "'-- --;¡i/"'. . r¡·· ,/ -r
i;:'~~:'~?~:,;ifF¡(~'}!'QY'JTi#~\n~1~~~,1;~~~~,<~ P\~ 1Y1··. \:t!~~\~ .. .-~~-":'--;'¿~~':'1l: .~}- n 1"
, .' ':~j'1~.."{{I~I:t:7~E{ ¿\,i. ·:\\~:?;/i;"~,~\tßj~í,j\~:t(,l~~r'L~;~;f)~'~~'.~:I""?<l'~~\(:: \.\ ...~.' ,~~~\;~~l\~~.~": :~:.'~,--- ~.~t\'-'V:., i
, f" ... J£' '."; I', --!., I: V.i 'v,· ~ .1'({'?,'- ~ .'.. <r a. ",' ' ~' ~')'ì'~"~'\.· ./., .. I l
· ,_/ / -. '~.,\;:r(i,j,f::?~~i:·C.. ,~>,.« ,,,--:-.J \' :,,;, I·~': '. \, '~'~.\~" /"/. 1', :.ð. ,.~' ''''; " ~.~".·~f';~ P";~ .:j. . · - i~ 1 . - -~:-;-~~-::;;;
iJ~ . {t¡f.-:'<rJ>-.,~," /;1:;~J~-~:\.;, h'! ,,~.,~ '/'~.f <!){\,' ? "i \ \;\>:>'<~,: J'. " i ~,../~1, "~ '\. '. "'3·>"~~.,J"" '~t:"t\~r ;.; I "..{- ': -11:""""--;''\':' "\
}. ¡;:./~('/;; .1""'"1'-"':"\ .{ .ì.'. ,," ..;,\ :1'·, v' :,/', I, 1: v~ J" ..~;;. "~,...;'t/)""'("'" ". ._,...~; ~----z.~'~~"'::::::"::"'---I
~jb\f''''''''C.~ X{i.( :',) 'II" 'I .'/..' r\ ~\~~\ )~...... "'y,Á"'-::' .., // ,/," . ~ " (" ~,u. ). -"'1 '. :I- -~ ~ ,~. "ii-'''''- -
~}~~~/()J<:",,·~,I~·;:~:o/1_";~';·:'ll,,/<" ,)~>~~';: ..A',op ", .)I¡N: \i ,.~,~~(~ <1'0 . \ ' ./:{. ~~(,['" II ,'. '<:p<:<~:c~:_ ~~~.~-~':~'.:'-~ c¿_;;{:::' ---=- =---1·'
.. . -'~ .tT;~/,!" , '," ~_~.-" ~:"-\.,, ' ',~,~ , ,.~ I r .....>.,.__. , ~, iì//"., 11 " , \\" ...'- ., ./?" , :'. c.;. '. ,,,1 ...e >~,,-, .,;j '. ,...-- "_':E-;ç ..., -= I '
1·, : '/··flr~-.::<'\ -.'r ...04....::~4;.< .., ~ ".......~.:jI J.L..-'·\Ir~ ''--.,..... '._ !i}.)';-.. -'. '.. ..., .....'.... ì. - .-. ,,~...... 7'Jr~. ,\-.-~ -/'þ -/j
;1:>"'"
"""1 :.:
" '"
3::..:..
~- ~
~&
"'CN
"",0
_. <:::>
(J~ ~
~- !:::
"rv
UQ' ":::!
~ q
~V)
~ .---
3
><
<0.
t¡¡tIJO
õ' ~ ~
õ!:2 ~
"" '" '-<
§ ñ-.§ S
p..::,...«
:<~~~
fD ~ \.I 0
:::'''';:<:.0-
~ ê.~
"" 0 R<>
~~V)
"" 0
'" VJ 3
~~~
.,. "'-
;t> 3 '"
~ s¡ S-
o '" ,...
[:.~ CiS
:!.ooO
I"'b 0 V)
if. 2_.....J
"" 0
"'''''
"" 0
.0
'"
'"
p..
o
.......
.....
CD
r:n
... :j
~ S;.
'" '"
~ ~.
~~
-:{;
¡;¡ ~
ft. ~
::;. ~
- ...
~~
'" -.
... co
~ ::::::
::::.:.~
'" -
"'-0
~::::
~ ,-
~. ~
~ §
. "'-
~
tG. ~ =
o Q.. =
= 1*\ I<oC
~ IoiJ ..,
-Oe.~
Q.. .,.
("j ("þ =
("j = CIeI
~~O
I<oC ~ ~
("þ= CIeI _
-",
("j ("þ
("þ
!;II')
rJJ
~
=
~
o
~
..c
=
.,.
=
Q
""""
"!"j
o
><
'"
"!"j
.,.
r¡c¡
=
I<oC
("þ
N
\0
a
g.
.....
p'
n>
p:¡ .....
:=:P:¡
~S
8 8-
....... p:¡
P:¡ n
o
t::
::I
9"
~
CD
r:n tTJ
o P:¡
t:: r:n
'4 ..-+
o
CD
~
§
P:¡
(Jq
CD
S
CD
::J
..-+
'1j
.....
P:¡
::I
CJ
t::
cr'
.....
.......
::I
'1j
.g
CD
;:¡
.......
('D
r:n
I
"K
~~ ~ i
':t:~ 3
~g¡ ';; Ii
¡;;g¡ ~:r
<D" I>ì~_t
~~ - R
áã
;-
J"
:i
p
I
(fJ
'<
n
D)
__'" 3
"", 0
~~ CD
"0
~i ~
~- ¡g
"ç 0
,,'f ¡¡;.
~~ ~
r
r
(")
Ii·
'>1' .
" .~
l'
·1
J
C/J
n
>
r---
rd
~$z2
~
'..'1
" ,
)
. >.
~
ro
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
54
50¡ðÒ
Dublin Ranch was subject to intensive San Joaquin kit fox surveys in 1996 and 1997
(RT. Harvey & Associates 1997a). The Dublin Ranch and areas within 2.5 miles of the
site have been subject to 32 nights of spotlighting, 560 track station nights and 280
camera station nights. No San Joaquin kit fox or San Joaquin kit fox sign was detected.
Despite intense éffmis to detect San Joaquin kit fox in the East Dublin and North
Livermore Valley areas, San Joaquin kit fox appear to be largely absent from these areas
(see analysis presented in H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997c).
Special-Status Raptors
Background and Natural History
Because the Project Area contains suitable nesting structures, such as large Eucalyptus
trees, several raptor species are considered to potentially breed on site. Three special-
status ground-nesting raptors are considered to have some potential to breed on site
within the grassland portion of the Project Area. These species include western
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugea), short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), and
northern harrier (Circus cyaneus). Although foraging habitat for avian species is not
protected under state or federal law, it should be noted that the Project Area also provides
suitable foraging habitat for several special-status raptor species that breed on nearby
properties or that may winter in the vicinity. These species include golden eagle (Aquila
chrysaetos), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii)
prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), and merlin
(Falco columbarius). The breeding period for raptors is from December I through
August 31.
Western Burrowing Owl
Background and Natural Historv
In California, the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugea), a state Species of
Special Concern, occurs in the Central Valley, inner and outer Coastal region, portions of
the San Francisco Bay Area, the southern California Coast from southern California to
the Mexican Border, the Imperial Valley, and in portions of the desert and high desert
habitats in southeastern and northeastern California. Burrowing owls usually inhabit
desert and grassland habitat and in some cases, urban and agricultural landscapes. These
habitats are flat, open areas characterized by dry vegetation that is typical of heavily
grazed grasslands, low stature grasslands, or desert vegetation that also include available
burrows (Johnsgard 1988). In the West, their preferred habitats are deserts, plains, and
open grasslands, and in some cases, urban and agricultural landscapes. As burrowing
, owls require underground burrows or artificial structures for shelter and nesting, they are
associated with other burrowing animals such as prairie dogs, ground squirrels, badgers,
and some canids. In the Bay Area, burrowing owls typically utilize California ground
squirrel burrows and man-made artificial structures for denning, sometimes in highly
disturbed areas. Burrows are used year-round and are an essential component to the life
history of burrowing owls.
(DO Db
Burrowing owls are chiefly active during the early morning and early evening hours, but
may be observed during the day standing above a burrow entrance or on a low perch
nearby. In general, burrowing owls primarily consume insects, amphibians, reptiles, and
small mammals (Zam 1974, Collins 1979). The breeding season for burrowing owls
begins in the early spring and extends through late summer. Courtship is evident when
males decorate burrow entrances with artifacts such as dung, feathers, small shiny
objects, and desiccated skins of various animals, among others. In California, egg laying
may begin as early as March in some areas (Zarn 1974) but typically begins in late April
and early May (Thomsen 1971); however, the California Department of Fish and Game
identifies the breeding season as February 1 to August 31. Once eggs are laid, the female
does the majority of incubating (although there are conflicting reports, see Coulombe
1971), which lasts approximately three to four weeks.
Summary and Analysis of On-Site Surveys
Habitat assessments and focused burrow surveys were conducted for all Project Area
properties following the protocol outlined by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium's
Burrowing Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (1997) (Figure 2.10). All areas were
surveyed for the presence of burrowing owl, sign (including. pellets, whitewash, feathers,
prey remains, and burrow ornamentation), and suitable burrowing owl habitat, e.g.
ground squirrel activity, bUITOWS, debris piles, etc. Locations of all ground squirrel
burrows were coarsely mapped.
Dr. Susan E. Townsend and Sycamore Associates biologists conducted habitat
assessments and burrow surveys to detect occupied burrows. Transects were walked
through the Bankhead and Mandeville properties on April 10 and II, 2001, and on April
13, 200 I as part of a joint early evaluation for the San Joaquin kit fox and burrowing owl
habitat assessment (Sycamore Associates 2002c). Habitat assessments and burrow
surveys were conducted on the Branaugh and Campbell properties on July 12, 2002, the
Anderson property on July 15, 2002, and the Croak property on August 27, 2002
(Sycamore Associates 2002e). Habitat assessments and burrow surveys were conducted
on the Righetti property on October 19 and 22, 2001, and the Tseng property on October
23 and 25, 2001 (Sycamore Associates 2002f). A habitat assessment and burrow survey
was conducted on the Jordan property by WRA in October 2003 (WRA 2003a). A review
of the California Natural Diversity Database of the Livermore and eight adjacent
topographic quadrangles (CDFG 2002a), correspondence with local biologists, and
review of recent biological reports for nearby projects revealed two burrowing owl
sightings within the Project Area prior to these studies. A single burrowing owl was
observed on the Croak Property from an adjacent property on October 4, 2000 (Figure
2.10).
On the Tseng property, fairly large concentrations of ground squirrel burrows were
detected on the more northern hillsides and in the flat areas between these hills, and many
of these burrows appeared suitable for burrowing owls. Seven burrows had whitewash
and pellets, evidence of burrowing owl presence. A burrowing owl was detected on two
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2,2004
55
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ..
r-
0 CD
I - "tI (Q
I ::T I I I II iii q CD
: CD ...P :s
.., - ¡. . . ~
.. . 'TI F_____:.~
..' "U ~ 0 CD (") C.
.' 0 c: "U (f ;u z z » (f () 0
a CD 11/ ¡¡¡ -t CD CD
", < - :::J 0 CD c 0 0 '" CD CD 3 ¡¡¡ .;; c
", 0 CD c: :ï ;¡¡ :::J W C. :::J :::J g w 3-
CD "" Õ c. '" CD :Z :Z UI 3 CD ~ ~
;:¡. ¡¡¡ ; w "" 0 ¡¡¡ 0 ª- '"
'< ", "" CD ~ :::J 2'. ~ Q :::J c:
", CD fI CD ¡¡;
CD :::r c. 5' !!1. <' <' ¡¡¡ !!1. () :s "U '" 5'
-- <D
0 0' » () ::;: CD CD '" "TI 0 :0: 0 ~ ""
c C. :::J UI OJ ¡¡¡-
:::J g ¡¡¡ ¡¡¡ ~ c CD G) G) ii> ¡¡¡ ~ ãï 2- :::r 0
C. W CD 3 do ¡¡¡ õJ :::J UI ~
~ :::J '" OJ C. :r :;0 fI ~ (f
õ '" <D g :::J '" '" ,. -{5. <is- (f
c. UI UI po
0;- .;; a:: ¡;¡ m 1ñ ii> w OJ Z :::J <is-
UI <1> :::J :::J ~ :::J_ :Þ CD g, ;;:-
UI 2- c. w ~
~ ii> -<>- ?- ~ :::J .c 3' 0) 3-
(') çr G) c: (f c: "" c ""
2'. CD ¡¡¡ :::J ø ~ 11/ 61 a
õ' ~ N CD :r c -
¡¡¡ ::;:
:::J CD çr ñ' ", 5
<>- N
CD (f 'TI Q ""
<>- CD
<1> ( ) :I: 0
", III OJ ~
- çr
c: ~
..,
( )
fI
I:
'¡ \ ( J.~_r"
'II (
11'1 ;'
11\' r
I i I II
_,1\\\
\\¡\\
, !,¡
/ i.l I'
I
--
,"
."'" "
--
.-,...-..
.:.,;."':-...
»"TI
"'1 :::..:
("> "
;::"
'" --
?- >
;:00
3:~
"eN
.." 0
-, 0
""0
¡:: ---
a N
"ii",
_. -->
"" ---
c CJ
~ ëi)
!"---
~~~
- '" '"
o ...... ..
"" ::I .....
~ _. ~ c¡:
5.g,~.:;¿-
:;;:c.3:'"
. t.:'tI ~ 0
a. S' 7:: ~
§ ~ ~
c. .,._
;§Ro
('þ ~ en
'" 0
(>I U'J a
~a-¡;;
:r '" .
»3"C
~ 0 ii"
00 @ p}
g :Þ- ~
;- ~ g
~ g J~
~.. '1
~ »
o
3
><
c.
, .-
I I
'-,
.I /1
'.,"
.....
..'....-
-
\1
\..
'",
I
...
...
.
.\
".
...
...
t
"~~~--
Itl:,·,~
I ,,-- "
-~~ .- >."'.
<.- ~~
- , I ~#
'",,- -
_,. I
.-'
'.....-
___ __>:-~ --.---, ....... ..1.
.-
--
...-.
"
.........-
... ....:-
U ~
"'C s::: (þ tT1
r.Fl I
~ a; cr" 0 ~
0 ...- s::: r.Fl
...... = ,.... .-+- ã en )
~ "' ""'C ~ =:I (ó U :II g'<
"CI = \J'l ""'C .... n »- ~e- <D£
...... .... (J'C ~ s::: -¡;~g>? i _~¡;: 3
0 ...... (J'C 0 ~ cr" I ~~9 Q \......,
.... ~ = ...- ......(.I1~(j') '~ )
""'C ~ =- ~ :::-:~ § ...- ~-;:Ãlm -.:;(')~ q¡
= ""'C Õ'S ,.... §¿~a Q II
- ...... .... =:I ~iì 1f G'
== Z c.. .... = rt 9 8.. ~ bf¡¡ñ (]IF¡;;; en 'S\,
= (JQ --0 ....... n::J:t ~Q! g
~ (J'C N (þ tð";,,, t " '~'
C" (t) (J'C . ,.... ~ s a ~ð<D8 R hii ¡¡¡.
rIJ rIJ 0 ~ ~ n "0 ~~o;I ffi ~~ ii
.... ...... 0 (þ [ -.
..... ..... (þ -Q It
~ 0 =:I j ",r
~ = ;:¡ <;<r
¡:::: .-+- 0
......(J'C - ,....
~ --0 (þ ~
...- r.Fl
':< ~
=:I
.....'I.:.:.,·,·,.·.-'.t:·,<. ,.:"'
o
.p..
o
o
r./1
n
»-
l"
tT1
::: ~
~ ç;;'
,. :::¡
§{;
'" -.
.... '"'
'c3>'"
..,~
r;; ~
'" '"'
;¡. ~
I:>...~
~ ç;'
ê;¡s
'" --
~2
1:>...-
~ '~
~. e
15...
8$
N
o
o
........
:=
II
00
o
o
.....
0,
,,0
CD 0
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/.J) ~ D:
D
occasions using several of these burrows (Sycamore Associates 2002f), and was observed
on site during several site visits during October 2001 (Sycamore Associates 2002f).
Whitewash and pellets were also found near a burrow along the southern fenceline of
Jordan adjacent to the Tseng property; however, the presence of an owl could not be
confirmed (WRA 2003). Additionally, burrowing owl sign has been observed between
the headwaters of Drainages C and C2 on the Mandeville and Bankhead properties as
recently as December 2002 (Sycamore Associates In Prep.).
Other portions of the Project Area were found to support suitable habitat, and a single
burrowing owl was previously detected on the Croak property (K. Briones, Pers. Obs
2000) during a survey conducted on an adjacent property. Properties that supported
suitable burrowing owl habitat (low vegetation and patches of ground squirrel burrows)
included the Tseng, Righetti, Bankhead, Mandeville, Jordan, Anderson, and Branaugh
properties. Few suitable burrows for burrowing owls were detected on the Croak
property. The Croak property, however, is considered to support suitable burrowing owl
foraging habitat. No suitable burrows for burrowing owls were detected for the Campbell
property (Sycamore Associates 2002e,f). In total, two burrowing owls have been
recorded within the Project Area.
Summary and Analysis of Off-Site Surveys
A review of the California Natural Diversity Database for the Livermore and eight
adjacent topographic quadrangles (CDFG 2002a), cOlTespondence with local biologists,
and review of recent biological reports for nearby projects revealed ten burrowing owl
sightings located between 0.9 and 8.9 miles from the Project Area (Sycamore Associates
2002 j, k).
As summarized in H. T. Harvey & Associate's Project Area Biological Assessment for
the California Red-Legged Frog (2000c) and Pao Yeh Lin Property Special-Status
Species Surveys (1999a), a burrowing owl pair and sign was observed on the adjacent
Dublin Ranch property in 1997 and 2000, respectively. A single burrowing owl was
reported west of the Project Area in what is known as Area A of the Dublin Ranch in
2000.
The two closest occurrences were located approximately 0.9 and 3.1 miles west and
southwest of the Project Area, respectively. The majority of occurrences were located
north of Interstate 580 in north Livennore and east of the Project Area. Two of these
occurrences are located south ofInterstate 580 and southeast ofthe Project Area.
Short-Eared Owl
The short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), a California Species of Special Concern, is a large
owl that inhabits coastal areas of California. Like other raptors and birds in general, it
falls under Fish and Game Code §3503.5, which prohibits the taking or destroying of
nest, egg, or bird in the order of Falconiformes (falcons, kites, and hawks) and
Strigifonnes (owls). It is a winter resident of the Central Valley of California. The species
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
57
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
58
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Úl3~
occupies open habitats including annual and perennial grasslands, meadows, irrigated
lands, and saline and fresh emergent marshes. Short-eared owls feed primarily on voles
and other small mammals, as well as small birds, amphibians, and arthropods. Nests are
built on the ground in a shallow depression among dense vegetation. Eggs are laid in
April and May. The male feeds the female while she incubates eggs. Fledging takes place
at 31-36 days (Sibley 2000). The species has nested at scattered locations in the Bay Area
Region, although the highest numbers are present during the winter months.
With the exception of the Croak property, the grazed non-native annual grasslands within
the Project Area provide only marginally suitable nesting habitat due to current grazing
practices. The Croak property provides suitable nesting habitat by means of its dense
growth of vegetation. Therefore, there is a marginal potential for short-eared owl to nest
on the Croak property and a low potential for nesting on the remainder of the Project
Area.
Northern Harrier
The northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), a state Species of Special Concern, inhabits
grasslands, scrub habitats, and marshes. Breeding typically occurs in shrubby vegetation
near marshes from March to July, although nesting in grassland areas undisturbed by
cattle grazing has been documented at various locations, some of which are several miles
from water. It feeds primarily on voles and other small mammals, birds, fi'ogs, and insects
(Sibley 2000). The species can be locally abundant where appropriate habitat exists but
has decreased in numbers due to conversion of marsh habitat for human uses. Populations
in the San Francisco Bay Area include migrants and wintering individuals from
approximately September through March.
Although, northern harriers have not been observed nesting within the Project Area, they
have been observed foraging on site on numerous occasions (Sycamore Associates
personal observation; WRA 2003a). Based on the lack of recent grazing activity, the
Croak property provides suitable nesting habitat for northern harrier and this species is
considered to have a moderate potential to nest on that property.
Golden Eagle
The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) is protected under the federal Bald Eagle Protection
Act, and is a "fully protected" species under Fish and Game Code §3511. Along the
interior central Coast Ranges of California, golden eagles inhabit grazed, open grasslands
and oak savanna, and occur less frequently in oak woodlands and open shrub lands. They
prefer to nest in cliffs, but on occasion have been reported in the Diablo Range nesting in
trees, including oaks (Quercus spp.), foothill pine (Pinus sabianiana and P. coulteri),
California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), and
western sycamore (Platanus racemosa). Breeding, including courtship and nest building,
occurs between December and January. Their diet consists of live mammals,
predominantly ground squirrels, throughout the year, although they take waterfowl and
carrion (deer and cattle carcasses) during the winter months (pBRG 1999). Golden eagle
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
04 CCJ
natural densities are very low and they have a low reproductive rate, making them
susceptible to habitat destruction (reclamation of grasslands for agriculture), shooting,
and human disturbances at nest sites, which may result in nest failure.
Summary and Analvsis of On-Site Surveys
No focused surveys for special-status raptors have been conducted within the Project
Area to date. However, a reconnaissance-level analysis of the Project Area for the
Reyised Draft Supplemental EIR (City of Dublin 2002b), and numerous field surveys
conducted for other special-status species as noted in Section 2.1.1.2, identified suitable
nesting habitat within the scattered trees, particularly the non-native Eucalyptus trees
present within the Project Area. Although golden eagles have not been observed nesting
on site, they have been observed foraging on site on numerous occasions (Jerry Roe
personal observation; WRA 2003a).
Summary and Analysis of Off-Site Surveys
A review of the California Natural Diversity Database for the Livermore and eight
adjacent topographic quadrangles (CDFG 2002a), correspondence with local biologists,
and review of recent biological reports for nearby projects revealed nine golden eagle
nesting sites within ten miles of the Project Area (Figure 2.9). Several focused studies
were conducted for golden eagle on the adjacent Dublin Ranch Project. As summarized
in H. T. Harvey & Associate's Golden Eagle Survey Phase 1 Report (H.T. Harvey &
Associates 1990), Dublin Ranch Area A Golden Eagle Report (H.T. Harvey & Associates
2000d), and Dublin Ranch Golden Eagle Nest Buffer-Zone Analysis (H.T. Harvey &
Associates 2000e), golden eagles have nested within the Phase One and Area A of the
Dublin Ranch since 1990. Between 1990 and 2000 they have attempted to breed there
every year except for 1991 and 1992 (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2000e,d). Portions of the
Dublin Ranch, immediately west and nOlihwest of the Project Area, are pali of the golden
eagle mitigation site for the known pair of nesting golden eagles (Figure 2.9), which is
outside the viewshed of the Project Area.
Special-Status Passerines
Background and Natural History
Passerines (perching birds) are a taxonomic grouping that consists of several families
including swallows (Hirundinidae), larks (Alaudidae), crows, ravens, and jays
(Corvidae), shrikes (Laniidae), vireos (Vireonidae), finches (Fringillidae), and
Emberizids (Emberizidae; warblers, sparrows, blackbirds, etc.), among others. Non-
passerine land birds are a non-taxonomic based grouping typically used by ornithologists
to categorize a loose assemblage of birds. Families grouped into this category include
kingfishers (Alcedinidae), woodpeckers (Picidae), swifts (Apodidae), hummingbirds
(Trochilidae), and pigeons and doves (Columbidae), among others. Habitat, nesting, and
foraging requirements for these species are wide ranging, therefore outlining generic
habitat requirements for this grouping is difficult. These species typically use most
habitat types and are known to nest on the ground, in shrubs and trees, on buildings,
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
59
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
60
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
Lc5 c~
under bridges, and within cavities, crevices, and mamnade structures. Many of these
species migrate long distances and all species except starlings, English house sparrows,
and rock doves (pigeons), are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The nesting
period for passerines and non-passerine land birds occurs between February 1 and August
31.
No focused surveys for special-status passerines or non-passerine land birds have been
conducted within the project area to date. However, a reconnaissance-level analysis of the
Project Area for the Revised Draft Supplemental EIR (City of Dublin 2002b), and
numerous field surveys conducted for other special-status species as noted in Section
2.1.1.2 inciQentally confirmed presence of or identified suitable habitat for tricolored
blackbird, loggerhead shrike, and California homed lark.
Tricolored Blackbird
Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) is a state and federal Species of Special Concern.
This species inhabits coastal areas of central and southern California and the Central
Valley. The species typically requires freshwater marshes with emergent vegetation
surrounded by water for nesting, although thorny brambles, nettles, dense willows, or
grain fields near water are also used. The microhabitats selected for nesting must provide
protection from numerous avian, mammalian, and reptilian predators. The species is
highly colonial. Historically, tricolored blackbirds congregated in large colonies during
the breeding season.
Breeding is highly synchronous. The species is nomadic and smaller colonies will often
nest in different areas from year to year. Juveniles are not likely to return to the sites
where they were born (DeHaven et al. 1975a). Tricolored blackbirds are regularly
observed foraging and roosting in mixed flocks with other blackbird species, especially
during the non-breeding season. Tricolored blackbirds forage on seeds and insects in
grassland and cropland, the latter primarily during the breeding season (Skorupa et al.
1980). Nesting colonies can be highly susceptible to human disturbance; in extreme
cases, disturbances can result in entire colonies abandoning their nests. Agricultural
activities in particular can threaten entire colonies. Over the past approximately 60 years
populations have declined, particularly in the Central Valley due to habitat conversion of
natural wetlands (DeHaven et al. 1975b).
The freshwater marsh habitat in the abandoned quarry on the Anderson property (Pond I)
supports suitable breeding and foraging habitat for tricolored blackbird. A tricolored
blackbird breeding colony was incidentally detected in this quarry during 1999
(Townsend and Lenihan, Pers. Corom.). However, recent grazing activity on the
Anderson property has significantly reduced the amount of emergent vegetation,
particularly cattails (Typha sp.), within the pond that is essential for nesting. A tricolored
blackbird was observed on the Jordan Property in the emergent vegetation in Pond 5
(WRA 2003a). No further observations of tricolored blackbird have been made within the
Project Area.
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~fß
Ô,I'"\
Ci
Loggerhead Shrike
The loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) is a state and federal Species of Special
Concern. It is a wide-ranging species that occupies open habitats including grassland,
scrub, and open woodland communities. The species typically nests in densely vegetated,
isolated trees and shrubs, and occasionally man~made structures. Loggerhead shrikes feed
on a variety of small prey including arthropods, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and birds
(Y osef 1996). Since it lacks talons, it often impales prey on thorns or barbed wire. In
California, the species does not migrate and is resident year-round. The species is highly
territorial, with pairs maintaining territories during the breeding season and individuals
maintaining territories during the winter (Y osef 1996). Declines in numbers have been
noted across a broad geographical range in the United States.
Portions of the Project Area support potentially suitable breeding habitat for loggerhead
shrike, particularly within the riparian woodland on the Jordan property and around the
Anderson pond (Pond I). The grassland habitat also provides suitable foraging habitat for
this species. A loggerhead shrike was incidentally observed within the Project Area
during a California red-legged ITog habitat assessment on the Bankhead and Mandeville
properties in October 2000 (Tatarian, Pers. Comm.) and during a site visit by Sycamore
Associates biologist Jerry Roe in October 2002 (Roe, Pers. Obs. 2002). Four loggerhead
shrikes were observed hunting ITom fenceposts along the perimeter of the Jordan
Property during WRA surveys (WRA 2003).
California Horned Lark
The California homed lark (Eremophila alpestris actia) is a state Species of Special
Concern. This species breeds in open grasslands throughout the Central Valley and
adjacent foothills and along the central and southern California coast region. It is a
ground nesting species that prefers sh011er, less dense grasses and areas with some bare
ground. It feeds on insects and seeds. It fonlls flocks in the summer and winter months
that are often observed foraging and roosting in cultivated fields and along dirt roads.
The open grassland habitat which characterizes a majority of the Project Area provides
suitable breeding and foraging habitat for California homed lark. A flock of California
homed lark was observed on the Jordan Property during WRA surveys (WRA 2003).
Non-native grassland provides suitable nesting habitat throughout the Jordan Property. A
review of the California Natural Diversity Database for the Livermore and eight adjacent
topographic quadrangles (CDFG 2002a), correspondence with local biologists, and
review of recent biological reports for nearby projects revealed two occurrences of
California horned lark greater than one mile ITom the Project Area to the north. A
California horned lark was observed on the adjacent Dublin Ranch to the west and was
considered likely to breed and forage there (H. T. Harvey & Associate 1999a, 2000c).
2.2 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SLOPE
Geotechnical reports have been prepared for the Project Area, as described in Section
2.1.1.2. These have included a preliminary geotechnical assessment by ENGEO, Inc. for the
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004'
61
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
62
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
w7 r;¿
Croak Property (ENGEO 2000b), a geologic hazard assessment and feasibility study by
Kleinfelder, Inc., for the Anderson, Righetti, Branaugh, and Campbell properties
(Kleinfelder 2001), a preliminary geoteclmical exploration of the Mandeville and Bankhead
properties, (ENGEO 2000a), and a preliminary geoteclmical exploration of the entire EDPO
(excluding the Jordan Property) by ENGEO Inc. (2003). Hydroscience prepared a report
evaluating the soils, geology and hydrology of the Jordan Property in November 2003. In
addition, ENGEO Inc. provided Project Area planners with a geologic overlay based on
existing reports and reviews of published literature and aerial photographs. The ENGEO
preliminary geoteclmical assessment of the Croak property and Kleinfelder geologic hazard
assessment and feasibility studies for the Anderson, Righetti, Branaugh, and Campbell
. properties were based on literature review, interpretation of aerial photographs, and visual
site reconnaissance. The subsequent ENGEO geotechnical explorations included subsurface
investigation of soil conditions using borings and test pits as well as characterization of the
physical properties of site soils and bedrock by laboratory testing. The findings and
recommendations of the existing geotechnical studies are summarized below. As the
planning of EDPO proceeds, it will be necessary for ENGEO to gather additional site-
specific geotechnical data to maximize project perfonnance and cost-effectiveness, and
assist in preparation of construction budgets. Prior to construction, the optimized project
geotechnical recommendations will be used to prepare a detailed corrective grading plan to
accompany the project grading plan prepared by MacKay and Somps.
The Project Area is located at the north margin of the Livermore Valley, approximately 12
miles south of Mount Diablo, in the northern California Coast Ranges. The Mount Diablo
Uplift, a Late Quaternary tectonic feature believed to be occuning as a result of the
interaction of the active Greenville and Concord Faults, dominates the local geologic setting.
The Greenville and Concord Faults are located approximately 6 miles southeast and 14
miles northwest, respectively. It is postulated that these faults are connected at depth by a
buried "blind" thrust fault system believed to be under the Mount Diablo Uplift. The active
Calaveras Fault is located approximately 5 miles to the southwest. No active faults are
mapped through the site. Consequently, the risk of surface rupture at the site is considered to
be low. Like the Bay Area as a whole, it should be expected that the Project Area would be
subject to strong seismic ground shaking at some point during the project design lifetime.
Site-specific geoteclmical recommendations for project seismic design have been provided
in the ENGEO reports. Seismic design recommendations will be updated, if appropriate, as
the project proceeds.
Folded Tertiary-age sedimentary rocks underlie the hills south of Mount Diablo and north of
the Livermore Valley, including the Project Area. Within the Project Area, the bedrock
consists of Late Pliocene to Pleistocene-age non-marine sediments identified as either the
"Green-Valley/Tassajara Group" or the "Livermore Gravels" on recently published maps
from the United States Geologic Survey; the geologic formation nomenclature varies
according to the publication, but the differences are not of geotechnical significance. The
bedrock under EDPO typically consists of interbedded poorly indurated sandstone, siltstone
and claystone, with minor beds of conglomerate and volcanic tuff. Bedrock layers within
EDPO are folded such that they strike west-northwest and are inclined from the horizontal at
angles between 20 and 90 degrees. The low-lying southern edge ofthe property straddles the
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
&3 cJf¡
L,·
contact between folded sedimentary rock and undefonned Late Quaternary-age alluvium
(stream sediments) of the Livermore Valley. The alluvium typically consists ofinterlayered
clay and clayey silt with minor sand and gravel lenses.
The ground surface within EDPO is typically underlain by between 3 to 7 feet of stiff,
highly expansive silty clay. On ridgelines, bedrock underlies the upper clay soil. In swale
areas and at the bases of slopes, the surface clays are underlain by colluvium (soils deposited
by downslope soil movement), which consists of stiff, silty to sandy moderately to highly
expansive clay. Valley floors within the hilly portion of the site are underlain by interbedded
colluvium and alluvium. Based on the geologic mapping and subsurface exploration
undertaken to date, a number oflandslides have been identified within the Project Area. The
landslides include relatively shallow (5 to 15-feet thick) earthflows, moderately deep
earthflows/rotation slumps (15 to 30 feet deep), and two areas of deep-seated bedrock
slumps (30 to 60 feet deep) (Figure 2.11). The shallow earthflows occur in several swale
areas generally distributed across the elevated areas of EDPO. The moderately deep and
deep-seated landslides are concentrated in two clusters in the upper elevations of the
Mandeville and Bankhead properties. Details of the site geology are depicted on the site
geologic map.
The Project Area generally falls from north to south. The steeper slopes are located along
the isolated finger ridges within the northerly portions and the flatter slopes are located in
the southerly portions adjacent to Interstate 580. Overall, more than half the Project Area
is at a slope gradient of 20 percent or less, with more than 80 percent of the site as a
gradient of 30 percent or less.
2.3 HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS
2.3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section presents the results of a HEC-I hydrology analysis for the Project Area
drainage basin, based on the existing, undeveloped conditions.
It should be noted that while this report considers the existing hydrologic conditions for
Project Area drainage basin, the proposed hydrologic conditions have been considered in
a previous report, reviewed and accepted by the City of Dublin Public Works. The Dublin
Ranch Drainage Master Plan (McKay & Somps 2002) included an analysis of the post-
development hydrologic conditions for the Project Area, based on the approved general
plan for the City of Dublin.
The proposed runoff calculations presented in the 2002 Drainage Master Plan (McKay &
Somps 2002) took into account all proposed land uses within the East Dublin Specific
Plan Area, including the Project Area. The assumed land uses included commercial sites
located near Interstate 580, high density residential in the mid section, and 'single~family
homes in the northern portion of the site, with intermixing of open space, parks and
schools.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
63
10 Q (>'6
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
64
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As development of the Project Area moves forward through land planning and
infrastructure design, a proposed master drainage plan will be prepared. As with the
Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan (McKay & Somps 2002), the East Dublin
Properties Drainage Master Plan will be prepared in accordance with the City of Dublin
Department of Public Works Drainage Master Plan Requirements.
Project Area
The Project Area is situated in the foothills of Mount Diablo and encompasses 1,120
acres of the total 2,400-acre watershed that forms the headwaters of the 0-3 channel as
designated by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone
7.
The Project Area drainage area generally drains in a southerly direction with slopes
ranging from 0.1 percent to 60 percent. The elevation of the site varies from 91 O± at the
north end of the project to 350± at the southern limits of the project, where the site
drainage flows west under Fallon Road. The two major drainages on the site, C) and C3,
are supported by groundwater during the summer and fall, allowing for a perennial water
source at their point of convergence in the southwest comer of the Jordan property
(Hydro Science 2003). The U.S. Geological Survey also maps a spring at the head of
Drainage C¡ on the Mandeville property (USGS 1961).
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map,
Alameda County California (Unincorporated Areas), revised September 17, 1997
indicates that no part of the Project Area is subject to flooding in a 100-year stonn event.
2.3.2 EXISTING & PROPOSED DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
The Project Area currently drains to the southwest comer of the site to an existing double
6 feet x 5 feet box culvert under Fallon Road. Along the west side of Fallon Road the
drainage disperses overland until it reaches the existing headwall of the existing G-3
channel. The, G-3 channel conveys runoff along Interstate 580 to the existing triple 14
feet x 9 feet box culvert under Interstate 580 and southward to the convergence with the
Arroyo Mocho Creek, within the City of Pleasanton. The storm runoff eventually reaches
the San Francisco Bay via the Arroyo Mocho, Arroyo de la Laguna and Alameda Creek.
The above-mentioned box culverts at Fallon Road are considered the upstream limit of
the G-3 system as administered by Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District. The 0-3 system and Arroyo Mocho are sized drainage
facilities by Zone 7.
Extension of the G-3 system was proposed as part of the adjacent Dublin Ranch
development. The required improvements are currently under construction with
completion expected in late 2004. These improvements provide for the conveyance of
runoff to the existing G-3 channel at Interstate 580 through a series of underground box
culverts ranging in size from double 12 feet x 9 feet box culverts to double 10 feet x 9
feet box culverts to a single 14 feet x 9 feet box culvert terminating approximately 240
-
;;-:!!
~~
.g-~
;>¡<>
:::ê..
'"t1N
:!!8
tIO <:>
t: ..,--
ª- I"
"TIN
~-""::!
c Ò
~~
1-
~
c..
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
J, Qr::. ~ .......
,
: .....--- , on
'.._,,/~'" ....L
I ." ....__ .....\
, .:~. , ~ ~
..... :' ~~. ,.,;~:,.. on :.."~' Qr::. f
.. ' \ . c¡¡ , '}.., ~
r... \ '\...' .. .. ' ~
:~~~. : ¡~:'..~._.,
..'~)., ~i ::.
.' ,;> " N ....
... ,,# '>-. ".~ Q¡;I
.. J\l.' ':~:"'''' ~ - "0:: .....
'< / t~\
.... -.... - -....
I tt )~ I~ I-
ž In Þ In In '"
Þ -< '" -< -< '"
z " " 0
'1 i1 ~ >< >< 0
~ '" '" ž
ž ž þ þ (;)
" en en z z -<
þ 0 0 i:1
z 0 0
~ 'õ 'õ z
0
." ~ ~ "
"
0 In '" 0
'" I en "
æ 0 ~
." 0
Þ " Ž "
~ ,... (;) ~
þ
¡¡¡ "
I
0
Õ
'"
;0
?¡;
I
-<
on
11._......111.._..
. ,
". ..-
, '
'" Qc '..
on
,..........
· ,
· '
· :
· .. ...-
"' ..--.-
...~. Q¡¡
.......... - -.....
. \.
.
I
..
I on
. ,
'. .
/~.~ « -'- >0, (~or.
I.. " .
.,,>:::...~ J '/~"
'I,.... at .....".# ,__._......_
....-... ,~;,...
.' ~~'
"" Qç ~" J
,
'" .
QTI ,
,
,
,
,
on
~
,', ''''...
.
.
~Øì
.'
.......__~T:.......
on
.
,
:
,
Qc; :
0' .
.", -~.
· .
· ~ ~: an ;. ..
..... . ... , .
· \"lIIiI~~.illllillllllllillll lI;.~.III_··-:"'.._I ."''''.IIiIIIIIIIII ._.II _'II_. ,
· .. \ ' I 'II I
I '~ \~ ~t ........Q" ,. / Oe ~/ ,,' I'
· t ....,. I I' Qc .
'", - _..... : ,tII.
' ,
. , .
. . .
........
on
.. -....... ~ .
. ..., ,
. ,
: tt '\ 0*1
: ~ " i
i, ..;' r::::::.--,"'''
0< ~
" "I' Qc t/~¡þ" f 0"
, Qtt .; t
0,,\0""_'::;-": \: ~::--J:Þ';.~",' :[~. .
" ,... -. _ _0;'1.·"" -<1
, : >-~- / '" ': ~.;"" ¡'.~ -
, \Jr·"(·~ . :, ; I f"'#' ,~:) ~" v... I''''
~ .-..t.. '0"'"
, ~...' I ~ ,t' Q"" " .,.""..",
~ I"~ ,: : ',. I Qc, t " Q~ ,/ --... ,':
'" ~ :/' QTt . Ot: / I,' .....'
......\ ~ ' i " : I ~#
~ : ,,,,' I ",' " I .I"
~*.~ ,,,' ......."..,. i '" ........." "" _. .,/ : I .....""t... 0(: ............. .._.....
, \ ,,' ,.,' QTt t. I ---. .: C ¡:: , .; ,,.---..-....
i .:t,1 ....__... " ,"'--" I Qç" :: I ,;:#"... :.,.' ¡. ... III
'0., 1'''' ,,,' ~ ,,,' (2)'.... c:J1I : "i.....-....---.. art I~,i ,."','$ art,' "'...... ,. \'.
..., . .. elt; .-- .., I ¡ . I "QIII " t , '" QTI ...... ~
I ,/'.: : ""I'" ____..."" ~.' .......--" .,,',',1: ........ ,..# Ot ,,' ~ r..
.. I , 11...... .." 't... , .",. I ¡þ" Ii.... ..... Cle: ,
I ,':: : ,,'" ..,I : "",,;> ...,' ,e " ,,/: 1'1'1' 'II: 'I " /,.. ""\ ... : ;
" \ : / " ,... '...... ........ ,. I ,*,. : I....." ~ : I QI:;: : ¡þ I"
, ... '. . Qc¡. oil........ \ I' " .,' / 0" .....",. / ,.. Q¡:&./ I \,' , ,..'" .
,. ~ ",'\ ~ "'I. , !:It;" I _, " ''',1 #' , ", " .','.
- ,.. ~tlr .....1II1i ~. .-.. tIIiII .--. .-"..-.. -.. _11111'" ..-... ....'III.t "f..... ...Ii........ ..,..." j'" , "wI' I j" - , I
....... : , /1< QG " ~ ..'" :1"". / : " ".'" /' ......-:"._.III....~.iI,....··i..·IIIIIi..I·IIIIIIII... QTI
:: " ',: ", --........ ,"~ .",' ....1; ",',' ......' _............... .... I : :
., ' " t, ' ~!. - -...... I '" f ' I
/~'....) (. aT! "'\, \....«;~') 1 or. ,'<~:7"! 0"," ..::-::::::...u~ - 'ò""} &:~~ ~
,. I"'" I''';~ I .....' " f~"'~G. :" t ~;
.,' "," I'~ I t Q..t...":_..........1' I~~::; ,1;---- ~ ,aT! \ , "
! ... 00 : :'/' : . ~:' ,..::..... ....:. . .' 0.' .". \J, :* i
III , '. I \0". ...;.... "'".... I Ii, I ...,.
" , I, , .......~~.. Q.I "...~ c'Jc t I , ~ .Q1I
I II ..:. ... , I I \ I
:,'...:: ' , Qal .,.....: "I.... ..,. ..____...... / : \
1,/ ,,,,' Qar ~~ "'......,.. Qr:: ..: J,¡¡¡ ,t' ~-......__._.. .........
~ 1/ ~ " all " QI: ",' ...;:111'::..------..--.. Q¡:;/- \ "~IJ
f , I 1 : " ... ~ '" aTI QTI ,,,.... . _ _ .. .. .., .... _ ... ......... _ _ .. .. .. - - .. .. _
:~ : : ~ I,'" // /
I ~ ... : : ,:4'/ Q.III,/ I, ; , , , (1,,1 "¡4*."__,,_,,,
i \ ~ / i fI'...........t/ ,/ 00:....---.. ..........\ It' \ ..........,1'" ...",...' \..
I II: : ~ :;' ,,' .....'" ," \.._.... ...._......... ...,,' ~'.........Q:_..:
it ~: :,' ,.' Oc ,,,,' ,,'" ,
I I. '","." ,..- \0.. QC: _..... Uc II \
! ,.:; l on:.:..·..l Q..I,/,'.,' on: '.", ", .~-....<;:'.,':: ~:"'" ,.... )i
I , Q t{ ;' ~_....._I I. , .......--...._..... " ..
:.._....; : I~,t III", ,'#1" Qc: I.... ~I /:- '-... ......... .
: ',~ :;_#': ,',,; .......', QTt "', Q<: " / .... """" I
. '.,....' on '. ~--.. .
..:,\Qc f, "'"........' ,,/.:....,' 0< ' " . . :.. !: / /0< ~ ". 0' !¡
Qat ....~.....,.-..... '"....___..... / ~ : : i : Ql' 1 ,'..--..-----..... "\
~ .....;,,-.. I,' , I I I .\ I ".. OT. QT! 'I .r lOTi
.. , " '" ...." . ~. Q~, I I II' .
'.,'. c.:kIIl ;'>' ~ Q¡:; .... ~ Qc: t'" ,I'" : : : Qc: 1\,' ~,.M"U....IItW......I....~.:....-.~' "II.~:
i .# ' , ~ I , ,....;: I , I , )liT I I ,,1 ', - -.. "',.' ./...; : : ___
. \ "'..." .......'" ".. , " : : I' ....t;: ~ .",-
····jt:'t·_.._··-:::.-··_..t··_··_··~~J'..:..·J·.-·:-·~-~<:: /1 if'" ,,', Y :
.1 . . . . ... . J ,'$ :::. ". :
~,.# QTI I I \ ,,,......-.... -;....'" ....::.." «-, 1 I I
I ~ ! o~ : : / ..... ~ ~ .. .. .. Vi: ¡'it,' ,I;~ /: :
\ I I: : I '" ....... "".. ar,' I' t
: ,... : ,': ,',' Oil ...... '\: ,t.. /:: t ~
....:/ :! ,/ \ ;/ / \:~ I :~"'''''' /,' / aT" !a¡:; :
....----...:...' ~ .........."" .. 1 (J1t ~t,,, :...... ...." ,,':';, I II
QI I' ....-,,--..........-- i ..'" I ....... ........ ...--....'! t \
: ..--........- Qc r i·'; -..: QTI , .'
~ -...---.--.........._..... Qç . .......- I;' !",.......-....
~...... .. /-..~ ~ I,.... ,..",#"111
I .. I." .........
QIIII ________ .......& .... . /
~.... \0 ... I i! ........' ,__.....,' ,
...... ...... I II. ;
"'~ .: ¡! ... .
~¡~............~.._-~...- ../~:
q4i1 ~..----..'" I. ......-~-...-----..........__........ Q..I ...11......1111
'.
I'· . :
. . .
i! 0., -:----+--
:¡
'.
:¡
... ...-l:
...... . ,'".
II~II....... . ,.
...1I·1IIIIIiI1r·_"....iI....III...L"'·...:1I ....
·...1iIIIi '11._ iI'II_ III ....IIII~._III... .11_.. ..1II.i ."::.:::~:: :.::::.:
(ft.
...-.-
... -.....
0<
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
f,
0< .(
.
..... ! ," " . h . _ ,
) /
.II!
,,--"---"/ r'..
..'" /. '... ..
..,'....0< ( '.-' 0'
.
on
¡,I.....
,
,
,
on'
....--....
on
on
0"
a.'
';
'. .
".
-----I
1
.
.-
..,
.
.,
..
,
.
.,
..
trJ 0:"::1
õ'e; ~
~3~
[[~~
:.:.:!t~~
ê. ..... () ~
Co' ~ r=
ã. ~ ."'<
'" õ·Ro
~¡;¡</J
'" '"
g~3
a.g~
;:. ::¡ §
~ ~ t:L
'" '" tT1
<»z
~.~ 0
G; 8. t5
;".
'"
'"
o
Id
(D
VJ
o
¡::
>-t
(D
~
p:>
==
p:>
(Jq
(D
:3
(D
==
'""""
'"'0
........
p:>
==
CJ
s:::::
cr"
........
p'
n>
p:> ...-
:::-:p:>
~:3
8 8-
...... p:>
P:> n
o
s:::::
==
'""""
~
;;J
§. (;;"
'" '"
~ ~,
'" '"
'è» -:
-: {';
~ ~
'" ~
:;, '"
" §"
;¡;--
~. ê·
~~
!:>.Q
~:::=
~~
~~- 2
;;:..
m
p:>
VJ
'""""
.þ.
o
o
rJJ
o
-.
-
t""!
~
=
Q..
~
-
_.
Q..
('þ
~
=
Q.,
C/J
n
>
l"'
m
~
_.
('Je¡
=
""f
('þ
N
¡....o
¡....o
CJ
s:::::
cr"
........
S'
'"'0
a
""0
(D
;:¡
......
(D
VJ
ê)
o
=
Q.,
_.
~
_.
o
=
~
00
o
o
$
II
ex:>
o
o
........
::
N
o
o
m
TlO
([) 0
~
-
-
-
-
r
m
@(í/@ G)
0 1? 0 0 m
;j ~ ~
Z
~ " ~ ." 0 15 " 0
~ :: r:¡ ~
;0 c l' ¡¡:
'" c <: ~ '" 0
<: c:
0 c: '" ~ :!:
;0 ~
en " \:.'
(;) en <:;
0 ~
~ ;0 0
'" ~
<: 8 en
~ ~ " 0
" '"
'" is þ ~
þ ~ ~
g¡ ~ :;¡
!: '" ;0
Þ en :; '"
;0 0 ~
þ ;0 0
0
2) " 0 :!:
" ;< E ~
~ "
r ~
C ¡;;
ð ;¡¡ ¡:. -<
z ~ I
~ ¡¡
c Z
-< ~
I
,g In
~
-<
I
¡¡
Z
I
::I
':!9-
I~I
i ~~~
Õ
if
yo
;-
n
~~!~
.;¡~~
~¡J;!'.:;;
âæ~~
"'" 'f œ'
~ð108
X~0g;J
o-s:
(j)
~'<
§ £
_~!; 3
~~g Q
';; ~ ~ ro
~~~ G:
~?" g U'J
CJ:Ioit 0
0>0(: 0
h.~¡¡j'
~ ~~ ~
:;;
~.
:i;"
()
It,
\\,
, '~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7 / C5?:J
feet west of Fallon Road (To be connected to the existing box culvert under Fallon Road
at a later date when Fallon Road is widened.) The improvements also provide for a single
8 feet x 9 feet box culvert extended to within 120 feet west of the existing double box
culvert under Fallon Road and for an 84 inch pipe stubbed to the northeast to intercept
fUnofffrom along Fallon Road.
General Drainage System
The Project Area drainage system can be considered one overall drainage basin that
extends from the steeper hills north and northeast of Fallon Road and Croak Road to the
southern gently sloped areas adjacent to Interstate 580. For the purposes of this existing
conditions HEC-I study we have performed an analysis for the overall basin under the 2-
year, 10-year and 100-year storm events.
To assist in the biological assessment of the existing drainage corridors and their existing
hydrologic conditions, the HEC-1 study also divided the overall drainage basin into
smaller component sub-basins. These sub-basins correspond to the drainage areas
contributing to each of the well-defined drainage corridors and are described briefly in
the following sections.
Drainage Sub-Basin A
This 187-acre sub-basin is a long, linear drainage located along the nOlihwestem and
western limits of the overall drainage basin, adjacent to the eastern boundary of Dublin
Ranch. The sub-basin is contained within a well-defined valley with runoff collected by a
small un-named creek at the base of the valley, flowing to the south. This drainage has
been refened to as the "western drainage" with a creek length of approximately 7,400
feet and an approximate average creek gradient of 4 percent. Sub-basin A terminates at
the southern end of the un-named creek just south of the existing Jordan homestead. At
this point the "western drainage" converges with Drainage 8 coming from the nOliheast
portion of the site.
Drainage Sub-Basin 8
This 281-acre sub-basin is a broad drainage located in the nOliheastern and central
portion of the overall basin. This sub-basin drains to a small un-named creek flowing
from northeast to southwest. This drainage has been refened to as the "eastern drainage"
with a creek length of approximately 3,400 feet and an approximate average creek
gradient of 3 percent. Sub-basin B tenninates at the southwest end of the drainage, at the
convergence of the "western drainage" and "eastern drainage".
Drainage Sub-Basin C
This 57-acre drainage area is located in the west-central portion of the site. The drainage
area contributing to this basin consists of the Jordan homestead and a small, shallow
valley draining nOliheast to southwest toward the southern end of the Jordan homestead.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
66
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
67
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7-¿ ðÖ
Sub-basin C drains to a short stretch of the un-named creek just south of the confluence
of the "eastern" and "western" drainages. Sub-basin C terminates where the un-named
creek flows under Fallon Road approximately 2,400 feet north of the Fallon Road
interchange.
Drainage Sub-Basin D
This 578-acre drainage area occupies the remaining area of the overall EDPO drainage
basin and is located in the southeasterly and southern portions of the project. The sub-
basin drains generally to the south via mostly overland flow. The most pronounced
drainage corridor in Sub-basin D flows from north to south along existing Croak Road.
The runoff from this drainage and other minor drainages emerge from the southernmost
hills about 1,500 feet north of Interstate 580 and spills out across the flatter southern
portions of the site. Runoff eventually collects at the very southwest corner of the
property just north and east of the Fallon Road Interchange where it enters the double box
culvert flowing west under Fallon Road.
Sub-basin A, B, and C converge to flow into an open ditch along the east side of Fallon
Road. This ditch crosses under Fallon Road via a culvert at the tenninal point of Sub-
basin C and flows along the west side of Fallon Road for approximately 500 feet. At this
point the ditch enters another culvert and crosses back to the east side of Fallon Road
where an open ditch conveys the runoff south approximately 1,400 feet to the final
discharge point, the double 6 feet x 5 feet box culverts under Fallon Road.
2.3.3 METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA
The hydrology analysis was performed using the Corps of Engineers Flood Hydrology
package HEC-I. The methodology and criteria employed for the HEC-I calculations are
in accordance with the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's
(Zone 7) Hydrology and Hydraulics Criteria.
The County Method uses the Snyder unit hydrograph method. This is a two-parameter
method using lag and peaking factors for deriving the unit hydro graph. The 6-hour storm
was used as specified by Zone 7 County standards for areas less than 20 square miles.
Input parameters were derived based on "Hydrologic Modeling Evaluation Summary
RepOli for Alameda County, California" and infonl1ation provided by the County (Zone
7) as a part of the current drainage study for Special Drainage Area 7-1 (SDA 7-1).
Parameters used in this study include Initial Abstraction (II A), Infiltration Rate,
percentage impervious cover, lag time, base flow, and peaking factor (Cp). See Appendix
I-A for calculation of impervious area, base flow, uniform infiltration rate, and Snyder
lag time.
The Initial Abstract (VA) was set at 0.5 inches for the 100-year return period per County
(Zone 7) standards and was conservatively held at 0.5 inches for the 2-year and 10-year
retum period as well. The infiltration rate was derived based on soil type. The EDPO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.3 c)D
drainage basin soil types are predominantly Type C and Type D as determined from the
"Soil Survey Alameda Area, California" dated March 1966. Infiltration rates were
defined in accordance with the County's (Zone 7) study as follows:
. Type C Soil - 0.25 inches per hour
. Type D Soil- 0.09 inches per hour
Weighted area proportion was used to detennine the infiltration rate where variable soil
types were defined within a sub-basin. See Appendix I-C for the Soil Survey Map.
The base flow was set at I cubic feet per second (cfs) per square mile minus the percent
impervious cover within the sub-basin. Where impervious cover comprised less than I
percent of the total sub-basin area, it was considered insignificant and the base flow
remained at I cfs per square mile.
The percentage impervious cover for each sub-basin was derived in accordance with the
"Hydraulics Criteria Summary - Western Alameda." As in the case of the infiltration rate
detennination, weighted area proportion was used to derive the percent impervious cover
within a sub-basin.
The routing method used was the Muskingum~Cunge Routing Method with an assumed
trapezoidal channel shape for conveyance of flow in the existing creek and roadside ditch
between the confluence of Sub-basin A, B, &C and the downstream confluence with Sub-
basin D.
2.3.4 ANALYSIS SUMMARY
The Project Area watershed was first analyzed based on a hydro graph model of the
overall drainage basin. Then each sub-basin was analyzed individually based on its own
hydro graph model. The individual sub-basins were identified and modeled as tributary
areas collected by well-defined "creeks" or drainages and the Muskingum-Cunge routing
method was used to model the channel flows between the sub-basins. A summary of the
HEC-I Peak Flow results is presented in Table 2.2, below.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
68
-¡t t../ õb
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
69
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 2.2 Peak Flows by EDPO Sub-Basins and Storm Events
2-year 65 cfs 18 cfs 19 cfs 6 cfs
lO-year 294 cfs 65 cfs 88 cfs 22 cfs
100-year 556 cfs 116 cfs 164 cfs 40 cfs
42 cfs
35 cfs
77 cfs
174 cfs
163 cfs
335 cfs
318 cfs
309 cfs
625 cfs
The HEC-I hydro graph analysis provides data for the existing hydrologic conditions of
the site. Of particular interest were the prominent "eastern drainage" and "western
drainage" .
2.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section summarizes the results of an assessment-level study of cultural resources
within the Project Area, prepared by Basin Research Associates (2003).
2.4.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND
A cultural resource may be defined as a phenomenon associated with prehistory,
historical events or individuals or extant cultural systems. Resources may include
archaeological sites, districts and objects; standing historic structures, locations of
important historic events; and, places, objects and living or non-living things that are
important to the practice and continuity of traditional cultures. Cultural resources may
involve historic properties, traditional use areas, sacred resource areas, and cultural
landscapes.
CEQA requires a determination if a project will have a significant effect on
archaeological sites or a property of historic or cultural significance to a community or
ethnic group. A historical resource for purposes of CEQA compliance is defined as a
resource listed on or detennined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR). The CRHR lists properties that are to be protected from substantial
adverse change and includes properties, which are listed or have been formally
determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP),
State Historic Landmarks, and eligible Points of Historical Interest.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHP A) of 1966 (16 USC 470f)
and its implementing regulations, Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 800)
requires federal agencies, prior to implementing an "undertaking" (e.g., issuing a federal
permit/license), to consider the effects of the undertaking on historic properties and to
afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the State Historic
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i5ðÓ
Preservation Office (SHPO) a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking
that would adversely affect properties eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) in accordance with the listing criteria (36 CFR Part 60.4).
Section II O( d)(6)(A) of the NHP A allows properties of traditional religious and cultural
importance to a tribe to be determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
The Dublin General Plan Amendment Archaeological And Historic Resources Guiding
Policies (Dublin 1985/2002:61) consist of: (A) Preserve Dublin's historic structures, and
(B) Follow State regulations -- Public Resources Code Section 2108.2 regarding
discovery of archaeological sites, and Historical Resources, as defined in Section 5020.1
of the Public Resources Code. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (WR&T 1998:Section
6.3.3, pp. 70-71) recommends preservation of archaeological and historic resources
whenever feasible. Four policy statements are presented and an Action Program for
cultural resources is provided:
Policies
Archaeological Resources
6-24 The presence and significance of archaeological or historic resources will
be detem1ined, and necessary mitigation programs formulated, prior to
development approvals for any of the sites identified in the cultural
resource survey prepared for this plan.
6-25 The discovery of historic or prehistoric remains during grading and
constmction will result in the cessation of such activities until the
significance and extent of those remains can be ascertained by a certified
archaeologist.
Historical Resources
6-26 All properties with historic resources which may be impacted by future
development shall be subjected to in-depth archival research to detem1ine
the significance of the resource prior to any alteration.
6-27 Where the disruption of historic resources is unavoidable, encourage the
adaptive re-use or restoration of historic structures (such as the old school
house, several bams and Victorian residences currently in the area) whenever
feasible. I
Action Program
Program 6P: The City of Dublin shall require the following actions as part of the
application process for development within eastern Dublin.
Note: these properties are outside of the present project area but are within the boundary defined for
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
70
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
71
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
/0°6
Site Sensitivity
Based on the first stage cultural resource survey of the area conducted as
background for the Plan, the City will make a determination of whether the
subject site has been identified as having prehistoric or historic resources
potentially located on it.
Research
For those sites with potential resources, a second level of detailed research and
field reconnaissance will be required to determine the level of archaeological or
historical significance. This research will be the responsibility of the
development applicant, and be conducted by a qualified archaeologist. The
research will be consistent with the guidelines for prehistoric and historic
resources provided in the cultural resources survey prepared for eastern Dublin.
Mitigation
For those sites that contain significant resources, a mitigation plan must be
developed which is consistent with the policies in this Specific Plan and current
CEQA guidelines concerning cultural resources.
2.4.2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Regional Context
Cultural resources are traces of human occupation and activity. In northern California,
cultural resources extend back in time for at least 9000·11,500 years with Native
American occupation and use of the Tri- Valley area extending over 5000-8000 years and
possibly longer. The general study area would have provided a favorable environment
during the prehistoric period with a variety of ecological niches available for resource
exploitation. A large willow marsh southeast of the City of Dublin and northwest of the
City of Pleasanton, various creeks, and seasonal water courses and associated small
basins and other slight topographic depressions were foci of prehistoric occupation in the
study area (e.g., Thompson and West 1878:52). Native American groups exploited a
variety of ecological niches on the low grasslands of the alluvial plain dotted with spting-
fed marshes and basins and the adjacent foothills. Native American occupation sites in
the study area appear to have been selected for accessibility, protection from seasonal
flooding, and the availability of resources. Archaeological information suggests a slow
steady increase in the prehistoric population over time with an increasing focus on
penn anent settlements with large populations in later periods. This change from hunter-
collectors to an increased sedentary lifestyle is due both to more efficient resource
procurement as well as a focus on staple food exploitation, the increased ability to store
food at village locations, and the development of increasing complex social and political
systems including long-distance trade networks. Prehistoric site types recorded in the
region consist of lithic scatters, qualTÌes, habitation sites (including burials), bedrock
mortars or other milling feature sites, petroglyph sites, and isolated burial sites.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
771f6
The project area was occupied by aboriginal inhabitants of the group known as the
Chochenyo of the "Costanoan". Costanoan is derived from the Spanish word Costanos
("coast people" or "coastal dwellers") who occupied the central California coast as far
east as the Diablo Range (Kroeber 1925:462; Hart 1987:112-113)? The closest
Costanoan tribelet was the sewnen (EI Valle) centered near Livermore (Bennyhoff
1977:Map 2; Levy 1978:485). Milliken (1995:251, 254-255; 1997) notes a number of
Costanoan groups in the general project vicinity. The Souyen (Ssouyen) were the closest
to the project and held the north side of the marsh that once existed in the western
Livermore Valley and area north up the Tassajara Creek drainage into the southern
foothills of Mount Diablo. Other groups in the general study area include the Seunen on
the north side of the Livennore Valley with their main village within present-day San
Ramon or alternatively, present-day Dublin; the Pelnen, who held the western part of the
Livermore Valley around present-day Pleasanton to no farther north than Dublin and
SQuth to the canyon leading to the Sunol Valley; and, the Ssaoam, in the dry hills and tiny
valleys around Brushy Peak and Altamont Pass. .
Spanish explorers in the late 1760s and 1770s were the first Europeans to transverse the
San Francisco Peninsula and interior areas. The expeditions of Pedro Fages and Father
Crespi in 1772 and Anza and Font in 1776 went through the study area (Beck and Haase
1974:#17; Fink 1966:18; Brown 1994:2). Pedro Fages, accompanied by Fray Juan
Crespi, led the first notable expedition in the project area vicinity in 1772. Portions of
Interstate Highway 680 and Foothill Road approximate the lower portion of this trail.
The other more traveled route crossed the Livennore Valley and passed through the hills
into the San Joaquin Valley (Hoover et al. 1966:5-6, 17). After an initial period of
exploration, the Spanish focused on the founding of presidios, missions, and secular
towns with the land held by the Crown (1769-1821) whereas the later Mexican (1822-
1848) policy stressed individual ownership of the land. Baptismal Records indicate
Mission San Jose had the greatest impact on the aboriginal population living in the
project area followed by Mission San Francisco (Hmi 1987; Milliken 1995, 1997).
During the Mexican Period (1822-1848) and into the American Period, the southern part
of the project was situated in the Rancho Santa Rita and the northern part was ungranted.)
None of Hispanic Period known dwellings or features were located within or adjacent to
the project. Rancho Santa Rita was granted to Jose Dolores Pacheco by Governor
Alvarado in April 1839 and patented to him in March 1865 (Dyer 1862:N.D. #119;
Hendry and Bowman 1940:615-617 and map; Hoover et at. 1966:19). The project area
The tenn Costanoan, as applied by anthropologists, does not imply the existence of a politically
unified entity, but rather, refers to different groups of people who shared similar cultural traits and
belonged to the same linguistic family. An estimated 200+ persons of partial Costanoan descent
currently reside in the greater San Francisco Bay Area; these individuals now generally prefer the
term Ohlone to the anthropologists' Costanoan (Galvan 1967/68; A. Galvan, personal
communication 1990).
The ungranted portions of the project area are located in T 2S R IE, northern 1/2 of Section 34 and
all of Sections 27 and 35; USGS 1980 Livermore).
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
72
1~ o-ö
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
73
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
was probably used for livestock grazing as well as for raising cattle for tallow and hides,
the major economic pursuits of California during the Hispanic Period.
The Mount Diablo coalfields were discovered in 1852, the Tesla/Corral Hollow finds
were discovered in 1855 and exploited in the 1850s-1880s, the Livermore Coal Mines
were discovered in 1873, and the Black Diamond Mines area was active between 1859-
1907 and ca. 1910-1951. The development of rail and road transportation networks to
service industry and agriculture was crucial to the development of the periphery of
Contra Costa County and the Amador and Livermore valleys. Still later, the development
of the refrigerated railroad car (ca. 1880s), used for the transport of agricultural produce
to distant markets, had a major impact on population growth. The agricultural land use
pattern begun in the Hispanic Period and reinforced in the American Period continued
through World War II. In recent decades this agrarian land-use pattern has been
displaced by rapid urban growth in the Amador and Livermore valleys (Wood 1883;
Oakland Tribune 1898:136; Bums 1975; Mosier 1978,1983; Hart 1987; Praetzellis 1992;
Bazar 1993).
Project Area
The 1857 Higley Official Map of the County of Alameda California and Dyer's 1862 Plat
of the Santa Rita Rancho show the "Road from Hayward's to Stockton" south of the
project and 1-580. The 1862 Dyer Plat of the Santa Rita Rancho and the 1852-1865
Government Land Office (US/BLM or GLO) survey plat for the non-rancho portion (pati
Sections 27, 34-25 of T 2S R I E) of the project shows no roads or structures. By at least
1874, the project area had been subdivided and the precursor to present-day U.S.50/I-580
south of the project was in place. The Rancho Santa Rita portions of the project were
owned by Thomas Kelly, William Knox, and A.M. Church. The SE 1/4 of Section 27 T
2S R I E was owned by William M. Johnson, the SW 1/4 by William McDaniel; the NW
1/4 of Section 34 by W.J. Fallon; and, the NE 1/4 by G. McDaniel. Within Section 35,
the SW 1/4 was owned by R. Croak (namesake of Croak Road); the NW l/4 by R. Bryon;
the NE 1/4 by 1. O'Hara; and the SE 1/4 by Thomas Clark. Unnamed stream tributaries
flowed from within the project south to Positas Creek (Arroyo las Positas) and westward
into the Willows Marsh south and west of Tassajara Creek (Allardt 1874).4
By 1878, some ownership had changed and three structures were located along the
unpaved future alignment of Fallon Road. Two structures were located in the project
within the former Rancho Santa Rita: one within the 320-acre William Knox (parcel
bounded by 1-580 on the south) and the other further north within the 353.83-acre
Thomas Kelly and Brothers parcel [possibly recorded as ?CA-Ala-508/H]. The third
structure was located north of the former rancho within a 160-acre parcel owned by W.J.
Fallon (SE corner ofthe NW 1/4 of Section 34 T2S RIE). The 1880 Oakland Daily &
Weekly Tribune Map of Alameda County map and the 1896 Nusbaumer Map of Murray
4
The Preliminary InventOlY of Historical Resources: Eastern Alameda County lists the Lincoln
Highway (Old U.S. 50) as a probable Primary Resource (Bazar 1993:#60).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7q õtJ
Township shows some changes in parcel ownership (US/BLM or GLO 1852-1865;
Allardt 1874; Higley 1857; Goddard 1857; Dyer 1862; Thompson and West 1878:52).
A review of the available USGS topographic map series shows limited development in
the project area over the past 80 years. The 1906 USGS Pleasanton quadrangle map,
surveyed in 1904, shows the alignment of Fallon Road, but not Croak Road. At the time,
a road proceeded west from Doolan Road to a structure within the SW 1/4 of Section 35
ofT 2S R IE. Another two structures were located along the east side of unpaved Fallon
Road within the fOlmer Rancho Santa Rita and two, possibly three were located further
north along unpaved Fallon Road. Croak Road appears by 1940 and had two structures,
which are situated in the vicinity of structures shown on the 1980 USGS. The 1940 and
1943 US War Department topographic maps show no structures along Fallon Road. The
1940 map shows a single structure on a short unpaved road west of Croak Road in about
the same location as the buildings on noted on the 1953, 1961, and 1980 quadrangle
maps. The buildings/building clusters on the 1980 quadrangle map are comparable to the
1953 map. While the number of buildings increased within clusters or nearby, only a
single new building location along Fallon Road about 0.25 mile north of Croak Road had
been built between 1961 and 1980 USGS 1906 [surveyed in 1904],1953,1961,1980; US
War Dept 1940, 1943).
The Preliminary Inventory of Historical Resources: Eastern Alameda County includes
the East Dublin/Doolan Canyon (ED/DC) subarea in the study area and specifically refers
to Doolan Canyon Road located about 0.5 miles to the east of the project area. Doolan
Canyon Road is remarked upon for being ". . . lined with a number of ranches and rural
residences" (Bazar 1993). Doolan Canyon, was named for Michael Doolan, a famler and
stock raiser, who settled in this canyon in 1871. Prior to Doolan, the canyon was locally
known as Cottonwood Canyon (Mosier and Mosier 1986:30; USGS 1906).
2.4.3 METHODS
A prehistoric and historic site record and literature search for the project was completed
by the California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest InfonnatÍon
Center, CSU Sonoma, Rohnert Park (CHRIS/NWIC File No. 03-194 dated September 25,
2003). Reference materials from the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley
and materials on file at Basin Research Associates were also reviewed.
Specialized listings consulted include the Historic Properties Directory for Alameda
County (CALlOHP 2003a) with the most recent updates of the National Register of
Historic Places, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical
Interest as well as other evaluations of properties reviewed by the State of California
Office of Historic Preservation. Other sources consulted include: The California History
Plan (CALlOHP 1973); California Inventory of Historic Resources (CALlOHP 1976);
Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California (CALlOHP 1988); and, Historic Civil
Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern California (American Society of
Civil Engineers 1977) and other local and regional surveys/inventories and lists.
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted in regard to
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties ~ DRAFT July 2, 2004
74
ßO~
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
75
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
resources listed on the Sacred Lands Inventory twice (Busby 2003b). This review was
negative (Pilas-Treadway 2003b). The NAHC was also contacted with negative results
for the nearby FallonlI-580 project (Busby 2001a, 2003a; Pilas-Treadway 2001, 2003a).
Other reports and sections of reports reviewed included the: Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan Studies. Environmental Setting: Work Task #9 (Wallace,
Robert & Todd (WR&T) [with various including Holman & Associates, Cultural
Resources] 1988); Section 3.9 Cultural Resources in the DRAFT Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (WR&T 1992);
and, Mitigation Monitoring Plan: Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan
Amendment (WR&T 1993).
A systematic field inventory of the project area was not completed. Various areas have
been previously subject to archaeological inventory (Figure 2.12). Portions of the area
along the western and southern boundaries were driven by Dr. Colin I. Busby who noted
the presence of an early 20th century ranch complex in Section 34 known locally as the
Fallon House. No attempt was made to relocate any of the resources noted by earlier
researchers.
2.4.4 PROJECT AREA FINDrNGS
This report was prepared to identify potentially significant archaeological, Native
American, and/or architectural properties listed or eligible for the California Register of
Historical Resources within or immediately adjacent to the proposed project.
. No listed, detenllined or pending archaeological sites, significant local, state or
federal historic properties, landmarks, etc. have been identified in or adjacent to
the Eastern Dublin project area.
. No known prehistoric, ethnographic or contemporary Native American resources,
including villages, known trails, sacred places, traditional or contemporary use
areas, have been identified in or adjacent to the project.
Several archaeological sites and potential archaeological and historic architectural sites
have been identified in the proposed project and are reviewed below.
Cultural Resources Sensitivity
The project area has been assigned "high" and "moderate" archaeological sensitivity
ratings on planning study maps compiled for Alameda County in the mid-1970s. The
"high" area includes the entire Rancho Santa Rita portion of the Eastern Dublin project
and a small area north of the rancho to about the midpoint through of Section 34 T 2S R
I E (Quaternary Research Group 1976) (Figure 2.12).
Compliance and Other Reports
Six cultural resources reports on file at the CHRIS/NWIC include the Eastern Dublin
project area or immediately adjacent areas (Holman 1985/S-7380; Cartier I 982/S-4924;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8J~
Wiberg 1984/8-7105; Holman 1985/8-7376; Holman 1985/8-7379; Wiberg et al. 1998/8-
20335) (Figure 2.12). These reports provide the results of archaeological field
inventories, which include portions of the Eastern Dublin project area. All of the
surveys, with the exception of Wiberg (1984/8-7105), were negative; Wiberg noted the
presence of the Collier Canyon Ranch in the southeastern part of the project area.
In addition, a report not on file with the CHRI8/NWIC or available is pertinent.5 Holman
& Associates conducted a survey of portions of the project area in July 1988. This
survey excluded area surveyed previously by Holman & Associates.6 A "mixed general
and intensive survey strategy" was undertaken in areas of more likely prehistoric or
historic occupation (transect intervals not provided). Areas with steep slopes, exposed to
wind, and lacking water were surveyed at 200-foot transect intervals where possible or en
route to other more sensitive areas (WR&T 1988:88-93).
In addition, available Environmental Site Assessments were consulted (Engeo
Incorporated 2000c, d, and e; KCE Matrix 2000; Eckland Consultants 2001).7
Cultural Resources Identified
CA-Ala-508/H has been recorded within the project area. No recorded cultural resources
are adjacent to the project area (CHRIS/NWIC File No. 03~ 194). Five non-recorded
cultural resources have been reported but not recorded. The Collier Canyon Ranch is in
the southeastem pmi of the project area (Wiberg (1984). Two Potentially Significant
Historic Resources and two isolated archaeological finds are also present (see Holman &
Associates in WR&T 1988) (Figure 2.12).
6.3A Recorded Cultural Resources
CA-Ala-S08/H, the 4J Ranch Site, consists of a combined prehistoric/historic site
located on the west side on an intennittent spring fed drainage on the east side of
Fallon Road about 0.5 mile nOlih of 1-580, just south of the 4J Ranchhouse (south of
a cluster of three buildings).8 The prehistoric component includes ". . . mortar,
pestle and nutting stone fragments; J possible tabular abrader; several
hammerstones; and scant amounts of chert and quartzite chipped stone waste and
two possible assayed petrified wood cobbles". In addition traces of shell and
possible fire cracked rock were observed and ". . . an archaeological deposit midden"
appeared to be present. The site was attributed to probable seasonal task-specific use
Miley Holman, personal communication October 17, 2003; unable to locate and provide copy.
6
(e.g., Wiberg 1984/S-7105; Holman 1985/S-7376; Holman 1985/S-7379; Wiberg et al. 1998/S-
20335).
With the exception of the Jordan property.
Only two buildings on the 1980 USGS Livermore (built after 1961) which may conform to two
buildings on the 1953 USGS and one on the 1906 USGS (surveyed 1904).
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
76
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
77
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"'3 å- ð-b
focusing on seed processing (milling). During the historic era, the site has been used
as pasture/corral and a light scatter of historic artifacts was also observed (Doty et al.
1988; WR&T 1988:90). The 1878 Thompson and West Atlas of Alameda County
shows a structure on the east side of an unpaved road (now present-day Fallon Road)
within the 353.83-acre Thomas Kelly and Brothers parcel about midpoint within the
S 1/2 of Section 34, T 2S R IE. This structure appears to confonn to the
approximate location of CA-Ala-508/H.
Reported Unrecorded Cultural Resources
Early 20th ranch complex: Field review of the building cluster in Section 34 noted
the presence of what appears to be an intact, early 20th century ranch complex with a
house, barns and other structures (locally referred to as the Fallon House). The
resource appears eligible for the California Register. The resource has not been
formally identified and evaluated.
Collier Canyon Ranch -- "a horseback training/equestrian ranch complex --
consisting of a number of residential structures, stables, large horse corral areas and
other related facilities" was noted in the southeast comer of the project by Wiberg
(1984:3/S-7105). A review of the available USGS series does not show the
structure/structures on the USGS 1906; it appears on US War Dept 1940 (but not
1943), and also appears on the 1953, 1961, and 1980 USGS quadrangle maps.
EDGPA E (H&A #E)9 [Potentially Significant Historic Resource], a barn, identified
as " . . . possibly from no earlier than the 1940s, the barn is associated with a scatter
of glass from that period" (same location as Isolate #3, an isolated sandstone m011ar;
see below). The available map series supports this date of attribution. The barn does
not appear on the 1906 USGS, 1940 or 1943 US War Dept quadrangle maps; appears
on the 1953 USGS, but not the 1961; is again shown on the 1980 USGS map.
EDGPA F (H&A #F) [Potentially Significant Historic Resource], the F. Croak
Ranch/Homestead complex observed in 1988 included a house, barn, tack house,
privy and several outbuildings dating to the early 20th century. Integrity/condition is
described as "varying states". Historic maps provide some perspective. The 1874
Allardt and 1878 Thompson and West maps show that "F. Croak" owned the 160-
acre parcel consisting of the SW 1/4 of Section 35, T 2S R 3E. "P. Croak" is shown
as the later owner (Tribune 1880; Nusbaumer 1896). A structure at this location also
appears to be mapped on the 1906 USGS topographic map (surveyed in 1904) and at
the time was accessed by an unpaved proceeding west from paved Doolan Canyon
Road. By the late 1930s the structure/complex was accessed by present-day Croak
Road and was situated on the west side of the road. 10 A single structure is illustrated
on the US War Dept 1940 and 1943 topographic maps and on the 1953 and 1961
9
Holman and Associates; Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment. Note owner names on figure.
10
Another structure was also at the head of the road, but not noted during the field survey (present on
the USGS in 1953, 1961, with two additional structures in 1980).
" .
I .It "Ä- -,. D
. t.' c-......... ...
t~ '" ""'o·~· '- .~J.)
1~7?~!¡
It;
Legend
.,.......
=.....: East Dublin Project Area
. Prehistoric Isolate
~:::: Historic Resource
C:·:.J Parcel
fZJ Archaeological Site (NWIC)
~ Intensive or General Coverage (Holman 1988)
D S-reports
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5-7379
5-20335
(\'/>
(',. \t, )
( \. \,
I (" ',," ,/
,~>,(' ''è"l .;;.
l ... .
l, \.. --; (
\ "j .
"'~C ~ '\j/'~
. 1 ì /1\
I '....,,\ ¡I ,
''--. ,~) ,
r')
,-,
} "
I
,'-,
"
" \
.,
1 ('.
'./\ '-ill
',,_/
:;, ..._,7 ,
C~-,....../-l'·"
: ,i?'/
, ,
·';';:~~~L._ ,:
'" / /'--'(;~---
~ \, r '~D~
j -..J
~':Jl.ANC.
~
~
J"',
I'
~¡,
,- '. ....~
" ':,...;'r-:;~:r:i" ~ r
:::J ;:) - ' /, ,-.,.---', I'
~ ~ ~-.-/ ,II' Þ
::;;.~.,~(} t
<:( I;Q '-,
.J':-F-'
f)·)r:-; ".' , ,,,. ,.' ,.' "~~" "
"'~ ii:'fi~lt¡
- .'j"I"-'
; ,III: ':
·~DitN'!:."-'~
In",,,,, I
. ,*11,_1'
- S=-S9!P,
i
.,:' \
,-' ...
\ ,......I---.....-fLJt
'...,..,/
..
I :¡¿"~~...........--,--~..,..",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-,~,,, '-----,
,'/~'~ ' "
·."~/'.··"""'·"'~·"<·I" --""'-4; ~
~:"".' \'~;¡:;::;::;~7':;;;';;::;'=.:' ,,,,~2:...f!..,~
'n'~~!,="
/" ",,--... ~...J -~~--: . ,.. J
5-8893
~: r '
:'! J
.'.';'-': ~~.~
\ ..
\\
IL ~,'", ',\;",',','"
'V [þ.\ \
A I"f'QYV
I
I
I
I
Cultural Resource Report Prepared by:
Basin Research Associates, Inc.
1933 Davis Street, Suite 210
San Leandro, CA 94577
$
Figure 2.12
Cultural Resources
East Dublin Properties
Resoure Management Plan
Dublin, California
Em
1 :24,000 July 2004
1 inch equals 0.38 miles
matlandl Researc:hAuoc1atfl.lnc.
This document not intended for detail design work.
USGS topographic quadrangle used as basemap
2169-G East Francisco Blvd,
San Rafael, CA 94901
(415) 454-8868 Phone
(415) 454-0129 Fax
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'340b
USGS topographic maps. Two other structures both dating at least prior to 1961 and
separated by an intennittent drainage are shown on the 1980 USGS topographic map.
Isolated Finds
Two isolated prehistoric artifacts have been noted within the project area but have
not been found in association with any other prehistoric attributes.
EDGP A 2 (H&A Isolate #2), an exhausted chert core, midden probably not present.
EDGPA 3 (H&A Isolated #3), a complete sandstone mortar recovered from the edge
of a graded ranch road, near a historic barn; no midden observed (WR&T 1988:92).
Potential for Other Sites
6.4A Prehistoric Sites
The potential for the presence of buried prehistoric sites with undisturbed or partially
undisturbed cultural deposits appears high adjacent to or in the near vicinity of fresh
water sources such as Tassajara Creek, Arroyo Mocho and the Arroyo de la
Laguna/Willow Marsh, and Cottonwood Creek south of the project area. The sensitivity
of these areas has been confinned by the exposure of major prehistoric archaeological
sites and other isolated cultural materials in the past 30-50 years in the area one mile to
the south of the southern project boundary.
However, the general absence of recorded and known prehistoric archaeological
resources in the project area as well as its location away from the fonner marsh area and
Arroyo lvlocho appears to suggest that the potential for additional surface and buried
archaeological sites is quite low.
6.4B Historic Era Sites
No Hispanic Era resources have been identified in the project and there appears to be
little potential for these resources.
A review of the 19th and early 20th century maps suggest some potential for previously
unrecorded American Era historic era sites. Three structures were located in the project
area along what would become Fallon Road by 1878. At least one structure was within
the 320-acre William Knox (parcel bounded by 1-580 on the south). One structure was
further north within the 353.83-acre Thomas Kelly and Brothers parcel [possibly CA~
Ala-508/H]; and, one was within the 160-acre parcel owned by W.J. Fallon (Thompson
and West 1878:52. The available USGS series also shows limited development in the
project area. The 1906 USGS Pleasanton quadrangle map, shows that structures appear
to have been located along unpaved Fallon Road: two along the east side of the road
within the former Rancho Santa Rita and two, or possibly three, further north of the
rancho. II No .indications of these potential sites were noted during previous field surveys
(e.g., Holman and Associates in WR&T 1988) although a field review of the building
II
This early USGS quadrangle map shows a road west from Doolan Road to a structure within the SW
1/4 of Section 35 ifn RlE which conforms to #F Croak.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties ~ DRAFT July 2, 2004
79
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
80
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'ßÇ~
cluster in Section 34 noted the presence of what appears to be an intact, early 20th century
ranch complex with a house, barns and other structures (locally referred to as the Fallon
House).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~Lo D-O
3. PROJECT AREA ANALYSES AND PLANNING
This purpose of this section is to present the resource analysis, site planning, and impact
evaluation methods associated with the development of a Site Opportunities Map.
Section 3.1 discusses each potential constraint separately (biological, physical, cultural,
land use), Section 3.2 describes the process used in developing the Site Opportunities
Map, and Section 3.3 describes the anticipated impacts and mitigation measures
associated with the Site Opportunities Map.
3.1 CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS
3.1.1 INTRODUCTION
Based on the biological, physical and regulatory features of the Project Area described in
detail in Chapter 2, a "constraints" analysis was developed. In the context of this RMP,
the term "constraints" refers generally to a broad array of potential restrictions on
development. In some cases, the constraint is absolute. One example is the City's
development elevation cap - no development may occur at an elevation higher than 770
feet. In other cases, the constraint is not absolute. For example, the presence of
threatened or endangered species in certain parts of the Project Area does not necessarily
prohibit development there, but instead means that careful consideration must be given to
the biological resource, including potential impacts and mitigation, and certain state and
federal resource agency pemlits that will be required which could restrict development in
certain locations.
An opportunities and constraints analysis was conducted to apply the findings of the
Resource Assessment (Section 2) by mapping them through an "overlaying" of different
types of physical and especially biological resource constraints. The purpose of the
analysis was to prepare an array of land planning oppOliunities that looked at varying
levels of resource retention and development potential. This analysis also provides the
City of Dublin an illustration of various potential options for development, which, in the
case of the Project Area, range from almost total retention of biological and physical
resources to nearly complete elimination of those resources and their replacement by
urban land use designations. In the latter instance, the loss of biological resources on site
would be mitigated off site in accordance with the requirements of SM-BIO-I.
For the East Dublin RMP studies, several types of constraints have been identified. These
constraint types include:
I. Biological, hydrological and regulatory factors ~ sensitive plant and special-status
species, hydrology and regulated habitat.
2. Land use and planning factors - such as the development elevation cap (770 feet),
the scenic viewshed overlooking the 580 corridor, and the City of Dublin's
requirements for a recreational trail.
3. Infrastructure and engineering - utility easements and projected road easements
detennined by existing development.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
81
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
82
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"'8 ï L';'Ö
4. Geological factors - notably soil erosion and landslide susceptibility.
5. Cultural! Archaeological resources.
In the context of this study, biological constraints have the greatest influence on and
importance to the site planning process at EDPO, while geological, land use,
engineering/infrastructure and cultural resource constraints are relatively low since they
can be fairly easily mitigated or have a lower priority.
3.1.2 REGULATORY POLICIES
Applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations that address the protection of
special status plant and animal species and sensitive vegetation types (including wetlands,
riparian plant communities, and trees) are described below. Regulations and policies that
address cultural and physical resources are also mentioned.
3.1.2.1 Federal Regulations
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et sea. ). Through the federal Endangered
Species Act and its simplementing regulations., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) designates and provides protection for threatened and endangered plants and
animals and their critical habitat. "Take" of federally listed wildlife is prohibited unless
authorized by the USFWS. Also, federal agencies are prohibited from undertaking,
funding or approving projects whîch will jeopardize the continued existence of any listed
species. Private projects which require a federal permit, such as a wetland fill pennit
from the Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, are subject
to Section 7 of the ESA. Under Section 7, the federal "action agency" (e.g., the Corps)
first detennines whether the project may affect listed species, or designated critical
habitat for such species. If so, the action agency initiates "fonnal consultation" with the
USFWS. In turn, the USFWS develops a Biological Opinion specifying whether the
project will result in "jeopardy" to the species in question. "Jeopardy opinions"
recommend reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project that will not jeopardize the
continued existence of the species. "Non-jeopardy opinions" recommend reasonable and
prudent measures to minimize species impacts, and authorize "incidental take" of listed
wildlife species subject to applicable tenns and conditions.
Clean Water Act. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of fill
material into "waters of the U.S." Such fill requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. The tenn "waters of the U.S." includes, among other things, interstate
waters, waters (including rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands, and natural ponds) used for
interstate commerce, tributaries of such waters, and wetlands adjacent to such waters.
Some areas that meet the technical criteria for wetlands or waters may not be subject to
Corps jurisdiction, either because as a matter of discretion the Corps generally does not
regulate them (e.g., settling basins, wetlands formed as a result of irrigation, and/or
drainage ditches constructed in uplands), or because such features are "isolated" and not
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"2 <2 ':Jò
subject to the Clean Water Act pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Solid Waste
Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
(531 U.S. 159 (2001)). Isolated waters are defined as those that are not hydrologically
connected or adjacent to a jurisdictional "waters of the U.S." and do not otherwise exhibit
an interstate commerce connection.
The placement of fill into "waters of the U.S.", including wetlands, is regulated by the
Corps. Small scale fill projects can generally be covered under the Corps' Nationwide
Pennit program; larger scale impacts may require an Individual Permit, which requires
public review and a detailed project alternatives analysis. The Corps has a policy of "no
net loss" of wetlands.
Migratorv Bird Treaty Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBT A) implements
international treaties between the United States and other nations devised to protect
migratory birds, any of their parts, eggs, and nests from activities such as hunting,
pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and shipping, unless expressly authorized in the
regulations or by permit.
National HistOlic Preservation Act (NHP A) of 1966 (16 USC 470f). Section 106 of the
NHP A and its implementing regulations, Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part
800) requires federal agencies, prior to implementing an "undertaking" (e.g., issuing a
federal penllit/license), to consider the effects of the undertaking on historic properties
and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) a reasonable opportunity to comment on any
undertaking that would adversely affect properties eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in accordance with the listing criteria (36 CFR Part
60.4). Section 110(d)(6)(A) of the NHPA allows properties of traditional religious and
cultural importance to a tribe to be determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
3.1.2.2 State Regulations and Policies
California Environmental Oualitv Act (CEQA) of 1970 (Public Resources Code Section
21000-21177). CEQA and its implementing Guidelines establish requirements and
procedures for State and local-agency review of the environmental effects of projects
within their jurisdiction requiring a discretionary approval. Under CEQA, a project may
have a significant impact if it has the potential to threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community. The California Department of Fish and Game maintains a list of plant
communities considered to be sensitive, significant or rare in its Natural Diversity
Database. In addition, county, city and other local plans may also define sensitive plant
communities, impacts to which should be addressed under CEQA. Analysis of impacts
to cultural resources and physical resources including water quality, hydrology and
geology are also required under CEQA.
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code && 2050 et seq.)
Under CESA, California designates and provides protection for threatened and
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties ~ DRAFT July 2, 2004
83
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
84
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'3Qùb
endangered species of plants and animals. "Take" of CESA listed species is prohibited
unless authorized in a permit issued by the Department of Fish and Game.
Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (Fish and Game Code §§ 1900 et seq.) The Native
Plant Protection Act gives the CDFG authority to designate state Endangered,
Threatened, and Rare plants and provides specific protection measures for identified
populations. Sensitive species that would qualify for listing but are not currently listed
are afforded protection under CEQA.
California Lake and Streambed Alteration Notification/Agreement (Fish and Game Code
§§ 1600 et seq). The Department of Fish and Game regulates diversions or obstructions
of the natural flow of, or changes to or the use of any material from the bed, channel or
bank of, any river, lake or stream. Section 1602 requires advance notification to DFG
prior to any such activities occurring. The Department reviews the proposed actions and,
if necessary, submits to the applicant a proposal for measures to protect affected fish and
wildlife resources. The final proposal that is mutually agreed upon by the CDFG and the
applicant is the Streambed Alteration Agreement.
Section 401 Water Oualitv Certification. Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act
provides each state with the opportunity to ensure that federally approved projects do not
violate state water quality standards. In California, this task is perfonned by the Regional
Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). Thus, projects requiring a U.S. Almy Corps
of Engineers Section 404 pennit must also obtain a "40 I certification" (or wai vel' thereof)
from the R WQCB. If a proposed project does not require a federal pennit, but does
involve activities that may result in a discharge to "Waters of the State", the RWQCB
may regulate the project under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, which may
involve the issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements.
Other Species Statutes in the Califomia Fish and Game Code. Sections 3511, 4700,
5050, and 5515 of the California Fish and Game Code outline protection for fully-
protected species of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, and fish. Species that are
fully protected by these sections may not be taken or possessed at any time. The CDFG
cannot issue pennits or licenses that authorize the "take" of any fully protected species,
except under certain circumstances such as scientific research and live capture and
relocation of such species pursuant to a pennit for the protection of livestock.
3.1.2.3 Local Regulations, Policies and Plans
Dublin Heritag:e Tree Ordinance (Citv of Dublin Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.72:4
r revised 11/021). This ordinance states that existing mature Bay, Cypress, Maple, Oak,
Redwood, and Sycamore trees shall be preserved in zoning districts if they are over 24
inches in diameter measured 4 feet 6 inches above natural grade. However, trees meeting
the above criteria may be removed on a limited basis with the pennission of the Director
upon submittal of an Arborist's report which detennines that the tree is in poor health and
not likely to survive; if the trees constitute a high fire hazard or a threat to persons,
structures, or property; or, if they impede public works projects. Trees to be removed
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
qOðò
shall be shown on the Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan and detailed on a tree
inventory chart on that plan.
City of Dublin General Plan (adopted Februarv 11. 1985~ updated November 5. 2002).
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (January 7. 1994: updated June 6. 1998) and Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment (Januarv 7. 1994). These documents provide goals and
guidance regarding preservation of natural, cultural, and hydrological resources through
policies that prescribe development strategies and restrict certain development activities.
Representative policies include prioritizing the preservation of riparian habitats and
maintaining protective corridors, maintaining natural hydrologic systems, restricting
development on slopes over 30 percent, and restricting urban development to areas below
the 770-foot elevation contour.
3.1.3 BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS
The biological resource constraints reflect both the presence of special-status species
and/or aquatic features, and the type and quality of habitat provided. The levels of
biological constraints (highly, moderately, or least constrained) are based on several
criteria:
1. The frequency of special-status species sightings and whether a habitat is for
breeding, upland, dispersal, or foraging habitat, etc.
2. The legal status ofthe species (i.e. federal endangered species are most sensitive).
3. The regulatory requirements and anticipated level of mitigation for impacts to the
noted resource (e.g., California red-legged frog, burrowing owl, San Joaquin
spearscale, etc.).
In the following subsections, the criteria are specified for seven individual types of
biological constraints, which are then presented on a composite figure to project these
combined constraints over the entire Project Area. Specifically, criteria were developed
for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, San Joaquin kit fox,
burrowing owls, rap tors, special-status plants, and aquatic features. Each of the criterion
discussions below is organized according to the significance of the resource, its
regulatory context, and the rationale for the constraints levels assigned. Biological
constraints described below are represented by four levels or categories:
· Highly Constrained
· Moderately Constrained
· Least Constrained
· Not Constrained (implicit category)
As a composite constraints tool to help guide site planning, a comprehensive biological
constraints map (Figure 3.1) was developed in order to overlay and integrate the most
significant of the biological constraints, particularly the California red-legged frog,
California tiger salamander. Since all of the constraints are merged, some biological
resources which are considered "not constrained" do not appear on the map as they are
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2,2004
85
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
86
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ql eo
overlapped by other constrained resources. In addition, the City's 770-foot development
elevation cap and the City's scenic view shed zone, which are absolute constraints
described further in Section 3.1.6, are also shown on Figure 3.1.
3.1.3.1 California Red-Legged Frog
The California red-legged frog is a federally-listed Threatened species and a state
Species of Special Concern. On-site California red-legged frog habitats include:
· Ponds - Provide breeding, aquatic and foraging habitats.
· Drainages - Provide seasonal aquatic habitat for foraging, overwintering, and
dispersal.
· Upland areas - Provide refugia for aestivation, as well as for foraging and
dispersal habitats.
In order to distinguish the constraint categories, criteria for highly, moderately, and least
constrained habitats are described by rationale and areas affected accordingly:
· Highly Constrained habitat consists of "occupied habitat," which includes
breeding habitat (known or potential; see Section 2) and adjacent upland habitat,
which is defined as the area within a 300-foot buffer from the edge(s) of ordinary
high water of the breeding habitat. The 300-foot buffer measured from the edge(s) of
ordinary high water of breeding habitat is based on the Final Rule for Critical Habitat
(USFWS 2001) and the Recovery Plan for the CalVornia Red-legged Frog (Rana
aurora draytonii) (USFWS 2002b). Although the CRLF critical habitat designation
was rescinded, then re-proposed and not yet finalized, it warrants consideration here
as it tends to reflect the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's view of CRLF habitat.
Highly constrained habitat also includes dispersal and overwintering habitat,
consisting of 300-foot wide linear aquatic corridors connecting breeding habitats.
The 300-foot wide corridor (ISO-feet as measured from ordinary high water of the
aquatic feature), between known or potential breeding habitat (less than 2 km apart)
that is free of barriers is defined as essential dispersal habitat in the Final Rule for
Critical Habitat (USFWS 200 I). In addition, riparian habitat is also included as highly
constrained for CRLF because it serves as a perennial water source during most years.
· Moderately Constrained habitat consists of areas that do not contain breeding
habitat, but provide potentially suitable foraging, overwintering, and dispersal habitat.
This constitutes habitat where California red-legged frogs have not been detected
during focused surveys, but are adjacent to highly constrained habitat areas and may
potentialiy be used for foraging, overwintering, and dispersal. These include Drainage
B, and two side drainages to C . Moderately constrained areas include a 300-foot
wide corridor, measured as a ISO-foot buffer from the edge(s) of ordinary high water.
· Least Constrained - Areas that support potential dispersal between on-site and
off-site breeding, overwintering, and upland aestivation habitats.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
»-"'"
""' :::::;
n "
3::..:.
p:. -.;.-
?- »-
~g
-0-
"C '"
"",0
_.0
"" 0
" --
..., -
0: ~
S~
(rQ --"
~ 9
" {/J
'" --
tI:ItI:IO
.....þ ~
o '" _
õŒ~
"" :oj '-
~ -. 1::.'1 c::
~~"?q:
:;:: 0- 3: '"
(¡). ~ ~ g
::'.::¡",-I'o
§ g ~
Co. ::::-,
'" g ¡<o
~~{J"J
'" '"
~ ~~
n n '"
or po ,
»-3"
~ @ g
g > Þ
öõ' ~ ~
ã g ?
öõ' (j
Œ>
o
~
( )
C/)
o
t::
(=3
( )
~
~
::;I
PJ
(JQ
S
( )
::;I
.......
V
t::
cr"
....
S'
>¡j
'""I
o
"'t::;;I
~
.......
( )
C/)
v
¡:::
cr"
....
p'
0>
PJ ....
=:~
~S
::3 8.-
....... ~
PJ 0
o
t::
::;I
:<
~
o
a
r='
-.
==
('tJ
~
~
_.
o
-
o
(JQ
-.
~
~
-
~ ~
2. ~
- "
~~
~ ¡;;
'è>'-,
:::~
~ r6
'" iíi
;;- ~
~ g,
S 2
:::.:.5
'" -
~"
~:=¡
"'Ç""
~. ~
~ ~
~
.þ.
o
o
(/)
()
>
r
tTJ
~
o
==
rIJ
'"'"
""t
~
-.
==
'"'"
rIJ
~
-.
(JQ
=
""t
('tJ
(,H
CD
o
o
$
II
00
o
q
....
::::
.....
N
o
o
:....
.
"""""
3
x
0-
>¡j
§
m
Tlo
( ) 0
$.
-
-
-
-
-
. I r-
: CD
.
.. cc
..
.. CD
""'""i "'1J r s: I
0 a CD 0 <5' ::s
"'0 ill 0... ::r C.
0 "'0 en
co CD ....... CD -<
...,
w ;::¡. () ill 0
'< 0 .......
"'0 CD 0
::r OJ :::::¡ -< :::::¡
0 en
() ....... en
c: ~. 0 .......
...,
0 :::::¡ :::::¡ 0 ill
0 0... CD :::::¡ :::::¡
:::::¡ ill 0... en CD
....... ::!. .......
..., 0...
0 CD ill
c: en :::::¡
...,
en CD
0...
"U
D I 0
(")
'<
()
(J) -.J 0
() -.J :J
CD 0 en
:::::¡ ...+
() m @
~ CD
< :J
CD ill r+
:E ~ CJ
0
en :::¡
::r
CD c:
0... :::¡
» CD
...,
CD
ill
tTJ
PJ
C/)
.......
I
~
",D.
~H~i
~H[Q
f"&:!'.~ 1'1
~H~ i
)( ~ ~~ R
P- õ"
J
5'
(I
(f)
'<
£
3
o
ro
G'
f/I
o
Q.
III
ro
f/I
,.--
r
o
_:E
¡S"
~[
"'n
~¡¡¡
&.~
~~
~~
~ 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
q"3 C)~b
3.1.3.2 California Tiger Salamander
The California tiger salamander is both a federally-proposed Threatened species and a
state Species of Special Concern. Like California red-legged frog, it is a significant
biological constraint factor for the Project Area. In order to distinguish the constraint
categories for California tiger salamander, criteria are presented as follows:
· Highly Constrained - Areas defined as breeding habitat (see Section 2) and
associated upland aestivation habitat extending 750-feet from the edge(s) of ordinary
high water of the breeding habitats. .
· Moderately Constrained - Areas defined by a second, larger upland aestivation
habitat buffer extending from the 750 foot delineation to 2,200 feet from breeding
habitat. This buffer is based on research conducted by Trenham (as described by the
Listing of the Central California Distinct Population Segment of the California Tiger
Salamander,' Proposed Rule 50 CFR Part 17, May 23, 2003) which documented
California tiger salamanders migrating up to 1,312 feet (400 meters) from their
breeding pond and migrating up to 2,200 feet (670 meters) between breeding ponds.
· Least Constrained - Remaining undeveloped upland areas within the Project
Area. This determination is based on research by Jennings and Hayes which indicates
that California tiger salamanders can move to aestivation sites up to 1.6 kilometers
from breeding ponds.
3.1.3.1 Burrowing Owl and Nesting Raptors
The western burrowing owl is a federal Species of Concern and a state Species of Special
Concern. Although burrowing owls have been observed on site, they are not considered
to be as significant a biological constraint as California red·legged frogs or California
tiger salamanders. Since the majority of the project area is considered potential nesting
habitat, and the location of occupied burrows can change annually, areas of moderate or
high constraint cannot be assigned. In addition, mitigation consists of avoiding burrows
during breeding season and passive relocation to burrows in mitigation areas. Therefore,
the entire project area is considered to be a least constrained area in regard to burrowing
owl habitat. The results of pre-construction surveys would determine the amount of
mitigation area necessary for any nesting owls within development areas.
In addition, several special-status raptors (birds of prey) have the potential to nest in trees
on site. Although mitigation for these species may be required, this is generally in the
form of pre-construction surveys and temporary avoidance until nesting young have
fledged; therefore, raptor habitat is considered a least constrained area.
3.1.3.3 San Joaquin Kit Fox
The San Joaquin kit fox is a federally~listed Endangered and State-listed Threatened
species. It is a negligible biological constraint factor for the Project Area due to its lack of
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
88
q~~
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
89
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
presence within the immediate project vicinity. San Joaquin kit fox are assumed to be
absent from
the Project Area for the following reasons:
. Lack ofsightings in the region I 2.
. Negative findings :trom the numerous surveys conducted over the past decade in
the immediate vicinity - particularly Dublin Ranch and North Livermore Valley (see
H. T. Harvey & Associates 1997a,b).
3.1.3.4 SpecialwStatus Plants
Special-status plant species present within the Project Area are Congdon's tarplant and
San Joaquin spearscale, both listed on the California Native Plant Society's List IB.
Although these plants have been observed on site, they are not considered to be as
significant a biological constraint as California red-legged frogs or California tiger
salamanders. Based on the regulatory status of these species, populations of these species
would be considered moderately constrained. However, since the majority of these plants
exist along drainages, which are highly constrained for CRLF, or in areas of moderately
constrained CTS habitat, the constraints from these plants are effectively absorbed by the
CRLF and CTS constraints. Therefore, a conservation area site design based on such a
constraints analysis would inherently evaluate and encompass these special status plants.
3.1.3.5 Aquatic Resources
Aquatic features at EDPO are generally seasonal in nature and consist of wetlands, ponds
and drainages (Section 2). Some of these features are home to California red-legged frogs
and California tiger salamanders, and are regulated by both federal and state resource
agencies. Based on the regulatory status and mitigation requirements/feasibility of these
features, such areas would be considered moderately constrained. However, since the
highest quality habitats are drainages and in ponds, which are highly constrained for
CRLF, or are wetlands and drainages that are already located in areas of highly or
moderately constrained CRLF and/or CTS habitat, the constraints from aquatic resources
are effectively absorbed by the more important CRLF and CTS constraints. Therefore, a
conservation area site design based on such a constraints analysis would inherently
evaluate and encompass these aquatic resources.
3.1.4 PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS
3.1.4.1 Geology and Soils
The Project Area can safely be developed for the proposed residential and non-residential
construction, based on the conclusions of geotechnical reports prepared for the project
12 A reference to local California Department ofFish and Game biologists believing that kit fox are present
in this area was cited in a biological opinion (cited as a Pers. Comm. with Sheila Larson, USFWS, letter
for Dublin Ranch); however, no evidence or reasons were presented to support this statement.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
q5 Ò),
L)
(see Section 2.1.1.2). Therefore, :geology and soil conditions within the Project Area are
not considered a constraint to site development.
As discussed in the referenced ENGEO, Inc. reports, expansive soils and excessive slopes
can be mitigated through proper design of foundations, pavements, underground
improvements and surface and subsurface drainage. The ENGEO reports present
appropriate recommendations for grading, including inclinations of graded slopes,
moisture-conditioning and compaction for fill slope stabilization, subsurface drainage
construction, and removal and replacement of unsuitable soils, based on the site soil
conditions and on the current standard of care for residential construction. Site
improvements will be designed appropriately for seismic ground shakÍng according to
current standards, as described in the Uniform Building Code and in applicable
publications by the State Geologic Survey.
The geotechnical conditions within the Project Area are comparable to those within
several existing, and recently constructed residential housing projects, including Dublin
Ranch and the Gale Ranch and Windemere Projects. It should therefore be possible to
design and construct the proposed Project Area developments to be both cost-effective
and to perform according to acceptable standards for residential construction, using
typical Bay Area hillside construction practices.
3.1.4.2 Project Access and Circulation
The only major considerations reviewed regarding project access and circulation were (I)
the Dublin Blvd. easement which will traverse the southern end of the property parallel to
Interstate 580, and (2) the Central Avenue alignment which will need to access the
project area from Fallon Road, generally at the southwest comer of the Jordan property.
The Dublin Boulevard alignment is fixed by the existing development to the west and by
the proposed connections to North Canyons Parkway to the east. Therefore, the east and
west ends of Dublin Boulevard are fixed through the Project Area, with minor
adjustments in alignment allowed in between. Therefore the alignment of Dublin
Boulevard as depicted in the EDPO Stage I Development Plan cannot be altered. The
alignment of Central A venue has similar constraints but minor adjustments or
engineering solutions were considered viable and therefore this alignment as shown on
the Stage 1 Development Plan did not enter into the evaluation of constraints.
3.1.4.3 Utility Services
Based on the services currently available in the Project Area, and the feasibility of
implementing additional services for developed areas, utilities were not considered to be
a constraint to development.
3.1.5 CULTURAL RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS
Cultural resources within the East Dublin properties are considered to be low constraints
to development because cultural resource impacts were surveyed and deemed to be "less
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties -- DRAFT July 2, 2004
90
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
91
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Q /..Q t6
than significant" in the EDPO Stage 1 Development Plan Supplemental EIR (January
2002). Although there are three potential pre-historic sites and two potential historic sites
identified within the Project Area, as well as the potential for additional resources that
could be uncovered during construction activities, these resources can be mitigated
through pre-construction studies and preservation or detailed recordation. The Eastern
Dublin EIR for the East Dublin Specific Plan contains mitigation measures and policies
that require research of archaeological resources prior to construction-related activities.
The following resources have been identified in the project area based on archival
research, previous archaeological inventories and an intuitive field review: (1) a
combined prehistoric/historic site (CA-Ala-508/H), (2) the historic Collier Canyon
Ranch, (3) the F. Croak Ranch/Homestead complex (EDGPA F) and (4) an early 20th
ranch complex (Fallon House), (5) two prehistoric isolates (EDGPA 2 and 3) and (6) a
barn (EDGP A E). Resources 1 through 4 may be eligible for inclusion on the California
Register; a formal evaluation will be required to determine their eligibility. Therefore,
resources I through 4 would require evaluation according to CEQA.
There appears to be a low potential for as yet unknown prehistoric cultural resources in
the project areas that have not been inventoried. There is a moderate potential for both
surface and subsurface archaeological materials at water resources (e.g., springs, streams)
and bedrock outcrops. The potential for historic sites from the early American Period is
moderate and generally consists of existing built resources associated with ranching and
agriculture. Both prehistoric and historic resources may be associated with sites dating
from the early American Period based on the results of previous inventories. There
appears to be a low potential for historic archaeological deposits associated with the early
American Period outside ofthe existing resources.
3.1.6 LAND USE CONSTRAINTS
3.1.6.1 Land Use Policies
In conformance with the City of Dublin's Development Elevation Cap - Eastern Extended
Planning Area General Plan Amendment policies, all urban development (residential
building construction) would occur below the 770-foot elevation contour. In addition, the
City has designated the hills along the northern border of the Tseng property as a Scenic
Viewshed Zone, prohibiting development :&om this area.
In accordance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan policies, numerous
multi-use trails are planned to provide pedestrian and bicycle access through the Project
and connect to regional trails were possible.
3.1.6.2 Airport Protection Area
A portion of the Project Area is located within the Airport Protection Area of the
Livermore Municipal Airport. The Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission has
adopted policies which discourage residential uses within the Airport Protection Area of
the Livermore Municipal Airport. Although this poses a constraint to the type of
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
G¡ 7 Üð
development within this area, it still does not preclude commercial development and,
therefore, is not considered a constraint to development.
3.1.6.3 Adjoining Land Uses
The adjacent land uses which may be considered constraints to development would be
low density residential, agricultural or open space designations. Although these
constraints would be considered very low, they may guide site planning to ensure that
preserved on-site areas are linked or near off-site preserved, or less developed, lands.
Alameda County zoning on the lands east of the Project Area are Resource Management
and Large Parcel Agriculture. The land to the north of the Project Area is designated by
the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as Rural Residential! Agriculture, low
and medium density residential, and open space.
3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE OPPORTUNITIES MAp
The Stage I planned development zoning adopted for the East Dublin Properties was
approved in 2002 (Figure 3.2). The area includes 120 acres of commercial and industrial
uses, 478 acres of single family to high density residential uses, 269 acres for rural
residential and agricultural uses, 73 acres of parks and schools, and 77 acres of open
space.
As part of the RMP development process, the City desired an "opportunities map" to be
developed for the Project Area. The first step in this process involved overlaying the
constraints analyses discussed in the previous section onto the City's approved current
Stage 1 Site Plan. This exercise helped to identify areas within the Stage 1 Site Plan that
did not appear to reflect the species habitat preservation and restoration priorities
identified in the EDPO Stage 1 Development Plan Supplemental ErR mitigation
measures, particularly SM-BIO-I.
A Site Opportunities Map was developed which most effectively meets the City's
mitigation measures and specific plan development goals, and the resource protection
goals specified in the EDPO SEIR (including the goal of addressing biological resource
conservation across property lines rather than on a parcel by parcel basis). The City then
presented the draft Site Opportunities Map to state and federal resource agencies (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department ofFish
and Game, Regional Water Quality Control Board) for their review and comment. Based
on that input, the final Site Opportunities Map (and the RMP as a whole) was completed.
The Site Opportunities Map is presented in Figure 3.3. Development of the Project Area
in this manner would allow for preservation of the eastern tributary (CI), selected for
preservation as it supports a large perennial seep complex as reflected by a strong
hydro graph (see Section 2.3.4). A biological corridor would be created around this
tributary between the ponds in the southwest comer of the Jordan property and the
grassland habitat at the south end of the Project Area, and the Bankhead pond and
grassland habitat at the north end of the Project Area. It was determined that instead of
recommending a specific, unifonn width for this corridor for the its entire length, it
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
92
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
93
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
qo r"
. û·o
would be more effective to employ a variable corridor width to allow for a larger corridor
around sensitive portions of the tributary and a narrower corridor around less sensitive
portions.
The Site Opportunities Map proposal would conserve (1) the area above the nO-foot
elevation contour, (2) the hills along Interstate 580 called the Scenic Viewshed Zone, and
(3) the eastern tributary (CI) with a corresponding buffer that should average 400 feet
wide over its entire length, ranging between a maximum of 600 feet wide and a minimum
of 150 feet wide (Figure 3.3). The corridor design is intended to allow for the maximum
buffer (300 feet on each side of the drainage centerline) around the large perennial seeps
and their watershed areas (at the comer of the Jordan and Mandeville properties and
northward), while allowing for the minimum buffer (75 feet on each side of the drainage
centerline) along the narrow, more ephemeral portions of the drainage (e.g., beginning at
the northeastern corner of the Jordan property and southward). A narrower corridor
width around the large seep areas would be appropriate if site~specific hydrologic studies
demonstrate that the watershed reduction will not impact the existing hydrologic
condition of the seeps or the downstream hydrologic conditions, or if studies show that
measures can be implemented to mitigate this impact; however, the overall corridor width
should still average 400 feet wide. A schematic depiction of this corridor design is
shown on Figure 3.3.
3.3 SITE OPPORTUNITIES MAP . IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The site opportunities map (Figure 3.3) would provide for a conservation area of
approximately 294 acres, leaving approximately 826 acres open for development for
residential, commercial, industrial, or public uses (including schools and parks). Under
this concept, certain biological resources will be impacted within the developable
portions of the Project Area. These impacts are described and quantified below, followed
by a description of the mitigation for such impacts which would apply under the
mitigation measures contained in the 2002 SEIR. The mitigation measures for sensitive
resource impacts in the EDPO SEIR prescribe avoidance and preservation as a priority, to
the extent feasible. The Site Opportunities Map accomplishes this goal, while allowing
for development types and amounts deemed necessary by the City within the Project
Area. In order to mitigate for the resulting resource impacts, the following measures are
presented to reduce these impacts to a less~than-significant level in compliance with SM-
BID-I. Some of these impacts cannot be fully mitigated on-site and will require the
preservation and/or creation of habitats on off-site lands. Detailed strategies and
guidelines for implementing these measures are described in Section 4 - Resource
Management Plan. Guidelines to be used in selecting an appropriate off-site mitigation
area are included in Appendix 2.
-
-
-
-
- --
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
RRA
, IS.S:!; AG o¡ f~
L
'-
"
".-",
/'
I
/
I
/
--
OS
I .(;:t At:. ~~~
L ' ~~.~:i: AC 1 tœ&. .
\
.\
,I
RRA ..........
'3.(;:t At; /,U'
I ~rO!>& III \
,I '\
'\
\
\
I
\
"
-
.......
.,--.......
RRA
ðð.7± AC ~rM&
L
\
I
I
I
/- ---
37.0± At:. o¡ mM
)
I
L \ //
.........
3.4:;!: AC <aCQ:I:> ..,J
'-..
-......
---'-".~_ -_ _ .-'-~c____c c___-'-
\
\
\ I
,./
L
33.Q:!: AC eros&
'\
I
/
I
/
I
I
RRA
.3 I .5: AC '3ro~
ES
2.3; At; '1'0»
L
50.':t AC'i3~
s:::
o
l~
- -.::::;r-
)
oc 1
ftltUreS~. Area I
10....:1.: AC If'OD
,
L : L L
.4:!: AC'Jro\!O! 6.0:1; AC 0/0&:> ! 9.0= AC <J~
-,---,-i-----f----
i i
,
I !rUMC ~c:AY Area
: RAA '23.'1± AG <.'10=:-
Ifuture 5tudy Area I
_ -.j 24.2± At:. '3r~:> I
__..,..;;. I
RRA I '
future 5tutty Area I ~utur8 ~~dY Area
AG <,jcœs : '. 1.5± AC ':IrOM
þL-~~
. ~ -:--
";''''.~' .",. .'--. ::.:.,:
GC
4/ .0;1; AC <jrQ!l:>
.
NO/<T"
-
..
-
O' 200' 400' 800' _
. ~"11
I
H rl~ I·
H~
!¡."
!:¡;>
n
J
~
J\19171.0\sup- EJR\ED PO-III ust. psd
IIACICAY 1:5aID'S
:.':,v,. i" 4~, ~·,'!·T'q:,~,~,,!. \1,: ':}\..c.N~";j":-~.~:.I.:-¡':'· It"'~'Y.h':
;"'1',',';,.;';1'4,1)1,. (~:, ¡ '. :t,',¡::. ...;.'HJ'':'';'
$N ~
~
II
0)
o
q
~ ~
~ ~'
~ g
"",
:;; 1;:;'
'B"
;~
~, ~
~ -
í} ~.
~[
"-Q
"-~
~~
~ §
. "-
"
<:
!2:
,.:5'
n;..
!':!,¡;¡
Õ'3
3 R
_. '"
"'j
~
'" m
o '"
<: ¡!¡
g ~
::0"'
§ :=-:
'" ::>
(JQ '"'"
s.g
" "
a 2-.
'""'''
g-'"
~s ~~
¡Ii; 1'2",
I~B ~~
¡:¡8 0"
'Ii~ H
§.- ~ ~~
:J{/ ~:
'"Ii !\Ii¡
¡;., ¡¡
H ~~
~ =H
". if
~ ~
rFJ
......
=
(J"C¡~
~ ...
¡...o.(J"C¡
=
rFJ""I
~~
~ ~
~N
-
=
=
---l\
-C)
~'"
~1í
--::Z~3
Mh¡;¡........--...-.
N....C-Ø ..
~~giJ:' "
~- ~!<! >;).
~<;¡[ ~..\
g:l'- _
·~i~
~,...
110
\)-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-)/,.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
/ r-
/ ( )
cc
. II§· (/ ( )
. . . "g ::J
. . !2. C.
C/) (') (') (') CJ CJ e!-
rn 0 ;:u !!!. <:: '" (/
'" '" ,... ~ å a
<- "" --" ....
0 01. :;: :;: III
rn 0 --0 '" '" or ....
.J:1 '" S. õJ' :;: "" c
. <:: <nO a> ;:u 01/>
'oj" -I 32- a> s:
C/) rn ~ 'i'- C/) ~(/
'" -a CJ co ",- C/)"C
a> ¡¡; CD '" ""- ~
rn ¡¡¡
ill 32- CD g, 2' -.
a> a>
<> 01. 01. CJ 5' (D
. rn 5- "" I/>
co --" '"
CD a
"U "" a
. 0 () :;:
'" 5-
01. ;:u ""
0 ,... ~
::!J
C/)
""-
;:¡:
5-
CD
, '
(---. -
( ,-'
I I ('
I I
'Ii
1\ \ \
1\\ \\ I
))Ji i
II I I J
/ / j
- 11/,/ ,
! I J j
. 1/
-' i ¡'
- .- /
·1
(
\,
'-"".'-
"
I
\
I
- ,
...
...
.
...
~l:.- ,- ---\~--- .
I ~ ,<" .
V~ I .
1 '<', ~
> ," ,,' -- '--"","..
,., .....
\ I ., '"'#l
\ "'l~ ' ,
-"."
.,
--
--
~¿]g'Si'
(J 01 (IJ ~
g:~3~
'?- 50-.§ tJ:
;:U<>--'-<
:;;::¡¡;.g¡.¿
~ ~~ §-
.....0 ('b
~ 9§ 0
aB~§"
'ii"'>-"
ûõ' :9 0
E¡ 9:n
~~{i"
I - 00
w
3
><
c.
~
!'!
2'
..z
'"
<::>
i:
o
(J1
o
o
\/l
o
>
r
t'11
;" ;;;3
~ 1;;-
;,¡ ;,¡
2-§
;" --
- '"
""....
....~
::' ....
~ ~
s' ~
r.:",.!:>.
~ õ'
~5
'" --
r.:",.o
r.:",.'"
~S--
óQ' i::>
i" ~
?:¡;: :¡;: s *
;:+ õ.: õ.: s·
:::r' ,... ,... _. \)
." :::r':::r' S 0
.., 0 0 '" '"
~~;:s~
::::!.o 0 ~ ~
:!1 q q ...:. ;:¡
" . - c.-,
'" en:¡;: & g
~.." _. 0
15.,,&..,0
. ~§ V;~
$4oqo.:
õ· ~ ~ Q
:J ""'I :::I tf)
w~c.:::r'
. ~ '" 0
e~3=-
." '" C.
Õ' ¡;¡ :::.:::r'
.., ~ s ~
c: ."
::1 '"
i-$
......
:;
II
00
o
o
Òl
.,,0
roO
~
If.¡ ~~. Illeo. 0
(j !!!.
~ \,.~~ , ~
(') (') @ ,... '--- »- '"
~. -I ¡¡j rn <:: 01. õJ-
C/) <' < §;. ::!
a>
"U 0 --0 ~ 2, ""
...... S. tT 0 ib ~
-.,' a> '" m C/)
32- a> 32-
~ rn
~ §I ¡¡¡-
CJ 01. CJ 3
CJ '"
iò iò iò '"
a> a> 01.
01. <1> a. ~
5- a. 5'
CD 5' "" 0
""
"U --0 "U -I
0 0 ~
5- 0 OJ
OJ 01. C/)
'" a. ff <5'
'" ;:r
< tT 5·
a> <1> ""
'< '" '"
a> c:
01. <'
a>
'<
a>
~
'tJ
_..0 I I I II iii
::J
....
()
0 c: J C/) ;:u z z :> C/) (') 0
¡¡¡ OJ <1> <:: 0 0 '" a> a> 3
5- < '" rn Q. OJ '" ~ '" 32-
a> a. '" a> 2: 2: <n 3
rn "" 0 iil 0 iil
CD ~ "? '" ~ ª G) '" C
<1> rn ~ ¡¡¡ ~ 0
- ;;:- < ::J
(') ¡¡; J ~ a> <1> <n "t1 0 ;:;:
a. '" '" ¡¡: '"
¡¡: :?; c: G) G) ¡¡; 2l (D'
a> 3 ¡¡¡- ¡¡¡ ¡¡¡ '" <n
J ;0 I/>
'" rn tT OJ <n '" Q. $
õ: ~ a> a. '" '" i5' Qo
a> <n ¡¡: ¡¡¡- ¡¡; ~ ~
32- 0- '" '" j¡j' l
5 j¡ po _a. :;:: '"
" 0- G) c: ~ C/) c
2l a> ¡¡¡ '" '" g III
0' g. N "" ::r c: ....
OJ a> ¡¡¡ 0- r)
0- N C/)
a> "TI
a. a>
<1> (D
--a a
c
iÞ
I/>
0
i:·"~ . t I :;:
I P , ' (D
I ' .¡ : ....
.. - l....,¡,J . "TI
0 -I "U ~ 0 (D
0 iÐ a 0 a> III
--a < ....
'" a> 1i: 0 a> C
<n '" CD Õ
a> iÞ
:< ~ õ3 --a
rn --a a> I/>
"" CJ ::r a.
0 0 1;- »-
'" c: 0 iò
»- '"
0- 0 '"
iò ~ '" I/>
'" ¡¡ï S"
<n '"
I/>
en
~.
.....
('t
o
~
~
o
"1
.....
=
==
~.
~
('t
rJ:¡
~
~.
(K
=
""I
('t
W
.
W
u
§-
>---<
p'
0>
~ ......
=-:~
Õ'S
S. ~
~ 0
o
t::
9:
~
=
~
.
,
I
-,
i
.
I 1/'1
I ' ,
·/i
l/ \
.~
.,
. ,
. '
, '
,
/
.....
::
-, .
,
"
','
·'.1
I ¡ ! I '" . .. . ~
,/*,...'. ,.... ...,_.þ. ....
IC
('D
çr¡
o
t::
M
(1)
~
p:¡
=:I
cf¿
ª
('D
=:I
......
"¡:
......
~
=:I
t'11
~
çr¡
......
I
::I
,,0.
~ ...
_"g>:1¡ !I
~ Oi:=l ø c:
~-¡~m "
0",..1\ D
,. . !!." tJ
~~~~ :I
~~~~' t
~ ~!E ~
Ii -.
, D
j
~
U
t::
r:::;"
......
S'
"¡:
.g
å.
('D
çr¡
~
II
'01>.
,¢
<:>
.....
(j)
,,'<
m £
_:;:~ 3
~~º Q
;:; ~ (þ
....".- »
H2' g¡
@1~f 0
~~.a. ~.
~ 8~ ~
a;
'"
~,
()
'---
.'
>,\1
" .~' '
o
o
c>
I ì'
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/ 0 / ðû
3.3.1 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
3.3.1.1 California Red-legged Frog
Under the Site Opportunities Map, two ponds (Ponds I and Pond 10, totaling
approximately 1.25 acres) containing potential or known CRLF breeding habitat, and
associated upland habitat (areas within 300 feet of the breeding pond, totaling
approximately 18.5 acres) would be removed or adversely affected by development
within the Project Area. Additional foraging and dispersal habitat would also be removed
or adversely impacted by development within the Project Area but the extent of this
habitat cannot be quantified. Indirect impacts to CRLF may include hydrologic
disruption of breeding habitat, disturbance from humans and/or animals (including cattle
and pets), or introduction of pest plant or animal species.
Mitigation measure SM-BIO-15 from the EDPO SEIR prescribes the following
mitigation for direct impacts to CRLF:
"If avoidance is infeasible, then mitigation lands providing similar or better habitat for
CRLF at a 3: 1 replacement ratio or suitable ratio determined by USFWS. shall be
preserved and protected in perpetuity. "
Therefore, in accordance with this measure, approximately 3.75 acres of suitable CRLF
breeding habitat and approximately 55.5 acres of associated upland habitat will need to
be provided as replacement habitat on- or off-site. Currently, Ponds 3, 7, 8, and 9
provide approximately 0.27 acres of aquatic habitat that could be enhanced to become
suitable habitat for CRLF breeding through modifications such as deepening and planting
with emergent vegetation. If such restoration is conducted on-site, approximately 3.48
acres of additional CRLF aquatic breeding habitat would need to be created on-site or,
preferably, restored and/or created off-site. Since Ponds 7 through 9 are mostly included
within the 300-foot associated upland buffer of Ponds 4 and 6, very little new associated
upland habitat would be created by restoring these ponds. However, restoration of Pond
3 would create approximately 8 acres of additional associated upland habitat. Therefore,
an additional 47.5 acres of associated upland habitat would need to be preserved as 300-
foot wide buffers around any CRLF ponds created on-site or any CRLF ponds restored
and/or created off-site. In addition, an adequate amount of dispersal and foraging habitat
will need to be preserved adjacent to and between the breeding and associated upland
habitats on- and off-site. Table 3.1 summarizes the extent of impacts to CRLF habitats,
mitigation for those impacts, and on- and off-site mitigation options.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
96
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
97
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/o~ 6b
Table 3.1. Acres of California redwlegged frog potential habitat impacts, required
mitigation, and on- and off-site potential mitigation opportunities.
Approximate Approximate Approximate Approximate
CRLF Habitat mitigation mitigation available remaining mitigation
Type habitat impact habitat required on-site through habitat to be created
(acres) (acres) restoration (acres) off-site (acres)
AquaticlBreeding 1.25 3.75 0.27 3.48
Associated 18.5 55.5 8.0 47.5
Upland
Methods to enhance or create new CRLF aquatic breeding habitat, and methods to
mariage and monitor mitigation lands for CRLF are described in further detail in Section
4 - Resource Management Plan. See Appendix 2 for off-site mitigation site selection
criteria guidelines.
Measures to mitigate for indirect impacts to CRLF and their habitat include the
following:
· Adherence to the guidelines and recommendations given in Integrated
Stormwater and Runoff Program (Appendix 4) will ensure preservation of
the existing aquatic habitats.
· Buffers have been incorporated into the conservation area depicted in the
Site Opportunities Map to provide a reasonable distance between sensitive
aquatic habitats and development. Recreational uses within the
conservation area will be restricted to less sensitive areas and will be
located at a minimum distance of 300 feet from potential CRLF breeding
habitat, and trails will only cross the corridor at designated points
determined to be of lower sensitivity and only using bridge crossings (as
opposed to fill) in accordance with EDPO SEIR mitigation measures SM-
BIO-5 and SM-BIO-13 (see Section 4). Homeowner policies regarding
pet control in recreation areas and in residential areas will restrict pet
access to conservation areas and aquatic features (see Section 4).
· In accordance with the Grazing Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment Area (Sycamore Associates 1996), exclusionary
fencing should be installed around all or a large portion of each breeding
pond with gates to allow the option of limited springtime grazing (see
Section 4).
· The introduction of pest plants or animals to CRLF habitats should be
controlled and managed as described in Section 4.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/03 ò6
3.3.1.2 California Tiger Salamander
Under the Site Opportunities Map, three ponds (Pond 1, one ponded area within a
drainage (Pond 10), and the pond along the border of the Bankhead and Jordan properties
- totaling approximately 1.4 acres) providing potential or known CTS breeding habitat,
and estivation habitat (uplands up to 750 feet from the edge of breeding ponds, and
possibly uplands between 750 feet and 2,200 feet from the edge of breeding ponds,
totaling 175 and 707 acres, respectiv~ly) would be removed or adversely impacted by
development within the Project Area. Indirect impacts to CTS may include hydrologic
disruption of breeding habitat, disturbance from humans and/or animals (including cattle
and pets), or introduction of pest plant or animal species.
Mitigation measure SM-BIO-19 from the EDPO SEIR prescribes the following
mitigation for impacts to CTS:
"If avoidance is infeasible, mitigation lands. providing similar or better aquatic and
upland habitat for CTS at a 1: 1 ratio shall set aside in perpetuity. Upland habitat shall
be mitigated by preserving upland on-site or, if necessary. by preserving currently-
occupied upland CTS habitat off-site. Aquatic habitat shall be mitigated by creating an
equal number (or acreage) of new aquatic CTS breeding areas within the preserved
upland habitat...ln selecting off-site mitigation lands. preference shall be given to
preserving large blocks of habitat rather than many small parcels. linking preserved
areas to existing open space and other high-quality habitat. and excluding or limiting
public "
Therefore, in accordance with this measure, suitable CTS breeding habitat will need to be
preserved or created on- or off-site, and appropriate estivation habitat will need to be
preserved on- or off-site. Since all of the ponds within the conservation area are already
considered to be suitable CTS aquatic habitat, none of these ponds could be considered
for restoration as habitat mitigation. Therefore, 1.4 acres of suitable CTS aquatic
breeding habitat will need to be created on-site within the conservation area, or,
preferably, by restoring and/or creating such habitat at an off-site location. Estivation
habitat associated will need to be preserved as buffers around these created/restored
ponds, and will likely need to consist of at least 175 acres. This figure could increase, as
both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game are
expected in 2004 to decide whether to list the CTS as threatened or endangered under
federal and state law, respectively. If they do decide to list this species, new standards
for preserving upland habitat will likely develop. Until that time, it is presumed that the
loss of uplands at least within 750 feet of breeding ponds must be mitigated. Table 3.1
summarizes the extent of impacts to CTS habitats, mitigation for impacts, and on- and
off-site mitigation options.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
98
/O~ ój
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3.2. Acres of California tiger salamander potential habitat impacts, required
mitigation, and on~ and off-site potential mitigation opportunities.
Approximate Approximate Approximate Approximate
mitigation mitigation available remaining mitigation
CTS Habitat Type habitat impact habitat required on~site through habitat to be created
(acres) (acres) restoration (acres) off-site (acres)
AquaticlBreeding 1.4 1.4 0 1.4
Estivation (likely) at least-175 at least 175 0 at least17 5
Methods to enhance or construct new CTS aquatic breeding habitat, and methods to
manage and monitor mitigation lands for CTS, are described in further detail in Section 4
- Resource Management Plan. See Appendix 2 for off-site mitigation site selection
criteria guidelines.
Measures to mitigate for indirect impacts to CTS are the same as those described above
for CRLF.
3.3.1.3 Burrowing Owls and Special Status Birds
Under the Site Opportunities Map, potential burrowing owl and nesting passerine habitat
(all grassland habitat within the developable area) would be removed or adversely
impacted by development within the Project Area. Indirect impacts to burrowing owls
and nesting passerines may include disturbance from humans and/or pets, decline of
rodent populations, and introduction or infestation of pest animals or plants.
Under the Site Opportunities Map, potential raptor nesting habitat (some or all trees on
Croak and Anderson) and grassland foraging habitat (all grassland habitat within the
developable area) would be removed or adversely impacted by development within the
Project Area. Indirect impacts to raptors would be similar to those for burrowing owls
and nesting passerines, and may also include unintentional tree removal or damage to
preserved trees during construction.
Mitigation measures SM-BIO-34 through SM-BIO-36 from the EDPO SEIR prescribes
the following mitigation for impacts to occupied burrowing owl burrows:
SM-BIO-34: "When destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable, existing unsuitable
burrows should be enhanced (enlarged or cleared of debris) or new burrows created (by
installing artificial burrows) at a 2: 1 ratio on protected lands, as provided for below. "
SM-BIO-35: "A minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per pair or unpaired resident
bird, shall be acquired, and permanently preserved and protected. The protected lands
shall be adjacent to occupied burrowing owl habitat and at a location acceptable to
CDFG. "
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/os ðb
SM-BIO-36: "The project proponent shall provide funding for long-term management
and monitoring of the protected lands. The monitoring plan should include success
criteria, remedial measures, and an annual report to CDFG. "
Pre-construction surveys, as required in mitigation measures SM-BIO-28 through SM~
BID 33, will determine the actual number and location of occupied burrows within the
proposed development area (see guidelines in Appendix 3). At that time, the actual
number of required burrows to be enhanced or created, and the acres of preserved lands
required, will be detennined. However, it is highly likely that the amount of acres
required for preservation, either on-site or off-site, will be accomplished through the
more extensive preservation of mitigation lands required for CTS estivation habitat.
Methods to enhance or construct new burrows, and methods to manage and monitor
mitigation lands for burrowing owl, are described in further detail in Section 4 -
Resource Management Plan. See Appendix 2 for off~site mitigation site selection criteria
guidelines.
The mitigation measures given in the EDPO SEIR for impacts to raptors include only
avoidance measures, such as pre-construction surveys and avoiding construction during
the breeding season. However, habitat replacement will be accomplished through
protection and mitigation requirements per the City's Heritage Tree ordinance, which
prescribes protection measures for preserved trees during construction activities (see
guidelines in Appendix 3), and replacement of removed trees at a three to one ratio with
monitoring (see guidelines in Appendices 6 and 7).
Methods to protect and enhance grassland habitat for other special status birds, including
raptors and nesting passerines, are also described in Section 4. Methods to reduce direct
impacts to potential raptor nesting habitat from tree removal includes replanting of trees,
as described in Section 4 below.
Measures to mitigate for indirect impacts to special status birds include recreation area
and homeowner policies, pest management guidelines, and tree protection measures
described further in Section 4.
3.3.1.4 Special Status Mammals
Under the Site Opportunities Map, potential bat nesting/roosting habitat (trees) would be
removed or adversely impacted by development within the Project Area. Indirect
impacts to bats may include disturbance from humans and/or pets and unintentional tree
removal or damage during construction.
Mitigation measure SM-BIO-43 requires protection and enhancement of habitat for
special status bat species. Methods to protect and manage on-site and off-site habitat for
special status bat species are described in Section 4 - Resource Management Plan.
Methods to reduce direct impacts to potential bat nesting habitat from tree removal
includes replanting of trees, as described in Section 4. Measures to mitigate for indirect
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
100
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
101
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IOU! ôb
impacts to special status bats include recreation area and homeowner policies, and pest
management guidelines, and tree protection measures (Section 4).
Based on information given in Section 2, the Site Opportunities Map is not ·likely to
substantially impact kit fox habitat as it is unlikely that the species occurs on-site and the
Project Area provides limited habitat. However, to avoid impacts to individuals, pre-
construction surveys should be conducted (see guidelines in Appendix 3) for San Joaquin
kit fox according to the amended Eastern Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan, as
required by EDPO SEIR mitigation measure SM-BIO-9.
3.3.1.5 Special Status Invertebrates
Impacts to special status invertebrates are not anticipated within the Project Area, since
none have yet been located within the Project Area during focused surveys and none were
observed during focused surveys on the adjacent Dublin Ranch project site. However, if
focused surveys planned on the Jordan Property in 2004-2005 reveal the presence of
special status invertebrates, or if dry season survey results from other properties reveal
presence, then impacts to these species may occur.
According to mitigation measure SM~BIO-17 from the EDPO SEIR, mitigation for direct
(habitat destruction) and indirect (disturbance within 250 feet) impacts to occupied
special status invertebrate habitat should require the following measures:
(a) Preservation: For every acre of habitat directly impacted at least two vernalpool
credits shall be dedicated within a USFWS-approved mitigation bank or, in
accordance with USFWS evaluation of site-specific conservation values, three
acres of vernal pool habitat may be preserved within the Project Area or off-site
as approved by the USFWS.
(b) Creation: For every acre of habitat indirectly impacted, at least one vernal pool
credit shall be dedicated within a USFWS-approved mitigation bank or, in
accordance with USFWS evaluation of site-specific conservation values, two
acres of vernal pool habitat may be created and monitored within the Project
Area or on off-site as approved by the USFWS.
In addition, the soil from any wetlands found to contain special status invertebrates
should be salvaged and stockpiled preceding development, and the soil should be placed
in created wetlands (see salvage guidelines in Appendix 3). Mitigation for impacts to
special status invertebrates would already be included within wetland habitat creation or
enhancement required as mitigation for impacts to wetlands and CTS breeding habitat.
Since the created wetlands and/or CTS breeding habitat would satisfy habitat
requirements for special status invertebrates, separate creation or enhancement measures
for invertebrates are not included in the RMP. Wetland and CTS breeding habitat
creation and restoration guidelines are described further in Section 4.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J 07 C)ð
3.3.1.6 Special Status Plants
Under the Site Opportunities Map, occupied Congdon's tarplant habitat and occupied San
Joaquin spearscale habitat would be removed or adversely impacted by development
within the Project Area. Indirect impacts to special status plants may include disturbance
from recreation and introduction or infestation of pest plants.
Mitigation measure SM-BIO-4 from the EDPO SEIR prescribes the following mitigation
for impacts to special status plants:
SM-BIO-4: "If a special status plant species cannot be avoided, then the area containing
the plant species must be measured and one of the following steps must be taken to
ensure replacement on a 1: 1 ratio (by acreage):
b. Permanently preserve, through use of a conservation easement or other
similar method. an equal amount of acreage either within the Project Area or
off-site that contains the plant; or
c. Harvest seeds from the plants to be lost, or use seeds from another source
within the Tri-valley area, and seed an equal amount of area suitable for
growing the plant either within the Project Area or off-site. Such area shall
be preserved and protected in perpetuity. If the plants fail to establish after a
five year period, then step "a" above must be implemented.
Prior to submittal of a Stage 2 development plan or tentative map, the developer shall
submit a written report to the City for its review and approval demonstrating how the
developer will comply with this mitigation measure, including the steps it will take to
ensure that transplanting or seeding will be successful. "
Therefore, in accordance with this measure, occupied Congdon's tarplant habitat and
occupied San Joaquin spearscale habitat will need to be preserved or created on- or off-
site. Methods to establish these new habitats through seeding, and methods to manage
and monitor preserved or new mitigation areas, are described in further detail in Section 4
- Resource Management Plan. See Appendix 2 for off-site mitigation site selection
criteria guidelines.
Measures to mitigate for indirect impacts to special status plants include planned trail
restrictions and buffers from occupied or mitigation habitat and pest plant management
guidelines (Section 4).
3.3.2 SPECIAL STATUS NATURAL COMMUNITIES AND AQUATIC FEATURES
3.3.2.1 Wetlands and Waters
Under the Site Opportunities Map, areas of seasonal freshwater marsh and seep, seasonal
wetland, unvegetated waters and ponds would be removed or adversely impacted by
development within the Project Area. All of these areas are potentially regulated as
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
102
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
103
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/0 f? ùb
Waters of the State; however, only some of these areas have been verified as
jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. by the Army Corps of Engineers. Indirect impacts to
wetlands and waters may include hydrologic disruption, disturbance from humans and/or
animals (including cattle and pets), or introduction of pest plant species.
Mitigation measures SM-BIO-6 and SM-BIO-7 from the EDPO SEIR prescribe the
following mitigation for impacts to wetlands and waters:
SM-BIO-6: "To the extent that avoidance and minimization are not feasible and
wetlands. intermittent streams or other waters will be filled, such impacts shall be
mitigated at a 2:1 ratio (measured by acreage) within the Project Area if feasible,
through the creation, restoration or enhancement of wetlands. intermittent streams or
other waters. Such mitigation area shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. Prior
to submittal of a Stage 2 development plan or tentative map for any property within the
Project Area, the property owner shall submit a written report to the City for its review
and approval demonstrating how the owner will comply with this mitigation measure.
SM-BIO-7: "If mitigation within the Project Area is not feasible, then the developer
shall mitigate thefill of wetlands or other waters at a 2:1 ratio (measured by acreage) at
an off-site location acceptable to the City. Such mitigation area shall be preserved and
protected in perpetuity. Prior to submittal of a Stage 2 development plan or tentative
map, the property owner shall submit a written report to the City for its review and
approval demonstrating how the owner will comply with this mitigation measure.
Therefore, in accordance with this measure, areas of seasonal freshwater marsh and seep,
seasonal wetland, unvegetated waters and/or ponds will need to be created, restored or
enhanced on- or off-site in order to mitigate for impacts to Corps jurisdictional features.
Methods to create, restore, enhance, manage and monitor these mitigation areas are
described in further detail in Section 4 - Resource Management Plan.
Measures to mitigate for indirect impacts to wetlands and waters include the following:
· Adherence to the guidelines and recommendations given in the Integrated
Stormwater and Runoff Program (Appendix 4) will ensure preservation of
the existing aquatic habitats.
· Buffers have been incorporated into the conservation area depicted on the
Site Opportunities Map to provide a reasonable distance (70 to 300 feet)
between sensitive aquatic habitats and development. Recreational uses
within the conservation area will be restricted to less sensitive areas and
trails will only cross the drainage corridor at designated points determined
to be oflower sensitivity (see Section 4).
· In accordance with the Grazing Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment Area (Sycamore Associates 1996), exclusionary
fencing should be installed around wetlands and ponds with gates to allow
the option of limited springtime grazing. In addition, water troughs and
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
lOG .í';'"
, c" ì
I
'-"
nutrient dispensers should be placed in upland locations to discourage use
of wetlands and waters by cattle (see guidelines in Appendix 5).
. The introduction of pest plants to wetlands and waters should be
controlled and managed according to the guidelines provided in Appendix
5.
3.3.2.2 Central Coast Riparian Scrub
Under the Site Opportunities Map, one area of Central Coast riparian scrub habitat would
be removed or adversely impacted by development within the Project Area. Indirect
impacts to riparian habitat would be similar to those described above for wetlands and
waters.
Mitigation measures SM-BIO-5 and SM-BIO-8 from the EDPO SEIR prescribe
avoidance (to the extent feasible), protection and elÙlancement of riparian habitat.
Although under the Site Opportunities Map the majority of the Central Coast riparian
scrub habitat will be preserved within the conservation area, a small patch of riparian
habitat around Pond 1 on the Anderson property will be removed. In order to mitigate for
this impact to a special status plant community, restoration or enhancement of riparian
habitat at a 3:1 ratio (based on acreage) should be accomplished within the preserved
drainage corridor within the Project Area. Methods to restore and elÙlance this
mitigation area, and methods to manage and monitor the preserved and mitigation areas,
are described in further detail in Section 4 - Resource Management Plan. SM-BIO-5 also
requires that impacts to riparian habitat within the preserved drainage will be limited to
bridge crossings (as opposed to fill) or other such minimally impacting features, as
described in Section 4.
Mitigation measures for indirect impacts to riparian habitat would be similar to those
described above for wetlands and waters, except that fencing would be placed around
riparian habitat to permanently exclude grazing, as specified in the Grazing Management
Plan for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Area (Section 4).
3.3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Among the identified potential cultural resources within the Project Area, only one would
not be impacted by the Site Opportunities Map design - CA-Ala-508/H (the 4J Ranch
Site on the Jordan property). Two prehistoric isolates (EDGPA 2 and 3), the historic
Collier Canyon Ranch, a barn (EDGP A E), the F. Croak Ranch/Homestead complex
(EDGP A F) and an early 20th century ranch complex ("Fallon House") would likely be
removed or adversely impacted by development within the Project Area under the Site
Opportunities Map.
There appears to be a low potential for as yet unknown prehistoric cultural resources in
the project areas that have not been inventoried. There is a moderate potential for both
surface and subsurface archaeological materials at water resources (e.g., springs, streams)
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
104
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
105
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
// 0 tJò
and bedrock outcrops. The potential for historic sites from the early American Period is
moderate and generally consists of existing built resources associated with ranching and
agriculture. Both prehistoric and historic resources may be associated with sites dating
from the early American Period based on the results of previous inventories. There
appears to be a low potential for historic archaeological deposits associated with the early
American Period outside of the existing resources.
The mitigation measures, policies and action plans presented in the Draft Environmental
Impact Report, Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (Part I)
(WR&T 1992) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (WR&T 1998) are valid and applicable
to future development projects in east Dublin and should be implemented as required for
the current project area. In particular, the following have to be completed:
· Areas within the developable portion of the Project Area that have not yet been
inventoried for prehistoric and historic resources [e.g., Bankhead, Mandeville, and
Croak properties] should be inventoried by a qualified professional archaeologist
and architectural historian and any resources identified from new or previous
inventories should be recorded and evaluated (Action ProlZfam Program 6P: Site
Sensitivity).
The four identified cultural resources that will be impacted in the
developable portion ofthe Project Area (EDGPA E and F, Collier Canyon
Ranch, and the "Fallon House" 20th century ranch complex) should be
accurately located, recorded and formally evaluated for inclusion on the
California Register of Historical Resources. Evaluation could include
testing for archaeological resources.
· A field check of potential resources shown on historic maps, but not previously
observed is also recommended. These potential resources include:
Three structures by 1878 along what would become Fallon Road
including: at least one structure in the 320-acre William Knox (parcel
bounded by 1-580 on the south); one structure in the 353.83-acre Thomas
Kelly and Brothers parcel [CA-Ala-508/H]; and, one in the 160~acreW.J.
Fallon parcel [early 20th ranch].
Applicable Mitigation Measures for Historic Resources (including CA-
Ala-508/H): MM 3.9/7.0 (Policy 6-26) archival research and MM 3.9/10.0
in-depth archival research and oral interviews; MM 3.9/9.0 evaluation by
an architectural historian; 3.9/11/0 recordation on official State of
California site inventory forms; MM3.9/12.0; a preservation plan; and
MM 3.9/8.0 (Policy 6-27) potential adaptive reuse or restoration of
historic structures.
· Mitigation measures are not applicable to the two (2) prehistoric isolates (EDGP A
2 and 3) identified because they do not satisfy California Register criteria.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)//ù[)
Future implementation of specific mitigation measures is dependent on the identification
of resources that could be impacted by a project. Mitigation measures could include all
of some of the components of the measures prescribed in the ErR and Specific Plan.
Detailed methods to implement these mitigation measures are not included in this RMP
document; such plans, if necessary, should be completed by the developer for each
proposed project within the Project Area.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
106
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
107
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II ð 6ò
4. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The measures recommended in this section are intended to provide a framework for
mitigating habitat losses within the developed areas, for identifying high priority habitats
outside of developed areas to be targeted for acquisition as off-site mitigation lands, and
for managing and protecting the preserved biological resources within the Project Area.
Specific techniques for accomplishing these goals are discussed for four specific
management areas that were determined based on the Site Opportunities Map.
The meas.ures in this section are intended to serve as guidelines. Because the Project
Area consists of thirteen parcels under eleven different ownerships, and development of
these parcels will occur at different times, implementation of these guidelines can only
occur on a parcel by parcel basis. The City will endeavor to apply these guidelines
consistently for all parcels in the Project Area, through City approval documents, subject
to appropriate modifications to reflect each parcel's site specific circumstances.
Section 4.1 describes each management area within the Project Area and the goals for
each area, Section 4.2 describes the recommended management teclmiques for each area,
and Section 4.3 briefly discusses funding for such resource management.
4.1 DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREAS AND GOALS
The RMP designates four specific management areas for the Project Area based on the
Site Opportunities Map and consistency of management goals relative to biological
resources. These management areas may also be applied to off-site lands selected for
mitigation. The management areas are defined as (1) Development Area, and (2)
Conservation Area, which consists of three zones: (a) Aquatic and Buffer Zone, (b)
Corridor Zone, and (c) Grassland Management Zone (Figure 4.1). Following are
descriptions of the designated management areas and the specific management goals for
each area.
4.1.1 DEVELOPMENT AREA
The Development Area is defined as the area in which development is planned, including
residential, commercial and public areas (such as schools and neighborhood parks).
Goals for this area include:
. Enable commercial and residential development, and establish an entity that will
ensure permanent protection and management of biological resources in the
conservation area and off-site mitigation lands, through mechanisms such as
conservation easements or holding lands for fee title.
. Preserve and protect, to the extent feasible, Heritage Trees and drainages while
remaining consistent with the primary development goal.
-
-
>-J1tnl:j
""1. _ ~ ""1
() (D VJ ¡:::¡
g:;.g;
'5!- >~ tn
::<:> " " '<
$:i5.!;6
"'t: N.g p}
"r¡0"cr
riQ' is 0> ;;
~S8.tn
UJ ........... () 0
;:;;N>-"
riQ' :9 I:j
Ei9::n
2.~~
1-
3
><
c..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,,! :
..
-
-
r
s: 0 ï:J CD
I~ - ¡¡¡ (Q
D II I =r I I I II
n> ~() ::::J CD
.. ... -
,(0 . "TI n ::::J
n>
0 G) 0 È' 3 -1 "U -1 (II S? c:: "U (/) (/) (J 0 a.
'" OJ ~ ¡¡¡ a 0 II) :::J 0 '" '" '" 3
'" " (II "0 - ID '" :::J ID ID :::J
'" 0 5'
'" '" 13: !'¡. ::::J '" "0 <0 ¡: '" a. '" '" ~ 3
õ '" <1> ... ID <0 0 0
"0 ¡¡¡ <;: ¡, - Q- OJ (II <0 <1> ~ :::J ::> I:
3 " ID :Þ "0 en '" ¡¡; '!!. '!!. 0 ::::J
a. N '"'
<1> 0 :::J iiì OJ :::J' (Õ :::J' :;;: ." 0 ;;;¡:
3- ;¡:: :::J a. 0 ¡, () a. " õi ID
" '" !!l iiï
>- ID <1> OJ II) " () õi :;;: " "" '"
:::J " en a. 0 <1> 3 ID :::J' ::u en
õi ID ~ ID " ,.- ID 0- :::J ~ -¡'j'
ill <0 -, Õ CD '" a. Qo
'" <1> " a. ¡;¡ õi if ~
3 N '" '" ¡;j' :Þ
'" 0 '" g a.
3- :::J ¡¡¡ ;¡:: :::J .c
<1> co 0- ~ (/) I:
N !'¡. '" ~ II)
0 '"
:::J 0' ~ :::J' " -
'" " 0- ¡:ï
(/) "TI
'"
'" (II
"0 ~
I:
...
(II
en
..
j
o ,!
...
o .
, . ~ ,=
" k...J,.~.._'
11.- II.... II _. II
~
~
'-
<=
.:¿'
I"
'"
'"
.I>.
~
(!¡
r:f)
ê
"'i
n
(!¡
8:
þ)
::J
þ)
(JQ
(!¡
8
(p
t:j
-
'"'0
.......
þ)
::J
o
o
g.
.......
p'
n>
þ) .......
:::-:pJ
8'8
8 8-
....... c;¡
pJ n
8
::J
?
cr" *
~
r)
o
3.
0-
o
..,
N
o
'"
"
~ § :§.
0.0-
;?O"-g.~
;:¡ 00 0
~ ~"""" C
>-i :§. ~ ë:
s.~qg-
::1.' "< ri
::h (.IJ '" '"
g g~.:::J
õ' wcß :;;
:::J"O"~
:=-. (b ~
g ? ;;
~ ~ <:
N:::J ~
r-.J v:~
q"
~
2. c;'
:,¡ :;¡
~{;
'" -.
- '"
'3>'"
...~
E; a
'" co
s' "
;} s.
s g
:::::.~
'" --
"'-0
.., ~
[f~
~' §
"'-
t'r1
pJ
r:f)
-
I
õ
~
'"
~â~~ !
~~ ~ ~ a
~~!l~ ñ
s:~-()~ ~
~,,:p.!!. ~
nf¡¡ ;;
. ¡¡ §\!! R
~ '2
i
5"
"I
~
;>~
"'0 ""t ~
""t ('þ =
o ~ ~
~. r;,¡ ~
('þ ~ ('þ
~~a
~e:~
('þ = ~
~
en
n
$~
II
00
o
o
(}1
o
o
o
g.
.......
Ëï
'"'0
"'i
.g
~
.......
(!¡
r:f)
~
....
~
=
""t
('þ
.¡;.
.
¡....o
I
õ
cr"
"
0-
!4.
ª
;:;.
"
p..
"0
o
o
è.n
"TI0
(1)0
g¡.
---
UJ
(f)
,,'<
g£
_:<:!' 3
~~º Q
- ~ to CD
~~~ 1:-
, (11 ..... Ú)
8:_'" g f/)
~~f g
ð~P- ~
~~~<b
~ en
'"
~s
(),
I
II'
\\,
" ,~' '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/JI-Iùò
· Salvage sensitive plant and animal species from development areas and relocate to
appropriate preserved habitats in the other management areas.
· Design stormwater, surface and subsurface flows, including re-aligned drainages, to
maintain the existing hydrologic conditions for the preserved aquatic habitats within
the aquatic buffer management area.
4.1.2 CONSERVATION AREA
The three Conservation Area zones will be permanently protected, and will consist of
three zones, each with different goals to allow for maximum protection of the most
sensitive resources, while allowing for appropriate uses within less sensitive areas. The
overall goals of the Conservation Area are:
· Protect and preserve existing habitats for sensitive species and habitats through a
permanent protection entity.
· Create or enhance sensitive plant communities and special-status species habitats.
· Protect sensitive species from impacts associated with non-native and urban-adapted
species.
· Manage lands to maintain and enhance vegetation and wildlife.
4.1.2.1 Aquatic and Buffer Zone
The Aquatic and Buffer Zone is defined as all potential or occupied CTS and CRLF
breeding ponds and areas within 300 feet of these ponds. Goals for this management zone
include:
· Protect and enhance aquatic habitat for California tiger salamander and California
red-legged frog breeding habitat.
· Protect and enhance riparian habitat and freshwater marsh vegetation for nesting
passerines, raptors and bats.
· Protect and enhance grassland habitat for California red-legged frog upland refugia
habitat, California tiger salamander estivation habitat, nesting passerines, burrowing
owls, raptors, and rare plants.
· Possibly create habitats for mitigation purposes, including rare plants, wetlands and
riparian habitat.
· Manage the post-project hydrologic regime to maintain the aquatic and riparian
habitats.
· Protect water quality.
· Manage vegetation and pest plant and animal species using primarily mechanical
methods, and allowing for some biological controls (grazing prohibited or severely
limited).
· Allow limited recreational and maintenance access along the outenllost edge of the
zone -that is compatible with the above goals.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
109
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
110
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)) ~ 60
4.1.2.2 Corridor Zone
The Corridor Zone is defined as the area outside of the Aquatic and Buffer Zone but is
within a corridor along Drainage C1 with a variable width averaging 400-feet wide
(minimum ISO-feet wide up to 600-feet wide); refer to Section 3.2.2 for guidelines used
to determine the corridor width(s). The corridor design is intended to be flexible enough
to allow for larger buffers in more sensitive portions of the corridor (e.g. around the large
seeps) while allowing for smaller buffers along narrower, more ephemeral portions of the
drainage, which will also be the most feasible areas for road crossings. Final buffer
widths should be measured as an off-set from the centerline of the drainage. Goals for
this management zone include:
· Establish a linkage between other management areas for wildlife species movement.
· . Pro~ect and enhance grassland for California red-legged frog dispersal, California
tiger salamander estivation, nesting passerines, burrowing owls, raptors, and rare
plants.
· Protect, enhance, and possibly create riparian habitat and freshwater marsh vegetation
for nesting passerines, raptors and bats.
· Possibly create habitats for mitigation purposes, including rare plants, wetlands and
riparian habitat.
· Protect water quality.
· Manage vegetation and pest species relying primarily on mechanical controls, while
allowing for some biological controls (limited grazing) and limited chemical controls
as necessary.
· Allow limited recreational (including trails) and maintenance access along the
outermost edge of the zone that is compatible with the above goals.
4.1.2.3 Grassland Management Zone
The Grassland Management Zone is defined as the upland area north and outside of
Corridor Zone and Aquatic and Buffer Zone (generally the area above the 770-foot
elevation contour) and the Scenic Viewshed Area, in the southern portion of the Project
Area. Goals for this management zone include:
· Preserve a large, continuous area for species and habitat protection.
· Maintain a linkage to other adjacent open space areas.
· Protect and enhance grassland habitat for California red-legged frog dispersal habitat,
California tiger salamander estivation habitat, nesting passerines, burrowing owls,
raptors, and rare plants.
· Allow for creation of habitats for mitigation purposes, including ponds, wetlands and
trees as raptor and bat nesting habitat.
· Manage vegetation and pest species relying primarily on biological controls
(grazing), allowing for mechanical controls as feasible, and limited chemical controls
as necessary.
· Allow recreational and maintenance access that is compatible with the above goals.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ¡ l.Q Ö{J
. Allow for limited development or agricultural uses as consistent with the adopted
Specific Plan and zoning for the area, and as compatible with the above goals.
4.2 MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES PER MANAGEMENT AREA
This section provides specific prescriptions for each Management Area and includes
methods for applying various management techniques to meet the desired goals. These
management area prescriptions are intended to be guidelines from which to work and
may be modified if 1) new infonnation regarding particular management techniques
becomes available and is deemed more appropriate, or 2) implementation of the
suggested technique(s) does not yield the desired effect, as determined through
monitoring.
4.2.1 DEVELOPMENT AREA
Impacts from the removal of natural resources within the Development Area will be
mitigated by preserving, enhancing, and creating habitats within the Conservation Area
both on- and off-site. These impacts and mitigation measures are discussed in detail in
Section 3. The following measures are prescribed to avoid and minimize impacts to
sensitive natural resources within the Development Area, as well as the Conservation
Area, during and following construction activities within the Development Area.
Construction-related measures
Pre-construction surveys will be required within the Development Area to detennine the
location and extent of certain special-status species or their occupied habitat. Some of
these species may be salvaged and relocated to the Conservation Area. Pre-construction
surveys and/or salvage and relocation guidelines are described in Appendix 3. Specific
locations identified to· support special status species will be marked with flags or
surrounded with temporary fencing to prevent disturbance of these areas prior to
completion of any salvage efforts. Handling of species during performance of these
surveys, and for salvage/relocation efforts, may require authorization from the USFWS
and/or CDFG, depending on the species involved.
To the maximum extent feasible, Heritage Trees present within the Development Area
should be avoided during construction activities. Construction monitoring by an
experienced arborist is required during grading near any preserved trees, to ensure the
implementation of protection measures and to account for additional trees lost during
construction, for which mitigation should be provided. See Appendix 3 for pre-
construction survey guidelines for preserved trees.
Site access and staging areas should be identified clearly on plans and specifications, and
marked for construction and landscape contractors in the field. Specifications should
require use of designated staging and access areas to ensure protection of sensitive areas.
Construction and erosion control measures, including fencing, should be installed at the
boundary of the Development Area with the Conservation Area. However, plans for
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
111
/ /1 Óö
temporary or permanent fencing in construction areas should be reviewed by a qualified
biologist for potential impairment to wildlife movement.
Site modifications should be restricted during active nesting periods of sensitive bird
species. Major site modifications should be scheduled during late summer, when birds
have completed nesting. The final plans and specifications should provide specific
schedule constraints, including proper timing for breeding season avoidance in sensitive
areas, salvage activities, and erosion control implementation. Project schedules should be
integrated with construction documents and contracts.
All construction employees should participate in a special status species and habitat
education program prior to construction activities as presented by a qualified biologist.
The program should include descriptions, photographs, and mapped locations of sensitive
species and habitats within the Project Area, a description of the measures that should be
used during con!;truction to protect these species and habitats, a summary of the teffi1S
and conditions of all resource agency permits, a summary of the state and federal
Endangered Species Acts, and the consequences of violating the terms of these acts.
Construction~related water quality impacts will be prevented through implementation of
BMPs developed for the project and approved by City/RWCQB through peffi1itting.
Temporarily constructed sedimentation basins should be drawn down to discourage
amphibians from unwanted breeding.
Development-related impacts to hydrologic conditions and water quality within the
preserved drainage and ponds will be prevented through implementation of an Integrated
Stoffi1water and Runoff Program (see guidelines in Appendix 4) and in the Storm water
Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) and Storrnwater Management Plans (SWMPs)
developed by the individual project applicants during the RWQCB permitting process.
Contract sign~off, contract penalties and posting of bonds should be tied to the successful
protection of existing sensitive resources within the Conservation Area during
construction.
Post -construction measures
Homeowner Policies
In order to limit disturbance to wildlife species within the Conservation Area, residences
within the Development Area should be encouraged to limit excessive noise and to avoid
projecting outdoor lighting in the direction of the conservation area. In addition,
residents should be prohibited ftom dumping trash or yard waste outs,ide of their yards
and into the conservation area.
To ensure that pets do not enter the Conservation Area to disturb or possibly kill special
status species, homeowner policies for the residential areas within the Development Area
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
"
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
112
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II g Cu
should include provisions to address potential impacts from domestic pets. Policies may
include the following provisions:
· Cats should be kept indoors at all times.
· If allowed outside, domestic cats should be spayed and neutered.
· All cats and dogs should be collared and licensed to establish ownership (animals
without identification may be considered feral and run the risk of being captured and
euthanized by control agencies)
· One-way pet doors should be installed to prevent nuisance species gaining access to
residences.
· Residents should be encouraged to keep and feed their dogs indoors or within a
securely fenced yard.
· Dogs should be kept on-leash at all times in residential and recreation areas.
· Unwanted pets should be donated to an animal shelter or euthanized humanely.
Public Education
Brochures should be prepared and provided to all homeowners and other entities in the
Development Area as part of a public education program about the presence of the
special-status species and habitats, and the value of such protected resources within the
Conservation Area. Brochures should discuss the importance of preserving habitats and
should describe protection measures implemented within the Conservation Area,
including fencing and access limitations.
4.2.2 CONSERV AnON ÁREA
The Conservation Area is divided into three separate zones, each with its own goals for
resource protection and management. In order to meet these separate goals, specific
management techniques are prescribed below for each Conservation Area zone. This
area will be permanently preserved from development and degradation in perpetuity, and
should be legally recorded as such to include a detailed description of the permitted and
prohibited activities for each zone, as well as necessary maintenance requirements and an
assurance of associated costs.
Recreation Area Policies
Trail users, including cyclists, hikers and equestrians, should remain at all times on the
designated trail. Nighttime use of the trails should be prohibited (unless for
emergencies). Dogs and other domestic animals should be required to remain on leashes
at all times on the trails.
Public Education
Brochures should be prepared and provided to all recreational trail users at informational
kiosks as part of a public education program about the presence of the special-status
species and habitats, and the value of such protected resources within the Conservation
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
113
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
114
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
//qùb
Area. Brochures should discuss the importance of preserving habitats and should
describe protection measures implemented within the Conservation Area, including
fencing and access limitations.
Sign age
Educational signs should also be placed at strategic entry points to the recreational trail
from the Development Area onto the Conservation Area describing the sensitive habitats
and species present within the area, prohibited actions within the conservation area, and
legal penalties (including fines or jail time) for harming endangered species.
Signage prohibiting off-trail recreation should be provided along the recreational
trail/maintenance access road located within the Conservation Area and any public access
road crossing through the Conservation Area. These signs should be placed at each entry
point to the Conservation Area and also at intervals of a minimum 300 feet along the
trails and roads in both directions of pedestrian and vehicle traffic. Signs should also be
placed at both ends of any bridges crossing the drainage prohibiting entry or disposal of
any material into the'drainage. Seasonal signs should be placed during the winter and
early spring at trail entry points alerting trail users to sensitive species breeding activities
and reminding them to remain on-trail and to limit noise. Where and when necessary,
signs should also be provided to warn trail users of vegetation management practices
currently in use, including grazing, mowing, or herbicide application.
Lighting
Since use of the recreational trail should be prohibited at night (except for emergency
access), lighting should not be necessary along the entire length of the trail. However, if
emergency lighting is necessary, lighting must be designed not to shine into the drainage,
ponds or riparian habitats and should be angled downward to limited lighting to a
restricted portion of the trail. Lighting on public roads and bridges crossing the
Conservation Area should be designed in a similar manner to reduce disturbance to
wildlife within the drainage.
4.2.2.1 Aquatic and Buffer Zone
The following measures are prescribed to prevent or minimize impacts to sensitive
biological resources, and to manage and protect these resources in perpetuity, in and
within 300 feet of ponds. Measures that apply to all three management zones within the
Conservation Area, including the Aquatic and Buffer Zone, are described above in
Section 4.2.2. Activities pennitted and prohibited within the Aquatic and Buffer Zone
are listed below. AU pennitted activities within the Aquatic and Buffer Zone should be
conducted and/or reviewed by a qualified biologist.
Permitted Activities
· Monitoring activities.
. Enhancement activities, including planting and hydrologic modifications.
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
ì
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
II
J 9-0 Db
· Vegetation management activities (may include very limited grazing)
· Pest plant and animal removal (mechanical, biological and very limited chemical
methods) .
· Fence and sign maintenance.
· Limited recreation and maintenance access along the outemlOst edge ofthe zone.
· One road crossing, which should be located as far as is feasible from ponds and which
should span the largest portion ofthe zone feasible.
Prohibited Activities
· Access to ponds except for resource management, monitoring, or for public safety or
health issues.
· Grading or installation of structures associated with development (except as
associated with the one permitted road crossing).
· Nighttime use of the recreational trail (except in cases of emergency).
Avoidance and Protection Measures
During Construction
Grading within the Aquatic and Buffer Zone should only be permitted as associated with
construction of the trail/maintenance access road construction along the outenllost
boundary of the Aquatic and Buffer Zone, with the one access road and bridges that may
cross through this zone, and with the construction of any habitat enhancement features.
All graded areas must be stabilized and revegetated with native vegetation immediately
following completion of construction in that area or before the rainy season of each year
(whichever comes first); see Appendix 6 for revegetation guidelines. Any and all pre-
construction survey and avoidance measures described in the Development Area above
apply to any area within the Aquatic and Buffer Zone proposed for such grading,
including pre-construction surveys and salvaging for special status species and
installation of exclusion and silt fencing around the work area. Fencing should be
reviewed by a qualified biologist prior to grading for potential impairment to wildlife
movement, particularly during the breeding season for CTS and CRLF. Grading should
occur during the dry season, preferably late summer and fall, to avoid impacts to wildlife
breeding and water quality. All staging areas and materials storage areas related to
construction activities should be located in the Development Zone and not within the
Conservation Area. A full-time construction monitor should be present during all
construction activities within this zone to ensure that all resource agency permits and
other applicable protective measures are adhered to, including keeping all work and crew
members within the exclusionary fencing. The monitor should have the authority to halt
construction activities and notify the City if such activities are, or have the potential to,
impact protected resources beyond those initially anticipated.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
115
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
116
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
í
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
¡I·
I
I;) I 6ò
Trail. Maintenance Road. and Bridge Design
Consistent with the Specific Plan, the trails and maintenance roads should be combined
and located along the outennost boundary of the zone. Trail design standards and
materials should follow the guidelines provided in the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive
Stream Restoration Program (Sycamore Associates, Balance Hydrologies, and dk
Associates 1996), as well as guidelines provided by the City of Dublin Department of
Parks and Community Services.
The one public road crossing through the Aquatic and Buffer Zone (on the Jordan
property), and the associated bridge, should be located as far as feasibly possible from the
ponds and riparian habitat to minimize disturbance impacts to species. The road and
bridge should be combined to support recreational trail users as well as vehicles, and
these crossings should be designed such that the trail user is separated from the traffic by
an appropriate barrier for safety considerations, such as raised sidewalks, raised curbs or
concrete barriers. The road crossings and bridge should be designed and landscaped to
screen wildlife from concentrated human use and opportunistic predation. The public
road crossing should have protective curbs or fencing (with holes less than Y:z inch in
diameter) at least 18 inches high along both sides of the road to prevent CTS and CRLF
from crossing the road and to instead re-direct them into the drainage. Bridge design
should also attempt to span the maximum portion of the zone feasible, and at a minimum
should span all aquatic features (ponds, drainages, etc.).
Hydrology and Water Quality
Water quality impacts from erosion due to grazing will be minimized due to the very
limited implementation of grazing in the Aquatic and Buffer Zone (see Vegetation and
Pest Management discussion below).
Fencing
Fencing should be placed around the entire Aquatic and Buffer Zone between the trail
and the aquatic features, immediately adjacent to the trail on the side closest to the
aquatic features, in order to exclude the public from the sensitive habitats within. This
fence should be constructed to allow for the option of limited springtime grazing in the
upland areas for vegetation and non-native plant management; however, grazing should
be prohibited within riparian habitat through permanent fencing.
The fence must be constructed to be compatible with wildlife passage where the Aquatic
and Buffer Zone is adjacent to the Corridor Zone or the Grassland Management Zone.
Three to five-strand barbed wire fences are compatible with grazing and wildlife passage,
so long as smooth (non-barbed) wire is used as the top and bottom wire. An 18" gap
should be left between the ground surface and the bottom wire to allow for wildlife
passage. Hog wire could be used if wild pigs are a problem, but hog wire would impede
the passage of native wildlife use and is therefore less preferable than barbed wire. Ifhog
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I'
J ~~ eJò
wire is used, an 18" gap should be left above the ground surface. If grazing is not
implemented in this zone, other fencing may be used that discourages public entry.
Where the fence is constructed adjacent to the Development Area, measures should be
implemented to prevent potential CTS or CRLF mortality from wandering into an
adjacent Development Area. For example, the bottom 18-inch portion of the exclusion
fencing may consist of a fine wire mesh fence (or other barrier with holes smaller than ys.
inch in diameter).
Enhancement and Management Measures
Habitat Enhancement and Creation
The enhancement of pond, riparian, and grassland habitats within the Aquatic and Buffer
Zone should benefit special status species including California red-legged frog,
California tiger salamander, burrowing owl, nesting passerines such as the tri-colored
blackbird, and possibly bats. Such enhancement would also benefit general native plant
species diversity and habitat heterogeneity for other wildlife species. In addition, the
creation of rare plant habitat would also benefit Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin
spearscale. Habitat enhancement and/or creation may be considered mitigation for
impacts within the Development Area. All habitat enhancement and creation activities
should be conducted in consideration of the primary target species, CRLF and CTS, and
in compliance with authorizations from relevant regulatory agencies such as USFWS,
Corps, RWQCB, and CDFG. Guidelines for the following habitat enhancement and/or
creation activities pennitted within the Aquatic and Buffer Zone are given in Appendix 6:
· Pond enhancement measures such as the installation of emergent marsh or riparian
vegetation around pond edges, removal of invasive plant species, and/or pond
deepening or expansion.
· Drainage and associated riparian enhancement measures such as limited erosion
repair and stabilization, the installation of riparian vegetation, and the removal of
invasive plant species.
· Grassland enhancement measures such as vegetation management and invasive plant
removal and control.
· Habitat creation for rare plant species Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale
by seeding suitable alkali grassland habitat.
Vegetation and Pest Management
Within the Aquatic and Buffer Zone, vegetation management should be accomplished
primarily through strategically timed spring mowing or short-duration, controlled
grazing. If grazing is used, it should be restricted to one brief period (a few days to one
week, or as detennined by a certified range manager in conjunction with a qualified
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
117
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
120
I
I
I
I
I
Î
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Id5" c'5b
proposed for such grading, including pre-construction surveys and salvaging for special
status species and installation of exclusion and silt fencing around the work area. Fencing
should be reviewed by a qualified biologist prior to grading for potential impairment to
wildlife movement, particularly during the breeding season for CTS and CRLF. Grading
should occur during the dry season, preferably late summer and fall, to avoid impacts to
wildlife breeding and water quality. All staging areas and materials storage areas related
to construction activities should be located in the Development Zone and not within the
Conservation Area. A full-time construction monitor should be present during all
construction activities within this zone to ensure that protective measures are adhered to,
including keeping all work and crew members within the exclusionary fencing. The
monitor should have the authority to halt construction activities and notify the City if
such activities are, or have the potential to, impact protected resources beyond those
initially anticipated.
Trail, Maintenance Road, and Bridge Design
Consistent with the Specific Plan, the trails and maintenance roads should be combined
and located to establish a stream corridor system that provides multi-purpose corridors
capable of accommodating both wildlife movement and pedestrian circulation. However,
since the Corridor Zone should vary in width between 150 and 600 feet wide (or buffers
of 75 to 300 feet from each side of the drainage centerline), trails and maintenance roads
should be located as far as possible from the drainage, preferably along the outermost
boundary of the zone. Trail design standards and materials should follow the guidelines
provided in the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program (Sycamore
Associates, Balance Hydrologies, and dk Associates 1996), as well as guidelines
provided by the City of Dublin Department of Parks and Community Services.
Public roads crossing through the Corridor Zone, and associated bridges crossing the
drainage, should be sited so as to provide convenient access to destination areas, such as
parks, schools, the commercial center and other open space, and to link the local and
regional trails. Public road crossings and bridges should be designed and landscaped to
emphasize creek character, establish view corridors and screen wildlife from
concentrated human use and opportunistic predation. The public road crossing through
the Corridor Zone should have protective curbs or fencing (with holes less than Y2 inch in
diameter) at least 18 inches high along both sides of the road to prevent CTS and CRLF
ftom crossing the road and to instead re~direct them into the drainage. Bridges crossing
the drainage should be combined to support recreational trail users as well as vehicles,
and these crossings should be designed such that the trail user is separated from the
traffic by an appropriate barrier for safety considerations, such as raised sidewalks, raised
curbs or concrete barriers. Drainage crossings should be located to minimize disturbance
to the riparian vegetation in the drainage corridor, while maximizing engineering
stability, to the extent feasible. Bridge design should also attempt to span the maximum
portion of the zone feasible, or at least the entire drainage from bank to bank, avoiding
the placement of fill into the drainage and allowing for continuous wildlife movement
within the drainage.
I
I
I,
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~(Q c')ò
Fencing
Guidelines regarding fence installation are identical to those described in the Aquatic and
Buffer Zone above, whereby the word "aquatic feature" refers to the drainage.
Enhancement and Management Measures
Habitat Enhancement and Creation
The creation of ponds and riparian habitat, the enhancement of wetlands, drainages and
grassland habitats and the planting of trees within the Corridor Zone may benefit special
status species including California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander,
burrowing owl, nesting passerines such as the tri-colored blackbird, and possibly bats.
Such enhancement would also benefit general native plant species diversity and habitat
heterogeneity for other wildlife species. In addition, the creation of rare plant habitat
would also benefit Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale. Habitat enhancement
and/or creation may be considered mitigation for impacts within the Development Area.
All habitat enhancement and creation activities should be conducted in consideration of
the primary target species, CRLF and CTS, and in compliance with authorizations from
relevant regulatory agencies such as USFWS, Corps, RWQCB, and CDFG. Guidelines
for the following habitat enhancement and/or creation activities permitted within the
Corridor Zone are given in Appendix 6:
· Pond creation within appropriate segments of the preserved drainage.
· Wetland enhancement including the installation of additional emergent marsh or
seasonal wetland vegetation, removal of invasive plant species, and/or wetland
expanslOn.
· Drainage enhancement measures such as erosion repair and stabilization, the
installation of riparian vegetation, channel restoration, and the removal of invasi ve
plant species.
· Grassland enhancement measures such as vegetation management and invasive plant
removal and control.
· Habitat creation for rare plant species Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale
by seeding suitable alkali grassland habitat.
· The installation of trees within the upland portions of the Corridor Zone.
Vegetation and Pest Management
Within the Corridor Zone, vegetation management should be accomplished primarily
through strategically timed spring mowing or short-duration, controlled grazing. If
grazing is used, it should be restricted to one brief period (a few days to one week, or as
determined by a certified range manager in conjunction with a qualified biologist) in the
early spring. Grazing should be prohibited from any riparian habitat. If mowing is used,
it should occur when the grass is relatively dry to minimize the chances that CRLF or
CTS will be present. Also, mowed grasses should be removed from the site immediately
following mowing activities (generally by baling) to reduce excessive thatch. If
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
121
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
122
I'
I
'I
I
I'
I
I
I'
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J {)7 0-6
necessary, one or two additional mowing efforts may be required in late spring to control
later genninating or blooming grasses. This timing and duration should target removal of
non~native grasses during their pre-flowering or flowering phase but should reduce
impacts to the drainage. An additional brief grazing or mowing period may be warranted
in the fall to reduce excessive thatch establishment from remaining dead or dying annual
grasses and forbs. Specific guidelines regarding vegetation management strategies are
described further in Appendix 5.
Removal of pest plant and animal species within the grassland habitat, drainage, and
created riparian habitat should be accomplished primarily through mechanical/physical
removal (i.e. hand pulling or trapping) or biological methods (limited grazing and/or
mowing). Limited use of herbicides and pesticides should be permitted within the
Corridor Zone as necessary. However, rodenticide use should be prohibited. Specific
guidelines regarding pest management strategies are described further in Appendix 5.
Monitoring and Maintenance
Monitoring should be conducted within the Corridor Zone for the species, habitats and
resources listed below. Guidelines for developing performance criteria, monitoring
methods, and adaptive management strategies are described in further detail in Appendix
7.
· California tiger salamander estivation habitat suitability and burrow abundance
monitoring.
·
· Bats, including assessing the suitability of potential roosting habitat.
· Raptors, including assessing the suitability of potential nesting and foraging habitat.
· Burrowing owls, including monitoring burrow suitability and grassland height and
density.
· Rare plants, including the plant density, location and extent of occupied habitat
· Vegetation management, including grassland height and RDM measurements
· Habitat creation/enhancement, including an assessment of bank stability within the
drainage, percent cover establishment of wetland vegetation or rare plants, or percent
survival and cover of planted riparian species.
· Pest animals/plants, including mapping of infestations
· Fencing and signs, including indications of off-trail use (such as garbage).
· Instrearn pool depth as applicable for red-legged frog breeding and predator
avoidance.
4.2.2.3 Grassland Management Zone
The following measures are prescribed to prevent or minimize impacts to sensitive
biological resources, and to manage and protect these resources in perpetuity, within the
preserved grassland habitats in the Conservation Area not associated with the preserved
ponds, preserved drainage, or their immediate buffers. Measures that apply to all three
management zones within the Conservation Area, including the Corridor Zone, are
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J'd£Õ
()
described above in Section 4.2.2. Activities permitted and prohibited within the
Grassland Management Zone are listed below. All pennitted activities within the
Grassland Management Zone should be conducted and/or reviewed by a qualified
biologist.
Permitted Activities
· Monitoring activities.
· Habitat enhancement and creation activities.
· Vegetation management activities (grazing)
· Pest plant and animal removal (primarily biological methods, with some use of
mechanical and chemical methods).
· Fence, sign and trail maintenance.
· Construction and use of recreational trails/maintenance access roads.
· Landscaping along recreational trails/maintenance access roads (native species only).
· Grading for Development Area land stability, keyway construction, or trail
development followed by appropriate revegetation, or in connection with allowable
agricultural and other uses.
· Allow for limited development or agricultural uses as consistent with the adopted
Specific Plan and zoning for the area, and as compatible with the above goals.
Prohibited Activities
· Off-trail recreational uses.
· Nighttime trail use (except in cases of emergency).
A voidance and Protection Measures
During Construction
Grading within the Grassland Management Zone should only be permitted for earth
stability, keyway construction, trail/maintenance access road construction, and other
development activities not resulting in a permanent structure or removal of habitat
(except for the trail/maintenance access road). All graded areas must be stabilized and
revegetated with native vegetation immediately following completion of construction in
that area or before the rainy season of each year (whichever comes first); see Appendix 6
for revegetation guidelines. Any and all pre-construction survey and avoidance measures
described in the Development Area above apply to any area within the Grassland
Management Zone proposed for such grading, including pre-construction surveys and
salvaging for special status species and installation of exclusion fencing around any
sensitive resources within 100 feet of the work area. Erosion control fencing may be
required if construction occurs on steep slopes that should not be revegetated prior to the
rainy season. Fencing should be reviewed by' a qualified biologist prior to grading for
potential impairment to wildlife movement. Grading should occur during the dry season,
preferably late summer and fall, to avoid impacts to wildlife breeding and water quality.
To the maximum extent feasible, staging areas and materials storage areas related to
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
123
128
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
1_\
.
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
i -~~ ð¿,
Brusca, R.C. and G. J. Brusca 1990. Invertebrates. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland,
Massachusetts.
Bulger, John B., Norman J. Scott Jr. and Richard Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial Activity and
Conservation of adult California red-legged frogs Rana aurora draytonii in coastal
forests and grasslands. Biological Conservation. Vol. 110: pp. 85-95.
Bums, Carl S. 1975. Historical Land-Use Modifications in the Amador Valley,
California. M.A. thesis, Department of Geography, California State University,
Hayward.
Busby, Colin I. (Basin Research Associates, San Leandro). 2001 a. Letter to Mr. Larry
Meyers, Native American Heritage Commission Executive Secretary, Native
American Heritage Commission, Sacramento, CA. Regarding: Request for Review
of Sacred Lands Inventory for Tassajara Road and Fallon Interchange
Improvements, Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, Alameda County. Dated January 23,
2001.
Busby, Colin I. (Basin Research Associates, San Leandro). 2001 b-m. Letters to Ella
Rodriquez; Irene Zwierlein; Jakki Kehl; Jean-Marie Feyling; Katherine Erolinda
Perez; Linda G. Yamane; Marjorie Ann Reid; Michelle Zimmer; Thomas P. Soto;
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson; The
Ohlone Indian Tribe, Andrew Galvan; Trina Marine Ruano Family, Ramona Garibay,
Representative. Regarding: Request for Native American Consultation Tassajara
Road and Fallon Interchange Improvements, Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton,
Alameda County. Dated February 16,2001. Basin Research Associates, San Leandro.
Busby, Colin I. (Basin Research Associates, San Leandro). 2003a. Letter to Mr. Larry
Meyers, Native American Heritage Commission Executive Secretary, Native
American Heritage Commission, Sacramento, CA. Regarding: Request for Review
of Sacred Lands Inventory for Fallon Road Interchange Improvements, Cities of
Dublin and Pleasanton [sic]. Alameda County. Dated July 21,2003.
Busby, Colin 1. (Basin Research Associates, San Leandro). 2003b. Letter to Mr. Larry
Meyers, Native American Heritage Commission Executive Secretary, Native
American Heritage Commission, Sacramento, CA. Regarding: Request for Review
of Sacred Lands Inventory for Eastern Dublin Resource Management Plan, Alameda
County. Dated September 18, 2003.
California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1997. Appendix B: Burrowing Protocol and
Mitigation Guidelines. J. Raptor Res. Report 9: 171-177.
California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG). 1989. Approved Survey
Methodologies for San Joaquin Kit Fox.
California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG), Environmental Services Division.
(ESD). 1994. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements,
Sections 1600-1607, California Fish and Game Code.
California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG). 1997a. Guidelines for Assessing the
Effects of Proposed Developments on Rare and Endangered Plants and Platit
Communities. The Resources Agency, Sacramento. Revised August 15.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
"::2, I.. ,....,
¡' ._)'-r" 0
California Department ofFish and Gmne (CDFG). 1997b. Survey protocol for California
tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho
Cordova. September.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2002a. California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB). Database Query for the Altamont, Byron Hot Springs, Diablo,
Dublin, La Costa Valley, Livermore, Mendenhall Springs, Niles and Tassajara 7~Y2
minute Quads. October.
California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG). 2002b. List of California Terrestrial
Natural Communities Recognized by the Natural Diversity Database. Natural
Heritage Division. May.
California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG). 2003a. State and Federally Listed
Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. Natural Diversity Database.
April.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2003b. Special Plants. Natural
Diversity Database. January.
California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG). 2003c. State and Federally Listed
Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. Natural Heritage Division,
Natural Diversity Database. April.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2003d. Special Animals. Natural
Diversity Database. January.
California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation
(CAL/OHP). 1973. The California History Plan. Volume One - Comprehensive
Preservation Progrml1. Volume Two - Inventory of Historic Features.
California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation
(CAL/OHP). 1976. California Inventory of Historic Resources.
California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation
(CAL/OHP). 1988. Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California.
California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation
(CAL/OHP). 2003a. [Historic Properties Directory] Directory of Properties in the
Historic Property Data file for Alameda County.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants
of California (sixth edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P.
Tibor, Convening Editor. Sacramento, California. 388 pp.
Cartier, Robert (Archeological Resource Management). 1982. Cultural Resources
Evaluation of the Bezley Mining Project on Croak Road and Highway 580 in the
County of Alameda. MS on file, S-4929, CHRIS/NWIC, CSU Sonoma, Rohnert
Park.
City of Dublin. 1994,2004. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Community
Development Department. Adopted 1994, revised 2004.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
129
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
130
I
I
I
I
,
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
1-~5 cJò
City of Dublin. 2001a. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. East Dublin
Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. SCH No. 2001052114. City of
Dublin, Planning Division, Dublin, California. July.
City of Dublin. 2001b. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. East Dublin
Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation. SCH No. 2001052114. City of
Dublin, Planning Division, Dublin, California. October.
City of Dublin. 2002a. City of Dublin General Plan. Community Development
Department. November 5.
City of Dublin. 2002b. East Dublin Properties, Stage 1 Development Plan and
Annexation. Revised Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. SCH No.
200 I 052114. City of Dublin, Planning Division, Dublin, California. January.
City of Dublin. 2002c. East Dublin Properties, Stage 1 Development Plan and
Annexation. Final Revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. SCH No.
2001052114. City of Dublin, Planning Division, Dublin, California. March.
Collins, C.T. 1979. The Ecology and Conservation of Burrowing Owls. In Owls of the
West, Their ecology and conservation. (Eds. P.P. Schaeffer and S.M. Ehlers)
Proceedings of the National Audubon Society Symposium.
Condor Country Consulting. 2002. 2001-2002 Wet Season Branchiopod Survey Report.
Unpublished technical report prepared for Sycamore Associates Associates LLC and
the Braddock and Logan Group for Bankhead and Mandeville Properties, Part of the
East Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California. May 29.
Condor Country Consulting. 2003. 2002-2003 Wet Season Branchiopod Survey Report.
Braddock and Logan East Dublin Properties, Southern Portion, Alameda County,
California. Unpublished technical report prepared for Sycamore Associates LLC.
October 28.
Coulombe, H. 1971. Behavior and Population Ecology of the Burrowing Owl, Speotyto
cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. The Condor 73: 162-176.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 131 pp.
DeHaven, R.W., F.T. Crase and P.P. Woronecki. 1975a. Movements of Tricolored
Blackbirds Banded in the Central Valley of Cali fomi a, 1965-1972. Bird Banding,
Vol. 46, No.3.
DeHaven, R.W., F.T. Crase and P.P. Woronecki. 1975b. Breeding Status of the
Tricolored Blackbird, 1969-1972. Calif. Fish and Game 61(4):166-180.
Doty, J., B. Rader, N. Ilic, B. Stillman and R.S. Wiberg. 1988. Archaeological Site
Record Form, CA-Ala-508/H (4J Ranch Site). On file, CHRIS/NWIC, CSU Sonoma,
Rohnert Park, Rohnert Park.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
/ 3AJJ cb
Dyer, E.H. 1862. Plat ofthe Santa Rita Rancho finally confirmed to John Yountz
Administrator of Estate of Jose Dolores Pacheco. Surveyed under instructions from
the U.S. Surveyor General by E. Dyer, Dep.[uty] Sur.[veyor] March 1862.
Containing 8894 1/108 acres. On file, #119, United States California State Office,
Department of Land Management, Sacramento.
Eckland Consultants. 2001. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Campbell,
Branaugh, Anderson, Pleasanton Ranch Investments and Righetti Parcels 1881 and
2061 Collier Canyon Road, 3457 Croak Road, and U.S. Highway 50 West,
Livermore, California. Comm. Nos. 2000-004360995 and 2000-0043-0006. For
Dublin Corporate Center LLC. February 9,2001.
Egoscue, H.J. 1956. Preliminary studies of the kit fox in Utah. 1. Mammal. 37:351-357.
Egoscue, H.J. 1962. Ecology and life history of the kit fox in Tooele County, Utah.
Ecology 43:481-497.
Eng, L.L., D. Be1k, & C.H. Eriksen. 1990. California Anostraca: distribution, habitat, and
status. Journal of Crustacean Biology 10:247-277.
ENGEO Inc. 2000a. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Mandeville and Bankhead
Properties, Alameda County, California, Dated July14, 2000, Project No.
4663.1.001.01.
ENGEO Inc. 2000b. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Croak Property, Alameda
County, California, Dated November 2,2000, Project No. 5101.1.001.01.
ENGEO Inc. 2000c. Environmental Site Assessment, Mandeville Property, Alameda
County, California. Project No. 4463.3.001.01. April 27, 2000.
ENGEO Inc. 2000d. Environmental Site Assessment, Bankhead Property, Alameda
County, California. Project No. 4463.3.002.01. May 23,2000.
ENGEO Inc. 2000e. Environmental Site Assessment, Croak Property, Alameda County,
California. Project No. 5101.1.002.01. November 2, 2000. Reports for Braddock &
Logan Group, Danville.
ENGEO Inc. 2003. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, East Dublin Properties,
Alameda County, California, Dated February 24,2003, Project No. 1O-3012-89/GEO.
Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. 2001. Habitat Assessment Report for the
Threatened Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp and Endangered Longhorn Fairy Shrimp for the
Bankhead and Mandeville Properties. Unpublished letter report prepared the
Braddock and Logan Group, Danville, California. September 12.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Miss. January. 100 pp.
Eriksen, C.H. and D. Belk 1~99. Fairy shrimps of California's vernal pools, and playas.
Mad River Press, Eureka, CA.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
131
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties ~ DRAFT July 2, 2004
132
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
¡ ~ ì D'b
Ertter, B. 1997 Annotated Checklist of the East Bay Flora. Special Publication #3 of the
California Native Plant Society East Bay Chapter, in Association with the University
and Jepson Herbaria. April.
Feaver, P .E. 1971. Breeding pool selection and larval mortality of three California
amphibians: Ambystoma tigrinum californiense (Gray), Hyla regilla (Baird and
Girard) and Scaphiopus hammondi hammondi (Girard). M.A. Thesis, Fresno State
College, Fresno, CA.
Fink, L.G. 1966. The San Ramon Valley. Contra Costa Chronicles, Spring:15~26{?).
Contra Costa Historical Society, Martinez.
Fisher, R.N. and H. Bradley Shaffer. 1996. The Decline of Amphibians in California's
Great Central Valley. Conservation Biology 10 (5): 1387-1397.
Goddard, George. 1857. Britton & Rey's Map of the State of California. Britton and Rey,
San Francisco. Reprinted by The Friends of the Bancroft, University of California,
Berkeley.
Golightly, R.T., and R.D. Ohmart. 1984. Water Economy of Two Desert Canids: Coyote
and Kit Fox. Journal of Mamma logy. 65:51-58.
.'i
Grinnell, J., 1. S. Dixon, and J.M. Linsdale. 1937. Furbearing Mammals of California,
Vol. II. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Habitat Restoration Group and Sycamore Associates LLC. 1992. Surveys for San Joaquin
Kit Fox, Amphibians and Other Wildlife Species of Concern, Tassajara Valley,
Contra Costa County. Unpublished technical report prepared for the Tassajara Valley
Propeliy Owners Association. August 18.
Hart, J.D. 1987. A Companion to California (New edition, revised and expanded).
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Hayes, M., and M. Jennings. 1988. Habitat Correlates of Distribution of the California
Red~legged Frog and the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog: Implications for Management.
In R. Sarzo, K. Severson, and d. Patton (technical coordinators). Proceedings if the
Symposium on the Management of Amphibians, Reptiles and Small Mammals in
California. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Range and Experiment Station,
Fort Collins, Colorado. General Technical Report (RM-166): 1~458.
Helm Biological Consulting. 2004 (In preparation). Soil Analysis for Evidence of
Federal-listed Large Branchiopods at the East Dublin, Project, Alameda County,
California. Prepared for Sycamore Associates LLC. Draft - April 2004, Final in
preparation.
Helm, B.P. 1998. The biogeography of eight large branchiopods endemic to California.
Pages 124~129 in C.W. Witham, E.T. Bauder, D. Belk, W.R. Farren, and R. Ornduff
(Editors). Ecology, Conservation and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems-
Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento,
CA.
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
J3ß ðÒ
Hendry, G.W. and J.N. Bowman. 1940. The Spanish and Mexican Adobe and Other
Buildings in the Nine San Francisco Bay Counties, 1776 to about 1850. MS on file,
Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.
Hickman, J.C. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of
California Press, Berkeley, California. 1400 pp.
Higley, H.A. 1857. Official Map of the County of Alameda California. Surveyed and
compiled by Order of the Board of Supervisors. Horace A. Higley. Britton and Rey,
San Francisco.
Holland, R.F. 1976. The vegetation of vernal pools: a survey. In S. Jain (ed.) Vernal
Pools: Their Ecology and Conservation. Institute of Ecology Publ. No.9; University
of California, Davis, California.
Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of
California. California Department ofFish and Game, The Resources Agency. 156 pp.
Holland, R. F. and Jain, S. 1988. Vernal pools. In: M.G. Barbour and J. Major, editors.
Terrestrial vegetation of California. California Native Plant Society, Special
Publication No.9, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Holman, Miley Paul. 1985a. Letter Report to Dr. Milton Righetti, Castro Valley, CA.
Regarding: Archaeological Inspection of Proposed Righetti Quarry, Alameda County.
Dated May 7, 1985. MS on file, S-7376, CHRIS/NWIC, CSU Sonoma, Rohnert
Park.
Holman, Miley Paul. 1985b. Letter Report to Mr. Ted C. Fairfield, Pleasanton, CA.
Regarding: Archaeological Reconnaissance of Lands of Chang Su 0 Lin, Alameda
County, CA. Dated April 16, 1985. ,MS on file, S-7379, CHRIS/NWIC, CSU
Sonoma, Rohnert Park.
Holman, Miley Paul. 1985c. Letter Report to Mr. Ben B. White, MacKay & Somps, San
Jose, CA. Regarding: Archaeological Field Inspection of SMP-12, Redwick Quarry,
Alameda County, CA. Dated April 5, 1985. MS on file, S-7380, CHRISfNWIC,
CSU Sonoma, Robnert Park.
Holman and Associates. 1988. [July 1988 archaeological survey under direction ofR.
Wiberg] In Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Studies.
Environmental Setting: Work Task #9. November 29, 1988 by Wallace Roberts &
Todd (WR&T) [also WR&T 1992.
Hoover, M.B., H.E. Rensch, E.G. Rensch and W.N. Abeloe. 1966. Historic Spots in
California (Third edition). Revised by William N. Abeloe. Stanford University
Press, Palo Alto.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1990. Eastern Dublin Golden Eagle Survey Phase 1 Report.
File Number 555-04. Unpublished technical report prepared for Ted Fairfield,
Pleasanton, California. September 27.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1991a. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Review of
Kit Fox Issues Phase 1 Report. Project Number 555-05. Unpublished technical report
prepared for Ted Fairfield, Pleasanton, California. August 20.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
133
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
134
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/3 q ð--
Ó
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1991b. San Joaquin Kit Fox Surveys Dublin Ranch, Alameda
County. Project Number 555-07. Unpublished technical report prepared for Ted
Fairfield, Pleasanton, California. November 7.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. I 992a. Final U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional
Analysis, Dublin Ranch, East Dublin. File Number 555-02. Unpublished technical
report prepared for Ted Fairfield, Pleasanton, California. June 18.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1992b. Summary of Kit Fox Surveys in Contra Costa and
Alameda Counties. Project Number 555-05. Unpublished technical report. April 9.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1997a. Dublin Ranch San Joaquin Kit Fox Preliminary
Report and Results from Earlier Phases of Kit Fox Surveys. Project Number 555-13.
Unpublished technical report prepared for Ted Fairfield, Pleasanton, California. June
11.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1997b. (Revised) Dublin Ranch San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey.
Project Number 555-13. Unpublished technical report prepared for Ted Fairfield,
Pleasanton, California. October 9.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1997c. San Joaquin Kit Fox Surveys, Dublin Ranch,
Alameda County, Phase 1, 1993 USFWS Protocol Fall 1996. Project Number 555-10.
Unpublished technical report prepared for Ted Fairfield, Pleasanton, California. June
11.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1997d. Distribution of the San Joaquin Kit Fox in the North
Part of its Range. Project Number 673.11. Unpublished technical report prepared for
Ted Fairfield, Pleasanton, California. March 13.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1999a. Pao Yeh Un Property Special-Status Species
Surveys. Project Number 555-23. Unpublished technical report prepared for Ted
Fairfield, Pleasanton, California. September 7.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1999b. Letter to Dr. Rick Hopkins of H.T. Harvey &
Associates regarding California red-legged frog habitat on the Jordan property. March
2.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2000a. Project Area Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, Dublin
California. Project Number 555-26. Unpublished technical report prepared for Ms.
Jennifer Un, Pleasanton, California. April 26.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2000b. Rare Plant Survey ofthe East Dublin Property,
Alameda County. File Number 555-03. Unpublished technical report prepared for
Ted Fairfield, Pleasanton, California. August 21.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2000c. Project Area Biological Assessment for the California
Red-Legged Frog. Project Number 555-27. Unpublished technical report prepared for
Ms. Jennifer Un, Pleasanton, California. April 17.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2000d. Dublin Ranch Area A Golden Eagle Report. Project
Number 555-29. Unpublished technical report. April 17.
H. T. Harvey & Associates. 2000e. Dublin Ranch Golden Eagle Nest Buffer-Zone
Analysis. Project Number 555-29. Unpublished technical report. January 31.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J YO Ùn
,-..
Jameson, E.W. Jr. and H.J. Peeters. 1988. California Mammals. University of Cali fomi a
Press. Berkeley, California. 403 pp.
Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special
Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game Contract # 8023.
Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California.
Johnsgard, P. A., 1988. North American Owls Biology and Natural History. Smithsonian
Institution. Washington.
KCE Matix. 2000. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. Vacant Property
Northeast Comer ofI-580 and Fallon Road, Dublin, California. For Mike Tseng,
Burlingame. KCE-2000-098E~R1. November 21,2000.
Kleinfelder, Inc. 2001. Geologic Hazards Assessment and Feasibility Study, Croak Road
and Interstate 580, Dublin, California, Dated February 5, 200 I, Project No. Project
No. 10-3012-89/GEO.
Kroeber, A.L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American
Ethnology Bulletin 78. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Lake, D. 2001. Unusual and Significant Plants of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
Sixth Edition. California Native Plant Society, East Bay Chapter. March 1.
Laughlin, L. 1970. Special Wildlife Investigations: San Joaquin kit fox - Its distribution
and abundance. CDFG. 20 pp.
Levy, R. 1978. Costanoan. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, Volume 8. Handbook of
N011h American Indians, W.G. Stm1evant, general editor, pp. 485-497. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
Loredo, I and D. Van Vuren. 1996. Reproductive Ecology of a Population of the
California Tiger Salamander. Copeia No.4.: 895-901
Loredo, I, D. Van Vuren, and M.L. Morrison. 1996. Habitat use and migration behavior
of the California tiger salamander. Journal of Herpetology 30:282-285.
McKay & Somps. 2002.Dublin Ranch Drainage Master Plan.
Maeda-Martinez, A.M., D. Belk, H. Obregon-Barboza, and H.J. Dumont. 1997. Large
branchiopod assemblages common to Mexico and the United States. Hydrobiologia
359: 45-62.
McGrew, J.C. 1979. Vulpes macro tis. Mammalian Species No. 123.6 pp.
Mercure, A., Ralls, K., Koepli, K. and R. Wayne. 1993. Genetic subdivisions among
small canid: mitochondrial DNA differentiation of swift, kit and arctic foxes.
Evolution 47:1313-1328.
Milliken, Randall Theodore. 1995. A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal
Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769-1810. Ballena Press Anthropological
Papers No. 43.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties ~ DRAFT July 2, 2004
135
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
136
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/~ / ¿-ò
Milliken, Randall Theodore. 1997. Chapter 2 Ethnography oftheLos Vaqueros Region,
Chapter 3 Contact-Period Lifeways, Chapter 7 Spanish Contact and Miss ionization,
1776-1806, Chapter 8 The Mission and Rancho Eras, 1806-1845. In Native
American History Studies for the Los Vaqueros Project: A Synthesis edited by
Fredrickson, David A, Suzanne B. Stewart and Grace H. Ziesing. Los Vaqueros
Project Final Report 2. Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University
Academic Foundation, Inc., Robnert Park.
Mosier, Dan L. 1978. Harrisville and the Livermore Coal Mines. Mines Road Books,
San Leandro.
Mosier, Dan L. 1983. Corral Hollow Coal Mining District. Mines Road Books, San
Leandro.
Mosier, P. and D. Mosier. 1986. Alameda County Place Names. Mines Road Books,
Fremont, California.
Morrell, S.H., 1975 San Joaquin kit fox distribution and abundance in 1975.
Administrative Report 75-3, CDFG, Sacramento, CA. 28 pp.
Morell, S.H. 1972. Life history ofthe San Joaquin kit fox. CDFG. 58:162-174.
Nusbaumer, G.L. 1896. Map of Murray Township. Surveyor's Office, Oakland. On file,
Bancroft Library, Berkeley.
Oakland Tribune [The]. 1880. Oakland Daily & Weekly Tribune Map of Alameda
County. Compiled from the most reliable surveys, and corrected to date. Tribune
Publishing Company, Oakland.
Oakland Tribune [The]. 1898. Alameda County: The Eden of the Pacific; the Flower
Garden.
O'Farrell, T.P. 1980. Elk Hills Endangered and Threatened Species Program, Phase I
Progress Summary. U.S. Dept. Energy Tropical Rep. No. EGG 1183-2403, Santa
Barbara Operations. U.S. Depa¡iment of Energy, Goleta, CA. 19 pp.
O'Farrell, T.P., and P.M. McCue. 1981. Inventory of San Joaquin Kit Fox on USBLM
Lands in the western San Joaquin Valley-Final Report. Rep. No. EGG 1183-2416,
EG&G Energy Measurements, Goleta, CA 33 pp.
Olson, B.L. 1994. Status of Rare, Threatened and Endangered Vascular Plants in
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties (and Some Adjacent Areas). Third Edition.
California Native Plant Society, East Bay Chapter, Rare Plant Committee. March 1.
Orloff, S., F. Hall, and L. Spiegel. 1986. Distribution and habitat requirements of the San
Joaquin kit fox in the northern extreme of their range. Transactions of the Western
Section of the Wildlife Society 22:60-70.
Pennak, R.W. 1978. Freshwater invertebrates of the United States 2nd Edition. John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
} '-12__ c- h
\......... .~
Pilas- Treadway, Debbie. 200 I. Letter to Mr. Colin I. Busby, Basin Research Associates,
San Leandro, CA. Regarding: Tassajara Road and Fallon Interchange Improvements
[Cities of Dublin and PleasantonJ, Alameda County. Dated February 1,2001. Native
American Heritage Commission, Sacramento.
Pilas- Treadway, Debbie. 2003a. Letter to Mr. Colin I. Busby, Basin Research
Associates, San Leandro, CA. Regarding: Proposed Fallon Road Interchange
Improvements, Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, Alameda County. Dated July 30,
2003. Native American Heritage Commission, Sacramento.
Pilas~Treadway, Debbie. 2003b. Letter to Colin Busby, Basin Research Associates, San
Leandro, CA. Regarding: Request for Review of Sacred Lands Inventory Eastern
Dublin Resources Management Plan, Alameda County [with Proposed Los Gatos
Creek Trail- Reach 4, City of San Jose, Santa Clara County]. Dated September 24,
2003. Native American Heritage Commission, Sacramento.
Praetzellis, Adrian. 1992. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for
Black Diamond Mines (Diamond Mines Regional Preserve), Somersville Road,
Antioch, Contra Costa County, California. MS on file, S-13591, CHRIS/NWIC,
CSU, Sonoma, Rohnert Park.
Predatory Bird Research Group (PBRG). 1999. A ·Population Study of Golden Eagles in
the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area: Population Trend Analysis 1994-1997. Long
Marine Lab, University of California, Santa Cruz, Califol1lia. NREL/SR-500~26092.
Prepat:ed for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Contract No. DE-AC36-98-
GOI0337. 34 pp.
Preston, R. E. 1999. Preliminary RepOli on the Conservation Status of Congdon's
Spikeweek (Hemizonia parryi subsp. Congdonii) in the South and East San Francisco
Bay Area and Monterey County, California. Unpublished technical report prepared
for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. February 23.
Quaternary Research Group. 1976. Archaeology in Alameda County: A Handbook for
Planners (written and designed by D.P. Miller). Alameda County Planning
Department, Hayward.
Rana Resources. 2001a. California Red-legged Frog Protocol-level Surveys for the
Jordan Ranch. Letter of Findings to Zander Associates. May 28.
Rana Resources. 2001 b. California Tiger salamander Protocol~level Surveys for the
Jordan Ranch. Letter of Findings to Zander Associates. July 27.
Remsen, H.V. 1978. Bird Species of Special Concern in California: an Annotated List of
Declining or Vulnerable Bird Species. California Department of Fish and Game, The
Resources Agency.
Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California
Native Plant Society, Sacramento. 471 pp.
Shaffer, H. 8., and R. Fisher 1991. Final report to the Califol1lia Department ofFish and
Game; California tiger salamander surveys, 1990-Contract (FG 9422). Califol1lia
Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova,
California.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
137
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
138
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/'+~ èJb
Sibley, D.A. 2000. The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf. New York, New York.
545 pp.
Simovich, M., Hathaway, S., Glaspy, J., Lamberson, H. 1992. The Effect of Temperature
on the Distribution and Co-Occurrence of Fairy Shrimp (Order Anostraca) in Vernal
Pools in San Diego California. American Zoologist. 32:124A
Skinner, M.W. and B.M. Pavlik. 1994. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular
Plants of California. 5th edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento,
California. Special Publication No.1 338 pp.
Skorupa, J. P., R. L. Hothem, and R. W. DeHaven. 1980. Foods of breeding tricolored
blackbirds in agricultural areas of Merced County, California. Condor 82:465-467.
Slevin, Joseph R. 1928. The Amphibians of Western North America: An Account of the
Species Known to Inhabit California, Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Sonora, and Lower California. Occasional Papers of
the California Academy of Sciences. v 16. California Academy of Sciences, San
Francisco: pp 1-11, 129-132, plates 21,22.
Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton
Mifflin Company.
Storer, T. I. 1925. A Synopsis ofthe Amphibian of California. University of Cali fomi a
Publications in Zoology 27: 1-342.
Swick, C.D. 1973. Determination of San Joaquin kit fox in the northwest margin of its
range. 1993 Transactions of the Western Section ofthe Wildlife Program W-54-R4.
CDFG, Sacramento, California. 14 pp.
Sycamore Associates LLC. 1996. Grazing Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment Area, City of Dublin. March 1996.
Sycamore Associates LLC. 2001a. Site Assessment for California Red-Legged Frog and
California Tiger Salamander at the Bankhead/Mandeville Properties, East Dublin,
Alameda County, California. Unpublished technical report prepared for the Braddock
and Logan Group, Danville, California. July 14.
Sycamore Associates LLC. 2001b. Site Assessment for California Red-legged Frog,
Dublin Corporate Center, Dublin, Alameda County, California. Unpublished letter
report prepared for Foster Enterprises, Foster City, California. August 14.
Sycamore Associates LLC. 2001c. California Red-legged Frog Focused Surveys, Dublin
Corporate Center Project Site, Dublin, Alameda County, California. Unpublished
letter report prepared for Foster Enterprises, Foster City, California. August 16.
Sycamore Associates LLC. 2001d. California Tiger Salamander Focused Surveys, Dublin
Corporate Center Project Site, Dublin, Alameda County, California. Unpublished
letter report prepared for Foster Enterprises, Foster City, California. August 20.
Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002a. Biological Assessment for the Bankhead and
Mandeville Properties, Part of the East Dublin Properties, Alameda County,
California. Unpublished technical report prepared for the Braddock and Logan Group,
Danville, California. August 21.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
) Lj LJ c'b
Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002b. Botanical Assessment of the Bankhead, Mandeville,
and Croak Properties, Part of the East Dublin Properties, Alameda County,
California. Unpublished technical report prepared for the Braddock and Logan Group,
Danville, California. January 31.
Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002c. Botanical Assessment for a Portion ofthe East Dublin
Properties (Tseng, Anderson, Righetti, Branaugh, Campbell, RBJ, and Pleasanton
Ranch Properties) Alameda County, California. Unpublished technical report
prepared for the Braddock and Logan Group, Danville, California. August 1.
Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002d. Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination for the Bankhead and Mandeville Properties, Part of the East Dublin
Properties, Alameda County, California. Unpublished technical report prepared for
the Braddock and Logan Group, Danville, California. January 31.
Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002e. Wetland Delineation and Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination for a Portion of the East Dublin Properties (Tseng, Anderson, Righetti,
Branaugh, Campbell, EBI, and Pleasanton Ranch Properties) Alameda County,
California. Unpublished technical report prepared for the Braddock and Logan Group,
Danville, California. August 22.
Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002f. Wetland Delineation and, Preliminary Jurisdictional
Detennination for the Croak Property, Part of the East Dublin Properties, Alameda
County, California. Unpublished technical report prepared for the Braddock and
Logan Group, Danville, California. September 23.
Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002g. Interim Special-Status Branchiopod Report for the
East Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California. Unpublished technical report
prepared for the Braddock and Logan Group, Danville, California. September 27.
Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002h. Site Assessment for California Red-Legged Frog at
the Croak Property, Part of the East Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California.
Unpublished technical report prepared for the Braddock and Logan Group, Danville,
California. September 27.
Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002i. Interim California Tiger Salamander Report, East
Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California. Unpublished technical report
prepared for the Braddock and Logan Group, Danville, California. September 27.
Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002j. Habitat Assessment for Burrowing Owl, Tseng and
Righetti Properties, Part of the East Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California.
Unpublished technical report prepared for Tseng and Righetti. February 22.
Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002k. Habitat Assessment for Burrowing Owl, Bankhead,
Mandeville, Anderson, Campbell, Branaugh and Croak Properties, Part of the East
Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California. Unpublished technical report
prepared for the Braddock and Logan Group, Danville, California. September 27.
Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003a. Site Assessment for the California Red-Legged Frog,
Croak Property, Part of the East Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California.
September 27.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
139
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
140
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/'-I~ Òö
Sycamore Associates LLC. 2003b. California Tiger Salamander Report for the East
Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California. November 5.
Thompson and West. 1878. Official Historical Atlas Map of Alameda County,
California. Thompson and West, Oakland (reprinted by Valley Publishers, Fresno,
1976).
Thomsen, L. 1971. The Behavior and Ecology of Burrowing Owls in the Oakland
Municipal Airport. The Condor 73:177-192.
Townsend, S. E., and Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002a. Early Evaluation for the San
Joaquin Kit Fox, Bankhead and Mandeville Properties, Dublin, California.
Unpublished technical report prepared for the Braddock and Logan Group, Danville,
California. January 4.
Townsend, S. E., and Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002b. Early Evaluation for the San
Joaquin Kit Fox, Tseng and Righetti Properties, Part of the East Dublin Properties,
Alameda County, California. Unpublished technical report prepared for Tseng and
Righetti. February 25.
Townsend, S. E., and Sycamore Associates LLC. 2002c. Early Evaluation for San
Joaquin Kit Fox for the Anderson, Campbell, Branaugh and Croak Properties, Part of
the East Dublin Properties, Alameda County, California. Unpublished technical report
prepared for the Braddock and Logan Group, Danville, California. September 27.
Trenham P.C., H. Bradley Shaffer, W.D. Koenig, and M.R. Stromberg. 2000. Life
History and Demographic Variation in the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma
californiense). Copeia No.2: 365-377.
United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (US/BLM) [GLO
or General Land Office]. 1852~1865. Survey Plat Township No.2 South, Range No. I
East, Mount Djablo Meridian.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the Conservancy Fairy Shrimp,
Longhorn Fairy Shrimp, and the Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp; and Threatened Status
for the Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp. 50 CFR part 17. September 19.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996a. Endangered and Threatened Plant and
Animal Taxa; Proposed Rule. 50 CFR part 17. February.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996b. Interim Survey Guidelines to
Permittees for Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered
Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods. April 19.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants: Detennination of Threatened Status for the California Red-legged Frog.
50 CFR part 17 Vol. 61(101): 25813-25833. May 20.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Guidance on Site Assessment and Field
Surveys for California Red-legged Frogs (Rana aurora draytonii). Sacramento Field
Office. February.
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
! J Lo ("Co
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the
San Joaquin Valley, California. Region 1, Portland, Oregon.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). I 999a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. 50 CFR Part 17 Vol. 62 (234): 64306-64320. December 31.
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999b. San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey Protocol
for the Northern Range.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Guidelines for Conducting and
Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants.
January.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Federal Register: Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Determinations of Critical Habitat for the
California Red-legged Frog; Final Rule. Part 11.50 CFR. Part 17. Vol. 66. No. 49: pp.
14625-14674. Tuesday, March 13,2001.
http://endangered.fws.gov/fi:pubs/fDI0313.pdf.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002b. Recovery Plan for the California Red-
legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland,
Oregon. viii + 173 pp.
htto:/ /www.rl.fws.gov/ecoservices/ endangered/recovery/CRIF Recovery Plan. pdf.
United States War Department, Corps of Engineers (US War Dept). 1940.Pleasanton,
Calif. [ quadrangle]. Topographic map, IS minute series.
United States War Department, Corps of Engineers (US War Dept). 1943.Pleasanton,
Calif. [quadrangle]. Topographic map, 15 minute series (aerÜil photography 1937).
Reprinted from Military edition for civil use. United States Geological Survey,
Menlo Park
Wallace, Robert & Todd (WR&T). (with various including Holman & Associates,
Cultural Resources). 1988. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan Studies. Environmental Setting: Work Task #9. November 29, 1988.
Wallace, Robert & Todd (WR&T). (with various including Holman & Associates,
Cultural Resources). 1992. Section 3.9 Cultural Resources. In DRAFT
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan. Part I. August 28, 1992. State Clearinghouse No. 91103064.
Wallace, Robert & Todd (WR&T). (with various including Holman & Associates,
Cultural Resources). 1993. Mitigation Monitoring Plan: Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment. Section 3.9: Cultural Resources. For City
of Dublin Planning Department, Dublin, CA. Wallace, Robert & Todd, San
Francisco.
Wallace, Robert & Todd (WR&T). (with various including Holman & Associates,
Cultural Resources). 1998. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, City of Dublin (June
6, 1998). For City of Dublin Planning Department.
Weise, J.G. 1964. An aggregation ofphyllopods. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci. 67:206~207.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
141
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
142
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/ '-I- 7 CJb
Wesler, H.B. 1987. The range of the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) north
of Kings County, California. Master's Thesis, California State University, Hayward.
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. 2004a (In preparation). Rare Plant Survey Report for
the Jordan Property, Duplin, California. Prepared for the City of Dublin.
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. 2004b (In preparation). California Tiger Salamander
Survey Report for the Jordan Property, Dublin, California. Prepared for the City of
Dublin.
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. 2003a (revised 2004). Biological Assessment of the
Jordan Property, Dublin, California. Prepared for the City of Dublin. December
2003 (revised January 2004).
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. 2003b. California Tig~r Salamander Site Assessment
Report, Jordan Property. (Appendix of 2003 a). Prepared for the City of Dublin.
October 2003.
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. 2003c. San Joaquin Kit Fox Early Evaluation
Report, Jordan Parcel. (Appendix of2003a). Prepared for the City of Dublin.
November 2003.
Wiberg, Randy S. 1984. Archaeological Reconnaissance of the SMP-18 Quarry Area
(APN 99B-3200-4-4) Near Livermore, Alameda County, California. MS on file, S-
7105, CHRIS/NWIC, CSU Sonoma, Rohnert Park.
Wiberg, Randy S. 1988. The Santa Rita Village Mortuary Complex (CA-Ala-413):
Evidence and Implications of a Meganos Intrusion. Coyote Press Archives of
California Prehistory No. 18.
Wiberg, Randy S., Randall Dean and Miley P. Holman. 1998. A Cultural Resources
Study for the North Livermore Master Plan/Specific Plan Environmental Impact
Report Alameda County, California. MS on file, S-20335, CHRIS/NWIC, CSU
Sonoma, Rohnert Park.
Williams, D.F. 1986. Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California. California
Department of Fish and Game. Wildlife Management Division Administrative Report
86-1. 112 pp.
Wood, M.W. 1883. History of Alameda County, California. M.W. Wood, Oakland.
Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In A. Poole and F. Gill [eds],
The Birds of North America, No. 231. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia; and Amer.
Onithol. Union, Washington, D. C.
Zander Associates. 1999. Biological Resources Constraints Analysis, Jordan Ranch,
Dublin, California. March 18.
Zander Associates. 2000. Wetland Delineation and Jurisdictional Determination for the
Jordan Ranch, Dublin, Alameda County, California. Unpublished technical report
prepared for Shea Homes, Livermore, California. April 11.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/Y6òtJ
Zam, M. 1974. Burrowing Owl Speotyto cunicularia hypugaea. Habitat Management
Series for Unique or Endangered Species. Report No. 11. Technical Note. Filing
Code 6601. Bureau of Land Management. US Department of the Interior. Denver.
Zoellick, B.W., T.P. O'Farrell, and T.T. Kato. 1987. Movements and home range of San
Joaquin kit foxes on the Naval Petroleum Reserves, Kern County, California. Rep.
No. EGG 10282-2184, EG&G Energy Measurements, Goleta, CA. 38 pp.
Personal Communications
Jennings, Mark R. Biologist. Rana Resources. Davis, CA. Email correspondence with
Matthew Bettelheim of Sycamore Associates LLC. January 30 and 31, 2003.
Baldwin. Personal communication with Chris Thayer of Sycamore Associates LLC.
1999.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
143
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/ L-/ q L-trJ
APPENDIX 1. HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS INFORMATION
This is information taken from Hydrologic Conditions Appendices A, B, and C from the
Sycamore Associates/MacKay and Somps Resource Management Plan Studies for the
East Dublin Properties (Revised January 21, 2004). .
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CALCULATION OF INPUT DATA FOR HEC-1 ANAL VSIS:
BASIN "A ..
Area = 187.0 ae. = 0.292 sq.ml.
Cheek Impervious Area:
Impervious Area (from existing paved roads) = 1.700 1ft X 10ft ::: 0.39 ae.
43,560 sftlae.
% Impervious = O.39ac.l187ac. = 0.2%
therefore. negligible _
Uniform Rainfall Loss (SCS curve number method):
Type C Soil:
69.1ac.l187.0ac. = 37%
(0.37)(0.25 in/hr) = 0.09 in/hr
Type D Soil:
117.9ac./187.0ac. = 63%
(0.63)(0.09 in/hr) = 0.06 in/hr
Snyder Standard Laa Time:
L = 7,600 ft = 1.44 mi.
Le = 3,880 ft = 0.73 mi.
S = 210 ft/mi.
n = 0.07 (natural course)
Where:
Lag = K n [LxLc I ..Jš]O.38
Lag = (24.35)(0.07)[(1.44)(0.73) I ~210]O.38
/6-0 Db
19149-10A
1/27/04
L < 1.7 mi. therefore:
K = 15.22 + 2.1464(L) + 8.6981 1 (L)
K = 15.22 + 2.1464(1.44) + 8.6981/1.44
K = 24.35
Page 1 of 5 APPENDIX A
J'0 j Do
BASIN "B"
Area = 281.3 ae. = 0.440 sq.mi.
Check Impervious Area:
Impervious Area (from existing paved roads) = 870 1ft X 18 ft = 0.36 ae.
43,560 sft/ae.
% Impervious = 0.36ae./281.3ae. = 0.1%
therefore, negligible _
Uniform Raînfall Loss (SCS curve number method):
Type C Soil:
228.2ae./281.3ae. = 81 %
(0.81)(0.25 in/hr) = 0.20 in/hr
Type D Soil:
53.1ae./281.3ae. = 19%
(0.19)(0.09 in/hr) = 0.02 in/hr
Snyder Standard Laa Time:
Where:
L = 7,100 ft = 1.34 mi.
Le = 3,850 ft = 0.73 mi.
S =250 Wmi.
n = 0.07 (natural course)
Lag = K n [LxLe I ''¡Šf38
Lag = (24.59)(0.07)[(1.34)(0.73) 1 "250]°·38
L < 1.7 mi. therefore:
K = 15.22 + 2.1464(L) + 8.69811 (L)
K = 15.22 + 2.1464(1.34) + 8.6981/1.34
K = 24.59
19149-10A
1/27/04
Page 2 of 5 APPENDIX A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/5d- Dn
'-"
19149-10A
1/27/04
BASIN "c"
Area = 57.4 ae. = 0.090 sq.mi.
Cheek Imcervious Area:
Impervious Area (from existing paved roads) = 1.400 1ft X 10ft = 0.32 ae.
43,560 sft/ae.
% Impervious = 0.32ae./57.4ae.= 0.6%
therefore, negligible _
Uniform Rainfall Loss (SCS eurve number method);
Type C Soil:
42.7ae./57.4ae. = 74%
(0.74}(0.25in/hr) = 0.191n/hr
Type 0 Soil:
14.7ae./57.4ae. = 26%
(0.26}(0.09 in/hr) = 0.02 in/hr
Snyder Standard Laa Time:
Where:
L = 3,550 ft = 0.67 mi.
Le = 1,710 ft = 0.32 mi.
S = 200 ft/mi.
n = 0.07 (natural eourse)
Lag = K n [LxLe I Všt·38
Lag = (29.64}(0.07}[(0.67}(0.32) 1 "200]°·38
L < 1.7 mi. therefore:
K = 15.22 + 2.1464(L) + 8.69811 (L)
K = 15.22 + 2.1464(0.67} + 8.6981/0.67
K = 29.64
Page 3 of 5 APPENDIX A
BASIN "D"
Area = 578.4 ac. = 0.904 sq.mi.
/b3 ~
19149-10A
1/27/04
Check Impervious Area:
Impervious Area (from existing paved roads) = (3.800Ift x 10ft)+(8.4501ft x 18ft) = 4.36 ac.
43,560 sfUac.
% Impervious = 4.36ac./578.4ac. = 0.8%
therefore, negligible _
Uniform RainfaflLoss (SCS curve number method):
Type C Soil:
Type D Soil:
Snyder Standard Lao Time:
Lag = K n [LxLc / ~]0.38
485.7ac./578.4ac. =84%
(0.84)(0.25 In/hr) = 0.21 In/hr
92.7ac./578.4ac. = 16%
(0.16)(0.09 in/hr) = 0.01 in/hr
Where:
L = 9,250 ft = 1.75 mi.
Lc = 4,065 ft = 0.77 mi.
S = 180 ftImi.
n = 0.07 (natural course)
Lag = (24.0)(0.07)[(1.75)(0.77) / "180]°·38
L > 1.7 mi. therefore:
K = 24.0
Page 4 of 5 APPENDIX A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I )
I
) 5L/ ùf"'
,-) 19149~10A
1/27/04
OVERALL E.D.P.O. BASIN
Area = 1.104.1ae. = 1.725 sq.mi.
Cheek Impervious Area:
Impervious Area (from existing paved roads) = (6.900Ift x 10ft)+(9.320Ift x 18ft) = 5.44 ae.
43,560 sft/ae.
% Impervious = 5.44ae./1,104.1ae. = 0.5%
therefore, negligible _
Uniform Rainfall Loss (SCS eurve number method):
Type C Soil:
825.7ae./1,104.1ae. = 75%
(0.75)(0.25 in/hr) = 0.19 In/hr
Type D Soil:
278.4ae./1, 1 04.1 ae. = 25%
(0.25)(0.09 in/hr) = 0.02 in/hr
Snyder Standard Laa Time:
Where:
L = 10,250 ft = 1.94 mi.
Le = 5,200 ft = 0.98 mi.
S = 210 ftImi.
n = 0.07 (natural course)
Lag = K n [LxLc 1 ..¡sf3B
Lag = (24.0)(0.07)[(1.94)(0.98) 1 ~21 Ot·3B
L > 1.7 mi. therefore:
K = 24.0
Page 5 of 5 APPENDIX A
,
)
12
I
~
~
~
-
""-
~
~
..:;
~
m.
,"
,
c::..
.
.
ï,¡
"
~~
~
~...
II~
N
:
\0">
~
.
,
.
.
~
~
~
~\
J
~
N
ohJ
I
~
.~':...'
4 . ~ ~
, "
, ,
::: ::
4" .
· .":
· . ~ .
· ~ . . .
· .. ..
.' .'
:~
r" , . .
· t. ..
· ~ ~ . .
" ,
4... .
, . ,
, ,
It(
-
..
)
~
" ,
. "
.
" .
;-.;...;
¡
I
I
,
!
fI'l ~ ~
aJ .
~ ~
"'"' -
aJ ~~~
~ 0 ~:><î
f ~ ~~~
~ z ê3<t:ä
[[ ;§ g:~.i
,.Q r/) ~ ~ .!I
= ~~ 5
0___ ~Q ~
'7: ~ '"
..... ç:::¡ Q 8
fI'l r/) N
~ -( ~
~p: ~
~
Ó
0:1
.....
..¡
o
.....
.....~
H
-=
~
¡:Q
ri:i ~
..( ..(
~~. -t!.¡¡ -+1.8
~g a;l~
~ C! rr¡ ~L~: ~
0'Jr--_~0c> .
<~~&;t:;Q
:~'_I~_uci
~~~~~~
~-=-=~~~
Volt,/] rn tf.¡ !-<
~..«~o
Q ¡:Q to IH:Q !-<
å
0
0
....
4t~ å
0
10
z
å
---::;- ç-
----
-n
.~I
f!!!!! ¡;: ::
IiIii D I
-~~
.ON
,,,.
¡r;-
...~
II
ul~
I~l
I
¡
i
¡
I
!
it
~
().~
~
~
o~
"'t:i
Ii::
~
~
~
I
In
I~
~
IZ
~
1,0
I~
~
I~
~
I~
o
I~
~
IZ
1::3
lê
~
I
I~
I~
I
I
I
I
D-
«
:2
>-
w
>
0:::::
:=)
U)
-.J
o
U)
IU
I
i
~
--,
--'--
I
¡Zl
I
) t:-""""Za ùb
(f)
!:::
::E
::J
~
(f)Z
I:=::J
~~
'W
qa..
a.. 0
. e:::
qa..
w.........
o
<:)
o
'<t-
o
o
o
N
II
--I
--I 0
5 (f)
(f)
0 u
..-
w
a..
ç
w
a..
ç
II
= ~"ub
«= = = ..
= z: .....J
z~z:_~
-(f)(/)!:2o
~ « « C:H-
CD CD CD
iSÇ,,)
_Ii. ~¡ ~
"'i] ~
"'!j. ~
~I ~
"'U
~ .
¡¡:!!Í
tJl'"
ij¡ I!;
is '"
..J~ ti
~æ 3i
to
to
m
..---
:r:
u
a::::
«
::::::E
«
:z
a::::
o
u-
:::J
<C
U
0\
~
"'=!
'õ
'"
I
.r:
><
QJ
~
....
-g,
.r:
/'
0>
'<t
.-
0>
t5
a::::
«
<C
o
I..LJ
::E
::s
«
W
>
a:::: 0>
:::> f"J
c.n'---"'oo
LO ~
---J"-- <.D
o òð .-
U1
:z m ,..,
o U1 g
D tJ '(
w W 0>
U1:r: N
« U1 I
D:I ~ '<t
--:-:
0..
~
....
o
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/ò-7Q6
APPENDIX 2. OFF-SITE MITIGATION SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
FOR SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
The measures in this appendix are intended to serve as guidelines and recommendations only;
however, specific criteria and measures may change as a result of agency-specific pennits.
Compensatory mitigation will be required for impacts to the following species within the Project
Area: Califomia tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) (CTS), California red-legged frog
(Rana aurora draytonii) (CRLF), westem burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea),
Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii), and San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex
joaquiniana), and possibly for San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), although this last
species appears to not occupy the site. It is understood by the City of Dublin and the regulatory
agencies that mitigation is accomplished via a combination of in-perpetuity preservation of on-
site and off-site lands. In order to be considered for mitigation credit, on-site lands will be
managed for natural resource values and will be protected by a conservation easement. If on-site
mitigation Call110t fully be achieved, off-site mitigation lands should be protected and conserved
as a second priority. Criteria to be used in selecting off-site mitigation lands are discussed
. below.
Off-site mitigation lands for these special-status species must be selected according to criteria
that should allow for their effective management in perpetuity. Factors supporting suitable
mitigation areas must encompass both structural characteristics, notably soils, vegetative cover,
slope, aspect and hydrology, and relevant functional dimensions of those that use the habitat.
These factors relate to life cycle, dispersal, foraging and refuge needs of resident fauna, along
with habitat diversity, availability of movement corridors and compatible adjacent land uses.
While the specific suitability criteria for mitigation land may vary according to the biological
resource for which it is intended, a given parcel of land may contain attributes that allow it to
function for more than one habitat or species. For example, ponds suitable for California red-
legged fi·og breeding can also provide breeding habitat for Califomia tiger salamander, and
grassland with squÍ1Tel bUlTOWS can provide dens for bUlTowing owl as well as San Joaquin kit
fox, in addition to aestivation habitat for Califomia tiger salamander.
As all requisite habitat characteristics may not be available on mitigation land in either sufficient
area or quality, it is recognized that some enhancement and management may be necessary, as
described in Section 4.2.2. Off-site mitigation criteria are summarized by species in the
following subsections.
California Red-Legged Frog
California red-legged frog have been observed as larvae, juveniles, and adult frogs inhabiting
streams, creeks, ponds, marshes, sag ponds, deep pools and backwaters within streams and
creeks, dune ponds, lagoons, estuaries, and artificial impoundments like stock ponds.
Nevertheless, access to penl1anent aquatic habitat is a paramount concern for the survival of
local California red-legged frog populations. Ponds that remain partially filled until the late
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 2
Page 1
/5'2 ÖQ
summer or early fall (in eight out of ten years) are considered suitable breeding habitat for
California red-legged frog.
As outlined in Section 2.1.2.4 of the Resource Management Plan, the general habitat
requirements of California red-legged frog include ponds, stream courses, pennanent and vernal
pools, and intem1ittent streams, generally with ponding depths of 2.5 feet or greater. Structurally
they also require intact emergent or shoreline vegetation, adjacent upland areas that contain small
mammal burrows or other suitable refugia for aestivation, and absence of competitors/predators
such as bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana). Opportunities for movement between these habitat
characteristics should be part of the selection criteria as California red-legged frog are most
likely to persist where multiple breeding areas are within an assemblage of habitats used for
dispersal. The site should also support at least a small population of California red-legged frogs.
As required in mitigation measure SM-BIO-14 from the EDPO SElR, off-site mitigation lands
shall (a) provide suitable or better habitat than those impacted within the Project Area, (b) consist
of large blocks of habitat rather than many small parcels, (c) be linked to existing open space and
other high quality habitat, and (d) exclude or limit public use.
California Tiger Salamander
Mitigation criteria for California tiger salamander largely coincide with those relevant for
California red-legged frog. As previously noted, California tiger salamander require vernal pools,
ponds (natural or man-made), or semi-pem1anent calm waters (where ponded water is present for
a minimum of three to four months) for breeding and larval maturation. Maximum ponding
depth should exceed 3 feet if possible. Suitable habitat for larvae should have little to no current
and lack fish species. Water currents may wash away eggs, and fish may prey upon California
tiger salamander eggs and larvae. California tiger salamander larvae are tolerant of a wide range
of environmental conditions, as they can occur in either clear or turbid water and in pools that are
devoid of vegetation, as well as those that contain dense aquatic growth. California tiger
salamander sub adults and adults also require adjacent upland areas that contain small mammal
burrows or other suitable refugia for aestivation.
As required by mitigation measure SM-BIO-19 from the EDPO SEIR, off-site mitigation lands
shall (a) consist of land currently occupied by California tiger salamanders, (b) consist of large
blocks of habitat rather than many small parcels, (c) be linked to existing open space and other
high quality habitat, and (d) exclude or limit public use.
Burrowing Owl
Potentially suitable habitat for burrowing owl includes low grasses or other vegetation, the
presence of ground squirrel burrows, and low to moderate topographic relief. Grasslands that are
characterized by steep slopes are suitable for foraging; Burrowing owls generally occupy
burrows in flat or gently sloping areas. Overwintering burrowing owls have been observed using
different types of shelter including rocky shelters and crevasses on steep slopes, and other
atypical burrows. Lands that are grazed are preferable as grazing removes thatch and keeps
grassland heights at low levels (less than 6 inches), which is important for maintaining viable
burrowing owl habitat, as their habitat quality is reduced by taller grasses.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004 Appendix 2
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/~-9 {Yb
As required by mitigation measure SM-BIOo-35 from the EDPO SEIR, off-site lands protected
for burrowing owl mitigation shall (a) be large enough to mitigate for at least 6.5 acres for each
pair or unpaired owl impacted within the Project Area (unless mitigation acreage has already
been preserved on-site), and (b) be adjacent to occupied burrowing owl habitat.
San Joaquin Kit Fox
San Joaquin kit fox prefer habitats of open or low vegetation with loose soils and require
underground dens to raise pups to avoid predators, to regulate temperature and to avoid other
adverse envirorunental conditions. In the northern portion of their range, burrowing mammals,
primarily ground squirrels (Spermophilus califomicus), usually provide these holes. San Joaquin
kit fox also prefer habitat that is not adjacent to urban centers or areas of high human use. San
Joaquin kit fox mitigation criteria are not important for the Project Area as there is no occupied
San Joaquin kit fox habitat present on site and off-site lands preserved for other special status
species (especially CTS) wi11likely serve as suitable habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox.
Congdon's Tarplant
Congdon's tarplant grows in alkaline areas in valley and foothill grasslands and hayfields. It is
found in alkaline wetlands or heavy clay soils, where it occurs with ruderal wetland, or alkali-
loving plants. Some disturbance appears to be necessary for its persistence.
As required by mitigation measure SM-BIO-4 from the EDPO SEIR, in order for off-site lands to
qualify as mitigation habitat for special status plant species the land must (a) contain the special
status plant at the acreage necessary for 1: 1 replacement, or (b) support the soil and hydrology
conditions necessary for creation of new special status plant habitat through seeding.
San Joaquin Spearscale
San Joaquin spearscale grows in seasonal, alkali wetlands and alkali sinks in chenopod scrub,
meadows, playas, and valley and foothill grassland. It is tolerant of inundation and relatively
tolerant of disturbance.
As required by mitigation measure SM-BIO-4 from the EDPO SEIR, in order for off-site lands to
qualify as mitigation habitat for special status plant species the land must (a) contain the special
status plant at the acreage necessary for 1: 1 replacement, or (b) supp0l1 the soil and hydrology
conditions necessary for creation of new special status plant habitat through seeding.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties ~ DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 2
Page 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J 1..2 0 ð;Q
APPENDIX 3. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES PRE..CONSTRUCTION
SURVEYS, SALVAGE AND RELOCATION GUIDELINES
The measures in this appendix are intended to serve as guidelines and recommendations only;
however, specific criteria and measures may change as a result of agency-specific pennits. .
The measures described below are intended to locate, protect, avoid and/or salvage and relocate
special status species and heritage trees within the Development Area of the Project Area. All
pre-construction surveys, protection and avoidance monitoring, and salvage and
transplant/relocation efforts should be conducted by a qualified biolgist. Some salvage and
relocation work may require a USFWS and/or CDFG permit.
Please note that the measures described below conform to protocols established by the California
Department ofFish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as of the date of this RMP.
These measures are subject to any changes to such protocols adopted by these agencies.
CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG AND CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER
Pre~construction Surveys and Avoidance Measures
Pre-construction surveys and avoidance measures for CRLF are required according to EDPO
SEIR mitigation measure SM-BIO-15.
8M-BIG-i5: Thefollowing construction-related CRLF avoidance and protection measures shall
be followed for all future development activity in the Project area, on a property-by-property
basis ..
· Prior to construction, a map shall be prepared to delineate upland areas from preserved
wetland areas.
· The wetland construction boundary shall be fenced to prohibit the movement of CRLF into
the construction area and control siltation and disturbance to wetland habitat. Following
installation of fencing, its proper loation shall be yerified by a qualified biologist. The
biologist shall ensure that at no time during construction is vegetation removed inside of the
fenced area. If construction necessitates the removal of vegetation within the fenced area,
additional mitigation may be required. Additionally, the biologist shall walk the length of the
fence once each construction day to ensure that CRLF are not trapped within the enclosure.
The biologist shall walk the length of the fence more than once a day in areas where CRLF
are most abundant.
· Pre-construction surveys within the construction zone shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist with appropriate permits to handle CRLF. If no CRLF are detected during these
surveys then construction activities may proceed. If CRLF are found within the construction
disturbance zone they shall be immediately moved passively, or captured and moved, to
suitable upstream sites.
· All construction employees shall participate in an endangered species/special-status habitat
education program to be presented by a qualified biologist prior to construction activities.
The program shall cover such topics as identifying wetland habitat and areas used by CRLF,
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 3
Page 1
/1£ / lÓ
identification of CRLF by photos, the state and federal Endangered Species Acts, and the
consequences of violating the terms of these acts.
. All construction adjacent to wetlands shall be regularly monitored to ensure that impacts do
not exceed those included within the protective standards of the mitigations. Work
performed within 500 feet of aquatic habitat shall be monitored by the biologist, who shall
document pre-project and post-project conditions to ensure compliance.
. During construction, the biologist shall be on site whenever construction within any aquatic
habitats is to occur. AI1y construction activity within ordinary high water shall be photo-
documented by the biologist. Ìn addition, a biologist with the appropriate permits to relocate
CRLF shall be available for consultation as needed.
Salvage and Relocation
Drift Fence Design
California tiger salamander breeding activities are restricted to winter stonn events, primarily
those characterized by warm temperatures. Between November and March, drift fences and pit
fall trap arrays should be used to capture California tiger salamander during their migratory
events to potential breeding ponds. The pit fall trap arrays should be designed to encircle the
ponds between 10 - 50 feet above the waterline based on the hydrology of the site and general
site constraints. The drift fence component of the pit fall trap array should be constructed using
two-foot tall silt fencing anchored with nails or staples to pine stakes (1 inch x 2 inches x 24
inches) installed around the pond and around known burrow concentrations. The silt fencing
should be buried six inches deep in the soil to anchor the drift fence to the ground. the
remaining 1-~ feet should be above ground to guide California tiger salamander into the pit fall
traps. AI1y dirt remaining after fence and trap installation should be placed in plastic bags and
stored nearby for use later as fill. On slopes where runoff is expected to be significant, panels of
5/16 x 5/16 mesh size Vexar® plastic sheet netting should be installed as needed in the silt fence
at ground level to allow runoff to pass through. The interval and necessity of the Vexar may be
determined on an as-needed basis during drift fence inspections. Drift fence inspections should
be conducted on a daily basis when opening pitfall traps, prior to storm events. Vexar should
then be installed as needed between storm events.
Because the Vexar may provide a surface on which California tiger salamander can climb, a
minimum 3-inch thick polyethylene foam pipe insulation should be attached at the top of the
Vexar, and fastened with multiple plastic zip ties. Should California tiger salamander climb the
Vexar fencing, the foam roll should act as a barrier to prevent movement over the top of the
fence.
Pitfall Trap Setup
At approximately 30-foot intervals, pit fall traps should be installed in the middle of the silt fence
to maximize trap efficiency and to capture California tiger salamander traveling to or from the
breeding pond and/or burrow concentrations. Each pit fall trap should consist of a 2-gallon
plastic bucket buried upright in a manner so that the upper lip is flush with the surface of the soil,
and the sides are in contact to with the adjacent drift fence. Dirt removed during installation may
be placed in plastic bags and stored nearby for use later as fill. Multiple 1/4-inch to 3/8-inch
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 3
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It.!; d. (Yo
drainage holes should be drilled in the bottom of each bucket to prevent accumulation of water.
Pit fall trap covers, consisting of 2-gallon plastic bucket lids elevated by two, 2 x 4-inch wooden
posts nailed to the lid (parallel to each other and on the outer edges of the lid), should cover each
pit fall trap when the traps are open. This should serve to attract California tiger salamander and
to protect trapped California tiger salamander caught individuals from the elements and from
predators. The traps are closed by flipping the lids to seal each bucket and the 2 x 4-inch posts
should be positioned perpendicular to the fence. Aluminum flashing should be used to bridge any
gap in between the silt fence and the bucket and should be flipped out towards the bucket when
the trap is open and back towards the fence when the trap is closed (Figure 3-A). Buckets should
contain a clean, cellulose sponge moistened with bottled water. The sponges should be
monitored and re-moistened when traps are set to prevent excess moisture or desiccation.
Each bucket should be equipped with animal safe-houses as refugia for incidental by-catch such
as small mammals. Safe-houses should be constructed based on the design outlined in Padgett-
Flohr and Jennings (2001) with one 12.5 cm-Iong piece of 5-cm diameter PVC, capped off on
one end, situated atop a base constructed from a 12.5 cm-Iong piece of 5-cm diameter PVC cut in
half and glued horizontally to each other (Figure 3-B). Additionally, a small hole should be
drilled near the edge of each bucket lid, where a piece of thin, natural fiber rope should be
fastened, and allowed to drape down to the inner base of the bucket. This should allow an
opportunity for small mammals caught incidentally to climb out and escape the bucket.
Timing of Salvage Effort
Salvage and relocation efforts for California tiger salamander should be conducted during the
wet season between November and April prior to construction or grading activities to coincide
with California tiger salamander breeding and movement activities. All California tiger
salamander, in all life stages, should be handled and transported by biologists with proper
permits. Salvage of California red-legged frog should be conducted in consultation with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). All California red-legged frog should be handled by a U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist.
Between March 15 and April 15, biologists should conduct bi-weeklysurveys for California tiger
salamander egg masses in the ponds proposed for removal or restoration. If California red-legged
frog salvage operations are to be conducted simultaneously, relocation efforts should concentrate
on their egg and larval life stages in late April and early May, and should coincide with
California tiger salamander egg and larvae salvage and relocation.
Trapping Effort
Traps should be set approximately 1 hour before sunset on the evenings of forecasted nocturnal
rain events. Traps should then be checked and closed the following morning at approximately
2:00 am to ensure adequate hours of darlmess are available for any released California red-
legged frog individuals to escape potential mortality (i.e. desiccation, predation, etc.). A
forecasted rain event should be determined in the following manner. At 2:00 pm each day during
the trapping period, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website should be
checked. If the predicted chance of rainfall for the San Jose area is > 70 percent the traps should
be opened that evening. Trapping should continue on subsequent days until the prediction for
.Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties ~ DRAFT July 2,2004
Appendix 3
Page 3
1(£;30ò
Figure 3-A. Top View of Pitfall Trap Bucket When Open
TOP VIEW WHEN OPEN
Plastic bucket lid ___
---,~I
~~····~'~~'~"C~~---~~~·_______"""""""'~~~
Wooden fence stakeJ
...- --------, '-
Aluminum flashing
/ underneath bucket lid
Silt Fence
~
"'---------/ \
2x4 wooden post
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 3
Page 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
léÞ c/ 6ò
Figure 3~B. Rodent Safe House
A
~._- 12.5 em --~--"~,.."~
Open end
Cap
B
Rodent Safe-House. Side view (A) and front view (B) of the assembled rodent-safe house
constructed with 5-cm diameter PVC pipe (Padgett-Flohr and Jennings 2001).
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 3
Page 5
/Lp~ÓÌJ
rainfall falls below the 70 percent chance. At that time trapping should ensue for one final day
and should then cease for that stonn event. Additionally, the rainfall for the previous day should
also be checked at 2:00 pm. Ifmorethan Y<t inch of rain has fallen in the last 24-hour period, the
traps should also be opened to account for any incorrect prediction of rain events. Pit fall traps
should be closed at all times when traps are not in use by flipping the lids to seal each bucket.
Each pit fall trap cover should be numbered on both sides to facilitate identification of captured
individuals.
Capture and Relocation
California tiger salamander should be identified based on their point of capture, then measured
[California tiger salamander: snout-to-vent length (SVL) and total length (TL)], sexed, and
released as soon as possible into the salvage pond. Incidental species such as western toads and
Pacific tree frogs should be counted and released as soon as possible into the salvage pond. As
stated previously, all California red-legged frog incidentally captured should be released into the
salvage pond or as directed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
When handling species, all personnel should wear disposable gloves moistened with bottled
water. All disposable gloves should be used once, and then disposed of properly to prevent the
potential transmission of disease. All species should be handled as little as possible to prevent
stressing the animals. Non-native species, such as bullfrogs, should be euthanized and excluded
from the project area to the greatest extent possible.
Adult California tiger salamander should be transported from the pit fall traps to the salvage
pond in individual zip-lock bags filled partially with ponded water from the bucket and/or the
adjacent pond, as well as a pocket of air, and placed in a cooler for transportation. Using ponded
water in the bucket or adjacent pond should help to prevent any temperature shock. All bags
should be used once, and then disposed of properly to prevent the potential transmission of
disease. As stated previously, California red-legged frog salvage and relocation efforts should be
allowed during the spring and should concentrate on their egg and larval life stages in late April
and early May, or as directed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This effort should coincide with
California tiger salamander egg and larvae salvage and relocation. When encountered during the
spring egg and larval salvage, however, adult California red-legged frog should be relocated to
the salvage pond. Beginning in March, biologists should conduct bi-weekly surveys for egg
masses in the breeding ponds. Any egg masses observed should be identified by a U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service approved biologist, and then relocated to the salvage pond. Egg masses should
be transported affixed to the vegetation or substrate upon which they were originally deposited,
and relocated in the salvage pond by attaching the substrate to a brace.
Once it is believed that all breeding activity has ceased for the trapping year, those ponds
proposed for removal or restoration should be drawn down and inspected for remaining
California tiger salamander adults, egg masses, and larvae; California red-legged frog adults, egg
masses, and tadpoles; incidental amphibian species adults, egg masses, larvae, and tadpoles; and
potential food organisms.
Two screens should be situated in front of the pump intake to prevent entrainment. The outer
screen should be constructed of a larger, course mesh to filter out larger debris; the inner screen
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004t
Appendix 3
Page 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I/..Q ú¿ ðb
should be constructed of a smaller, fine mesh no more than 5 mm in diameter to prevent larv'ae
and egg masses from entering the intake.
California tiger salamander larvae and California red-legged frog tadpoles should each be placed
in a one-gallon Zip-lock bag filled with bottled water; other organisms can be transported several
to a bag. Adult California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog should be transported
in individual zip-lock bags filled with ponded water from the adjacent pond, as well as a pocket
of air, and placed in a cooler for transportation. All bags should be used once, and then disposed
ofpropedy to prevent the potential transmission of disease. CTS, California red-legged frog, and
other organisms should be allowed to acclimate to the salvage pond by floating each bag in the
salvage pond 30-45 minutes prior to release.
To avoid the spread of chytridiomycosis and iridovirus infections, two diseases recently
identified in California amphibian populations, all individuals involved in salvage operations
responsible for handling equipment and/or California tiger salamander and California red-legged
frog should take precautions to clean and decontaminate all field equipment and clothing.
Padgett-Flohr (2002) outlines the necessary steps to prevent the potential transmission of disease.
BURROWING OWLS
Pre-construction surveys, avoidance and mitigation measures for Burrowing Owl are required
according to the following EDPO SEIR mitigation measures, as adapted from CDFG 1995:
SM-BIO-28: If construction is scheduled during the nesting season (February 1 ~ August
31),pre-construction surveys should be conducted on the entire Project area and within 150
meters (500 feet) of the Project area prior to any ground disturbance. To avoid take of over-
wintering birds, all burrows should be surveyed 30 days prior to ground disturbance between the
months of September 1 and January 31. If ground disturbance is delayed or suspended for more
than 30 days after the pre-construction survey, the site should be resurveyed.
SM-BIO-29: If over-wintering birds are present no disturbance should occur within 150 feet of
occupied burrows. If owls must be moved away from the disturbance area, passive relocation
techniques, following CDFG guidelines, should be used rather than trapping (as described
below). If no over-wintering birds are observed, burrows may be removed prior to the nesting
season.
SM-BIO-30: Maintain a minimum buffer (at least 250 feet) around active burrowing owl nesting
sites identified by pre-construction surveys during the breeding season to avoid direct loss of
individuals (February 1 - September 1).
SM-BIO-31: If removal of unoccupied potential nesting burrows prior to the nesting season is
infeasible and construction must occur within the breeding season, a nesting burrowing owl
survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to construction. Owls
present on site after February J will be assumed to be nesting on site or adjacent to the site. All
active burrows shall be identified.
SM-BIO-32: All active nesting burrows shall have an established 250-foot exclusion zone
around the burrow.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 3
Page 7
/w7 Õö
SM-BIO-33: If construction is scheduled during summer, when young are not yet fledged, a 250-
foot exclusion zone around the nest shall be established or construction shall be delayed until
after the young have fledged, typically by August 31.
SM-BIO-34: When destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable, existing unsuitable burrows
should be enhanced (enlarged or cleared of debris) or new burrows created (by installing
artificial burrows) at a 2: 1 ratio on protected lands.
SM-BIO-35: A minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per pair or unpaired resident bird,
shall be acquired, and permanently preserved and protected. The protected lands shall be
adjacent to occupied burrowing owl habitat and at a location acceptable to CDFG.
According to the California Department of Fish and Game (1997), the destruction and/or
degradation of foraging habitat (within 100 m) of an occupied burrow(s) should also be
considered an impact to the species.
Mitigation actions should be carried out prior to the nesting season, between September 1 and
January 31.
Passive Relocation
The California Department of Fish and Game's Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation
(1997) and the California Burrowing Owl Consortium's (CBOC) Burrowing Owl Survey
Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (1997) outline the following specific mitigation measures:
I. Occupied burrows should not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 through
August 31) unless a qualified biologist approved by California Department of Fish and
Game verifies through non-invasive monitoring that either: (1) the birds have not begun
egg-laying and incubation; or (2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging
independently and are capable of independent survival.
2. To offset the loss of foraging and burrow habitat on the Project Area, a minimum of 6.5
acres of foraging habitat should be presumed [calculated on a 100 m (approx. 300 ft.)
foraging radius around the natal burrow] per pair or unpaired resident bird contiguous
with burrows occupied within the last three years. Ideally, foraging habitat should be
retained in a long-term conservation easement.
3. When destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable, existing unsuitable burrows
should be enhanced (enlarged or cleared of debris) or new burrows created (by installing
artificial burrows) at a ratio of2:1 in adjacent suitable habitat that is contiguous with the
foraging habitat of the affected owls.
4. If burrowing owls must be moved away from the disturbance area, passive relocatiön
techniques (as described below) should be used rather than trapping. At least one or more
weeks will likely be necessary to allow burrowing owls to move and acclimate to
alternate burrows.
5. The project sponsor should provide funding for long-term. management and monitoring of
the protected lands. The monitoring plan should include success criteria, remedial
measures, and an annual report to California Department of Fish and Game.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 3
Page 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/02:.
;"
ct.)
Passive relocation is defined as encouraging burrowing owls to move from occupied burrows to
alternative natural or artificial burrows that are located at least 50 meters from the impact zone
and that are within or contiguous to a minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat for each pair of
relocated owls. Relocation of burrowing owls should only be implemented during the non-
breeding season.
Passive relocation efforts should exclude burrowing owls from burrows in the immediate impact
zone and within a 50-meter (approx. l60-foot.) buffer zone by installing one-way doors in
burrow entrances. The entire impact site, including a I 50-meter (500-foot) buffer zone, should be
walked and all potential burrowing owl burrows mapped and identified. All other burrows that
are determined to be inadequate for burrowing owl inhabitation should be backfilled.
One-way exclusion doors should then be placed on every potential burrow within the impact
zone and remain in place for at least 48 hours. The exclusion doors should be checked daily to
verify proper functioning. If an exclusion door is found to be nonfunctional, the door should be
replaced and the 48..hour monitoring period should start over. Burrowing owl presence is
presumed to be absent after 48 hours. Exclusion doors should be removed after 48 hours, and the
burrows should be backfilled to prevent inhabitation by burrowing owls.
For situations in which there are a large number of burrows, or passive relocation must be
performed on a very large site, the impact zone should be divided into sections and relocation
efforts should focus on one section at a time until the entire impact zone has been covered.
At least one alternate natural or artificial burrow should be provided for each burrow that will be
excavated in the project impact zone. The project area should be monitored daily for one week to
confinn burrowing owl use of alternate burrows before excavating burrows in the immediate
impact zone. '
SPECIAL STATUS MAMMALS
San Joaquin Kit Fox
Pre-construction surveys should be conducted for San Joaquin kit fox according to the amended
Eastern Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan, as required by EDPO SEIR mitigation
measure SM-BIO-9.
Bats
Pre-construction surveys and avoidance for sensitive bat species are required according to the
following EDPO SEIR mitigation measures:
SM-BIO-43: A qualified bat biologist shall conduct occupancy surveys of the Project area to
determine whether any mature trees, snags or suitable buildings that would be removed during
future project construction provide hibernacula or nursery colong roosting habitat.
SM-BIO-44: If presence is observed, removal of roost habitat should be conducted at specific
times of the year. Winter roosts are generally occupied between October 15 through January 30
and maternity colonies are generally occupied between February 15 and July 30. If bats are
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 3
Page 9
J0q ~
using roost sites that need to be removed, the roosting season of the colony shall be determined
and the removal shall be conducted when the colony is using an alternate roost.
OTHER SPECIAL STATUS BIRDS
Pre-construction surveys and avoidance for nesting passerines are required according to the
following EDPO SEIR mitigation measures:
SM-BIO-38: If construction is scheduled to occur during the nesting season (February 1 -
August 15), all potential nesting sites and structures (i.e., shrubs and tules) within the footprint
of development should be removed prior to the beginning of the nesting season. However,
because the removal of grassland habitat is infeasible, mitigation for impacts to California
horned làrk are addressed more particularly in mitigation measures below.
SM-BIO-39: If removal of nesting ·trees and shrubs within the footprint of development is
infeasible and construction must occur within the breeding season, a nesting bird survey should
be performed by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to construction. These surveys shall
cover grassland habitat for potential nesting California horned lark. Birds present on site after
February 1 will be assumed to be nesting onsite or adjacent to the site.
SM-BIO-40: All active nests shall be identified by flagging and a buffer zone, depending on the
species, shall be established around the nest site. Buffer zones can range between 75 feet to 100
feet.
SM-BIO-41: If construction is scheduled during summer, when yound have not yet fledged, an
exclusion zone around the nest shall be established or construction shall be delayed until after
the young have fledged, typically by July 15.
SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS
Previously conducted protocol-level surveys have already determined the location of special
status plants within the Project Area; these plant species are Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin
spearscale. EDPO SEIR mitigation measure SM-BIO-4 allows mitigation for impacts to these
rare plant species within the Development Area to be mitigated either through (a) permanent
preservation of an equally-sized population, or (b) establishment of an equally-sized population
in suitable preserved habitat. If option (b) is chosen requiring occupied habitat creation, the
special status plants present within the Development Area should be flagged prior to construction
activities and the seeds from these plants should be salvaged when they are determined to be
mature by a qualified botanist (for Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale, this should
generally be in September or October). If the seeds must be stored prior to distribution, the
seeds should be kept in a paper bag no more than Y4 full of seed at room-temperature to
discourge mold formation or seed dessication. The seeds should be distributed in suitable habitat
(alkali grassland) in a permanently preserved area during the first late fall or early winter period
immediately following seed salvage to maintain seed viability. The soil within the suitable
habitat should be scarified, and the salvaged seed and fertilizer may be applied with hand-held
spreaders to scarified soil. The site should then be raked so that approximately one eighth to one
quarter inch of soil covers the seed. No watering is required if adequate winter rains ensue.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 3
Page 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/10 DC;
SPECIAL STATUS INVERTEBRATES
Any wetland habitat within the Project Area found to support special status invertebrates should
be marked with flags or temporary fencing prior to anyon-site construction activities. Following
creation of mitigation wetlands on- or off-site, the top 2 to 4 inches of topsoil, including plant
material and potential invertebrate cysts, should be removed from the wetland to be impacted.
Removal of topsoil should be done systematically, one wetland at a time, and starting at one end
of the wetland in order to avoid disturbing or compacting the surface prior to removal of topsoi1.
The removed topsoil should be translocated the same day to a newly created wetland with
approximately the same area as the impacted wetland, or else temporarily stockpiled in a
protected area for later transplant prior to the onset of the rainy season. The translocated soil
should be spread evenly over the bottom of the new wetland and lightly compacted using a
manual roller.
TREES
To the maximum extent feasible, Heritage Trees present within the Development Area or other
grading areas should be avoided during construction activities. In order to avoid potential
impacts to preserved Heritage Trees within or adjacent to the Development Area or grading
zones, Heritage Trees should be individually tagged and accurately mapped prior to preparing
grading plans or detailed trail plans. Construction monitoring by an experienced arborist is
required during grading near any preserved trees, to ensure the implementation of protection
measures and to account for additional trees lost during construction, for which mitigation should
be provided. When native trees occur within the area to be graded, an experienced arborist
should be consulted to determine whether the trees can be saved, and what procedures should be
employed. Emphasis should be placed on protecting native and mature trees, especially the larger
ones, wherever possible. For trees to be protected during construction, a detailed set of tree
protection guidelines should be developed, describing:
· Construction fencing
· Cutting roots in the least damaging manner
· Preventing the storage of materials and equipment around protected trees
· Avoiding changes in drainage patterns around trees
· Cultural treatments
· Construction monitoring
· Other protection measures
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 3
Page 11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/1/~
APPENDIX 4. INTEGRATED STORMWATER AND RUNOFF
PROGRAM
The measures in this appendix are intended to serve as guidelines and recommendations
only; however, specific criteria and measures may change as a result of agency-specific
permits.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The federally-mandated Clean Water Program includes permit and reporting
requirements for both the City of Dublin and new development or renovation projects;
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for various types of businesses and residential
projects; and public awareness activities. The purpose of the Clean Water Program is to
eliminate pollutants from the stormwater system so that only clean water enters our
waterways and ultimately San Francisco Bay. The Alameda Countywide Clean Water
Program, of which the City of Dublin is a member, has issued its Stormwater Quality
Management Plan (Plan) for Fiscal Year 2001/02 through 2007/08 (February 19, 2003).
The Plan describes the Program's approach to reducing stormwater pollution and the
actions the Program and member agencies will take to meet that objective. One
component of the Plan addresses new development and seeks to identify and help
implement source controls, site design measures and post-construction stormwater
pollutant hydromodification controls. New development offers a unique opportunity to
construct projects that prevent stormwater pollution by reducing the amount of
impervious cover and incorporating stormwater treatment systems into the landscaping.
Design concepts for planning environmentally sensitive developments that address
stormwater runoff are provided in the Start at the SourCe manual (1999 Edition)
developed through the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association
(BASMAA). The manual offers a menu of choices to address stormwater management
through planning and zoning, site design, drainage systems, source controls and treatment
éontrols. This Integrated Stormwater and Runoff Program draws upon the concepts
described in the BASMAA manual and provides guidance to the City of Dublin in
planning development of the Project Area with the intent of reducing stormwater
pollution.
2.0 SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDANCE
One of the best opportunities to reduce the generation of nonpoint source pollution from
development is through planning and design. The following sections provide selected
design concepts for consideration in the project area that could help to reduce urban
runoff. These design concepts are intended as a general guideline with the actual design
of a storm water management program coordinated with and approved by the RWQCB as
part of the permitting process for each property's development.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 4
Page I
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 4
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/7é). ùb
2.1 Planning and Zoning
The following planning and zoning tools should be considered to minimize changes to
the hydrology ofthe Project Area with projected development.
1. Minimize the extent of Directly Connected Impervious Area (DCIA) by clustering
development, reducing the amount of hardscape areas, and maintaining contiguous
natural open space.
2. Encourage preservation or restoration of existing natural resources such as streams or
other water bodies.
3. Consider alternative street standards for local and access streets with the intent of
reducing the amount of impervious coverage.
· allow reduced street widths between 16 and 30 feet and reduced sidewalks of
4 feet each side.
· incorporate shared moving lanes
· allow reduced design speeds
4. Consider adjusting parking requirements as follows
· reduce parking minimums - reduce office use minimum from four to three
spaces per thousand square feet.
· establish landscape reserves ~ areas adjacent to parking lots that are of
appropriate size and geometry to accommodate additional parking. Initially
installed as landscape areas, but identified as landscape reserve on approved
plans. If the need for parking increases beyond the amount originally
provided, reserve can be converted to parking.
· allow shared parking facilities.
· allow use of pervious surfaces for parking areas such as; porous asphalt,
crushed aggregate, open-celled unit pavers, turf blocks - use in parking lot
pavements, especially for parking stalls, for outlying spaces only used during
peak demand, or for occasional uses such as churches or sports stadiums.
2.2 Site Design
There are five fundamental hydrological and stormwater management concepts that can
be applied to site planning to generate a community that is more integrated with the
natural topography, that reinforces the hydrologic cycle, and that is more aesthetically
pleasing. These concepts are:
1. Understand how a site relates to the watershed.
2. Start stormwater management at the point where water contacts earth.
3. Apply small-scale techniques consistently over the entire watershed to both
improve water quality and reduce overall runoff volume.
4. Employ an array of a few simple techniques throughout the site.
5. Integrate the solutions into an overall plan that addresses the watershed.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I í?:J òb
Following are some examples of how these concepts could be applied to the Project Area.
Define development envelope and protected areas: The intent of the RMP is to delineate
sensitive habitat areas that should be protected and to generally define a development
envelope. To that end, the RMP addresses this element of site design.
Minimize hvdromodification and changes to the pre-development hydrology of the
watershed: In addition to maximizing the permeable area on the site and preserving
quality open space, the following design elements should also be considered to meet this
goal:
· Maintain the water supply to a receiving water at 85% of pre-development
flows to the maximum extent practicable
· Effectively protect property from flooding
· Detain, slow, infiltrate or otherwise preyent any increases in the peak
stormwater discharge rate and duration fÌom the site for the 2-year to 10-
year, 6-hour storm when compared with pre-development conditions
stream banks fÌom erosion;
· Institute stream protection and restoration measures.
Reduce the amount of DCIA and maximize permeability within the development
envelope: This can be accomplished by limiting overall impervious land coverage or by
directing runoff fÌom these impervious areas to pervious areas. Design examples include:
· Minimizing the direct interconnectivity between roof drains and the storm
sewer system through the use of downspouts that discharge stormwater
onto a splash block set in a grassy swale; it is then treated as it flows a
minimum of 10 feet before emptying into an area drain in the front yard
· Locating open space where stormwater will accumulate so that runoffmay
infiltrate and recharge shallow subsurface flow to local stream channels.
Maximize choices for mobility: Design development that promotes alternatives to
automobile use by incorporating bike paths, pedestrian paths, and transit stops.
Use drainage as a design element: Consider the stormwater drainage design early in the
planning process. A drainage system for stormwater infiltration can work with natural
landforms and land uses to become a major design element of the site plan. The
Conservation Area should be avoided to the extent feasible as a storrnwater discharge
location, or storrnwater should first be treated in bioswales or by other similar methods.
2.3 Drainage Systems
A drainage system that integrates flood control and stormwater quality control should be
the goal for the Project Area. Such a system should demonstrate the following:
. An understanding of the site conditions including the local climate, size of the
"design storm", nature of the soils and topography.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublîn Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 4
Page 3
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 4
Page 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J 7V VD
. Identification of potential pollutants and methods for addressing specific
constituents.
. Selection of drainage system elements best suited for local conditions and
potential pollutants.
There are three basic elements that can be used, alone or in combination, to achieve
stonnwater management goals; infiltration, retention/detention, and biofilters. Which
element or combination of elements is applied depends on the site conditions and other
factors such as the pollutant type and set water quality or quantity standards. Key to the
design of the drainage system and selection of the appropriate elements is the amount of
runoff from impervious areas that must be managed before being released into the
conveyance storm drain network or receiving water. The San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board has set forth criteria for detennining the Requisite
Maximized Water Quality Treatment Volume (MTV), or the amount of stonnwater
requiring treatment before discharging into the receiving waters. The MTV is used in
designing and constructing elements of the drainage system. The five numeric sizing
criteria set forth by the RWQCB follow:
1. 10% of the 50-year design flow; or
2. The runoff volume from up to and including the 85th percentile 24-hour storm
event equaling the "maximized treatment volume" calculated with historical
rainfall records and the formula in the Urban Runoff Quality Manual of Practice
No. 23/ ASCE Manual of Practice No. 87 (1988), which is. automated in the Cal
Trans Basin Sizer Program for sites throughout California; or
3. 80% annual rainfall capture with 40-hour detention basin storage capacity. Unit
basin storage volume (acre-ft/acre) for a given site is calculated as a function of
local rainfall data and percent of directly connected impervious area (DCIA). (See
the method described in Appendix D of the California Stormwater Best
Management Practices Handbook (March, 1993); this method is automated in the
Cal Trans Basin Sizer Program for sites throughout California; or
4. The runoff volume produced by a rainfall event equal to two times the 85th
percentile, 24-hour storm event hourly rainfall intensity for the site; or
5. Runoff from a rain event equal to a minimum of 0.20 in./hr. intensity.
Based on the amount of DCIA, the requisite MTV ranges from 0.022 acre-feet/acre for
40% DCIA to 0.044 acre-feet/acre for 100% DCIA. Thus the corresponding MTV for the
1120-acre Project Area ranges from 25 to 49 acre-feet depending on the DCIA.
The Project Area contains soils that fall into Group D of the Hydrologic Soil Groups
classified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Group D soils have a high
runoff potential and very slow infiltration rates and are best suited for retention- and
detention-based strategies verses infiltration designs. The Project Area is also very dry
seasonally and subject to frequent winds, which, like high summer temperatures, elevate
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/ 75" c~
local evapotranspiration rates. With the exception of uncontrolled nuisance flows, there
is a lack of water for maintenance of vegetation in the dry summer months. Therefore,
the use of vegetative filters as biofilters may require supplemental irrigation. Availability
of this water can be dependent upon water supply and demand which, in the case of
drought, may become severely limited and leave the biofilter prone to failure.
Consideration must be given in designing the drainage elements to prevent the creation of
undesirable habitat, such as breeding ponds for bullfrogs that are predators to the
California red-legged frog (CRF) known to exist on the site. This precludes construction
of deep wet ponds that may retain water for extended periods of time during the summer
months in proximity to bullfrog habitat. Drainage elements must also be designed to
avoid the creation of mosquito-breeding habitat.
The Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program is developing pollutant reduction plans
(PRPs) to provide a comprehensive list of actions it will take to further reduce the
discharge of impairing pollutants that are the highest priority for the RWQCB: diazinon,
mercury, copper, and PCBs. The Stormwater Quality Management Plan, July 2001 -
June 2008 developed by the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program offers
approaches for reducing the level of these pollutants in stormwater. The Stormwater
Management Plans prepared for the project area should incorporate these approaches
where appropriate to help reduce the amount of diazinon, mercury, copper and PBCs in
runoff from the site. Other pollutants to consider include nutrients such as nitrogen and
phosphorous; bacteria and viruses carried in animal excrement, sanitary sewer overflow,
and trash handling areas; and oil and grease.
3.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Best Management Practices (BMPs) are methods, activities, maintenance procedures, or
other management practices for reducing the amount of pollution entering a water body.
BMPs also commonly include design features such as vegetated swales, even though
these are not a management practice. In this document, two types of BMPs are described,
source controls and treatment controls. Source controls are used to prevent the
introduction of contaminants into storm sewers and receiving water by educating the
public in regards to landscape design, use of fertilizers and irrigation, and appropriate
disposal and control of pollutants. Treatment controls are 'end-of-pipe' structures (i.e.,
infiltration basins, constructed wetlands, vegetated swales and media filters) intended to
de-contaminate runoff before discharge into receiving waters. Construction-related
BMPs should be addressed in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be
submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for each project within the
Proj ect Area.
3.1 Source Control BMPs
Source controls are intended to reduce or eliminate pollutants in runoff at their source
through reduction of runoff flows and by separating pollutants and stormwater. As such,
source controls are largely directed towards modifying the behaviors of those living and
working at the post-development Project Area. Protection of water quality begins at the
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 4
Page 5
Resource Management Plan for the East DubHn Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 4
Page 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I'
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
/ 7 i..Q Ù'b
lot level through the application of source control BMPs that limit nuisance flows and
prevent illicit discharges to the storm drain system. Following are several areas where
source controls can be applied.
Public Education
Storm drain stenciling - "No Dumping, Drains to Bay"
Creek and pond signage -"No Dumping, Sensitive Resource"
Distribution of Educational Materials on stormwater pollution prevention
produced by Alameda Count and the City of Dublin
Encouraging washing of vehicles on lawns or at a commercial car washing facility
Waste Management
Regular Street Sweeping
Oil Recycling Program
Household Hazardous Waste Management Program
Landscape Management
Long-term erosion control - Establish vegetative ground cover on all slopes and
open areas to enhance soil stability and prevent erosion.
Herbicide, pesticide and fertilizer management - Minimize use of herbicides,
pesticides and fertilizer. Use drip irrigation; monitor and maintain irrigation
systems; regulate irrigation precipitation rates.
Landscape plant selection - encourage use of water-conserving plants and turf
wherever possible.
Other examples
Sanitary sewer drains for swimming pools
Sanitary drained outdoor covered wash areas for vehicles, equipment and
accessories
Sanitary sewer drain connections to take fire sprinkler test water
Appropriate covers, drains and storage precautions for outdoor material storage
areas, loading docks, repair/maintenance bays, fueling areas.
3.2 TREATMENT CONTROL BMPS
Treatment controls are the end-of-pipe control intended to treat any contaminated water
not intercepted by planning and design and source controls. All low flows discharging
from the project, including any nuisance flows that are not eliminated through the
application of source control BMPs, should be treated in structural BMPs before
discharging to receiving waters. Determining the appropriate treatment controls for the
Project Area should consider environmental, engineering, and custodial and fiscal factors
as described in the following sections.
3.2.1 Environmental Considerations
The design of treatment controls must consider site specific environmental factors. Many
treatment control BMPs (infiltration ponds or trenches, porous pavement, modular
paving, etc.) rely on infiltration processes to remove contaminants and reduce the volume
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/77 òb
of stormwater runoff from developed areas. Due to the fact that much of the Project
Area contains Group D soils, infiltration BMPs may not be suitable. The practicability of
different types of "structural treatment" BMPs is directly related to local environmental
attributes such as space availability, soil infiltration capacity, slope stability, climate and
hydrology. Siting of treatment BMPs is also constrained by natural factors such as
topography, requisite hydraulic head, slope limitations and distance from receiving
waters.
Water requirements, tolerance of variations in soil moisture content, and soil
requirements are critical considerations in the selection of suitable plants to be used as
vegetative filters in structural BMPs. Where applicable, the effect of wind on the re-
entrainment of floatable solids (trash) is another variable considered in the design of
practicable BMPs. For this reason, it is essential that structural BMP selection, design,
and siting be based upon a thorough assessment of environmental factors.
The key environmental site constraint is the seasonal availability of water for sustaining
vegetative filters. Because of this uncertainty, it is necessary to choose a treatment BMP
alternative that should function whether or not inflows are available. With the exception
of uncontrolled nuisance flows, there is a lack of water for maintenance of vegetation in
the dry summer months. The availability of water for supplemental irrigation of
vegetative filters in BMPs is a key constraint at the site, which receives little to no
precipitation during the summer months when evapotranspiration rates are highest.
Vegetative filters therefore require supplemental irrigation. Availability of this water can
be dependent upon water supply and demand which, in the case of drought, may become
severely limited and leave the BMP prone to failure.
Consideration must be given to the designing of BMPs in such as way as to prevent the
creation of undesirable habitat, such as breeding ponds for bullfrogs that are predators to
the California red-legged frog (CRF) known to exist on the site. This precludes
construction of deep wet ponds that may retain water for extended periods of time during
the summer months in proximity to bullfrog habitat. BMPs must also be designed to
avoid the creation of mosquito-breeding habitat.
The site is also subject to frequent winds, which, like high summer temperatures, elevate
local evapotranspiration rates, thus necessitating supplemental irrigation for the
maintenance of vegetative filters. Consideration must be given to the effect of wind on
the transport of gross pollutants, such as trash and recycling, so as to prevent the re-
entrainment of accumulated refuse in open BMPs.
The potential for groundwater contamination resulting ITom infiltration-based treatment
BMPs is a potential concern in the low-lying areas of the project. The Regional Water
Quality Control Board requires that groundwater be protected from infiltration-based
BMPs. The viability of infiltration-based BMPs may vary across the site due to low
permeability soils. Potential sites for water infiltration basins should be carefully
analyzed regarding underlying and adjacent soil conditions.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 4
Page 7
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 4
Page 8
I
I
"
..I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/7'6ðO
Figure 3.2.1 illustrates the process for selecting the most practicable treatment BMPs for
the Project Area Watershed.
3.2.1 Engineering Considerations
Engineering considerations in the design of structural treatment BMPs include variables
such as water quality treatment efficacy, reduction of potential hazards to people and
wildlife, short- and long-tenn O&M, and aesthetics. Ultimately, the project engineers
must approve the design plans for compatibility with municipal codes, environmental
constraints, and structural material requirements. As such, treatment BMP design
specifications must incorporate the following parameters to be effective:
Design requirements:
· Prevents short-circuiting of flows (l.5:1length to width ratio)
· Prevents water stagnation
· Promotes low velocities
· Minimizes potential for BMP erosion (4:1 side slopes)
· Located to provide dual uses where possible
· Provides a high flow bypass or treats flows up to 100-year storm event
· Approved by State Division for Safety of Dams
· Avoids clogging of outlet structures
· Wetland vegetation does not occupy more than 25% of wet pond surface area and
no parcel of water is greater than 21 feet rrom the maintenance access road
· Wet ponds usually serve contributing areas of 10 acres or less and are no deeper
than 8 feet
· For wet extended detention ponds, the permanent pool volume is equal to twice
the water quality volume
· Extended detention basins require a minimum 5-acre contributing area, can be up
to five feet deep, and drawdown within 72 hours
· Prevent discharge rrom the basin in case ofa spill in the watershed (i.e. valve)
· Spillways of on-line facilities sized to provide one foot of rreeboard during the
25-year event and to safely pass the flow rrom the 100-year stonn
· Outlet structure designs with collars to prevent structural failure
· Minimizes potential for gopher damage by constructing in cut slopes instead of
in-fill slopes
· Accounts for settling velocity.
· Inlets and curb cuts (minimum 12 inches) designed to prevent clogging
I
I
I,
I
t
I
,.
I
I
I
I
/79 i)Ò
Operation and Maintenance:
· Long-term functional viability
· Provides adequate maintenance access
· Minimizes supplemental irrigation requirements
· Water availability - functions with or without nuisance flows
· Clogging of outflow pipes is prevented
· Prevents establishment of woody vegetation.
Treatment efficacy:
· Prevents sediment re-suspension
· Traps gross pollutants and floatables in a confined area
· Accumulation of metals
· Residence time long enough to settle solids and short enough to prevent
mosquitoes
· Maximizes contact with vegetative filters.
Reduction of hazards to public and wildlife:
. Precludes access from pedestrians, domestic animals, and wildlife species that
could be adversely affected.
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
Aesthetics:
· Conforms to landscape aesthetics
· Prevents creation of eyesore, blight or odors.
For BMP treatment ponds, either a high flow bypass for storms greater than the 2.5-year
24-hour stonn or,altematively, adequate pond volume to detain up to the 100-year storm,
must be provided in order to not exceed the treatment capacity of any BMP ponds that are
created to treat the requisite MTV of stormwater. Water retention time must be kept to 40
hours or less to prevent mosquito problems.
Due to the proximity of the BMPs to residences, care must be taken in the design to avoid
the creation of a liability hazard or nuisances, such as stench, mosquitoes (see below), or
blight. Appropriate fencing around treatment facilities can prevent human and wildlife
access. Visible trash accumulation, however, can create undesirable blight and odors.
Covered trash racks or filters should be employed to prevent accumulation of trash in
landscaped areas, and facilities should be tegularly maintained.
3.2.3 Custodial and Fiscal Considerations
Sources of funding must be secured for BMP maintenance programs. The cost-
effectiveness of these programs is an essential component in the selection of practicable
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 4
Page 9
/BOOb
I
I
II
,I
1
I
I
I
t
t
,,,
-..
BMPs. When choosing between BMP alternatives with comparable water quality
treatment efficacy, the preferred option should be that which requires the least amount of
maintenance, and consequently the least amount of fiscal impact. BMPs must be selected
that can be operated and maintained within the budget of the responsible agency.
Reducing the number of facilities requiring cleaning may serve to reduce maintenance
costs.
Responsibility for the on-going O&M for BMPs is dependent upon land ownership,
jurisdiction, and availability of funding sources. Municipalities commonly have
jurisdiction over street and right-of-way maintenance and therefore would be responsible
for the execution and maintenance of BMPs in those areas. A common entity for the
enforcement of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) in residential
developments is the Homeowners Association (HOA). In addition, a variety of district-
based approaches may be considered for the management of aquatic and biological
resources within the Project Area.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 4
Page 10
I
"
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
/B I f6
Figure 3.2.1 Practicable Treatment BMPs for the Project Area Watershed
I
J
I
I
,
I
I
Resource Conservation Service
Soil GrOUDS C & D
NO
NO
NO
,
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NO
[fnuisance
flows provide
inflow in dry
season; OR
all11ual BMP
irrigation.
1/ nuisance
flows are
negligible in
dry season;
AND no animal
BMP irrigation.
Resource Conservation Service
Soil GrOUDS A & B
NO
YES
Minimize Watershed DCIA
Dry Pond: Extended Detention . ..
Wet Pond III
Constructed Wetland
Combination Wet/Dry Pond
Filter Strip
...
Infiltration
Media Filtration
Swala
Source: Adaoted from oriJlinal flowchart in the WEF Manual of Practice No. 23. 1998.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 4
Page 11
I
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 4
Page 12
I
I
I
I-
II
I
t
,
it'
,
I
I
f
I
I
·1
I
I
I
,....
J sa !57J
References
Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Stormwater Quality Management Plan July
2001- June 2008.
Alameda County Clean Water Urban Runoff Clean Water Program, Contra Costa County
Clean Water Program, prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants. Bay Area
Preamble to the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks and
New Development Recommendations. July 20, 1994.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Water Environment Federation. Urban Runoff
Quality Management, WEF Manual of Practice No. 23, ASCE Manual and Report on
Engineering Practice No. 87. Virginia. 1988.
Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). Compilation of
New Development Stonnwater Treatment Controls in the San Francisco Bay: Area.
Walnut Creek, CA. Final Report: June 1997.
Bay Area Stonnwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). Start at the
Source. Design Guidance Manual for Stonnwater Quality Protection. 1999 Edition.
Bay Area Stonnwater Management California Stormwater Quality Association. 2003.
Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook.
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Basin Plan for the San
Francisco Bay, 1995.
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Tentative Order for the Santa
Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program New and Redevelopment
Provision, May 18, 2001.
Stonnwater Quality Task Force, prepared by Camp Dresser McKee. 1993. California
Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbooks. March.
Sycamore Associates LLC and MacKay and Somps. 2003 (revised 2004). Resource
Management Plan Studies for the East Dublin Properties. Prepared for Braddock and
Logan Group. Revised January 21,2004.
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
-,
"
I
,
i'
I
I
"
I
I
I
I,
I
/'63 Ò'ö
APPENDIX 5. VEGETATION AND PEST MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
The measures in this appendix are intended to serve as guidelines and recommendations only;
however, specific criteria and measures may change as a result of agency-specific permits.
The goals of vegetation management (e.g., grazing, mowing, fire management), and Integrated
Pest Management (IPM) are coincidental. Both can be used as tools to manage biological
resources. Each management tool requires an adaptive management approach to achieve this
goal so that management practices can be fine-tuned through feedback from monitoring.
Both vegetation management and IPM utilize the relative life cycle phases of plant species to
take advantage of the difference in growth stages between desirable and undesirable plants and
identify the best time to conduct vegetation management. For example, fire can be used as a
vegetation management practice to promote native perennial grasses in annual dominated
grasslands by conducting burns at times when the non-native annual grasses have already set
seed, but when perennial grasses have not. Conducting a controlled burn at this time, generally in
the spring, will destroy annual grass seeds and plants, while allowing perennial grasses to set
seed later in the season. This provides less competition for the perennial grasses, giving them the
opportunity to become better established later that year. Grazing can be timed similarly to
promote native perennial grasses.
Human behavior also plays an important part in vegetation management and IPM. Humans have
introduced non-natives to the natural environment through multiple methods, including the
spread of non-native landscape plantings, use of non-natives for erosion control or fire breaks,
and movement of non-native seed through foot traffic and transportation corridors. Likewise,
people are the cause of most wildfires in California. Modifying social behavior through
education about fire and the effects of the use and transport of invasive species is an integral part
of preventing wildfire and preventing seed distribution of invasive species.
For all of these management tools, developing a clear set of goals prior to initiating a
- management program is crucial and can have significant effects on the types and manner in
which management techniques are used. In addition, an adaptive management approach is
essential to achieve the desired goals, and in some cases, re-evaluate the goals in mind. A
rigorous monitoring program that will identify trends, which would, in turn, point to changes in
actions or justify maintaining current actions is the key to any management plan.
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
As discussed in Section 1.2 Vegetation Communities and Habitats, habitats within the Project
Area consist of mostly undeveloped ranch land, with a scattering of rural residences, barns, horse
paddocks, and other improvements. Barbed wire fences surround all of the properties except for
the small Pleasanton Ranch parcel, and a majority of the Project Area is used for livestock
grazing.
Historically, the Project Area has undergone agricultural and grazing use for decades. Habitats
within the Project Area are characteristic of heavily grazed lands in the Livermore Valley and are
dominated by highly disturbed grassland and ruderal vegetation. The Tseng EBJ, Pleasanton
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 1
/ z/-/ Db
Ranch, Anderson, Righetti, Branaugh, Bankhead, and Mandeville properties presently consist of
grazed, non-native annual grasslands. The Croak property is presently ungrazed, non-native
annual grasslands. Other vegetation communities on site include Central Coast riparian scrub,
seasonal wetlands, and freshwater marsh and seeps. Management recommendations are based on
these areas. Further descriptions of these habitat types and locations on site are described in
Section 1.2 Vegetation Communities and Habitats.
Within the Project Area, the goals of vegetation management should primarily focus on habitat
values with respect to wildlife species, specifically California red-legged frog (Rana aurora
draytonii; hereafter referred to as California red-legged frog), California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense) (CTS), and western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea).
Each of these species requires specific habitat elements that can be manipulated through
vegetation management. Protection and enhancement of these elements should be a primary goal
in the use of vegetation management on site.
Managed Grazing
Grazing with livestock is a powerful vegetation management tool that can be used to manage
ecosystem health. Grazing livestock can convert continuous cover to patchy vegetation, thereby
creating intermediate disturbance regimes and promoting favorable conditions for native plant
and wildlife species. However, if used improperly grazing can result in detrimental effects.
Grazing livestock can trample plants and animals, compact and disturb soil (particularly around
ponds and other aquatic sites), and add or concentrate nutrients to the site in the form of manure.
Overgrazing of livestock due to overstocking can denude the landscape, reducing forage and
cover for wildlife species.
Prescribed or controlled grazing is the controlled harvest of vegetation with grazing or browsing
animals managed with the intent to achieve specified objectives (Howard and Roberts 2002).
This approach to grazing enables the livestock operator to calculate the amount of vegetation that
can be harvested by livestock while retaining sufficient plant cover to protect soil and maintain
or improve the quality and quantity of desired vegetation and other habitat values.
Failure to balance the available forage with the appropriate number of grazing animals and an
adequate period of rest and recovery of the pasture vegetation results in overgrazing. Prolonged
overgrazing reduces the quality of grassland vegetation by favoring growth of weedy exotic
annual forbs instead of more desirable native perennial grasses. The result is a degraded plant
community that is less palatable to livestock, less resistant to drought, more susceptible to fire
and erosion, and low or lacking in important habitat and food values required for special-status
plants and wildlife.
This trend can be observed at many locations on the Project Area. Currently, year-round cattle
and horse grazing is masking the full extent of exotic invasive vegetation present on Project Area
properties. Should grazing be removed, thus releasing the exotic weeds from grazing pressure, it
can be expected that the extent of invasive weed populations may be revealed as significantly
larger than is currently evident.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
,j
I
i
I,
I
I
1-
,1
I
I
I,
I
I
,
I
,
,
I
I
t·
,;
I
,
'I
t
I
.1
I
/ 7E;;- Db
An effective method for solving this problem is to implement a seasonal prescribed grazing
program for the grasslands that includes the following objectives:
· Improve the quality and quantity of the forage
· Increase the presence of perennial grasses and forbs which stay green longer into
the summer and green-up earlier in the fall than annual plants, thus reducing fuel
loads
· Reduce the number of weedy exotic plants
· Prevent or reduce erosion
· Increase Critical Habitat for special-status and other native plants and wildlife
The Grassland Management Zone is large enough to support seasonal rotational (i. e. not
continuous) grazing and to attract livestock operators seeking rotational grazing leases.
A grazing management plan should be developed prior to the implementation of a grazing
program on site. This plan should be submitted to the City as part of the Vesting Tentative Map
approval, as required in the Grazing Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment Area (Sycamore 1996). The plan should identify long-term goals for the site and
strategies for achieving those goals consistent with the Grazing Management Plan, including
excluding grazing from riparian areas. The plan should establish a grazing regime that includes
timing, intensity, grazing system and monitoring. Existing infrastructure available for livestock
use should also be considered, including a water source. Livestock species considerations must
also be taken into account when designing a grazing regime for the site. Different herbivore
species have different plant preferences and vary considerably in their willingness to use
different terrains. For example, cattle primarily feed on grasses and mature cattle have difficulty
in moving across steep, rocky terrain. In contrast, sheep and goats can use slopes up to 45
percent and will tend to feed primarily on broad-Ieafforbs and woody vegetation, respectively.
Grazing Recommendations bv Vegetation Community
Some- modifications to grazing practices can be employed to protect sensitive features.
Vegetation communities on site have been divided into three categories, each with different
habitat requirements. Accordingly, recommendations for the grazing regime may vary to best
meet the management objectives in each vegetation community. Grazing recommendations per
vegetation community are given below.
Grasslands
The management objectives of the annual grasslands are to provide short grass conditions
favorable to California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi). In turn the ground squirrel
burrows will be available for use by California tiger salamanders and burrowing owls.
Additionally, to encourage ground squirrel populations, brush piles and retention of fallen tree
limbs provide desirable squirrel habitat.
For native grass restoration through seeding or plugs to be accomplished on site, it is
recommended that grazing be restricted seasonally to allow the native perennial grasses adequate
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 3
/ S (Q cJò
resting time, as these are key to re-growth and root system expansion. Cattle should be removed
late in the warm season (after annual grasses have dried out) because perennials become favored
forage at that time.
Freshwater Marsh, Seeps and Riparian Corridors
The management objectives of these areas are to provide dispersal habitat and cover. The
maintenance of adequate vegetation along the banks is important. Freshwater marsh, seeps and
riparian corridor areas should be fenced to prevent grazing access. Livestock may be allowed
very limited grazing in these areas during the period of May to August. However, if restoration
of these areas is planned, cattle should be excluded until the area has recovered and plantings are
well established (probably at least 3-5 years).
Seasonal Wetlands and Stock Ponds
Management objectives for these areas are to maintain emergent vegetation for California tiger
salamander and California red-legged frog, particularly during the period of breeding and
dispersal, and to create edges of shallow open water adjacent to the vegetated areas. Management
of this area would entail installation of exclusionary fencing to block access from Ih to 2/3 of
each of the breeding ponds, particularly around stream inlets and other sensitive or erosion-prone
shores. This partial fencing would provide the habitat mosaic needed by these species for
breeding. Livestock should be allowed periodic grazing in these areas during the period of May
to August.
The Effects of Grazing on Special-Status Wildlife
Past grazing within the Project Area was instrumental in creating conditions that currently
support California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, and burrowing owl. The
continued use of this vegetation management tool is recommended to maintain and enhance
habitat for these special-status species and for overall ecosystem health.
California Red-Legged Frog
California red-legged frog breed primarily in ponds, but may also breed in slow-moving streams,
or deep pools in intennittent streams. Habitat characteristics include water depth of at least 2.5
feet, largely intact emergent or shoreline vegetation, e.g. cattails (Typha spp.), tules (Scirpus
spp.) or willows (Salix spp.), and the absence of competitors/predators such as bullfrogs (Rana
catesbeiana) and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) (Hayes and Jennings 1988). Females
usually deposit egg masses on emergent vegetation (Storer 1925, Jennings and Hayes 1994). In
addition to aquatic habitat, California red-legged frog make use of terrestrial habitats, especially
after precipitation events, for non-migratory forays into adjacent upland habitats and migratory
overland movements between aquatic sites. During these times California red-legged frog often
conceal themselves in shrubby vegetation [commonly California blackberry (Rubus ursinus),
poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis)), woody
debris, rootwads, small recesses in vertical banks, and forest floor litter (Bulger et al. 2003). In
riparian corridors, these elements also provide sheltering habitat during winter flooding.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 4
I
'I
t
I
,
I,
I
I
I
,
,J
,I
t
I
"
I
,-
I
,I
-
I
Î'
I,
I
,
I
.'
I
I
I,
I
I
I
II
t
ì
,
,I
I
/B7óÜ
Because California red~legged frog are widely dispersed across the landscape in space and time
during migrations, specific protections in rangeland environments are probably unwarranted
(Bulger et al. 2003). Thus, considerations for managed grazing should be primarily concentrated
on the ponds and riparian areas.
Maintaining an interface between emergent wetland vegetation in the pond and shallow open '
water areas is an important factor for California red-legged ftog breeding habitat. This can be
accomplished through fencing off a portion of the ponds to exclude grazing. Tadpoles prefer
warmer shallower areas within the ponds, but deeper vegetated areas are important both for egg
laying and for escape zones. Control of grazing through fencing may be an important factor in
maintaining emergent vegetation within breeding ponds.
California Tiger Salamander
..
California tiger salamander require wetlands adj acent to grasslands without restricting barriers
between the two habitat elements. California ground squirrel and Botta's pocket gopher
(Thomomys bottae) burrows provide an important habitat element for California tiger salamander
offering them greater protection ftom desiccation than non-fossorial habitats such as rocks or
10gB (Loredo er 01. 1996). Emergent vegetation in pools is used for egg attachment, but if
vegetative substrates are not available, California tiger salamander will attach eggs directly to the
bottom ofthe pool (Storer 1925, Jennings and Hayes 1994).
Managed grazing should focus on maintaining grasslands adjacent to wetland areas that may
support ground squirrels. In addition, maintaining adequate emergent vegetation within
California tiger salamander breeding ponds is also a key factor. Thus, fencing as described above
for California red-legged ftog would be necessary for California tiger salamander as well.
Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl usually inhabit desert and grassland habitats, and in some cases, urban and
agricultural landscapes. These habitats are further characterized by flat, open areas with dry
vegetation typical of heavily grazed grasslands, low stature grasslands, or desert vegetation. and
that also include available burrows (Johnsgard 1988). Pre-established burrows are an important
habitat element for burrowing owls. In the Bay Area, burrowing owls typically utilize California
ground squirrel burrows and man-made artificial structures, sometimes in highly disturbed areas,
for denning. Burrowing owls often exhibit high site fidelity, e.g. a tendency to nest in the same
places each year, and use burrows year round.
Managed grazing should encourage preferred habitat for burrowing owls of low stature
grasslands. Grazing =gement and monitoring may be a key factor in ensuring that the levels
of grazing are sufficient to promote this preference.
Mowing
Mowing can also be an effective tool in the reduction of a weed seed bank, allowing planted
natives to establish themselves over a few years of treatment. As with all vegetation management
techniques, timing of mowing is critical. Mowing before the weed seed matures can help to
Resource Management Plan for the East Dubli~ Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 5
/ß2°b
eliminate the year's crop of weed seed. However, mowing too early in the season can result in
some weed species re-growth and can stimulate production of another weed seed crop. Two
mowing passes can be used in very thick stands of weeds. Generally, mowing reduces
competition for native seedlings, allowing light and resources to reach the young natives.
Mowing heights should allow at least 4 inches of growth to remain to avoid injuring existing
native grasses. However, timing of mowing must be carefully considered in upland areas
regarding California red-legged frogs, as this species may take refuge in these areas.Mowing is
an important component of exotic weed management programs and fuel load reduction activities,
especially in sensitive habitats where grazing is not pennitted. Mowers (either powered hand-
held weed whips or vehicular mowers) can be used to create fuel breaks along property
boundaries, and to create defensible spaces around buildings. Mowing also plays an important
role in suppressing exotic vegetation. For example, one of the most widespread exotic weed
species at the Project Area site is yellow star-thistle, which can be found growing in extensive
monocultural stands in various locations. By mowing the stand of thistles when 2 to 5 percent of
the flower buds are open (Benefield et al. 2000), seed production may be severely restricted and
very few thistles may genninate the following year. Properly timed mowing is also critical to
successful establishment of perennial grasses. By mowing fall-sown native perennial grasses
early the following spring, competition from annual grasses and forbs for sunlight and other
resources is reduced, enabling- the young native grasses to resurge in growth and out-compete
weeds.
Fire
Prescribed fires are another tool for controlling vegetation, although it is unlikely to be used in
the Project Area due to the proximity of the Conservation Area to potential developed areas.
Fire ecology involves identifying the natural role of fire in the ecosystem, which entails
detennining the fire regime. The fire regime includes the fire type, intensity, frequency, timing or
season, and spatial distribution (size and pattern). There is quite a wide variability of natural
intervals, intensities, and seasons, but some generalities can be made.
Each vegetation type has its own fire regime characterized by a specific set of conditions. The
fire regime of grasslands is generally characterized as a short interval (less than 10 years)
between high-intensity and short duration fires, with large acreages of unifonn consumption,
generally timed to OCcur after the grass cures (i.e. late spring to fall). In contrast, the fire regime
of coast live oak consists of intervals of 25 to 50 years between fires, with low-intensity, small
acreage fires set in the fall.
Fire response varies ftom year to year and is affected by factors including sources of ignition,
frequency of ignition, climate, topography, spatial relationships to other ecosystems, and fuel
quantity, quality, and distribution. The use of prescribed fire can be very specific to the system
and the climatic variations from year to year.
The use of fire to manage vegetation within the Conservation Area and off-site mitigation areas
may be limited given the proximity of potential conservation areas to developed areas. However,
the use of prescribed burns remains a potential vegetation management tool for the Conservation
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 6
I
i
"
I
,
I
,
I
I
·1
J
I
I
I
.
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
t
f
I~
f
I
r
f
1
r
r
r
/ ,?
, (--
/~ t\
/
..~
Area. Controlled bums are more likely to be suitable for acquired mitigation lands well removed
from adjacent development.
Prescribed burning is a tool that should be considered for both the on- and off-site mitigation
areas. However, within the on-site mitigation areas the proximity to residential areas could
preclude the use of prescribed burning. If the use of prescribed burns is approved for these areas,
consideration should be given to the creation and maintenance of defensible spaces around the
residences (see discussion below).
Prior to the use of fire, specific goals and objectives should be developed and understood by all
stakeholders involved in the process. These objectives and considerations should include the
compatibility of fire with plant and wildlife species found on site.
Effects of Fire on Plants and Wildlife
Planning is a key element to conducting a successful prescribed burn. Before a burn is even
considered, the expected burn effects on biological and cultural resources within the site should
be evaluated. Fire can have direct and indirect effects on wildlife and plant species and the
communities associated with them, within and adjacent to the bum area.
Plants
As discussed above, each plant community has a specific fire regime. For example low intensity
prescribed bums in oak savannas may enhance the functioning of the ecosystem by rejuvenating
shrubs and acting as a catalyst for native grasses and wildflowers. However, moderate to severe
fire intensity is not compatible with newly established oak seedlings from between 2-6 inches in
diameter at breast height (DBH). Timing of a fire is also critical. A fire intended to discourage
non-native grasses timed too early in the season can instead stimulate their growth and
reproduction. Mimicking the natural fire regime of each ecosystem can help to renew the
ecosystem's vigor.
However, in some cases where fire has been suppressed on the land for a number of years, fuel
(e.g. dead wood, thatch, etc.) has the potential to accumulate to unnatural levels on site. This
build-up could result in a fire intensity incompatible with the natural fire regime to which the
ecosystem is adapted. If this is the case, there may be a need for removal of unnatural
accumulations of fuels prior to a prescribed bum, possibly through grazing.
The use of fire as a management tool for invasive species should focus on one or two target
species. Timing of the burn, fire intensity, and post-fire competition are critical elements to
consider achieving the desired control effects. The details of these elements are very species
specific. For example, control of yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstialis) requires consecutive
years of burning in the early flowering stage of the plant (DiTomaso 2001). A first bum
generally stimulates germination in the seed bank and, subsequently, a big flush of seedlings
typically follows a first bum. The lack of competition following the first bum year stimulates
productivity in the star-thistle (Hastings and DiTomaso 1996). Control of the second year growth
flush prior to the thistle going to seed is critical. Following the second and sometimes third burn
year, a significant reduction in the population of yellow star-thistle is possible.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 7
¡qéi- OZJ
properties. A defensible space is "the area within the perimeter of a parcel where basic wildland
fire prevention practices and measures are implemented, providing the key point of defense from
an approaching wildfire" (CDF 2000). Creation of a defensible space and pre-fire vegetation
management can be achieved through fire-resistant landscaping, establishment of fuel breaks,
and regular fuel-reduction or management. Each of these methods, described below, can help to
create a defensible space around a property and help to provide a level of protection from the
threat of fire. The 1998 edition of the Uniform Fire Code and California State Public Resources
Code 4291 provide further details and specifications for maintaining vegetation and removal of
fuels.
Fire Resistant Landscaping
The goal of fire-resistant landscaping is to reduce the chance for ignition by reducing the
available fuel. In the event of a fire, fire resistant landscaping can also help to reduce the heat of
a fire. Typically, fire-resistant landscaping is established by planting thiee zones of landscape
vegetation. Vegetation placement is a key element within and between the zones, both through
the variation of height and through maintaining space between plantings that serve to prevent or
deter fire from traveling from one plant to another. The first zone (0-30 ft. from the building)
should be composed oflow growing, well-irrigated vegetation. The next zone (31-70 ft.) should
be composed of medium-height shrubs and individual trees. The final zone (beyond 70 ft.)
should maintain the native naturalized vegetation on site with some selective thinning of brush
and trees to reduce the fuel load. Creation of ladder fuel situations (where a fire can climb from
one vegetation layer higher to the next) should be avoided. Thus shrubs, including vines and
semi-woody species can be placed near but not under trees. Plants that are highly ignitable and
bum with intensity should be prohibited. A searchable database of fire resistant and flammable
plants can be found on www.ucfDI.ucoD.edu.
Fuel Breaks
A fuel break uses an adjacent strip of land to create a barrier to check the spread of fires or
provide a point from which to control a fire. Vegetation within the fuel break is permanently
reduced or modified to reduce available fuels. Fuel breaks in scrubland or woodland may include
thinning or removal of vegetation in a continuous band. Fuel breaks in grassland are created by
disking or mowing strips approximately 30 feet wide in .order to remove thatch build-up and to
expose bare ground.
Fuel Management
Fuel management is accomplished through pruning and clearing of downed vegetation within a
management area. This reduces the an10unt of dead, flammable, vegetative fuel in areas adjacent
to buildings. The accumulation of fuels can occur due to natural shedding and renewal by plants,
as a result of stonn events causing fall of branches and plant material, or through loss of plant
material due to disease or insect infestation. In addition to clearing dead materials, pruning trees
and shrubs adjacent to buildings is also included in the fuel management process.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 10
.
I
I
f
t
'I
I
,~
I~
I
f
,l
[
1
J
'=?
l
1
....
l
l
L
I
I
I'
Î
,
I
,
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
.
I,
I
I
I
/8 q c.......
.__,J
Area. Controlled bums are more likely to be suitable for acquired mitigation lands well removed
ftom adjacent development.
Prescribed burning is a tool that should be considered for both the on- and off-site mitigation
areas. However, within the on-site mitigation areas the proximity to residential areas could
preclude the use of prescribed burning. If the use of prescribed burns is approved for these areas,
consideration should be given to the creation and maintenance of defensible spaces around the
residences (see discussion below).
Prior to the use of fire, specific goals and objectives should be developed and understood by all
stakeholders involved in the process. These objectives and considerations should include the
compatibility of fire with plant and wildlife species found on site.
Effects ofPire on Plants and Wildlife
Planning is a key element to conducting a successful prescribed bum. Before a burn is even
considered, the expected burn effects on biological and cultural resources within the site should
be evaluated. Fire can have direct and indirect effects on wildlife and plant species and the
communities associated with them, within and adjacent to the bum area.
Plants
As discussed above, each plant community has a specific fire regime. For example low intensity
prescribed bums in oak savannas may enhance the functioning of the ecosystem by rejuvenating
shrubs and acting as a catalyst for native grasses and wildflowers. However, moderate to severe
fire intensity is not compatible with newly established oak seedlings from between 2-6 inches in
diameter at breast height (DBH). Timing of a fire is also critical. A fire intended to discourage
non-native grasses timed too early in the season can instead stimulate their growth and
reproduction. Mimicking the natural fire regime of each ecosystem can help to renew the
ecosystem's vigor.
However, in some cases where fire has been suppressed on the land for a number of years" fuel
(e.g. dead wood, thatch, etc.) has the potential to accumulate to unnatural levels on site. This
build-up could result in a fire intensity incompatible with the natural fire regime to which the
ecosystem is adapted. If this is the case, there may be a need for removal of unnatural
accumulations of fuels prior to a prescribed bum, possibly through grazing.
The use of fire as a management tool for invasive species should focus on one or two target
species. Timing of the bum, fire intensity, and post-fire competition are critical elements to
consider achieving the desired control effects. The details of these elements are very species
specific. For example, control of yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstialis) requires consecutive
years of burning in the early flowering stage of the plant (DiTomaso 2001). A first bum
generally stimulates germination in the seed bank and, subsequently, a big flush of seedlings
typically follows a first burn. The lack of competition following the first bum year stimulates
productivity in the star-thistle (Hastings and DiTomaso 1996). Control of the second year growth
flush prior to the thistle going to seed is critical. Following the second and sometimes third bum
year, a significant reduction in the population of yellow star-thistle is possible.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties ~ DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 7
/90 Öò
Wildlife
Wildlife response to fire is similar to that of plants in that it is also dependant on the fire
intensity, season, patchiness, rate of spread, and size of the area affected by the fire. A burn can
have both direct and indirect effects on wildlife species. Direct effects include injury, mortality,
immigration, and emigration. Indirect effects can create changes in forage availability and
nutrient content, prey base, cover and structural diversity of the vegetation community, and are
often more influential on wildlife populations.
Specific information on California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog and their
response to fire was not available in the current literature. In a review of studies available on fire
effects on amphibians, Pilliod et al. (2003) found few empirical data with which to make general
recommendations for all amphibian species due to the complexity of their life histories and the
great taxonomic diversity. Direct effects on amphibians due to fire include individual mortality
of both adult and aquatic forms. The timing of the burn influences the severity of the direct
effects depending upon the life stage of individuals, and should be carefully considered when
developing a bum plan. Indirect effects can be numerous and include: loss of microhabitat
(woody debris, duff, and litter), solar radiation and temperature changes in aquatic habitats,
changes in sediment and substrate composition, community responses (changes in prey
availability and predation rates), and changes in the hydroperiod. Management activities
associated with prescribed burning can also potentially affect amphibians. The use of some
chemical retardants employed in certain prescribed bums has the potential to be toxic to
amphibians and application of these materials adjacent to water bodies should be avoided.
Direct mortality due to fire has not been documented in the literature for burrowing owls (USDA
2003). Generally, mortality for small burrowing mammals during fires is low with the exception
of immobile young, although some deaths have been recorded due to smoke inhalation (ErWin
and Stasiak 1979). There is a good potential for this same pattern to occur in burrowing owls.
Indirectly, fire can affect burrowing owl habitat by altering the prey availability and the
vegetative cover, although prey availability is generally not negatively affected. The reduction in
groundcover resulting from a fire makes small mammals much more vulnerable to predation,
providing an increased prey base for burrowing owls and other raptors (Cook 1959).
Grasshoppers, crickets and beetles are an important component of burrowing owl diet and have a
variable response to bums depending on the timing and intensity. Generally, grassland beetle
populations have a quick recovery following bums (USDA 2003). Jerusalem crickets, an
important component of burrowing owl diet, generally burrow or hide under rocks and so are
likely protected from fire (Hanson and Sutton 1985).
Developing a Project Bum Plan
If conducting a bum is appropriate for the site, a Project Burn Plan should be prepared and
submitted for approval to the City and other appropriate agencies. The Project Burn Plan should
include: a community relations and public education plan, goals and objectives for the burn,
descriptions and maps of the bum units, the prescription for fire behavior, pre-burn tasks
(permits, notification, site preparation, pre-burn meetings, and site reviews), smoke production
and dispersal analysis, bum tasks (mapping, ignition, public safety, patrol/mop-up), personnel
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 8
I
,I
,
j
,
I
'.
I
I
If
I
I
I
I
.
,I
,
I
,I
,I
1
t
I
,
I
,
I
,
f'
I,
I
I
I
I
,ì
I
I
I
19 ! ó~~"")
(equipment, safety, and communications), funding, and a monitoring plan for pre-bum, bum
[(environmental conditions (e.g. temperature, wind speed, humidity) and fire behavior)] and
post-bum conditions.
Community Relations and Public Education
The ongoing success of a prescribed fire management program depends on public support. Prior
to considering a burn, the local community should be informed of the benefits and risks of
prescribed fire. Information provided to the community should include the goals of the
prescribed fire management program, the total number of acres to be treated, location of the
project, desirable fire weather conditions, expected fire behavior, and duration ofproject.
A number of outlets exist to disseminate information to the public. Local media can be used both
to promote fire management programs to the public prior to the burn and to issue 24-hour notices
to alert the public to ignition days. Presentations can be given to local homeowner associations,
schools, and community libraries. Notices can be posted at trail access points and at central
locations within the community (post office, supermarkets, libraries, and community resource
centers). A bum hotline can be established and included on all published materials released to the
public.
Nearby local fire protection districts, air quality management districts, parks departments, and
many other local agencies should be placed on a call list for notification of the upcoming
prescribed fire. These agencies should be notified two weeks prior to the project, and then the
day prior to the actual controlled fire.
Safety Program
Prior to and during the burn, safety should be of utmost importance. Signage should be posted to
keep the public away from bum areas. If burn is adjacent to roadways, signage along the roads
should be considered to caution drivers about reduced visibility from smoke. Caltrans, the
California Highway Patrol, and the local law enforcement agencies should be contacted prior to
the bum to coordinate on issues related to reduced road visibility and maintaining public safety.
A contingency plan should be developed prior to the burn to be implemented if the prescribed
burn escapes or becomes out of control. It should address conditions in which the contingency
plan would be implemented and a plan of action for control.
Fire Prevention
Fire prevention measures should be encouraged or enforced through homeowner policies and
commercial leasing agreements. Guidelines and measures for reducing fire risk are described
below.
Defensible Space
Prior to the use of prescribed bums, all structures (residences, historical features, etc.) adjacent to
the burn area need to be protected through the creation of a defensible space around the
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRA~T July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 9
/Q;þ öb
properties. A defensible space is "the area within the perimeter of a parcel where basic wildland
fire prevention practices and measures are implemented, providing the key point of defense from
an approaching wildfire" (CDF 2000). Creation of a defensible space and pre-fire vegetation
management can be achieved through fire-resistant landscaping, establishment of fuel breaks,
and regular fuel-reduction or management. Each of these methods, described below, can help to
create a defensible space around a property and help to provide a level of protection from the
threat of fire. The 1998 edition of the Uniform Fire Code and California State Public Resources
Code 4291 provide further details and specifications for maintaining vegetation and removal of
fuels.
Fire Resistant Landscaping
The goal of fire-resistant landscaping is to reduce the chance for ignition by reducing the
available fuel. In the event of a fire, fire resistant landscaping can also help to reduce the heat of
a fire. Typically, fire-resistant landscaping is established by planting thIee zones of landscape
vegetation. Vegetation placement is a key element within and between the zones, both through
the variation of height and through maintaining space between plantings that serve to prevent or
deter fire from traveling from one plant to another. The first zone (0-30 ft. from the building)
should be composed oflow growing, well-irrigated vegetation. The next zone (31-70 ft.) should
be composed of medium-height shrubs and individual trees. The final zone (beyond 70 ft.)
should maintain the native naturalized vegetation on site with some selective thinning of brush
and trees to reduce the fuel load. Creation of ladder fuel situations (where a fire can climb from
one vegetation layer higher to the next) should be avoided. Thus shrubs, including vines and
semi-woody species can be placed near but not under trees. Plants that are highly ignitable and
burn with intensity should be prohibited. A searchable database of fire resistant and flammable
plants can be found on W1>Fw.ucfpl.ucolJ.edu.
Fuel Breaks
A fuel break uses an adjacent strip of land to create a barrier to check the spread of fires or
provide a point from which to control a fire. Vegetation within the fuel break is permanently
reduced or modified to reduce available fuels. Fuel breaks in scrubland or woodland may include
thinning or removal of vegetation in a continuous band. Fuel breaks in grassland are created by
disking or mowing strips approximately 30 feet wide in ,order to remove thatch build-up and to
expose bare ground.
Fuel Management
Fuel management is accomplished through pruning and clearing of downed vegetation within a
management area. This reduces the amount of dead, flammable, vegetative fuel in areas adjacent
to buildings. The accumulation of fuels can occur due to natural shedding and renewal by plants,
as a result of storm events causing fall of branches and plant material, or through loss of plant
material due to disease or insect infestation. In addition to clearing dead materials, pruning trees
and shrubs adjacent to buildings is also included in the fuel management process.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 10
I
I
t
I
.
I
,
I
,I'
.J
I
I
II
I
I
í
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
1
I
I
I'
,.
I
I
f
I,
r
/Q3 (56
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Exotic Plant Management
This section summarizes key problems posed by exotic (non-native) vegetation growing on
Project Area properties, especially in locations where they impact native plant and wildlife
species and habitats. Guidelines for programmatic solutions using Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) concepts and methods are provided.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
IPM is a decision-making and adaptive management process that uses knowledge from a broad
base of expertise, a combination of treatment methods, and a monitoring and evaluation system
to achieve vegetation management goals in an environmentally sound and cost-effective manner
(Haber 1997). This approach emphasizes long-term weed prevention by first determining which
plant species or other soil cover should replace the weeds prior to implementing weed reduction
or removal strategies and methods.
An exotic or non-native plant is one that arrived in and colonized an area only with direct or
indirect human assistance, even if it is native elsewhere in the state or continent. Some exotic
plants are invasive, i.e., able to move into and dominate or disrupt native and other desirable
plant communities or restoration projects. Exotic plants usually arrive without the natural
enemies (primarily insects and pathogens) that kept their populations in check in their area of
origin. This enables the plants to spread rapidly.
This section summarizes the major problems caused by exotic invasive plants located at the
Project Area properties. These problems include damage to habitats for sensitive native plant and
wildlife species, degradation of grasslands, erosion, increased fuel loads and fire danger, and
production of weed seeds capable of migrating into ornamental gardens and landscapes in the
projected developed zones on the properties.
Botanical surveys conducted by the Sycamore Associates have established that exotic plants
dominate the flora on the Project Area properties. Of the 279 total plant species identified during
surveys to date, 165 (59 percent) are exotic species and 114 (41 percent) are natives (Sycamore
Associates 2002a,b). While it was beyond the scope of the botanical survey work to quantify the
percent of total vegetation cover accounted for by individual plant species, visual observations
by the project botanist indicated that non-native annual grasses and weedy annual and perennial
non-native forbs significantly dominate the Project Area (Thayer, pers. comm.).
Earlier sections of this report have discussed the necessity to increase the cover of native plant
species and decrease or eliminate the presence of weedy exotic plants in certain habitats in order
to achieve the following objectives:
. Protect and expand riparian, wetland, and upland habitats critical to the survival
of special-status native wildlife and plants, especially the California red-legged
ftog (Rana aurora draytonii), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma
californiense), western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), San Joaquin kit fox
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 11
;CjCO 00
privet
Italian rye grass
birds-foot trefoil
white sweet clover
yellow sweet clover
bennuda buttercup
common olive
Harding grass
bristly ox-tongue
English plantain
rabbitsfoot grass
Himalayan blackberry
sheep sorrel
curly dock
blessed milk thistle
common sowthistle
tamarisk, salt cedar
rose clover
zorro fescue, rat-tail fescue
nominated
nominated
nominated
nominated
nominated
nominated
Ligustrum sp.
Lolium multiflorum
Lotus carniculatus
Melilotus alba
Melilotus indica
Oxalis pes-caprae
Olea european
Phalaris aquatica
Picris echioides
Plantago lanceolatum
Polypogon monspeliensis
Rubus discolor
Rumex acetosella
Rumex crispus
Silybum marianum
Sonchus asper
Tamarix sp.
Trifolium hirtum
Vulpia myuros
Key:
"A" Most Invasive Wildland Plants. Documented as aggressive invaders that displace natives and disrupt natural
habitats. List A-I: widespread pests that are invasive in more than 3 Jepson regions. List A-2: Regional pests
invasive in 3 or fewer Jepson regions.
"B" Wildland Pest Plants of Lesser Invasiveness. Invasive pest plants that spread less rapidly and cause a lesser
degree of habitat disruption; may be widespread or regional.
"AG" Annual grasses. This is an evolving category targeting annual grasses that pose significant threats to native
plants or habitats.
"Nominated" Plants to be reviewed in 2004 for inclusion on the Lists.
Source: California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) l442-A Walnut Street, #462 Berkeley, CA 94709.510/525-
1502.
B
B
nominated
nominated
nominated
Awl
nominated
nominated
nominated
nominated
Awl
nominated
nominated
Weed prevention in future ornamental landscapes slated for developed areas on the site is an
additional important reason for reducing exotic weedy annual and pereIU1ial plant cover. Many of
the site's existing exotic grasses and forbs are familiar pernicious garden weeds. These include
common weedy annual grasses such as wild oats (Avena spp.), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus),
and annual fescue (Vulpia spp.). Also included are weedy forbs such as bristly ox-tongue (Picris
echiodes), common sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus), bur clover (Medicago polymorpha),
cheeseweed (Malva parviflora) and many others currently growing in the Project Area.
Unless managed, these weeds may grow at the interface between the Conservation Area and the
boundary of the development zones. These prodigious seeders can produce a large reservoir of
annual weed seeds capable of blowing into or otherwise invading the ornamental gardens,
commercial landscapes, and native riparian areas once they are established in the developed
areas.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFf July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 14
I,
I
~I
I
I
I
'I~
I
I
,-
I
I
I
;I~
I
I
I
Î
(
I
I
.
I
I
:1
It
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
i
I'
I
I
/97 cJ"(j
The Alameda/Contra Costa County Weed Management Area (WMA) is a voluntary organization
that brings together landowners and managers (private, city, county, state, and federal) in a
countywide area to coordinate efforts and expertise against common invasive weed species.
WMAs are unique because they attempt to address agricultural (regulatory) weeds. and wildland
weeds under one local umbrella organization. The WMA provides funding for weed eradication,
and educational materials about prevention and management of noxious weeds. The county
WMA is co-sponsoring a regional public/private eradication program targeted at yellow star-
thistle, one of the most damaging and widespread of the exotic weed species present at the
Project Area site. This program is a potential resource for weed management support in
conservation easements on Project Area properties. fuformation is available from the Contra
Costa County Agricultural Commissioner's office.
IPM Guidelines for Exotic Plant Management
The following guidelines summarize the IPM approach for solving exotic plant problems
discussed in the problem statement above. They address the large scale infestations of exotic
invasive plants present at various sites, as well as large portions of the annual grassland which is
either bare of vegetation, eroded, or weed-infested.
Written IPM plans should be developed for managing the major exotic plant species on the
Project Area. The following list outlines the components recommended for the plans:
· Establish weed management objectives for the target sites
· Identify the major target weeds and develop information on their biology/ecology
and the level of damage or nuisance that they are causing
· Map locations where the target weeds are growing and the size of the infestations
· Prioritize target species and locations requiring management action
· Establish a monitoring plan and treatment thresholds for each site
· Select several management methods and integrate them into a site-specific
treatment program. Use non-chemical methods as a first resort, especially in
sensitive habitats. futegrate reduced-risk herbicides into the program only as
needed and in the smallest effective quantities
· Follow-up weed reduction or removal with mulching, revegetation, restoration, or
other IDyanS of preventing reinvasion of weeds
· Monitor treatment results and if necessary modify and reapply the package of
treatments until the program is successful
· Educate site users and neighboring landowners about the problems caused by
exotic invasive weeds and how they can help prevent future weed problems
The IPM plans are used to implement vegetation management strategies that are both preventive
and curative. Prevention focuses on achieving long-term reduction in conditions conducive to
invasion by exotic weeds. These strategies include those that:
· Minimize bare soil conditions vulnerable to weed invasion
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 15
¡qg öb
· Prevent weed seed germination
· Deplete the long-tenn weed seed bank in the soil
· Treat emerging weeds at the seedling stage before they develop extensive root
systems
· Monitor treated areas and apply follow-up treatments as necessary
· Educate site managers and users about their role in weed prevention
Curative strategies focus on ways to prioritize target weed problems and scale weed management
activities in order to optimize available labor and equipment. This is necessary to insure that a
complete management program including monitoring and follow-up is implemented at one site
before moving on to the next. Incomplete weed management programs fail to achieve their
objectives in the long tenn.
There are three main curative management strategies commonly used in managed natural areas.
They are Containment, Reduction, and Eradication. Each results in a different level of weed
control, and provides weed managers flexibility in choosing the strategy best suited to the
seriousness of the weed problem and level of resources available to address the problem. These
strategies can be alternated or combined over time as conditions evolve.
The containment strategy involves establishing a boundary around a large infestation, and
focusing intense suppression efforts on small patches of plants (outliers) growing outside the
boundary. This approach prevents an established population of the weed from spreading to non-
infested areas. It is especially useful when time and money are in short supply or when the
infestation is very large. For example, a barrier strip between infested and non-infested areas can
be maintained and monitored so that adjacent lands remain weed-free. In addition, measures such
as prescribed-grazing or mowing within the contained area that reduce seed production may
prevent further spread of the weed. When adequate resources become available, the large
infestation can be removed.
This approach might be appropriate as a temporary measure for addressing the extensive stands
of yellow star-thistle infesting portions of the Croak property while IPM plans are being
developed and start-up funding for weed control is acquired.
The reduction strategy reduces the area covered by a weed, or reduces its dominance. It can be
used against new or established weeds, but it requires more resources and more time than does
containment. This strategy could be used to renovate damaged grasslands through prescribed
grazing or seasonal mowing (discussed below).
The eradication strategy seeks to remove all existing target plants and usually consumes the
greatest amount of time and resources. It is applicable mainly to newly invading weeds that are
confined to a limited number of small areas, or that already infest critical habitat for special-
status native species such as the seeps, swales, and riparian corridors.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 16
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I,
i
'I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Treatment Methods For Exotic Plants
The following menu of weed management methods is recommended for developing site-specific
management programs for target weeds. IPM programs integrate two or more management
methods into a customized program capable of suppressing the weed species at various points in
its life cycle or stage of growth, using methods with a range of modes of action.
When applying any management method, it is important to minimize soil disturbance to the
degree feasible, and to quickly mulch or revegetate soil made bare by weed removal in order to
prevent new weed invasions. It is also important to adjust the timing of management activities to
minimize impacts on special-status and other desirable plants and wildlife.
The primary IPM methods recommended for use in the grasslands, wetlands, and riparian
wildlife corridors at the Project Area properties fall within the following categories: biological
controls, physical/mechanical controls, cultural controls, and reduced-risk chemical controls.
The primary forms of weed management that wi111ikely be implemented within the Conservation
Area has already been described above in the Vegetation Management section (grazing, mowing
and/or fire). The following management methods are intended to supplement invasive species
control efforts.
Weed-eating Predatory Insects and Pathogens
The term biological control commonly refers to the use of host-specific insects and plant
pathogens (primarily rusts) to attack exotic weeds. These natural enemies rarely, if ever,
completely solve the weed problem by themselves. Rather, they are used in conjunction with
other methods in an integrated program to reduce and maintain weed populations at acceptably
low levels. Currently, only predatory insects that exclusively attack yellow star-thistle (Centarea
solstitalis) are available for release. This thistle is one of the most damaging and widespread of
the exotic weed species present at the Project Area site. Two seed-eating predators, the false
peacock fly (Chaetorellia succinea) and the hairy weevil (Eustenopus villosus), working in
combination, have been reported to reduce yellow star-thistle seed production by up to 76
percent (Pitcairn and DiTomaso 2000). The root-boring weevil, Ceratapion basicorne, is
showing promise in research trials as another effective predator.
The Contra Costa County Agricultural Commissioner's staff can arrange for releases of the seed
head predators on private property. Several small areas that contain yellow star-thistle plants
should be set aside to serve as protected refugia where the insects can reproduce and disperse
over time.
Short-term Goat Grazingfor Weed Control
Prescribed grazing can also be used for short term (days to a few weeks), mobile weed-clearing
activities primarily using goats and occasionally sheep. The Bay Area is home to a burgeoning
goat-based weed clearing and fuel load reduction industry. Goats used for weed control are
highly managed to insure that vegetation management goals are met with minimal negative
impact to the resource. Goats are contained within electric fences and are tended by 24-hour
herders, herding dogs, and in some cases, guarding dogs that remain permanently with the goats.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 17
Before the goats are brought onto the site, any sensitive shrubs, trees, or other non-target
vegetation is wrapped with tarps, fenced, or otherwise protected from access by goats. The goats
are moved several times per day to encourage evenly distributed browsing on target vegetation
per the project prescription.
Goats are known to browse on a wide range of the exotic woody and herbaceous broadleaf and
weed grasses that grow on the Project Area properties. These range from large, rugged perennials
such as sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), pampasgrass (Cortadaria jubata), and giant reed
(Arundo donax) to less robust but more numerous and widespread annual mustards (Brassica
spp.) and thistles (Centaurea spp., Cirsium spp., and Carduus spp.). Goats will feed part-time on
thistles beginning with the rosette stage in the fall and winter, moving on to stems and leaves
while they are tender in the spring, and continuing onto flower heads in the early summer before
tissue hardens and thorns are prominent. Their broad diet preferences create a wide window of
opportunity for using goat grazing as a major tool in a weed reduction strategy for a wide variety
of weedy exotic plants.
Timed goat grazing can also be used to selectively remove invasive woody vegetation such as
Himalayan blackberries (Rubus discolor) and tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) from riparian zones.
Sensitive species such as red-legged frogs and California tiger salamanders can be protected
from harm by timing grazing activities to occur between April and late September when these
species are aestivating underground in upland habitats (Lewis 2003, Pers. Comm.).
Manual Weed Removal
Hand pulling or grubbing out weeds using a hand tool is an effective method for removing low to
moderate populations of exotic weeds such as young thistles that grow in many locations on the
Project Area properties. Manual methods are particularly suited for use in riparian corridors and
Opens Space areas where both methods can be applied selectively in order to minimize
disturbance of soil, . water, and other habitat components in the vicinity of California tiger
salamander and California red-legged frog. Manual removal can be carried out any time of year,
although for many common exotic weeds, early fall is the best time to remove them. At this point
the soil is usually moist, many weeds are in the seedling stage and roots are still small.
Green Flaming
Green flaming involves passing the tip of a propane-powered torch quickly over the surface of
seedling weeds. The heat from the torch causes plant cells to rupture and dehydrate. Treated
plants wilt and die within a few hours to a day. Hand-held flamers consist of a special wand and
a container of propane fuel. There are backpack, dolly-assisted, and vehicular models available.
They are informally called Green flamers because they are only used to treat living (green)
plants, and only during the rainy (green) season or in irrigated environments. Thus, flaming is
low-tech, non-chemical option for treating terrestrial exotic weeds during the fall and winter
seasons, or year-round in moist areas. Flaming does not disturb the soil, and so does not create
habitat for germination of weed seeds.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
t
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I'
1/
I
dOl 66
Restoration/Revegetation
A central IPM management strategy is to change the habitat conditions that enable exotic weeds
to become established in the first place. This usually involves a program to follow-removal of
weeds by mulching or revegetating the site with native or other desirable plants capable of
preventing invasion of new weeds. In riparian areas, it is often possible to encourage the seed
bank of native plants in the area where weeds are removed to colonize the open soil. A
temporary organic mulch can be applied to bare soil until recolonization by native plants is
underway. In grasslands, it is usually necessary to establish native grasses by planting fresh grass
seed or plugs in order to establish native grasslands.
Remnant stands of desirable native perennial grasses, rushes, sedges, and cattails are present at
several locations on the Project Area properties. Grasses include alkali barley (Hordeum
depressum), creeping rye grass (Leymus triticoides), meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum),
and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). Sedges, rushes, and cattails include deer-bed sedge (Carex
pragracilis), creeping spike-rush (Eleacharis macrostachya), prairie bulrush (Scirpus robustus),
wire rush (Juncus balticus), toad rush (Juncus bufonius var. bufonius), Mexican rush (Juncus
mexicanus), iris-leaved rush (Juncus xiphioides), and narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia).
These and other native plant species adapted to the Livennore Valley constitute excellent
candidates for use in on-site grassland or wetland restoration projects including the expansion of
emergent vegetation in wetlands and riparian areas that support breeding sites for California red-
legged frog and California tiger salamander. The use of locally collected seeds to be used in
restoration further assures the adaptation of restoration plantings to the local climate.
Chemical Controls
In IPM programs, herbicides are viewed as short-term transition tools to suppress target
vegetation until soil disturbance and other causes of the weed problem have been solved and
beneficial vegetation restored. When needed, herbicides are generally used in conjunction with
manual, mechanical, or other non-chemical methods, rather than used as the sole management
tool. This integrated approach helps minimize use of herbicides in the long-term, and enhances
the efficacy of the lowest-risk chemical products and fonnulations because they are augmented
with other methods. Spot-treatments rather than broadcast sprays are preferred in ordér to limit
or avoid impacts on non-target organisms. A written pesticide recommendation from a licensed
pest control advisor (PCA) is required for commercial applications of herbicides by professional
pesticide applicators.
Exotic Animal Management
Urbanization and development can lead to an increase in direct and indirect human-wildlife
interactions. Residential and commercial structures, waste cans, debris piles, gardens, orchards
and domestic pets can be attractants to wildlife, posing a threat not only to private property and
pets, but to wildlife as well. Domestic and feral cats are a very real threat to song birds, rodents
and reptiles resulting in direct effects like predation, and indirect effects, undermining the
potential prey base for native predators. Rats and mice can cause structural damage to domestic
and residential structures. Raccoons pose a threat to poultry and native songbirds, and have been
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 19
;)08- ~
known to den in attics, basements, and uncapped chimneys. Deer are attracted to gardens and
orchards, and are a common threat to motorists. Additionally, mountain lions, bobcats and
coyotes pose a significant threat to livestock, outdoor pets and occasionally to humans.
To insure these following measures are effective, it is important to adopt a proactive Integrated
Pest Management Plan. The implementation of proper measures early on can help prevent
problematic situations down the road.
Nuisance Species Management
Pigeons
Rock Dove, e.g. Feral Pigeon (Columba livia):Rock doves, or feral pigeons, are a universal
presence in most urban communities. Some people consider them to be attractive and desirable,
but pigeon nests and fecal matter can significantly damage or defile buildings, especially window
sills and ledges as well as the surrounding pavement. Water drainage systems and air intake
passages of buildings can be blocked by nesting materials or excrement. A nutritional need for
lime leads pigeons to eat the mortar from building exteriors. Large amounts of droppings may
kill vegetation and produce an objectionable odor.
Pigeons can help transmit a number of zoonotic diseases (diseases that spread from animals to
humans) including histoplasmosis, cryptococcosis, toxplasmosis, pseudo-tuberculosis, pigeon
coccidiosis, pigeon ornothosis, encephalitis and salmonella food poisoning. Wild pigeons are
also reservoirs of West Nile virus. Pigeons can carry a number of external parasites known to
attack humans, including a variety of mites, lice, ticks, fleas, conenose bugs, and others.
In urban areas pigeons seek elevated habitats, favoring ledges, wall cavities, building facades,
roof surfaces, beams under roof overhangs, inside airshafts, and on top of lights. Favored
roosting spots are roof ridges, gutter edges, windowsills, cornices, ledges, and utility lines.
Since pigeons are fed and admired by some urban wildlife enthusiasts, any planned bird
management programs in facilities such as schools, parks, shopping centers, or large townhouse
developments should include a public relations element. It is useful to describe the health
hazards associated with these birds, as well as their ecological cOlmection with other urban pests
(e.g., pigeons are often called feathered rats-a reference to the fact that rats eat food left out for
pigeons).
In the wild, pigeons feed primarily on grain or seeds such as com, wheat, rye, or sunflowers. In
urban areas they primarily scavenge on bread, garbage, fruits, and greens. Improved sanitation to
deny pigeons access to spilled food or refuse piles, and a campaign to reduce feeding of birds by
humans is essential to curb pigeon populations.
Both design elements and physical or chemical barriers can be used to exclude pigeons. Building
designs that omit overhangs and ledges attractive to these birds may limit or prevent pigeon
problems. Method for retrofitting existing perching and nesting sites to make them uninhabitable
to pigeons are well developed. Plastic bird netting or 3/4-inch hardware cloth can be used to
screen off sites used by pigeons, often in a manner that is aesthetically innocuous. Rafters,
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\1
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
;;}OS ¿"
o
building ledges, windowsills, and roof peaks can be made inaccessible by installing metal or
plastic anti-landing devices. Ledges can be protected by applying a bead of non-toxic sticky
repellent along the edge, or by modifying the ledge angle to 45 degrees with sheet metal,
Styrofoam, or other material painted or coated to match the building surfacing and color.
If these measures are not sufficient to adequately reduce or eliminate pigeon populations,
trapping and removal of pigeons and/or nest destruction can be added to the program.
Rodents
· Roof Rat (Rattus rattus)
black rat
· Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus)
· House Mouse (Mus musculus)
· Dusky-footed Woodrat (Neotomafuscipes)
pack rat
Rodents are especially attracted to urban and developed areas and are known vectors of diseases
such as salmonellosis, murine typhus, trichinosis, plague, rickettsial pox, lymphocytic
choriomeningitis, and might also transmit leptospirosis, ratbite fever, tapeworms, and organisms
that can cause ringwonn. Both mice and rats are responsible for the destruction and
contamination of food stores and containers, and structural damage, e.g. gnawing on electrical
wiring and water pipes, and tearing up insulation. They are attracted to poor food storage, pet
food and feeding stations, debris piles, untended gardens and orchards, poor sanitary conditions,
and easy access to buildings.
To prevent rodent infestations, it is important to secure food stores, pet food, and edible garbage
in sealed containers. Garbage in particular should be immediately disposed of or properly stored
and sealed in heavy-duty, lidded containers. Gardens and orchards should be tended regularly to
discourage rats. In orchards and gardens, fruits and nuts that drop prior to harvest should be
removed and disposed of properly. Trees should be trimmed to prevent low-lying skirts of
drooping branches and outreaching branches adjacent to fence lines, overhead wires, and utility
WIres.
Structures or features like debris piles, stacks of lumbers or firewood that might provide suitable
shelter should be kept clear of buildings. Debris, weeds, vines, and overhanging tree branches
should be removed from around structures regularly.
To rodent-proof homes and buildings, structures should be surveyed for potential entry points.
Rats can utilize holes larger than 12 inch (1.3 cm), while mice can utilize holes larger than l/.¡ inch
(0.6 cm). Openings in or around structures should be sealed with heavy-duty materials like
concrete mortar, steel or copper wool, and metal flashing to protect potential entry points and to
prevent gnawing. Frequent points of entry include wall vents, heating and air conditioning ducts,
clothes dryer exhaust vents, roof joints, weather strips, water and gas lines, utility pipes, tile and
shake shingle roofs, and electrical conduits, meters and circuit breakers.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 21
9<ot.)~
Rodent control measures such as discing and poisoning should be prohibited within the
conservation area and off-site mitigation lands to ensure a viable prey population for birds and
mammals, and to ensure a viable ground squirrel population to provide burrows for burrowing
owl nests and CTS estivation habitat. .
Gophers
Pocket Gopher (Thomomys bottae):Gophers are native wildlife whose digging activity can be
quite damaging to turf and ornamental plants in landscapes, playing fields, parks, and golf
courses. Their underground gnawing and feeding can kill plants by destroying roots. Their
mounds interfere with mowing, and with play of the ball on golf courses, can become trip
hazards on playing fields and trails, and are unsightly in ornamental gardens and turf. Their
tunneling can divert irrigation water and undermine canal banks, causing seepage and erosion.
They also gnaw on and damage underground plastic irrigation pipes and cables.
On the positive side, gopher tunneling mixes, aerates, and loosens soil, moves mineral nutrients
to the upper layers of soil where plants can access them, and increases soil moisture and organic
content. These are reasons for tolerating gopher activity in natural areas and waste spaces where
the long-term benefits on soil tilth and fertility might outweigh the short-term costs. Also,
gophers are food sources for avian and mammalian predators.
Pocket gophers live a solitary life in an extensive system of underground tunnels marked on the
surface by mounds of excavated soil. Normally there is only one gopher per tunnel system
(except during mating and rearing of young), although there may be several tunnel systems (and
pocket gophers) in one small area. They are active year round in the Bay Area climate and feed
or burrow at all hours of the day and night, resting between bursts of activity. They emerge
above ground occasionally to look for food near the tunnel entrance or to migrate to new
burrows. Clipped vegetation around the entrance of the tunnel is a sign of gopher activity,
although the appearance of fan-shaped soil mounds is the most common sign of gopher presence.
A single gopher may create several mounds a day. In non-irrigated areas, mound building is most
pronounced during spring or fall when the soil is moist and easy to dig. In irrigated areas such as
turf areas, flowerbeds, and gardens, digging conditions are usually optimal year round and
mounds can appear at any time.
Barn owls, coyotes, domestic dogs, feral cats, foxes, hawks, raccoons, and snakes are the
primary predators of gophers in urban·and suburban areas. Predation is probably most successful
during spring mating when male gophers move aboveground to locate access to tunnels of
females; in summer when young gophers emigrate out aboveground from maternal burrows; and
anytime gophers feed aboveground or push soil to the surface. Mounting specially constructed
barn owl nest boxes or hawk perches help attract these raptors to suburban facilities with large
gopher infestations.
Treatment thresholds for gophers are site specific, and may differ from one site to the next, and
change from year to year. When treatment is warranted, an integrated program including
monitoring and a combination of food and habitat reduction, exclusion, biological and lethal
control methods is the most effective management approach.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 22
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f)05 C'Ò
Gophers prefer plants with long, fleshy taproots such as dandelions, thistles, and bristly ox
tongue (Picris echioides). Removing these types of preferred plants from infested sites may
cause gophers to move to less sensitive areas in search of an improved diet. Gophers are highly
likely to move away :trom a location where the vegetation is removed and replaced with a deep
layer of mulch, perhaps underlain with weed barrier fabric.
Both plants and irrigation equipment can be protected with underground wire screens to prevent
feeding by gophers. Gophers can also be excluded :trom irrigation pipes and wiring by
surrounding underground equipment with 6 to 8-inches of coarse gravel (I-inch or more in
diameter) or enclosing.
Buried wires or lines in 3-inch diameter PVC pipe. Gophers cannot open their mouths wide
enough to cause damage to pipes of this size.
If exclusion and food source reduction actions are not sufficient to reduce gopher numbers to
acceptable levels, lethal measures such as flooding burrows or trapping can be added to the
management program.
Snakes
· California Whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis)
· California Kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula californiae)
· Pacific Gopher Snake (Pituophis catenifer catenifer)
· Night Snake (Hypsiglena torquata)
· Common Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis)
· Western Terrestrial Garter Snake (Thamnophis elegans)
· Northern Pacific Rattlesnake (Crotalus viridus oreganus)
Encounters with snakes can be common in and around properties located at the urban/wildland
interface. Common snake species found in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties in grassland,
riparian, and foothill environments are listed above. With the exception of the rattlesnake and
night snake, all the species listed are harmless to humans because their bites lack venom
(poison). While the rattlesnake is venomous, 99 percent of rattlesnake victims survive the bite
(Downey et al. 1991, Smith and Figge 1991, Blackman and Dillon 1992). Night snakes inject
venom into their prey through grooved rear teeth (Stebbins 2003). Their venom is mildly toxic
and is relatively harmless to humans; however, even bites :trom non-venomous snakes can be
painful and cause low-grade local reactions that may become infected ifnot properly treated.
All snakes are shy reptiles that try to flee when they encounter humans or other predators. They
generally only attack when they are cornered or harassed. Even rattlesnakes flee if possible
before resorting to a bite. Despite these attributes, most people fear all snakes, and are unaware
of the vital beneficial role they play in the larger ecosystem as key predators of problem rodents
such as rats, mice, gophers, and ground squirrels. When confronted with a snake, the best
response is to remain calm and slowly back away.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 23
/).O(Q DÒ
Snakes are attacked by many natural enemies including badgers, coyotes, cats, deer, dogs, and
wild pigs. Kingsnakes competing for the same rodent food supply may prey on small
rattlesnakes. Pennitting predator species to continue residing in the wildland area adjacent to the
development may help curtail the snake population.
Snakes prefer cool, damp, dark areas often found in and under buildings. The most effective
means of preventing snakes from inhabiting buildings and grounds occupied by humans is
through exclusion, habitat modification, and food source reduction. Since snakes primarily feed
on rodents, the same measures used to exclude rodents from structures can be used to exclude
snakes. This includes weather stripping doors and windows and sealing all openings 114 inch and
larger-especially those around water pipe and electrical service entrances. Silicone caulk and
1I8-inch hardware cloth or sheet metal are effective sealants. Holes in masonry foundations
(poured concrete and concrete blocks or bricks) should be sealed with mortar to exclude snakes.
Holes in wooden buildings including siding covering post and beam foundations can be sealed
with silicone caulk or replacement wood. 1I8-inch hardware cloth should be used to screen
foundation vent openings. This should enable ventilation to continue while preventing snakes
from accessing the preferred habitat under buildings.
A snake exclusion fence can be constructed around the perimeter of developments, or in a
schoolyard or residential yard to protect children's play areas from snakes. Construction details
are as follow. Prom the ground to a height of 2 feet the fence should be constructed of 114 inch
galvanized hardware cloth (mesh). The fence should be at least 6 feet high, and the highest 4-foot
section can be constructed of 1I2-inch mesh if preferred. Posts should be on the inside of the
mesh (either vertical or possibly slanted outward at a 30-degree angle). The fence should be
buried at least 12 inches into the ground with an additional 8 inches of the wire mesh bent into an
L-shape outward away from the fence to prevent burrowing rodents from digging a tunnel that
snakes can travel through. Vegetation on the outside edge of the fence should be kept mowed to
destroy cover for snakes and rodents.
Habitat modification should target both snakes and the rodents that are a large part of their diet.
This involves storing pet food, grains, garbage, and other rodent food in strong plastic, glass or
metal containers with tight-fitting lids and tie-downs. Peed pets indoors, or store their outdoor
food bowls indoors between feedings. Dispose of piles of logs, boards, rocks and brush, tall grass
and ivy lying close to the ground- all are rodent habitat and rattlesnake hiding places. Keep
vegetation mowed around buildings, and store firewood way from buildings. To the degree
feasible, alter all sites that provide cool, damp, dark habitat for snakes.
Opossums
Opossum (Didelphis virginiana):Opossums are native to the southeastern U.S., but have
become widely distributed throughout the central states and along the Pacific Coast including
. California. In the wild, opossums reside in wooded areas near streams and marshes but they have
adapted well to urban and suburban habitats in the vicinity of natural water sources or garden
ponds and outdoor pet bowls. In the wild, the home range of an individual opossum ranges from
3 to 40 acres, and they use several dens within that area. Their range may be smaller in urban and
suburban areas where sources of food and water are plentiful.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
d07 Õò
'-
Their tendency to create messy nests in attics, garages, storage sheds, culverts, brush piles, crawl
spaces, and under decks, together with their backyard foraging habits place opossums in the
nuisance pest category. These wandering nocturnal animals are noted for their omnivorous diet.
They eat carrion, small birds, frogs, mice, ripe fruits, vegetables, eggs, pet food, garbage, and a
wide range of insects and mollusks, many of which are major domestic rodent and horticultural
and pests such as mice, caterpillars, slugs, and snails. They are excellent climbers and readily rob
ripe fruit from backyard trees, vegetables from gardens, and food set out for pets from bowls and
bird feeders.
Opossums should be tolerated in areas where they are not causing problems. Occasionally
opossums may temporarily wander into garages or outbuildings. If this occurs, exits and
entrances should be left open to allow the animal to leave on its own.
The most effective management methods for preventing nuisance behavior by opossums involve
exclusion and food source reduction. Opossum access points to attics, crawl spaces, or other
denning sites in buildings should be securely screened with galvanized hardware cloth, or
wooden boards to prevent animal entry.
Opossums can be prevented from digging under a structure by screening the perimeter
foundations with galvanized hardware cloth. A trench should be dug 18 inches deep and 6 to 8
inches wide. The hardware cloth should be cut long enough to cover the exposed crawl space and
be buried 18 inches deep with the bottom of the wire bent in an L-shape in the direction away
from the building and extending outward an additional 8 inches. The trench should be backfilled
with soil or concrete. The L-shaped barrier should prevent opossums from digging under the
barrier screen. This technique can also be used to prevent opossums from digging under fencing
around chicken coops or aviaries. Adding a chicken wire or galvanized hardware cloth roof over
the chicken run can prevented opossums from climbing over the fence to enter the coop.
Strong plastic or metal cans with tight-fitting lids and tie-downs should be used to store garbage;
smaller versions should be used to store sacks of pet food, seeds, or other edibles. Pets should be
fed indoors, or outdoor food bowls should be brought indoors overnight.
Fruit trees can be protected from predation by pruning side limbs 3 to 4-feet up from the ground
and away from buildings, and by wrapping a 3-foot band of smooth sheet metal around the tree
trunk starting about 2-feet from the ground. This banding technique can also be applied to
ornamental trees or utility poles to prevent the animals from using them to access roof/attic areas
that might provide harborage.
III gardens with uncultivated areas, debris such as brush piles should be cleared, vegetation
mowed or pruned to remove hiding places, and potential denning sites such as rodent burrows
plugged to remove harborage.
If exclusion and habitat reduction measures are not sufficient to solve problems associated with
opossums, the county animal control agency should be requested to remove the animal(s).
Skunks
. Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis)
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 25
B08 òb
. Spotted Skunk (Spirogale putorius)
Skunks are native to North America and are widely distributed throughout California. They
range in all types of terrain, preferring semi-open brushlands close to water sources. Home
ranges in the wild span 30 to 40 acres, ,where they den in shallow burrows or hollow logs. They
have adapted well to urbanized habitats, often denning in basements and crawl spaces under
buildings, decks, and porches-particularly those with latticework or heavy landscaping
covering the perimeter which provides skunks with cover and protection from predators.'
Woodpiles, stacked brush, and open irrigation pipes also offer shelter to skunks.
Because of the strong musky odor that skunks emit when they are threatened or frightened, they
are unwelcome in proximity to humans or domestic pets. These nocturnal foragers are also
considered nuisances when they dig up lawns looking for turf insects, steal eggs from chicken
coops or eat chickens, or disturb hives by eating bees. However, their diet also includes a high
proportion of mice as well as a wide variety of pestiferous insects-an activity whose benefits to
humans generally goes unrecognized.
Skunks can also vector infectious diseases such as rabies, distemper, patvovirus, Aleutians
disease, and several parasites including fleas, lice, ticks, roundworms, tapeworms, and
flatworms.
Skunks should be tolerated in areas where they are not causing problems. Occasionally skunks
may temporarily wander into garages or outbuildings. If this occurs, exits and entrances should
be left open to allow the animal to leave on its own. Harassing or disturbing cornered skunks
may result in them releasing their unpleasant scent.
Management programs for problem skunks should focus on methods such as exclusion and food
source reduction that do not harm the animal. Skunks generally do not climb, but they are expert
at digging. Therefore, attention should be focused on ground level and underground pest
proofing.
Skunks can be excluded from denning in crawl spaces under buildings, porches, and decks, or
from digging under a structure by screening the perimeter foundations with galvanized hardware
cloth. A trench should be dug 18 inches deep and 6 to 8 inches wide. The hardware cloth should
be cut long enough to cover the exposed crawl space and be buried 18 inches deep with the
bottom of the wire bent in an L-shape perpendicular away from the building and extending an
additional 8 inches. The trench should be backfilled with soil or concrete. The L-shaped barrier
should prevent skunks from digging under the barrier screen. This technique can also be used to
retrofit to fences around gardens, chicken coops, or aviaries to prevent skunks from digging their
way inside.
Before sealing holes or installing hardware cloth barriers, insure that all skunks have left the
underground den and that no young skunks remain. It is important not to seal the hole if there is a
possibility that baby skunks too young to leave the nest are present in the den while the mother
skunk forages for food. This can be accomplished by temporarily plugging the suspected den
entrance with soil or sprinkling flour or talc around the entrance hole during the day. Return
around 9:00 p.m. or later with a flashlight to see if the plug has been opened or if there are skunk
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
dOC? Z:"l
I~
prints in the þowder. If either sign is present, then seal the entrance hole and any other holes with
hardware cloth or other strong material.
Some nuisance wildlife specialists recommend removing siding, latticework, or shrubbery from
around the perimeters of decks or porches to allow light to penetrate into crawl spaces and
improve visibility. This exposed environment is not conducive to skunks who feel vulnerable to
predators under such open conditions. It also pennits visual monitoring to insure skunks have not
entered the area.
Beehives can be protected by placing them on stands at least 3 feet high. Aluminum guards
placed around the bottom of supports should keep skunks from climbing up to the hives. .
Sources of food can be reduced or eliminated by storing garbage, pet food, birdseed, or other
edibles in strong plastic or metal cans with tight-fitting lids and tie-downs. Pets should be fed
indoors or their food bowls brought indoors overnight. Food garbage should not be placed in
compost piles unless they are enclosed in containers designed for hot rapid decomposition.
Garden fruits and vegetables should be harvested as soon as they are ripe. Fallen fruit should be
picked up daily and composted or stored in a secured garbage can for removal.
If exclusion and food reduction efforts are not effective at preventing problems with skunks, the
county animal control agency should be asked to remove the animal.
Raccoons
Raccoon (Procyon lotor):Although raccoons prefer hardwood forests in close proximity to
water, they are readily adapted and drawn to urban environments, making use of storrnwater
systems to infiltrate urbanized areas in search of food and denning sites. They are attracted to
poultry and their eggs, gardens (sweet corn and watermelon in particular), domestic pet food, and
garbage cans. Raccoons have been reported rolling back freshly laid sod in search of earthworms
and grubs. They will o~en den in uncapped chimneys, or tear off shingles and wallboards to
access an attic or wall space.
Raccoons can also transmit the intestinal roundworm (Baylisascaris procyon is) to humans and
domestic pets. Transmitted through their feces, infections may result in debilitating symptoms.
Raccoons typically defecate in established latrine sites at the base of or in the forks of trees, on
raised horizontal surfaces such as logs, stumps or rocks, in attics and garages, and on woodpiles,
decks and rooftops. To decontaminate areas exposed to raccoon feces, and potentially raccoon
roundworm, feces and contaminated materials can be removed and exposed surfaces can be
treated with boiling water or a dilute bleach solution. However, the easiest solution is to
thoroughly hose down the area and keep it clean to discourage them from returning.
To discourage opportunistic raccoons, garbage should be stored in metal or tough plastic garbage
cans with tight-fitting lids and tie-downs to prevent tipping. Feeding raccoons may appear
hannless, but it only attracts and encourages them. Raccoons, like many wildlife species, can
become overtly aggressive and have been known to cause serious injury to people and domestic
pets.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
App.endix 5
Page 27
d,/O ð-ö
Chimneys should be capped with exclusion devices made of heavy-duty sheet metal and screen,
overhanging branches should be trimmed to prevent rooftop access, and gardens should be kept
clean. Domestic pets should be fed indoors; if that is not an option, pets should be fed only as
much as they will eat in one feeding.
Deer
. Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)
. Black-tailed Deer (0. h. columbian us)
Deer are common visitors to residential and commercial areas. They are common vectors of the
western black-legged tick (Ixodes paciflcus), which can transmit the bacterium Borrelia
burgdorferi responsible for Lyme disease. Deer are attracted to row and forage crops, vegetables,
fruit trees, nursery stock, and ornamentals. Thus, deer are drawn into residential areas to access
yards and gardens and must cross often heavily trafficked roads, posing a threat to themselves
and motorists.
Perhaps the most proactive way in which to exclude deer from yards and residential areas is to
plant those plant species that are unappealing or resistant to deer. In larger areas, plant the least
desirable plants along the garden edges. Browse cages can be installed over sensitive plants and
trees, while barrier and electric fencing are costlier exclusion alternatives. Commercial and
home-remedy repellants such as Big Game Repellant, thiram-based repellents, and tallow fatty-
acid soaps are effective in residential gardens and yards.
Coyotes
Coyote (Canis latrans):Coyotes can be common urban dwellers, active in areas of human
activity both day and night. Their opportunistic diets consist of anything from fruits and berries
to insects, carrion, rodents, and rabbits. In human settings, coyotes should feed on human refuse,
and have been known to prey on domestic dogs and cats.
Feeding coyotes may appear harmless, but it only attracts and encourages them. Coyotes, like
many wildlife species, can become overtly aggressive and have been known to cause serious
injury to people and domestic pets. To prevent coyote predation of domestic pets, domestic
house cats should be kept indoors, and domestic dogs should be leashed or kept in a fenced yard.
All outdoor pets should be collared and licensed to establish ownership, and to ensure their safe
return if they escape.
Unwanted pets should never be disposed of outdoors; contact a local veterinarian, animal welfare
organization, or animal shelter. Stray cats or cat colonies might attract and encourages coyotes,
and should be reported to the local control agency.
Big Cats
. Mountain Lion (Felis concolor)
cougar, puma, catamount, panther
. Bobcat (Lynx rufus)
More and more, mountain lions have been making appearances near residential areas. Whether
because of our encroaching further into choice habitat, a depression in prey base, or the presence
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties ~ DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 28
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
d//~
of relatively easily obtainable food sources, like domestic pets, mountain lion predation is a
potential threat.
Although deer are their preferred prey, mountain lions are opportunistic feeders known to take
anything from insects and mice to livestock. Both mountain lions and bobcats have been known
to take domestic dogs and cats, and could be attracted to feral cat colonies. Domestic house cats
should be kept indoors, and domestic dogs should be leashed or kept in a fenced yard. Limiting
vegetation density within 'l4 mile (0.4 Ian) of buildings can also help prevent predation along the
outskirts of residential zones since mountain lions and bobcats prefer areas with escape cover
nearby.
REFERENCES
Bulger, John B., Norman J. Scott Jr. and Richard Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial Activity and
Conservation of adult California red-legged frogs Rana aurora draytonii in coastal forests and
grasslands. Biological Conservation. Vol. 11 O:pp. 85-95.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). 2000. Structural Fire Prevention
Field Guide for Mitigation of Wildland Fires. University of California Press. April.
California Native Grass Association. 2002. Techniques and Strategies for Using Native Grasses
and Grarninoids in Revegetation and Restoration. California Native Grass Association.
November
Cook, Sherburne F., Jr. 1959. The effects of fire on a population of small rodents. Ecology.
40(1 ): 102-108
DiTomaso, Joseph. 2001. Yellow star-thistle information, [Online]. Davis, CA: University of
California, Weed Research and Information Center (producer). Available:
http://wric.ucdavis.edu/yst [2002, February 20].
Erwin, William J. and Richard H. Stasiak. 1979. Vertebrate mortality during the burning of a
reestablished prairie in Nebraska. The American Midland Naturalist. 101(1): 247-249.
Hansen, J. D. and I.E. Sutton. 1985. Insect activity on a burned site after a range fire. In U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research, Station, Fire Sciences
Laboratory. 2003. Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. Available:
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [October 23, 2003].
Hastings, M. S. and Joseph M. DiTomaso. 1996. Fire Controls Yellow Starthistle (Centaurea
solstitialis) in California Grasslands. Symposium Proceedings. California Exotic Pest Plant
Council. pp. 1-5.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 29
éJ,/ô- ~
Hayes, Marc .P. and Mark R. Jennings. 1988. Habitat Correlates of Distribution of the California
Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana
boylžì): Implications for Management. pp. 144-158 In: Szaro, Robert C., Kieth E. Severson
and David R. Patton (technical coordinators). July 19-21, 1988. Proceedings of the
symposium on the management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North
America. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report
(GTR) - 166.
Jennings, M.R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in
California. Prepared for the Calif. Dept. ofFish and Game Inland Fisheries Div. Rancho
Cordova, Calif. November 1. 255 pp.
Johnsgard, P. A., 1988. North American Owls Biology and Natural History. Smithsonian
Institution. Washington.
Loredo, I, D. Van Vuren, and M.L. Morrison. 1996. Habitat use and migration behavior of the
California tiger salamander. Journal of Herpetology 30:282-285.
Pilliod, D.S., R.B. Bury, E.J. Hyde, C.A. Pearl, and P.S. Corn. 2003. Fire and amphibians in
North America. Forest Ecology and Management. 178: 163-181.
Smith, Jane Kapler (Ed). 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech.
Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. Ogden, ill: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station. 83 p.
Storer, Tracy Irwin. 1925. A synopsis of the amphibians of California. University of California
Publications in Zoology 27:1-342.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire
Sciences Laboratory. 2003. Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. Available:
http://www.fsJed.us/database/feis/ [October 23, 2003].
Personal Communications
Rice, Carol. 2003. Wildland Resource Management, Alamo, CA. Telephone Conversation and
E-mail with Lynn Boyd, Sycamore Associates. August 19, 2003
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 5
Page 30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.Î
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
¿)/3 ùò
APPENDIX 6. SPECIFIC HABITAT ENHANCEMENT GUIDELINES
The measures in this appendix are intended to serve as guidelines and recommendations only;
however, specific criteria and measures may change as a result of agency-specific permits.
General Techniques
The following techniques are summarized from the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream
Restoration Program (Sycamore Associates, Balanace Hydrologics and dk Associates 1996).
These techniques are related to the installation of plant material, including seeds and plugs, and
generally apply to habitats within the project area for habitat creation or enhancement purposes.
This Appendix contains a comprehensive set of guidelines intended to cover a wide variety of
situations. Not all of these guidelines will be appropriate for any given situation. Each situation
must be evaluated to detennine which techniques are suitable.
Container Planting Techniques
In ungraded areas, tree and shrub planting positions should be scraped clear of annual grasses
and forbs in a radius centered on the planting site. These weeds would otherwise compete for
moisture and sunlight critical to the establishing plants. The scraped area should be five feet in
diameter for trees, and three feet in diameter for shrubs.
Ptior . to planting, all exotic species should be eradicated within the area to be planted and, if
called for, the watering system should be installed, tested and fully functional. Tree and shrub
planting holes should be dug or augured prior to planting at twice the depth and diameter of the
plant container. Hole preparation promotes deep root penetration. Where soils are loose and well
drained, auguring is not necessary. The day they are planted, all plants should be watered-in,
regardless of soil moisture conditions.
A slow-release fertilizer that will provide supplemental nutrients during the first two years
should be used for all shrub and tree plantings with the exception of blackberry and willow
cuttings. Backfill in the planting holes should consist of native soil. The restoration specialist
should review any plans to import soil for revegetation. All trees and shrubs should be mulched
or have weed mats installed around them.
On level ground, watering berms should be built around all container plants. Berms around liners
should be one and one-half feet in diameter and three inches high. These berms are needed to
prevent water fr?m running off, and they will settle and erode over time.
Final planting plans should include specifications addressing inspection of site modifications,
review and acceptance of planting stock, root and top pruning, handling and storage of stock, and
acceptable planting dates.
Optimal planting conditions are when the soil is moist to a depth of twelve inches, usually after
the first fall rains. In a normal year, based on when the moisture content of the soil, fall and/or
winter are the most appropriate times to plant. The planting time should be scheduled early
enough that the concurrent seeding is able to germinate during the fall rains. If drought
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 6
Page 1
d.)i.f~
conditiòns prevail, supplemental watering should be used to compensate. The physiological state
of the plants is optimal during the fall and winter for most species, therefore overall restoration
success is enhanced by adhering to appropriate planting schedules. In addition, a fall planting
drastically reduces the need for supplemental irrigation.
Seeding TecImiques
Seeding with natives can provide soil stabilization benefits as well as wildlife habitat. Areas to
be seeded include riparian enhancement areas, created wetlands, areas denuded of vegetation
through exotics eradication and debris removal, and areas denuded through grading modification.
The optimum season for direct seeding is fall, when moisture, temperatures and plant physiology
are all favorable for establishment. If seeding with natives outside this biological window is
conducted, reseeding may be required. Seeding of certain natives is known to be effective in the
spring; therefore, two seeding phases could be indicated.
Proper soil preparation is essential to seed establishment. Sites should be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis by a restoration specialist to determine appropriate procedures. The recommendations
of the qualified soils scientist, described above, should be incorporated at this time. Soil
preparation should include mitigation of compaction (such as tilling) and creation of a suitable
seedbed (such as soil scarification).
Seed application alternatives include broadcast seeding, broadcast seeding with native straw,
drill seeding, and hydromulching or hydroseeding. Following seed application, the area should
be covered with a thin layer of soil. Watering may be appropriate, depending on the season, to
promote seed gennination and establishment.. Straw mulch should be applied over large seeded
areas or on steep slopes.
If rapid soil stabilization is needed, a nurse crop of sterile wheat grass should be included in the
plant palette. This nurse crop is recommended because it will not compete with the establishing
natives and is non-persistent. Other nurse crop species could permanently establish in the
community and become a maintenance problem.
Plug Planting and Plug Transplanting Techniques
Plug planting is a good choice when rapid establishment of natives is desired. Plugs are good
candidates in areas with a need for erosion control, weed suppression or where for aesthetic
reasons a good cover of native plantings is desired. Transplanting of plugs is an excellent way to
preserve local genetic diversity and ensure the use of site-adapted individuals. As discussed
above, commercial plugs are readily available, however they need to be ordered well in advance
to ensure the plugs will be mature enough to plant.
Optimal time for planting depends upon the weather patterns and the site conditions. Cool season
grasses such as purple needle grass (Nassella pulchra) should be planted in the fall prior to late
January. Sedges and rushes planted at the edges of perennial waters can be planted well into the
summer.
Salvaged plugs collected from local sites should be replanted the same day, if possible, or stored
in a cool, moist place for a maximum of one day. The plugs should be thoroughly watered-in the
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 6
Page 2
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
é}/SUZJ
day they are planted. Irrigation may be required to keep the transplanted plugs alive, especially
through the first summer season.
Planting can be accomplished using a long handled dibble for smaller plugs or with trowels or
shovels for larger plugs. Ensuring that the plug roots are in contact with the soil and completely
covered is critical to make certain the plugs won't dry out.
Riparian Enhancement
Restoration and elÙlancement guidelines for riparian habitat are described in detail in the Eastern
Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program (Sycamore Associates, Balanace
Hydrologies and dk Associates 1996). This plan gives recommendations regarding appropriate
plant palettes, groundwater testing and planting zones,plant container sizes and spacing, plant
and seed procurement, mycorrhizal fungi, commercial plant and seed sources, local collection
and cutting techniques, irrigation and plant protection.
Drainage and associated riparian enhancement measures such as limited erosion repair and
stabilization, the installation of riparian vegetation, and the removal of invasive plant species
would benefit the California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, nesting passerines
such as the tri-colored blackbird, and possibly raptor and bats. Such elÙlancement would also
benefit general native plant species diversity and habitat heterogeneity for other wildlife species.
Although such elÙlancement is not specifically required as mitigation for impacts to sensitive
species, one of the main purposes of the RMP is to enhance habitat for these species. However,
installation of riparian vegetation along appropriate sections of the drainage may be considered
mitigation for impacts to riparian habitat within the Development Area. In addition, erosion
repair and revegetation of portions of the drainage may also be considered mitigation for impacts
to drainages within the Development Area. However, since active erosion repair often involves
grading and disturbing the banks, which can potentially lead to more erosion, repair efforts
should focus on actively eroding or very unstable areas and should be planned to construction-
level detail by a qualified hydrologist. If such habitat elÙlancement is proposed as mitigation, a
plan should be prepared by a qualified biologist according to the guidelines established in the
Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program. This plan should address the
following:
· If erosion repair is proposed, bank re-grading, stabilization, and water quality control
methods should be detailed to construction-level by a qualified hydrologist,
· If revegetation is proposed, a native plant palette should be described, including sizes and
plant material sources, planting density, timing, and methodology
· Proposed soil preparation methods and amendments for planting
· Proposed maintenance measures, including herbivory, erosion, weed control, and irrigation
as applicable
· Proposed monitoring methods and performance criteria based on an assessment of
maintained stability (for erosion repair areas) percent vegetation cover or percent survival
over a five year period (for revegetated riparian areas)
· Proposed contingency measures in case of mitigation failure.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 6
Page 3
é}. I t.2 ð-b
Installation of riparian vegetation may be required at locations where bridges are installed
crossing the drainage. Such vegetation should help to screen wildlife utilizing the drainage as a
passageway through the Corridor Zone. Even if such vegetation is not proposed as
compensatory mitigation for impacts to riparian vegetation within the Development Area, the
installation of riparian habitat must adhere to guidelines established in the Eastern Dublin
Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program.
Mitigation Trees
In order to mitigate for unavoidable removal or damage to Heritage Trees within the
Development Area, it is suggested that at least three trees for each one removed should be
planted and established. If project approvals require tree replacement, then a tree replacement
plan should be prepared by a qualified Arborist and include:
· The proposed location, species, source and size of each replacement tree;
· Maintenance methods, including herbivory protections, irrigation and weed control;
· Monitoring methods and performance criteria based on percent survival (at least 80 percent
after three years);
· Contingency measures in case of mitigation failure.
Guidelines for tree planting and requirements for tree container sizes for mitigation trees should
follow general planting recommendations discussed in the General Techniques section. Planted
trees should be one gallon, five gallon or tree pots. Tree pots are the optimum container because
they support a deep root system and moderate top size at planting time; pot size is 8 inches in
diameter by 14 inches tall and the volume is four gallons. Tree pots in 6 and 8 gallon sizes are
also recommended.
Wetland Creation and Enhancement
Wetland creation or enhancement measures (such as the installation of additional emergent
marsh or seasonal wetland vegetation, removal of invasive plant species, and/or wetland
expansion) may benefit the California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, and nesting
passerines such as the tri-colored blackbird. Such creation or enhancement would also benefit
general native plant species diversity and habitat heterogeneity for other wildlife species. If
wetland creation or enhancement is considered mitigation for impacts to wetland habitats within
the Development Area, a plan should be prepared by a qualified biologist and submitted to the
appropriate agencies (in conjunction with required development permits) that should address the
following:
· Wetland creation or enhancement methods, including a grading plan showing exiting and
proposed grades (if grading is proposed), proposed self-sustaining (passive) water control
structures, soil excavation and stabilization methods during and post construction, proposed
equipment to be used during construction,
· A water budget demonstrating that the hydrologic source for the wetland is sufficient to
support the anticipated level ofponding and/or soil saturation, as well as providing sufficient
water to any downstream wetlands or ponds supported by the same hydrologic source.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 6
Page 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IeI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
{)J Î UO
· Proposed native wetland plant palette for revegetation, utilizing to the maximum extent
feasible locally collected seeds and/or plants, a plant layout design reflecting natural plant
spacing and species composition, and specifications for plant and seed installation.
· Proposed soil preparation methods and amendments for planting
· Proposed maintenance measures, including herbivory protection, irrigation and weed control
· Implementation timing and measures to avoid impacts to sensitive species present in the
vicinity
· Proposed monitoring methods and performance criteria based on soil ponding or saturation
duration (in a wetlan~ expansion area) and percent cover of vegetation establishment
· Proposed contingency measures in case of mitigation failure.
Re-Creation of Unvegetated Waters
If unvegetated waters are re-created to replace an impacted unvegetated waters or drainage, it
should be re-created using natural materials, such as soil, gravel, and rock according to
specifications of a stream geomorphologist, and work should be confined to the April 15 to
October 31 time period. Use of some soil stabilizing materials, such as geo-textile fabric (C-
350) buried under soils, may be necessary to establish a stable channel in re-created sections with
steeper banks (Lowney Associates, 1999). Detailed plans for channel re-creation should be
prepared by a stream geomorphologist and submitted as part of the permitting process for
individual development projects within the Project Area. All newly graded banks should be
planted with native erosion control grasses and forbs and native riparian trees and shrubs should
be planted in selected locations as described in the riparian section above, if site conditions are
appropriate. Plans should include erosion control and bank stabilization measures and a planting
plan with installation and maintenance specifications.
Newly Graded Areas {tc "6.1 Maintenance Activities" \12}
Newly graded areas should be seeded with native upland grasses from local sources to help
control erosion and reduce the invasion of non-native grasses. Hydroseeding or tackified straw
techniques should be used on the banks of newly created channels and possibly in other
locations. See the General Techniques section above.
California Red-legged Frog Breeding Habitat Creation and Enhancement
The California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) (CRF) is listed as Threatened under the
federal Endangered Species Act. Breeding ponds may be created within the Project Area and/or
at off-site mitigation lands. The breeding period begins following the onset of heavy rains, from
early to late winter, typically from November through early May. The larvae mature in 3.5 to 7
months depending on food availability, competition, and temperature, and metamorphose
between July and September (Storer 1925). California red-legged frog are also known to breed in
creeks. In fact, adult California red-legged frog have been sighted throughout the Project Area.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 6
Page 5
d./8 Õ'v
The design, construction, and maintenance of California red-legged frog breeding pond(s) should
include the following considerations:
· Breeding ponds for California red-legged frog should remain partially filled until
the late summer or early fall in eight out often years (except during prolonged
droughts). The periodic dryback will discourage bullfrogs from establishing a
sustainable breeding population.
· Analysis of the monthly hydrologic sufficiency for filling and sustaining ponds in
normal and dry years including: precipitation; watershed; runoff; groundwater
supply; evapotranspiration; water budget.
· Impervious pond bottom, typically created with compacted clay soil to prevent
leakage of pond. Permeability should be tested for any material selected. In
addition the compatibility of the material's use with the California red-legged frog
should be determined. Consideration should also be made to ensure there is a
growing medium (topsoil) on top of the compacted soil to allow for emergent
plant establishment.
· Sediment budget analysis to determine impact of watershed and channel sediment
generation and transport on the pond design, maintenance, and downstream
channel stability.
· Consideration of a series of smaller ponds (but large enough to maintain cooler
water temperatures) rather than a single large pond. Shading and size (greater than
30 feet in diameter) are critical factors in maintaining stable pond temperature.
· The pond spillway should be designed to accommodate 100- year design storms
with freeboard; typically the spillway is a broad-crested weir with rock hardening.
The dam should be adequately thick or hardened to discourage unplanned
spillways from forming, resulting in erosion and pond failure.
· Placement of large rocks, anchored woody debris, or other objects in the deeper
portions of the ponds to act as refugia for tadpoles and frogs, i.e., to escape
predators.
· A possible California red-legged frog breeding pond would have four zones based
upon depth at ordinary high water and bottom slope: 1) a deep water portion (-60
percent) approximately six feét deep with a fairly flat bottom and scattered rocks
or other submerged objects; 2) a willow riparian scrub zone (-15 percent) gently
sloping from zero depth at the shoreline to about two feet depth; 3) a shallow
water zone (-15 percent) of one to three feet in depth and occupied by emergent
freshwater marsh; and 4) side-slopes (greater than 10 percent) at 2:1 slope (may
be flatter if public safety is a consideration) consisting (at least in the shallower
portions) of emergent freshwater marsh. The actual pond dimension for the will
depend upon site hydrology and other site conditions.
· Analysis of the pond hydraulic impacts on downstream channel stability.
· Inoculating the pond floor and adjacent wetlands with soils salvaged from
wetlands scheduled for destruction to stimulate the development of the wetland
ecosystem.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 6
Page 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
d./q Óò
· Raw soil in pond area should be scarified and seeded with a mix of native fresh
water marsh wetland species to help establish habitat and partially submerged
vegetation for attaching the California red-legged frog eggs. Alternatively,
inoculating the pond floor may be sufficient.
· Controlled grazing and wildlife access along a portion of the pond, not to exceed
50 percent, adjacent to the zone of shallow water. Allowing animals to access a
portion of the pond serves to muddy pond waters, thus impeding predation on
California red-legged frog. Livestock exclusionary fencing, with a gate for access,
should be placed around the remainder of the pond perimeter. Fencing should
consist of solid steel posts with five strands of barbed wire (though smooth wire
should be used for the top and bottom wires), or similar, with an 18" gap between
the ground surface and bottom wire.
· Construction should be directed by a qualified restoration specialist.
· If conditions allow, at least twenty percent of the breeding pond should be
restored as willow riparian scrub wetland to provide habitat and refugia for the
frogs; if willow establislunent is not possible, then emergent vegetation should be
established.
· A qualified biologist specializing in California red-legged frog habitat restoration
should review the final plans.
· A valved drainage pipe should be built into project to facilitate the emptying of
the pond in the fall if bullfrogs or other predators are found to occupy the pond.
· Breeding pond management should utilize an adaptive management approach,
which facilitates ongoing accommodation of management measures to meet the
needs of the frogs.
· Breeding ponds should not be located at the base of concave depositional slopes
that could be subject to developing rill erosion as result of the pond.
· Breeding ponds should be located away from active use areas.
· Breeding ponds should be located as far as possible from preator source-areas.
· Breeding pond locations should avoid landslide areas.
· Educational measures such as "Habitat Restoration in Progress" signage that will
not bring unwanted attention to special-status species.
· Contingency plans for predator control (especially bullfrogs) should be included.
· Mosquito abatement measures should always involve consultation with a
qualified biologist; mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis), a common mosquito
abatement treatment, prey on California red-legged frog eggs and should not be
used in CRLF breeding ponds.
· Ongoing monitoring of the hydrology (including runoff, depth, channel geometry,
temperature, toxicology, etc.), wetlands (including species composition and cover,
etc.), and Califomia red-legged frog (population, breeding, predation, etc.) should
be established and include action thresholds based on performance standards.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 6
Page 7
{).-;¡).ODb
· A detailed as-built plan including a bathymetric survey and contour map and
downstream and upstream channel cross-sections should be prepared after
breeding pond construction is complete, so as to form a baseline for assessing
change.
· Erosion control measures, including straw and seed mix, and native plants, should
be implemented. Upland habitat should be landscaped with species such as
California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum)
and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) as conditions allow to provide concealing
cover for migrating California red-legged frog.
· If available, Western toad (Bufo boreas) and Pacific tree frog (Hyla regilla) adults
and larvae should be caught and transported from the impact pond to the
mitigation pond to provide progeny for larval California red-legged frog to eat.
· Ponds should be partially filled with untreated natural runoff water prior to
initiation of salvage. If potable water is used, it must be tested and treated for total
chlorine content (chlorine + chloramines) with Pond Primer prior to introduction
(i. e. in the truck); when added, the water should be sprayed onto the slopes to
bring the water temperature to ambient levels before it enters the pond.
The above design considerations can be applied to enhancing existing wetlands or ponds to make
them more suitable as aquatic habitat for CRLF; however, consultation with the Corps and
RWQCB, and possibly CDPG and USFWS would likely be required prior to enhancement
measures involving grading or hydrologic alterations.
Any construction work in California red-legged frog breeding or aestivation habitat should
include pre-construction surveys for sensitive amphibians, and may include one-way
exclusionary fenèing, or capture and release if deemed necessary by California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This may need to be
done several months prior to construction, when animals are active. It is imperative that the
amphibian situation be assessed well in advance of the planned work.
California Tiger Salamander Habitat
The California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiensis, CTS) is a state Species of Special
Concern, and is a candidate for federal listing as Threatened. It inhabits grasslands and oak
savanna habitats in the valleys and low hills of central and Northern California. California tiger
salamanders require both vernal pools, ponds (natural or man-made), or semi-permanent calm
waters where ponded water is present for a minimum of three to four months and adjacent upland
areas that contain small mammal burrows or other suitable aestivation holes. Since California
tiger salamander mature more quickly than California red-legged frog, the water budget
requirements of California tiger salamander are less constraining than for California red-legged
frog. California tiger salamanders will utilize permanent ponds only if aquatic vertebrate
predators are not present. Seasonal ponds provide the classic breeding and larval habitat. SmalJ
mammal burrows [e.g., California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) and Botta's pocket
gopher (Thomomys bottae)] in the upland habitats provide aestivation habitat for juvenile and
adult salamanders during the dry season. The California tiger salamanders will use both occupied
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 6
Page 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
dd. I 66
and unoccupied burrows, but they require an active population of small burrowing mammals to
maintain the burrows.
Breeding Habitat CreationlEnhancement
Creating ponds for California tiger salamander breeding on or off site consists of the same
general set of considerations defined above for California red-legged frog. California tiger
salamander pond depths can be shallower, thus they require a somewhat reduced water supply to
sustain them. However, the presence of nearby, actively maintained rodent burrows is an
essential habitat requirement.
California tiger salamander breeding ponds should remain partially filled until the mid to late
summer in eight out of ten years (except during prolonged droughts). The design, construction,
and maintenance considerations for California tiger salamander pond( s) are similar to those
outlined above for the California red-legged frog, except' for the following variations to those
stated in the California red-legged frog considerations:
Design Considerations Specific to California Tiger Salamander Breeding Ponds:
· California tiger salamander breeding ponds remain partially filled until mid- to
late summer.
· The pond's conceptual bathymetry consists of two zones based upon depth at
ordinary high water and bottom slope: 1) a deep water portion (~70 percent)
approximately three to five feet deep with a gently sloping bottom and scattered
rocks or other submerged objects; 2) side slopes ranging from 2:1 (~27 percent) to
1:1 (~45 percent) with at least halfbeing the very gentle 3:1 (~18 percent) or less.
The actual pond dimensions will depend upon site hydrology and other site
conditions.
· A qualified biologist specializing in California tiger salamander habitat
restoration should review the final plans.
· A detailed as-built plan including a bathymetric survey and contour map 'and
downstream and upstream channel cross-sections should be prepared as soon as
construction is complete, to form a baseline for assessing change.
· Active rodent burrows in the immediate proximity (within 600 feet) of the pond
are essential. If there are rodents in the general vicinity, they may be encouraged
to get established by the pond site merely by building rock piles (5-10 feet high)
near the pond. The rock mounds will also serve as shelter areas for California
tiger salamander juveniles and adults.
· Sections of hollow concrete blocks (or concrete pipes) covered with. large rocks
should be placed within the pond to provide later-season refuge for California
tiger salamander larvae from predators.
· Western toad (Bufo boreas) and Pacific tree frog (Hyla regilla) adults and larvae
should be caught and transported from the impact pond to the salvage pond to
provide progeny for larval California tiger salamander to eat.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 6
Page 9
~~d- ð'b
. Ponds should be partially filled with untreated natural runoff water prior to
initiation of salvage. If potable water is used, it must be tested and treated for total
chlorine content (chlorine + chloramines) with Pond Primer prior to introduction
(i.e. in the truck); when added, the water should be sprayed onto the slopes to
bring the water temperature to ambient levels before it enters the pond.
The above design considerations can be applied to enhancing existing wetlands or ponds to make
them more suitable as aquatic habitat for CTS; however, consultation with the Corps and
R WQCB, and possibly CDFG would likely be required prior to enhancement measures involving
grading or hydrologic alterations.
Any construction work in California tiger salamander breeding or aestivation habitat should
include pre-construction surveys for sensitive amphibians, and may include one-way
exclusionary fencing, or capture and release if deemed necessary by California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This may need to be
done several months prior to the construction when the animals are active. It is imperative that
the amphibian situation be assessed well in advance of the planned work. Furthermore, the
temporarily constructed sedimentation basins should be dried down to discourage unwanted
California tiger salamander breeding.
Estivation Habitat Maintenance
In order to maintain the grassland habitats surrounding breeding ponds as viable estivation
habitat for CTS, vegetation management measures should bè employed. In addition, rodent
control measures such as discing and poisoning should be prohibited to promote a healthy
ground squirrel population that will provide burrows as estivation habitat.
Burrowing Owl Burrow Creation and Enbancement
Mitigation for the destruction of occupied burrowing owl burrows can be mitigated by either
enhancing existing burrows or by creating new burrows. Final artificial burrow designs and/or
proposed enhancement measures for existing burrows should be reviewed by the California
Department ofFish and Game.
Enhancement of existing burrows can be achieved either by clearing the entrance of vegetation
and other debris (and maintaining the cleared conditions) or by enlarging the burrow enough so
that it can accommodate owls.
Artificially created burrows should consist of platic pipe at least four inches in diameter and at
one to two meters in length, buried at a downward angle such that the burrow (at least 10 inches
in diameter) is buried at least 18 inches below the ground surface (Olenick 1987). Artificial
burrows should be constructed in complexes of at least three burrows each with their entrances
facing a central soil mound. Burrow entrances should be spaced approximately six feet apart.
The complex should consists of escape and nest burrows at a 2: 1 ratio. An escape burrow
consists of a pipe with a single burrow at the end, while a nest burrow consists of a pipe with two
burrows which are connected by a shorter length of pipe at a 90 degree angle from the main
entrance pipe.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 6
Page 10
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
é)d--3 Öb
Maintenance on all active artificial burrows will include the application of herbicide once after
vegetation begins to grow in winter, and again if necessary in spring. This maintenance creates
less disturbance than the use of weed trimmers every three weeks early in the breeding season.
In additon, vegetation management measures should be employed to maintain the low stature
grasslands for burrow access and prey location. Rodent control measures such as discing and
poisoning should be prohibited to promote a healthy ground squirrel population that will provide
burrows for nesting.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 6
Page 11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
ælj~
APPENDIX 7. MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
GUIDELINES
The measures in this appendix are intended to serve as guidelines and recommendations only;
however, specific criteria and measures may change as a result of agency-specific permits.
The Project Area should utilize an adaptive management approach, which allows resource
management practices to adjust to unanticipated circumstances as evidenced through regular
monitoring. Adaptive management in conjunction with continued research, consultation with
experts, monitoring, and record keeping is important to restoration success. The primary reason
for using adaptive management is to allow for changes in the strategies that may be necessary to
reach the long-term goals of the protection and enhancement of resources, and to ensure the
likelihood of the survival of target species in the wild. Under adaptive management, activities
and ecosystems are monitored and analyzed to determine how they function ecologically and if
they are producing the desired results. If the desired results are not being achieved, adjustments
in the management strategy must then be considered. Monitoring, as described above, is an
integral and essential tool in any successful adaptive management approach. Sampling and
analyses should be designed in such a way as to ensure that data will be efficiently and properly
collected, analyzed, archived, and used to allow for adjustment of management strategies, as
needed or indicated by the monitoring findings.
A key element of adaptive management is the establishment of testable hypotheses linked to the
conservation strategies and their biological objectives. These are provided ina number of
Resource Protection and Renewal policies. If monitoring determines that biological conditions
are outside specific thresholds, the proposed actions or strategies must be revisited. The
thresholds for review must be linked to key elements of the plan and should be measurable by
the collection of monitoring data. The establishment of measurable parameters would dictate the
types of monitoring to be done including the kinds and number of samples, distribution of
samples, and use of controls or reference sites.
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG
To ensure the successful maintenance and establishment of CRLP habitat and populations within
the conservation area and off-site mitigation lands, performance standards should focus on the
following:
· Duration ofponding for created and preserved ponds (no less than five months
during eight out of the ten years of monitoring, assuming normal rainfall
patterns);
· CRLP population changes compared to previous years (and possibly to other
regional populations if declines are observed);
· Presence of CRLP predators or non-native competitors;
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 7
Page I
dd0~
· Successful establishment of riparian scrub and/or emergent wetland vegetation
around the edges of created or enhanced ponds;
· Cattle and human access impacts to breeding habitat and surrounding upland
habitat.
Monitoring methods should be developed to measure whether the habitats and site management
measures are satisfying the performance standards. These methods should focus on the
following:
· Presence/absence monitoring for CRLF in potential breeding ponds according to
applicable resource agency protocol.
· Hydrologic monitoring of ponds in early spring and late summer/early fall to
verify that the ponds fill adequately during the spring and dry by the start of fall
each year. Information such as depth, turbidity, temperature, eutrophication, and
dissolved oxygen levels may be useful factors to measure in the ponds during
hydrologic monitoring.
· Upland refugia habitat monitoring around each pond to determine the
establishment and condition of willow riparian scrub, emergent wetland
vegetation or other suitable refugia habitat.
· Protective fencing and signage monitoring.
· Pest plant and animal species monitoring in ponds, including bullfrogs and
mosquito fish.
If monitoring demonstrates that the performance standards are not met in a given monitoring
year, then specific adaptive management measures should be proposed in the annual monitoring
report and implemented the following year. Adaptive management strategies are discussed at the
end of this section.
CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER
To ensure the successful maintenance and establishment of CTS habitat and population within
the cQnservation area and off-site mitigation lands, performance standards should focus on the
following:
· Duration of ponding for created and preserved ponds (no less than four months
during eight out often years of monitoring assuming nonnal rainfall patterns);
· CTS population changes compared to previous years (and possibly to other
regional populations if declines are observed);
· Presence of predators or non-native competitors.
Appendix 7
Page 2
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:;;}dt.o. ù-6
Monitoring methods should be developed to measure whether the habitats and site management
measures are satisfying the perfonnance standards. These methods should focus on the
following:
· Presence/absence surveys for CTS in accordance with applicable resource agency
protocol.
· Hydrologic monitoring of ponds in early spring and late summer/early fall to
verify that the ponds fill adequately during the spring and dry by the end of the
summer each year. Information such as depth, turbidity, temperature,
eutrophication, and dissolved oxygen levels may be useful factors to measure in
the ponds during hydrologic monitoring.
· Estivation habitat monitoring, including quantity and distribution of ground
squirrel burrows, crevices or other potential subterranean refugia around each
pond.
· Protective fencing and signage monitoring.
· Pest plant and animal species monitoring in ponds, including bullfrogs and
mosquito fish.
If monitoring demonstrates that the performance standards are not met in a given monitoring
year, then specific adaptive management measures should be proposed in the annual monitoring
report and implemented the following year. Adaptive management strategies are discussed at the
end of this section.
BURROWING OWL
To ensure. the successful maintenance and establishment of BUOW habitat and populations
within the conservation area and off-site mitigation lands, performance standards should focus
on the following:
· Grassland habitat stature and amount of thatch;
· BUOW population changes compared to previous years (and possibly to other
regional populations if declines are observed);
· Preserved, enhanced and artificially constructed burrow nesting suitability (i.e.
open and without significant erosion or weed growth).
· Suitable and occupied burrow abundance and distribution.
Monitoring methods should be developed to measure whether the habitats and site management
measures are satisfying the performance standards. These methods should focus on the
following:
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 7
Page 3
c3d. 7 ~D
· Burrowing owl surveys following applicable resource agency protocols, or the
California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC) Phase II burrow survey protocol
to detennine areas of burrowing owl use and burrow concentration, and the
CBOC's Phase ITI survey of artificial and natural burrows to determine changes in
seasonal owl populations, breeding status, and breeding success.
· Inspections of preserved, enhanced and artificial burrows for suitability, including
burrow accessibility and condition.
· Grassland habitat monitoring, including grass height and thatch accumulation.
If monitoring demonstrates that the performance standards are not met in a given monitoring
year, then specific adaptive management measures should be proposed in the annual monitoring
report and implemented the following year. Adaptive management strategies are discussed at the
end of this section.
RAPTORS
To ensure the successful maintenance and establishment of suitable raptor habitat within the
conservation area and off-site mitigation lands, perfonnance standards should focus on the
following:
· Low grassland stature for foraging, including high stature or ungrazed standards
for a portion of grassland as nesting habitat for short-eared owls;
· Survival, maintenance and protection of preserved and mitigation trees;
· Low levels of human disturbance in the vicinity of potential breeding sites.
Monitoring methods should be developed to measure whether the habitats and site management
measures are satisfying the performance standards. These methods should focus on the
following:
· Breeding season surveys in early spring to monitor the presence or absence of
nesting raptors, including observations of courtship behavior, tenitory defense
behavior, obvious nest sites, and the feeding of nestlings or young;
· Visual observations of human activities in the vicinity of potential and known
nesting areas should be noted during periods of potentially high human use;
· Grassland height and tree survival monitoring.
If monitoring demonstrates that the perfonnance standards are not met in a given monitoring
year, then specific adaptive management measures should be proposed in the annual monitoring
report and implemented the following year. Adaptive management strategies are discussed at the
end of this section.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 7
Page 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
¿¡.;) 2 ub
BATS
To ensure the successful maintenance and establishment of suitable bat habitat within the
conservation area and off-site mitigation lands, perfonnance standards should focus on the
following: .
· Low grassland stature for foraging;
· Survival, maintenance and protection of preserved and mitigation trees;
· Low levels of human disturbance in the vicinity of roost sites.
Monitoring methods should be developed to measure whether the habitats and site management
measures are satisfying the perfonnance standards. These methods should focus on the
following:
· Surveys to assess the presence and distribution of suitable pallid bat, Townsend's
big-eared bat, or Yuma myotis bat roosting and foraging habitat;
· Visual observations of human activities in the vicinity of potential and læown
roosting areas should be noted during periods of potentially high human use;
· Grassland height and tree survival monitoring.
If monitoring demonstrates that the performance standards are not met in a given monitoring
year, then specific adaptive management measures should be proposed in the annual monitoring
report and implemented the following year. Adaptive management strategies are discussed at the
end ofthis section.
RARE PLANTS
To ensure the successful maintenance and/or establishment of occupied rare plant habitat within
the conservation area and/or at off-site mitigation lands, performance standards should focus on
the following:
· The acreage of occupied rare plant habitat created for mitigation compared to the
acreage of impacted/removed habitat, and the health and density of compared to
previous years and to other naturally existing populations
· The acreage of occupied rare plant habitat preserved for mitigation as compared
to the acreage of impacted/removed habitat, and changes in the health and density
compared to previous years (and possibly to other regional populations if declines
are observed).
Monitoring methods should be developed to measure whether the habitats and site management
measures are satisfying the performance standards. These methods should focus on the
following:
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 7
Page 5
dd-q 6ò
· Monitoring the size and distribution of all patches ofrare plants (preserved and/or
planted mitigation patches) within the conservation area and off-site lands;
· Quadrat sampling within preserved or planted rare plant patches to determine the
density of the plants;
· An overall assessment of rare plant health and observations of any invasive exotic
plants within each patch.
· Photomonitoring to visually assess establishment of created habitat and any
changes to the population.
If monitoring demonstrates that the performance standards are not met in a given monitoring
year, then specific adaptive management measures should be proposed in the annual monitoring
report and implemented the following year. Adaptive management strategies are discussed at the
end of this section.
HABIT AT RESTORATION MONITORING
Habitat monitoring is designed to quantify and document establishment of the vegetation and to
determine when enhanced or restored habitat features will be self-sustaining, the goal of
mitigation and restoration. Quantitative and qualitative monitoring of mitigation areas may be
conducted for the period of time required by subsequent permits, usually a minimum of five
years, or when all performance standards have been met. It should be conducted annually.
Quantitative data collection should occur in the spring or early summer for wetlands and in the
fall for riparian habitat and trees. If the data is collected during the same month of the year, from
year to year, the analysis will be more meaningful. The maintenance and habitat monitoring and
sometimes hydrology monitoring visits can be scheduled to coincide. Annual reports
summarizing monitoring methodology, findings, and analysis to be submitted to the resource
agencies for their review and comment are both essential for adaptive management and may be
required when plant community establishment or enhancement is considered a mitigation
measure or a permit condition.
Riparian Habitat and Trees
Riparian habitat and/or trees installed as mitigation for impacts within the Project Area should
require monitoring to document their successful establishment. Performance standards should be
established in the separate mitigation plans prepared during the individual project permitting
processes and should focus on survival, growth and vigor, percent vegetative cover,
demonstrated self-sustaining vegetation, zero or minimal cover by invasive species, and the
attainment of functions and values similar to pre-construction conditions in the impacted area or
similar to a regional reference site. Tree and shrub survival within five years should typically be
at least 80 percent in the fifth year. In order for vegetation to demonstrate that it is self-
sustaining in the absence of supplemental watering, the site should be monitored for an
additional two years after the watering ceases. Perfonnance standards should also address creek
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 7
Page 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
() 30 Db
channel stability in riparian planting areas to identify areas of erosion that may compromise the
establishment of riparian vegetation. If the performance standards are not met in a given
monitoring year, then specific adaptive management measures should be proposed in the annual
monitoring report and implemented the following year. The monitoring plan should contain a
complete description of the proposed sampling methods to be implemented at the mitigation and
reference sites and should discuss the rationale supporting the use of these methods. The
monitoring plan should also discuss the proposed data analysis methods. In addition to
quantitative sampling, the use of permanent photostations is suggested.
The monitoring plan should also include regular monitoring of support infrastructure. Drip
irrigation systems should be inspected monthly during the dry season for the first three years and
repaired as needed. Support and protective structures should be inspected two times per year
(tree tubes should be inspected until they have bio-degraded) for functionality. A properly
installed support structure should hold the plant upright and should not impede growth.
Protective structures should be a closed cage or tree tube which reduces the risk of herbivory
from deer. During each inspection, the limbs of all willows and other plants as appropriate,
should be pulled back into the cages to prevent them from growing through the wire mesh. Bent
or fallen support structures and cages should be repaired as necessary. Rebar posts and
supportive ties should be straightened or reinstalled as needed. Supportive structures and
coverings should be removed when they are no longer deemed necessary by a qualified biologist.
The monitoring plan should also contain a basic remedial action plan, citing the agencies
responsible for determining the satisfaction of performance criteria, the party financially
responsible for implementing remedial actions, and a schedule for implementing remedial
actions once it has been detenllined necessary.
Drainages and Channels
Eroded areas actively repaired within the preserved drainage as mitigation for impacts within the
Project Area, or re-constructed channels within the Project Area should require monitoring to
document their stability and increased functions and values. Performance standards should be
established in the separate mitigation plans prepared during the individual project permitting
processes and should focus on the attainment of bank stability and vegetation establishment.
Monitoring should occur frequently during the rainy season following repair, and at several times
immediately following large storm events during the following several years. Annual
monitoring should also be conducted at a permanent, mounted cross section within the repair
area to monitor changes in the geomorphic condition of the channel. If the performance
standards are not met in a given monitoring year, then specific adaptive management measures
should be proposed in the annual monitoring report and implemented the following year.
Wetlands and Ponds
Wetlands or ponds created as mitigation for impacts within the Project Area should require
monitoring to document their successful establishment and attainment of projected functions and
values. Performance standards should be established in the separate mitigation plans prepared
during the individual project permitting processes and should focus on survival of planted
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 7
Page 7
~"3 I "b
species, percent cover by native wetland species, depth and/or duration of ponding or soil
saturation, lack of erosion, and minimal presence of invasive species. In order for wetlands or
ponds to demonstrate that they are self-sustaining, the site should be monitored for an additional
two years after all human support has ceased (e.g. irrigation, replanting, invasive species
control).
Monitoring methods, specifically sampling techniques, should be designed and conducted by a
qualified biologist. If a large area of planting is undertaken, representative plots that should
result in statistically representative sampling may be used to reduce monitoring efforts.
Monitoring parameters may include: cover, composition, and plant vigor. The monitoring plan
should include proposed sampling methods, sample sizes, statistical justification for the sampling
regime, data analyses to be perfonned, sample data sheets. Methodology should remain uniform
throughout the study to avoid inconsistencies that could jeopardize the usefulness of the analysis.
Photos should be taken during each monitoring period ftom the same vantage point and direction
every year.
The condition of the benns and newly graded slopes that surround each created wetland or pond
should be examined during the winter each monitoring year to determine if additional
strengthening is required. If any erosion or instability is noted during the wet season, they
should be assessed and it will be determined whether they require immediate attention or can be
dealt with during the dry season. Any major modification that becomes· necessary should be
addressed in the monitoring report.
If the performance standards are not met in a given monitoring year, then specific adaptive
management measures should be proposed in the annual monitoring report and implemented the
following year.
VEGETATION AND PEST MANAGEMENT MONITORING
Vegetation Management Monitoring
Since the primary method of vegetation management in the majority of the Conservation Area
(as well as off-site mitigation lands) should be grazing, a specific grazing plan should be
prepared by the landowner and submitted to the City for approval with the vesting tentative map.
As part of the specific grazing management plan, a monitoring program should be established
with natural management objectives in terms of measurable attributes and criteria for action
when the objectives are not met. Performance standards should establish minimum and
maximum average abundances of residual dry matter (RDM), maximum grass height, and the
allowable extent and location of bare or eroded soil to ensure proper functioning of the grassland
as foraging and nesting habitat for wildlife species. A monitoring program should establish the
sampling density, timing and ftequency of monitoring prior to inception of resource
management. The objectives should be evaluated every five years to identify adjustments in
treatment timing, intensity, and extent for the next rotation. For example, if thistles appear on the
site, a short period of grazing by sheep may be approved during the next rotation to assist
removal of these pest plants. The monitoring plan should also require monitoring of fence and
water trough conditions. The plan should also require preparation of an annual monitoring report
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 7
Page 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:J,3;;;). ()Ò
to the City, including recommended remedial measures, and contact information for the range
manager or grazing lessee.
In areas that are not grazed, measurement or RDM or grass height may also be useful as
monitoring tools to determine the frequency and type of alternate vegetation management
measure most beneficial to an area. Performance standards will likely differ in grazed and
ungrazed areas, but should still reflect the habitat needs of wildlife species as well as fuel
reduction needs for fire management.
If the performance standards are not met in a given monitoring year, then specific adaptive
management measures should be proposed in the annual monitoring report and implemented the
following year.
Pest Plant and Animal Monitoring
Annual surveys should be conducted throughout the Conservation Area, and off-site mitigation
lands, to identify and map locations of invasive pest plants and animals. Surveys should be
conducted annually in the summer to assess the presence and relative abundance of predators of
CRF and CTS in ponds within the conservation area and off-site mitigation lands. The location
and extent of these species should be compared to the previous year to note new populations or
increases in size of existing populations. Eradication priorities, goals, and methods should be
proposed for each observed pest species in the annual monitoring report. The monitoring report
should also discuss the success or failure of eradication methods conducted during the previous
monitoring year.
FACILITIES MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE
A regular survey (at least once every six months) should be conducted of fences, ponds, and
protective signs within the Conservation Area, including off-site mitigation lands, to ensure that
damage has not occurred through trespassing or vandalism activities. Damage or openings in
either the barriers or cattle fence should be repaired prior to the wet season. Observations of trash
and litter should be noted and removed immediately. Maintenance and monitoring activities
should be recorded in a log and attached to the annual monitoring report as an appendix.
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND CONTINGENCY MEASURES
If annual monitoring shows that the habitat restoration areas are not meeting the established
performance standards, adaptive management strategies should be employed to remediate the
restoration area. These strategies may include:
. physical alteration of the hydrological source for wetlands, drainages, ponds or
riparian habitats (i.e. deepening or lining of ponds, weir adjustments, providing a
supplementary water source)
. replanting or reseeding
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 7
Page 9
J3~~
· alteration of revegetation maintenance methods, including irrigation, weed control
and foliage protection
· removal of pest plants or animals
· alteration in the grazing, mowing or fire regime (i.e timing, duration, intensity)
· installation of aq,ditional fencing or protective measures
· erosion control or repair
· active enforcement of recreation area or homeowner policies
Recommended strategies and detailed methods to implement them should be proposed in the
annual monitoring report and approved by the applicable agencies prior to implementation
The applicant and successors should be responsible for performing all ongoing maintenance and
adaptive management strategies to ensure that the preserved or mitigation habitats function as
designed. If the adaptive management efforts fail, additional habitats should be preserved or
created at the required ratio, and these areas should be monitored in accordance with the above
methods determine whether the performance standards have been met.
REpORTING
Any required monitoring reports should be prepared and submitted to the relevant permitting
agencies for review. The report document activities and conditions within the conservation area
and off-site mitigation lands and should include the following:
1. A description ofthe monitoring for each species, including the methods used to collect
and analyze the data, the results of the data analysis, a discussion of the results, and
conclusions regarding the present condition of the species and its habitat;
2. Copies of photo-documentation;
3. Maps showing monitoring areas;
4. An adaptive management section, which should discuss any proposed changes to
restoration and management techniques in an attempt to meet perfonnance standards;
5. An appendix containing a log of facilities maintenance and monitoring activities;
6. The names, titles, and affiliations of all the persons who prepared the report and
conducted the field work.
Field data sheets should be made available for review upon request.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 7
Page 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J.3~ Db
APPENDIX 8. COST ESTIMATE FOR ENDOWMENT FUNDING
APPROACH
In order to assure that funding is available to insure implementation of the RMP in perpetuity, a
cost estimate was prepared according to an endowment approach toward funding, using the
Property Analysis Record (PAR) program. The cost estimate represents an example only. This
software system, developed by the Center for Natural Lands, facilitates the calculation of costs
associated with land management activities, and calculates an approximate up-front monetary
contribution that will be necessary to provide income off of an endowment. The initial monetary
contribution can vary considerably depending on the percent gained from interest on the
endowment, generally between 2.5 and 4.5 percent; for this PAR, the lowest percentage was used
to detennine the maximum potential monetary contribution that may be required.
This PAR analysis, and the cost estimate generated from it, is based on many assumptions, some
of which are likely to change prior to implementation (i.e. unit costs for certain items, insurance
rates, percentage rates). For the purposes of this RMP, it is assumed that Initial and Capital
Tasks and Costs (Section 8 of the PAR) would apply to the first five years. following RMP
implementation; therefore, these tasks and costs are associated with initial protection measures
during construction, infrastructure and program installation, restoration activities and species
monitoring. For this PAR, restoration activities only include the installation of some riparian
vegetation and other trees, as well as irrigation and protective structures; however, additional
habitat restoration or creation may be implemented witWn the Conservation Area as mitigation
for project permits, and the estimated costs for these activities is not included. It is assumed that
Ongoing Tasks and Costs (Section 9 of the PAR) applies to the period beyond the first five years
and would consist of only management and maintenance activities, including grazing, sign and
fence repair and replacement, exotic species and erosion control, and general patrolling.
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 8
Page 1
..-'Î3~ -D
d· b 'D
!n.å'ert6Ìx····PAR.·'ÁJ:1.á);y6Ì6·,page.s '·here:
Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties - DRAFT July 2, 2004
Appendix 8
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Section 8 - Initial & Capital Tasks and Costs ;} 3 I..J¿_ DO
property Title: East Dublin Properties Dataset: CA004 PAR ID: RMP 06/21/2004
I Budget: PAR
Number Cost 1 Annual Times Total
Task list Specificaton Unit of Units Unit Cost Years Cost
I SITE CONSTRUCTION/MAINT.
Project Planning Supervise/coordinate L. Hours 120.00 100.00 12,000.00 5.0 60,000.00
I Project Management Supervise/coordinate L. Hours 120.00 100.00 12,000.00 5.0 60,000.00
Construction Scheduling Coordinate w/subs L. Hours 60.00 100.00 6,000.00 5.0 30,000.00
Salvage Plant Materials Salvage plant mat. L. Hours 20.00 80.00 1,600.00 1.0 1,600.00
I Salvage/stockpile Topsoil Salvage topsoil L. Hours 20.00 80.00 1,600.00 1.0 1,600.00
Fence, Protective Plastic High visibility Ln. Ft. 30,000.00 2.00 60,000.00 1.0 60,000.00
Fence· installed CTS fence 1.5' Un. Ft. 30,000.00 5.00 150,000.00 1.0 150,000.00
I Fence· Installed Barbed-wire, 4 Un. Ft. 33,000.00 5.00 165,000.00 1.0 165,000.00
Gate, Cattle 5' X 12' gate Item 10.00 695.00 6,950.00 1.0 6,950.00
Lock Padlock Item 10.00 19.00 190.00 1.0 190.00
I Sub·Total 535,340.00
BIOTIC SURVEYS
I Project Management Supervise/coordinate L. Hours 20.00 100.00 2,000.00 5.0 10,000.00
Plant Ecologist Field Svy. & Reports L. Hours 40.00 80.00 3,200.00 5.0 16,000.00
Wildlife Biologist Field Svy. & Reports L. Hours 100.00 80.00 8,000.00 5.0 40,000.00
I Mammaloglst Field Svy. & Reports L. Hours 40.00 100.00 4,000.00 5.0 20,000.00
Ornithologist Field Svy. & Reports L. Hours 40.00 100.00 4,000.00 5.0 20,000.00
Sub-Total 106,000.00
I HABITAT RESTORATION
Erosion Control Willow Wattling L. Hours 80.00 30.00 2,400.00 5.0 12,000.00
I Erosion Control Sill Fence Un. FI. 7,500.00 14.00 105,000.00 5.0 525,000.00
Erosion Control Hydrornulch Acre 10.00 1,500.00 15,000.00 5.0 75,000.00
Hydroseed Hydroseed Acre 10.00 600.00 6,000.00 5.0 30,000.00
I Plant Procurement Trees, shrubs Dee Pot 600.00 3.00 1,800.00 5.0 9,000.00
Plant Procurement Trees 1 Gal. 200.00 6.00 1,200.00 5.0 6,000.00
Revegetalion Flag Plant Locations L. Hours 20.00 80.00 1,600.00 1.0 1,600.00
I Revegetation - Plant Installation L. Hours 120.00 30.00 3,600.00 5.0 18,000.00
Plant Protection Device Chicken Wire Cage Item 300.00 10.00 3,000.00 5.0 15,000.00
Drip Irrigation, Temporary Code Drip system Plant 400.00 30.00 12,000.00 5.0 60,000.00
Irrigation System Installation , L. Hours 200.00 40.00 8,000.00 1.0 8,000.00
I Exotic Plant Control Hand Removal, Labor L. Hours 150.00 30.00 4,500.00 5.0 22,500.00
Exotic Plant Control Herbicide Gal. 70.00 40.00 2,800.00 5.0 14,000.00
Exotic Plant Control Backpack Spray L. Hours 80.00 40.00 3,200.00 5.0 16,000.00
I Exotic Plant Control Mow L. Hours 40.00 40.00 1,600.00 5.0 8,000.00
Exotic Plant Control Livestock Grazing Acre 287.00 15.00 4,305.00 1.0 4,305.00
Exotic Animal Control T rap- bullfrogs L. Hours 40.00 80.00 3,200.00 1.0 3,200.00
I Mosquito Abatement Spray Acre 10.00 34.00 340.00 1.0 340.00
Fire Breaks Maintenance L. Hours 80.00 15.00 1,200.00 1.0 1,200.00
Fire Breaks Disk Acre 40.00 60.00 2.400.00 1.0 2,400.00
I Sub-Total 831,545.00
I
I Property Analysis Record 2.0 (C) 1999, 2000, 2001 Center for Natural Lands
425 E. Alvarado 51., Suite H, Fallbrook, CA 92028·2960 Sect.8 Page 1
d ?J C:s' D'b
Number Cost I . Annual Times Total I
Task list Specificaton Unit of Units Unit Cost Years Cost
PUBLIC SERVICES I
Patrolling Patrol L. Hours 250.00 50.00 12,500.00 5.0 62,500.00
Trail Maintenance L. Hours 120.00 20.00 2,400.00 5.0 12,000.00
Sign Interpretive Item 4.00 500.00 2,000.00 1.0 2,000.00 I
Sign Boundary Item 10.00 75.00 750.00 1.0 750.00
Interpretive Literature Labor L. Hours 10.00 100.00 1,000.00 1.0 1,000.00
Interpretive Literature Copy Page 1,000.00 1.00 1,000.00 1.0 1,000.00 I
Community Outreach Meetings L. Hours 40.00 100.00 4,000.00 1.0 4,000.00
Sub-Total 83,250.00
REPORTING I
Database Management Data Input L. Hours 40.00 80.00 3,200.00 5.0 16,000.00
GIS/CAD Management Data Management L. Hours 80.00 80.00 6,400.00 5.0 32,000.00 I
Photodocumentation Field Survey L. Hours 8.00 80.00 640.00 5.0 3,200.00
Aerial Photo, 2 sets color Standard 9"x 9" Flight 1.00 1 ,500.00 1,500.00 1.0 1 ,500.00
Agency Report Annual Report L. Hours 40.00 80.00 3,200.00 5.0 16,000.00 I
Monitoring Reports Monitoring Documentation L. Hours 40.00 80.00 3,200.00 5.0 16,000.00
Report Production Labor L. Hours 40.00 50.00 2,000.00 5.0 10,000.00
Sub-Total 94,700.00 I
FIELD EQUIPMENT
Vehicle Fuel Gallons 480.00 2.30 1,104.00 5.0 5,520.00 I
Vehicle Maintenance Year 1.00 300.00 300.00 5.0 1,500.00
Vehicle Equipment Year 1.00 200.00 200.00 5.0 1,000.00
Vehicle Insurance Insurance Year 1.00 1,100.00 1,100.00 5.0 5,500.00 I
Cellular Phone 3 watt Phone unit Item 1.00 150.00 150.00 1.0 150.00
Cellular Phone Phone,Monthly charge Item 1.00 30.00 30.00 1.0 30.00
Sub-Total 13,700.00 I
OPERATIONS
Audit CPA Audit Acre 287.00 0.25 71.75 5.0 358.75 I
Contracts Produce contracts L. Hours 20.00 60.00 1,200.00 5.0 6,000.00
Documents/Closing Costs Record documents L. Hours 20.00 30.00 600.00 5.0 3,000.00
Endowment Process endowment L. Hours 20.00 30.00 600.00 1.0 600.00 I
Insurance General L. Hours 20.00 30.00 600.00 5.0 3,000.00
Insurance Liability/Fee Acres 287.00 0.55 157.85 5.0 789.25
Insurance Llability/Conserv. Easement Acres 287.00 0.15 43.05 5.0 215.25 I
Budgeting Budget & reconcile L. Hours 20.00 30.00 600.00 5.0 3,000.00
Project Accounting Setup and maintain L. Hours 120.00 30.00 3,600.00 5.0 18,000.00
Travel Mileage Miles 1,000.00 0.37 370.00 5.0 1,850.00
Sub-Total 36,813.25 I
I
I
I
Property Analysis Record 2.0 (C) 1999,2000,2001 Center for Natural Lands I
425 E. Alvarado St., Suite H, Fallbrook, CA 92028-2960 Sect.8 Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Speclficaton
Unit
Number
of Units
:l3q ~b
Task list
CONTINGENCY & ADMINISTRATION
Contingency
Administration
Sub-Total
Total
Cost I
Unit
Property Analysis Record 2.0 (C) 1999, 2000, 2001 Center for Natural Lands
425 E. Alvarado St., Suite H, Fallbrook, CA 92028-2960
Annual Times Total
Cost Years Cost
170,134.83
280,722.46
450,857.29
------------.
2,152,205.54
Sect.8 Page 3
Section 9 - Ongoing Tasks and Costs ().~O (Sb I
Property Title: East Dublin Properties Dataset: CA004 PAR ID: RMP 06/21/2004
Budget: PAR I
Number Cost / Annual Divide Total
Task list Specificaton Unit of Units Unit Cost Years Cost
SITE CONSTRUCTION/MAl NT. I
Project Management SupervIse/coordinate L. Hours 60.00 100.00 6,000.00 1 6,000.00
Fence - Installed CTS fence 1.5' Un. Ft. 30,000.00 5.00 150,000.00 50 3,000.00 I
Fence - Installed Barbed-wire, 4 Un. Ft. 33,000.00 5.00 165.000.00 50 3,300.00
Gate, Cattle 5' X 12' gate Item 10.00 695.00 6,950.00 30 231.67
Lock Padlock Item 10.00 19.00 190.00 5 38.00 I
Sub-Total 12,569.67
HABITAT RESTORATION I
Exotic Plant Control Hand Removal, Labor L. Hours 150.00 30.00 4,500.00 5 900.00
Exotic Plant Control Herbicide Gal. 50.00 40.00 2,000.00 5 400.00
Exotic Plant Control Backpack Spray L. Hours 80.00 40.00 3,200.00 5 640.00 I
Exotic Plant Control Mow L. Hours 40.00 40.00 1,600.00 1 1,600.00
Exotic Plant Control Livestock Grazing Acre 287.00 15.00 4,305.00 1 4,305.00
Exotic Animal Control Trap- bullfrogs L. Hours 40.00 80.00 3,200.00 1 3,200.00 I
Mosquito Abatement Spray Acre 10.00 34.00 340.00 1 340.00
Fire Breaks Maintenance L. Hours 80.00 15.00 1,200.00 1 1,200.00
Fire Breaks Disk Acre 40.00 60.00 2,400.00 1 2,400.00 I
Sub-Total 14,985.00
PUBLIC SERVICES I
Patrolling Patrol L. Hours 250.00 50.00 12,500.00 1 12,500.00
Trail Maintenance L. Hours 80.00 15.00 1,200.00 1 1,200.00
Sign Interpretive Item 4.00 500.00 2,000.00 20 100.00 I
Sign Boundary Item 10.00 75.00 750.00 20 37.50
I nterpretlve Literature Copy Page 1,000.00 1.00 1,000.00 1 1,000.00
Community Outreach Meetings L. Hours 10.00 100.00 1,000.00 1 1,000.00 I
Sub-Total 15,837.50
FJELD EQUIPMENT I
Cellular Phone 3 watt Phone unit Item 1.00 150.00 150.00 5 30.00
Ceilular Phone Phone,Monthly charge Item 1.00 30.00 30.00 5 6.00
Sub-Total 36.00 I
OPERATIONS I
Insurance General L. Hours 20.00 30.00 600.00 600.00
Insurance Liability/Fee Acres 287.00 0.55 157.85 157.85
Insurance Llablllty/Conserv. Easement Acres 287.00 0.15 43.05 43.05 I
Budgeting Budget & reconcile L. Hours 20.00 30.00 600.00 600.00
Project Accounting Setup and maintain L. Hours 120.00 30.00 3,600.00 3,600.00
Sub-Total 5,000.90 I
I
Property Analysis Record 2.0 (C) 1999, 2000, 2001 Center for Natural Lands I
425 E. Alvarado St., Suite H, Fallbrook, CA 92028-2960 Sect.S Page 1
I Task list
Cost I
Unit
d'-l/ Ôò
Specificaton
Unit
Number
of Units
ICONTINGENCY & ADMINISTRATION
Contingency
I Ad:::::"
I Total
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Property Analysis Record 2.0 (C) 1999,2000,2001 Center for Natural Lands
425 E. Alvarado St., Suite H, Fallbrook, CA 92028·2960
Annual Divide
Cost Years
Total
Cost
4,842.91
7,990.80
12,833.71
~---~----~--.
61,262.78
Sect.9 Page 2
Section 1 0 ~ Financial Summary
Property Title: East Dublin Properties
Dataset: CA004
d. LJ 'd- Vb
PAR ID: RMP 06/21/2004
PAR(Q ac.)
Rate
%
INITIAL FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
I & C Revenue
I & C Management Costs
I & C Contingency Expense
Total I & C Management Costs
I & C Administrative Costs of Total I & C Management Costs
Total I & C Costs
Net I & C Management and Administrative Costs
10.00
15.00
ANNUAL ONGOING FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
Ongoing Costs
Ongoing Contingency Expense 10.00
Total Ongoing Management Costs
Ongoing Administrative Costs of Total Ongoing Management costs 15.00
Total Ongoing Costs
Total
$
o
1,701,348
170,135
.
1,871,483
280,722 .
2,152,206
2,152,206
48,429
4,843
53,272
7,991
61,263
ENDOWMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ONGOING STEWARDSHIP
Endowment to Provide Income of $ 61 ,263 2,450,520
Endowment per Acre is $ NA"
Ongoing Management Costs Based on 2.50% of Endowment per Year.
Ongoing Management Funding is $61,263 per Year Resulting In $NA* per Acre per Year.
TOTAL CONTRIBUTION 4,602,726
.. No acreage input; per acre figures not applicable
Property Analysis Record 2.0 (C) 1999, 2000, 2001 Center for Natural Lands
425 E. Alvarado St., Suite H, Fallbrook, CA 92028·2960
Sect. 1 0 Page 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2 L1 2--
/
VARNI, FRASER, HARTWELL & RODGERS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PR,OFESSIONAL CORPQF~ATI()NS
650A STREET
UVERMORE OFFICE
.JOHN s, HARTWSI,.L.
(1 924-19g.~-I)
P.O. BOX 570
HAYWARD, CALlFOR.NIA 94543-0570
PHONE:::: (510) 886-5000 FAX (510) 538-8797
2109 FOURTH STREET
LIVERMORE, CA ~4550
(9~S) 447-122.2.
FAX (925) 443"7831
LIONEL Ä, RODGERS
( 1942,,1989)
WEB SITE: VARNIFRASER.COM
July 9,2004
VIA FACSIMILE AND U,s. M~IL
Andy Byde, Senior Planner
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Byde:
Re: East Dublin Properties Resource Management Plan
Per your request at the staff meeting of July 8, 2004, the following are the thoughts
and/or concerns of the Jordan Trust with regard to the Jordan Property on Fallon Road as
such property is possibly affected by the East Dublin Properties Resource Management
Plan:
I. The Resource Management Plan identifies a significant aquatic and buffer
zone as well as a corridor zone to be established sometime in the future on and
across the Jordan Property. The aquatic and buffer zone is intended to
preserve a habitat for the red-legged frog and the salamanders which
apparently breed in the wetland areas of the Jordan Property. The corridor
zone is to provide an access way for the salamander and the red-legged frog to
the north to other ponds and/or wetland areas on adjacent properties. At this
time, the Trustees would not consent to and cannot allow the establishment of
an aquatic zone and a buffer zone or a corridor zone across the Jordan
Property unless they are compensated for this taking.
2. The Jordan Property has historically been used for cattle grazing. The cattle
which are presently situated on the property use the ponds within the proposed
aquatic and buffer zone for their drinking source. In addition, they graze on
the area designated for the potential aquatic and buffer zone and the area
designated as the corridor zone. It is our understanding, based on the
RECE'VEO
JUL 1 S 1.004
ATTACHMENT~UBUN PLANN\NG
Andy Byde, Senior PI. :::r
City of Dublin
Page 2
July 9, 2004
Z 4? Db l-t..! 7
presentation of July 8, that this historic use of the property for cattle grazing
purposes will not be prohibited by virtue of the adoption by the City of Dublin
of the proposed East Dublin Properties Resource Management Plan_
Very truly yours,
VARNI, FRASER, HARTWELL
-::>
ABV/chl14
byde.ltr
/
cc: Clients
Ted Fairfield